British Weapons Enter Service A Year Earlier

Probably beyond the scope of the premise but. The Alvis Pleiades is developed a year earlier. For civilian aviation.

Later adopted as a rough and ready replacement for the Taurus, which is scrapped in favour of developing the Hercules/Centaurus lineage.

The Miles M 20 is designed around the Pleiades rather than the Merlin. Seeing as the aircraft the M 20 was derived from was also radial engines, design efforts go into refining the airframe itself rather than adapting the design for a non radial engine. The Warmaster enters service in the RAAF in 1941, and the Sea Master enters FAA service in the same year.
 
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?

Tanks could not possibly operate in Malaya - best regards 1939 :p
 
Would speeding up the tube alloys project result in GB getting the bomb nearly a decade earlier?
 
Last edited:
Tanks could not possibly operate in Malaya - best regards 1939 :p
How about a regiment or three of Daimler Armoured Cars with the 2pdr gun? Greetings from 1941.

upload_2017-5-17_20-7-44.png
 
Last edited:
This Lancaster's going to be more like the Lincoln, and if the Tallboy is in development could be built with that in mind.
Bill Gunston once wrote that the Lancaster could easily have been built from the beginning with the larger wing & 2-stage superchargers that the Lincoln eventually sported. The resultant higher ceiling would have meant fewer casualties.
 
Part of the problem in having better tanks before May 1940 is that they are all going to end up abandoned on the roads to Dunkirk or Cherbourg. Unless there is a similar process of improvement for France. Even with the half decent tanks etc they had, without radios and flexibility they were doomed, doomed I tell you.

However if the RAF were flying in May 1940 what they were flying in May 1941... So increasing numbers of Spitfire Vs and Hurricane IIs. No Defiants, Gladiators, Blenheim Is, Battles. It wouldn't have stopped the loss of France, but it would have made the battle of France far more costly for the Luftwaffe and the BoB much easier. Again however without something similar happening with the AdA in France you still have the same problem, a straight German win on the Continent.

The only realistic POD I can come up with would be a more critical response to the Munich crisis. If there was a real chance of Britain and France going to war with Germany over the Czechs, an earlier possible war (earlier in 1939) might (and I emphasise might) made a difference to the urgency around improving things. So you get a Beaverbrook type in the Cabinet to do to in 1938 what was done post Dunkirk. In September 1938 Britain produced 326 aircraft, inc 18 medium bombers, 51 light bombers and 40 fighters (inc first 2 Spitfires). In September 1939 they produced 781, 74 mediums, 112 lights and 93 fighters. In September 1940 those figures were 1341, 163 mediums, 112 lights and 467 fighters. So have the urgency to increase aircraft production in 1938 towards 1939 rising to 1940 levels. If the emphasis is put onto getting the shadow factories actually producing by mid-1939 you can do it. In 1938 the RAF received a total of 371 fighters (48 Spits). In 1939 they received 1324 (431 Spits). In 1940 it was 4,283 (1236 Spits)! If the RAF knows it is getting up to 250 fighters per month in 1939 instead of 100 they can concentrate on Spitfires and Hurricanes, they don't need the Gladiators and Defiants. Focussing on fewer types means that some production facilities can be rejigged for Spits and Hurricanes, eg Gloster (instead of 480 Gladiators more Hurricanes, even SeaHurricanes!), Westland and Boulton Paul (no Whirlwinds or Defiants).

Having enough Hurricanes and Spitfires in service earlier in 1939, means that improved versions, Hurricane Mk 2 and Spitfire Mk V might be around for May 1940, presupposing Rolls Royce can get the Merlin 45 to replace the Merlin XX ahead of schedule. Unfortunately I can't think of a reasonable way of ditching the Battle as the main light bomber of the day. Wiki says that by July 1938 concerns that it was obsolete had become widespread. So stop producing it then and switch production to Hurricanes, using the same Merlin. Hopefully starting the movement towards a Hurribomber earlier as the Merlin improves. Even having more Blenheim IVs might be slightly better than the Battles. Increased numbers of Whitleys, Wellingtons and Hampdens hopefully means Coastal Command would be better off, as well as bomber command. Switching to tactical rather than strategic bombing for the RAF, ala Luftwaffe is going to be ASB without a fatal car crash involving Portal and his cronies.

For the Royal Navy, if a similar process happens late 1938, more Hunts and Flowers might be around earlier. First orders for Flowers OTL July 1939, make that September 38 and the first 25 are in commission from about January 1940. 10 Hunts ordered OTL March 39 and again 10 more April 39, start being commissioned March 40. Order them September 38 and have them from September 39. 25 extra Flowers and 20 extra Hunts in January 1940 helps early convoys. I would love to see LCTs in time for Dunkirk, but since Dunkirk was the POD that created them, I can't think of a way to get them a year early.

For the army, more and better radios a year earlier would be great. Increasing production of everything, especially SMLE and Brens to equip the first and second line Territorial Divisions for earlier in 39 would be helpful. Won't stop Dunkirk, but would mean more equipped divisions in summer of 1940 reducing fear of Sealion. Valentines in 39 and Crusaders in 40 rather than 40 and 41 will help the Middle East. Even the increased orders of A9s and A10s earlier in 39 (to 250 of each) would have given First Armoured Division and First Army Tank Brigade something more to get on with. They'd still be left in France, but may have given the Division a better start.
 
If we bring the RR Vulture forward by a year then there would be time for it to be fixed and produced. IOTL they sorted it just as it was cancelled. Maybe it could remove the need for the Griffon as well as the Sabre? Vulture Fireflies in 1942.
 
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.
I agree. Give sufficient resources there's not reason the Meteor couldn't be in service by 1943.

And, if we have jets....we can remove the guns from bombers and use jets for the fast run over the target.

9456372a0e7254a6be6d6df985654722.jpg


p_fm209b.jpg


Apparently on the jets along the Lancaster was faster than with the four Merlins. Put four bladed props and further streamlining and you'll get well over 300 mph over the target.

Too bad you need two different fuel types, but IMO 1943 is too early for long range jet bombers. But soon...

North_American_B-45C_061023-F-1234S-006.jpg
 
Last edited:
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?

Smaller upper hull on Valentine, cramped two man turret vs the roomy three man turret on the A10 that also had an assistant drive/gunner

A10 MkII 18’4”x8’4”x8’8”
Valentine MkII 17'11" x 8'9" x 7'6" ft


Up armoring the A10 mean a new engine and stronger transaxle, because that larger surface area will add up weight, fast.

Valentine was a private venture as it was by Vickers, knowing that they could build a better,more reliable, easier to build,and cheaper Matilda that could be done at Woolwich.
The slow production got Vickers a real contract
 
I agree. Give sufficient resources there's not reason the Meteor couldn't be in service by 1943.

And, if we have jets....we can remove the guns from bombers and use jets for the fast run over the target.

9456372a0e7254a6be6d6df985654722.jpg


p_fm209b.jpg


Apparently on the jets along the Lancaster was faster than with the four Merlins. Put four bladed props and further streamlining and you'll get well over 300 mph over the target.

Too bad you need two different fuel types, but IMO 1943 is too early for long range jet bombers. But soon...

North_American_B-45C_061023-F-1234S-006.jpg

Given the size of whittle's operation not a lot of resources would be needed. All he needs is enough money to get the