British Weapons Enter Service A Year Earlier

No way for the Sten to get started a year earlier, no need for a cheap weapon before France falls along with most of the BEF gear. I could see Lanchesters, though, since they were cheaper than the Cash and Carry Thompsons of 1940
True, not by much and they were a bit more complicated to manufacture sadly. Ideally the idea for them would have started to have been built in the 1934-37 range.
 
Have Roy Chadwick realise early on that the Rolls Royce Vulture is a dud and switch to the RR Merlin before the first metal is cut for the Avro Manchester. This leads to the Avro Manchester being introduced at the same time as in reality (November 1940) but now is actually the Lancaster BI (introduced February 1942).

That would be some pretty good foresight. The Vulture was a little low on power in the Hawker Tornado but not so unreliable, since it didn't have to struggle so much to gain altitude at low speed with a heavy bomb load. It was the Manchester which showed the limits of the design.
 
The 4.5 mount and ammo would have been lighter than the 5.25, so that might have freed up tonnage for the third quad turret.

So, make the decision that the largest secondary gun will be the 4.5 increased production and development brings the destroyer version into service a year early (HMS Savage analogue). Switchover over to 4.5 armament (single turrets) in 1942.
1943, the Z class armed a la OTL Savage
IE 1 twin fore, 1 single fire, 1 single aft.

This also means all the Dido class will have 10 5.25" as planned.

Instead of the Ca class destroyer you have something similar to the proposed Gael class (Weapon class with 2x2 4.5" rather than 3x2 4". Keep the name Weapon class, too cool to pass up.)

These enter service in spring 1944. With production in full swing, the Battle Class analogue would have 3x2 guns.
 
Last edited:
Meteor engine

Testing of the Mark III cruiser tank reveals the Liberty engine is an obsolete piece of crap with bugger all development potential. Decision to develop replacement.

Tests made in April 1940 with factory reject Merlins using refurbished Mark II cruiser. Crusader production continues as stopgap while designers work on a meteor engined valentine. Result 6 pounder armed universal tank in 1943.
 
My plan was not to build any new guns or mounts (ever again but might not advertise that fact) so just rebuilding 15" mounts to Mark I/N standard, as this has already been started for Warspites rebuild its should be easier to complete fast as its a known design. The 14" systems are all cancelled (and later 16" never leave the paper stage).

9 pits working on an 8 month cycle gives you 13 mounts a year so that would easily do the 16 for the Vanguards. The question is can I also do the 12 more needed for the three OTL rebuilds (QE/V/R) that happened after Warspite's I'm not sure but rebuilding 16 must be less than building all the new larger mounts 10xQuads 5xTwins (+ wasted effort on Lion triples). I may have to open the old smaller pits earlier to fit them?

I just don't see much if any advantage to 14" over 15" (or even 16") they will all do the job v German or Italian ships and I would rather have 15" with far fewer issues sooner.


I think any new turret would have been a problem, due to the short time frame available. The RN looks like it did not have sufficient competent mount designers post WWI if you look at the 16"/14"/4.5"/5.25"/etc they all suffered.


The 4.5" with new split ammo will work fine, the 5.25" was more balanced for surface fire than AA and with hindsight that's far less important, its also a later design so I would far rather cut it to save on the number of new calibres, ie all new ships would be 4.5" (cancel new 4.7"/45, 4.7"/50 and 5.25").

Triple 15" x 3 does seem like a perfect answer but there are several issues both political and practical that stand in its way

Well first of all you are going to need to some how bypass the 2nd London Naval treaty or significantly delay the construction of the ships until the escalator clause could be acted upon - which is 1st April 1937 - The US did this and did not get its first 'Escalator Clause' Treaty Battleships into service before late 42.

With the Italians and Germans each building a pair of Fast modern BBs Britain cannot afford to wait and see

All turret gun systems suffered issues and all took time to resolve - the Twin 15" N Turrets on the QE and Revenges are the exception that breaks the rule but do appreciate that they were simply slightly upscaled versions of the 13.5" and the issues with these guns had already been resolved - the Quad and twin 14" which were far more complicated due to the safety features built into the design took less time to resolve than the pre-war 8" Twin and 16" triple for example - both of which took about a decade - but unfortunately this was during war time and probably documented better than any other system of the time. This and the fact that the 14" gun system seems to be judged purely on its failures at Denmark Straight.

I think that a far better idea would be to spam out as many treaty battleships as you can to avoid delay and then focus on a better armed ship later - which is what the British tried to do with the KGV and Lion classes

The 5.25 twin was as perfect as can realistically be expected at this time as a duel purpose mounting - particularly when like I said Bombers were faster than fighters and increasingly flew higher year on year etc and torpedo ranges and speeds etc where also improving - so the DP has to be effective vs Cruisers and larger Destroyers and capable of high altitude AAA - And its not a bad system - IIRC force Z damaged or shot down 33 of the attacking bombers on the day she was sunk and for a significant portion of that battle the first torpedo hit had effectively knocked out the dynamo providing power to 6 of the 8 turrets - and it is thought that the 5.25s significantly contributed to that number.

Opening up extra gun pits could be done yes but there are other issues - the industry that built Gun directors, machinery armour plate etc had all been scaled back following WW1 and would also have to have been massively scaled up to support both new builds and rebuilds (as well as the massive increase in DDs and CLs being built) and this would take time.
 
The quad turret appears to have been a bug-a-boo that the Brits didn't solve fast enough, why not just replace the 10-14" with 9 in the form of 3 triples and be done with it?

It takes time to design and build turrets and guns and what ever gun system the British built there would have been problems - they are very complicated bits of kit and the British had introduced multiple safety features following learning's from WW1.

What ever the Calibre number of guns etc of the turret introduced in the KGVs it would have taken time to resolve the subsequent teething issues.

All Nations had issues with their Guns its just the British used theirs more and the 3 incredibly well documented principle Battleship vs Battleship fights involving the POW, KGV and DOY are placed under a microscope.
 
whittleunit.jpg


I'd have the Meteor fighter enter service in late 1943 because Frank Whittle was able to put some development effort into his W1 engine in the 30s and during WW2 have the Rover-Rolls deal worked out sooner, along with Rovers development of the straight through combustion chamber development of the W1.
 
That would be some pretty good foresight. The Vulture was a little low on power in the Hawker Tornado but not so unreliable, since it didn't have to struggle so much to gain altitude at low speed with a heavy bomb load. It was the Manchester which showed the limits of the design.

It's not that unlikely - Handley Page redesigned the Halifax prototype from two Vultures to four Merlins in 1937 and it's first operational mission was on the night of 10–11 March 1941 almost exactly a year before the first Lancaster mission.

Alternatively, how about Avro realise the Manchester design is flexible enough to produce two versions - a two engine medium bomber and a four engine heavy bomber - so when the twin engine version fails they are already producing Lancasters?

Question is would bigger/better night-time raids on Germany in 1941 make that much difference, given the well known targeting issues?
 
Have Roy Chadwick realise early on that the Rolls Royce Vulture is a dud and switch to the RR Merlin before the first metal is cut for the Avro Manchester. This leads to the Avro Manchester being introduced at the same time as in reality (November 1940) but now is actually the Lancaster BI (introduced February 1942).
That would be some pretty good foresight. The Vulture was a little low on power in the Hawker Tornado but not so unreliable, since it didn't have to struggle so much to gain altitude at low speed with a heavy bomb load. It was the Manchester which showed the limits of the design.
What about realising the engine had problems and shifting from Vulture to Griffon? Power band is not dissimilar, and the Griffon had a number of features that RR would have preferred to those on the Merlin from a build point of view. In OTL it was just coming into service when the BoB kicked in an Beaverbrook diverted production away from it - shift resources from the Vulture earlier and you could easily get it into service in 1939. That solves a whole pile of problems with the Tornado, Barracuda, etc.

Triple 15" x 3 does seem like a perfect answer but there are several issues both political and practical that stand in its way

Well first of all you are going to need to some how bypass the 2nd London Naval treaty or significantly delay the construction of the ships until the escalator clause could be acted upon - which is 1st April 1937 - The US did this and did not get its first 'Escalator Clause' Treaty Battleships into service before late 42.
Question: what exactly was the restriction in the treaty - work starting or keel being laid down? If the latter then there is no reason that you couldn't stockpile materials like fire control equipment, armour, turbines, etc. substantially beforehand, including building a trial 3 x 15" barge-mounted turret to test everything out and work out the kinks if necessary. That would presumably shave a bit of build time off the OTL KGVs, and 3 x 3 x 15" seems likely to be a better (and cheaper) option than the OTL 14" design.

Opening up extra gun pits could be done yes but there are other issues - the industry that built Gun directors, machinery armour plate etc had all been scaled back following WW1 and would also have to have been massively scaled up to support both new builds and rebuilds (as well as the massive increase in DDs and CLs being built) and this would take time.
This assumes that you can't start work on anything before the treaty expires - which with appropriate foresight I'm not sure is the case.
whittleunit.jpg


I'd have the Meteor fighter enter service in late 1943 because Frank Whittle was able to put some development effort into his W1 engine in the 30s and during WW2 have the Rover-Rolls deal worked out sooner, along with Rovers development of the straight through combustion chamber development of the W1.
Why Meteor? If you get the engine earlier then the DH Spider Crab design might well overtake it given the problems Gloster were having with the Meteor - and it's probably a better fighter in a WW2 context anyway.
 
Centurions in time for D-Day and knocking the crap out of the Panzerwaffe? Excellent.

And if the Luftwaffe had "Moskitopanic", imaging their laundrybill when they have a few squadrons of Hornets flying over the Reich with near impunity.

The first troop of Centurion Mk1's were only deployed to Europe in late May 45 so would not be deployed on D-Day if ready a year earlier. However the Comet would and could have made a difference both in having the the 77mm (plus speed and reliability) and thicker frontal armour - will not keep out a 88mm at battle range - but the combination could lead to greater confidence by the user. The Centurion could then be deployed as numbers start to be produced - Oct/Nov maybe?
 
Question is would bigger/better night-time raids on Germany in 1941 make that much difference, given the well known targeting issues?

Then the answer is to get Oboe and Gee into service a year earlier.

Why Meteor? If you get the engine earlier then the DH Spider Crab design might well overtake it given the problems Gloster were having with the Meteor - and it's probably a better fighter in a WW2 context anyway.

Personal preference I suppose, I like the meatywhore better. Or if you want a better answer I imagine sorting out the W1 gets the Welland and Derwent into production earlier but not the Ghost/Goblin.
 
That would be some pretty good foresight. The Vulture was a little low on power in the Hawker Tornado but not so unreliable, since it didn't have to struggle so much to gain altitude at low speed with a heavy bomb load. It was the Manchester which showed the limits of the design.
It's no more than Handley Page did with the Halifax.
 
Armoured Personnel Carriers a year earlier?

OTL the only significant Commonwealth production was CMP armoured ambulances, but only the crew were protected. It was only late war CMP ambulances that grew full-length armoured sides.
OTL Commonwealth troops suffered significant losses (from shell fragments) often before they reached their start lines. Some Tommies rode into battle in American half-tracks or hastily-converted old tanks (e.g. Ram) or SP artillery (Priest). Commonwealth armies only started de-turreting old tanks late in 1943, but NW Europe did not start converting Kangaroos until August 1944.
By August, Canadian infantry casualties were so high that exhaustion delayed clearing the Port of Antwerp and the subsequent Conscription Crisis almost toppled the ruling party in Ottawa.

WI Valentine Archer and Bishop Mark 3 were supported by Valentine armoured ammo carriers?
WI Valentine Portee production soon out-striped Valentine SP production and Valentine APCs were issued to infantry regiments in significant numbers?
What British 4x4 or 6x6 wheeled chassis was suitable for conversion to APC?

There's always getting the extended variants of the Bren-Gun Carrier, with the extra wheel on the rear bogie, the Loyd, Windsor and T-16, into service earlier. Not impossible given the size of the CMP program and British purchasing in the US? (It could even be sold as a means of simplifying, and cheapening production, standardising the number and type of suspension units).

Which could carry eight men, in addition to the crew, but for some reason were rarely used as APC's, despite the vast production. At 113,000, that's not a mis-print, units it may be the most widely produced armoured vehicle ever. There was even a variant with overhead cover, something of a rarity in WW2.

For a wheeled APC there's always the Terrapin, since "Make it amphibious" will come up. Or more practically a personnel carrying version of the AEC 4*4 Armoured Command Vehicle. Its base chassis, the Matador Artillery Tractor, was already in common use.
 
The Valentine was essentially an up armoured A10, could the War Office order its development as an insurance against the failure of the Matilda II? I don't know that it would enter service all that much earlier but if it was an official project rather than a private venture meant for export it would emerge with a three man turret.
 
The Valentine was essentially an up armoured A10, could the War Office order its development as an insurance against the failure of the Matilda II? I don't know that it would enter service all that much earlier but if it was an official project rather than a private venture meant for export it would emerge with a three man turret.

Perhaps have the army arrive at the decision to replace all light tanks with Mediums and (proper gun armed not the Maltilda 1) infantry tanks earlier - say in 1938 - so the Valentine design as submitted on or about 10th Feb 1938 is stood up for production in parallel with the Matilda II and the simpler design soon outstrips the Matilda II in numbers and replaces all light infantry tanks by 1940
 

Driftless

Donor
Perhaps have the army arrive at the decision to replace all light tanks with Mediums and (proper gun armed not the Maltilda 1) infantry tanks earlier - say in 1938 - so the Valentine design as submitted on or about 10th Feb 1938 is stood up for production in parallel with the Matilda II and the simpler design soon outstrips the Matilda II in numbers and replaces all light infantry tanks by 1940

Farm out those older light tanks to the dominions and colonies? They would be useful, even just for training purposes. Who knew that a few companies of clapped-out light tanks in Malaya, Kenya, Australia, etc. would come in handy in 1940/41?
 
Frank whittle gets his patent renewed and jet development continues uninterrupted. Inter/early war metallurgy being what it is, viable jet engines only enter service a year ahead of OTL.

As far as I know, there is no evidence of an X block engine entering general use. Here the natural conservatism of British business does some good for once and the Rolls Royce Vulture and Boreas/Exe are scotched on the drawing board, with staff and funds going to developing the Griffon.

The Griffon engined Tornado Fighter and Manchester Bomber enter service about the same time as their OTL Vulture counterparts, the Barracuda prototype flies on the same date as OTL, enters service at the end of 1942.

Loss of 2 Outrageous class in Norway prompts an earlier enquiry into carrier procurement, the 1941 Light Carrier lineage serves with distinction during the later years of WWII as air cover for older battleships and during the cold war.
 
Foresight is really something. In 1923, Handley Page built a naval fighter with monocoque fuselage and cantilever monoplane wing. That was the year Halifax designer Volkert started with HP. In 1937, both the Merlin and the Vulture were undeveloped engines. The Handley Page installation of the Merlin was highly flawed, causing many more problems. The eventual Lancaster Merlin engine installation format didn't occur to anyone before May, 1940, when an Amiot 356 was examined. Roy Chadwick didn't have the foresight to install tricycle undercarriage on the Tudor airliner, which was more common sense than foresight anyway, but he also didn't have the foresight to check the aileron function on a fresh Tudor II either, also, in retrospect, more a matter of common sense, and accepted practice. Four Griffon engines and tricycle undercarriage would have to wait for a development of Shackleton. OTL Lancaster development did serendipitously coincide with development of bombing practices to ensure that the correct city was hit, so earlier development may not have had the hoped for impact anyway.
 
The Griffon engined Tornado Fighter and Manchester Bomber enter service about the same time as their OTL Vulture counterparts, the Barracuda prototype flies on the same date as OTL, enters service at the end of 1942.

If we are going with the everything a year early concept, the Tornado is replaced with the Tempest early, since the NPL discovered their mistaken data early, and competition from the Griffon-powered Martin Baker MB3 makes its cancellation seem all the sillier.
 
Top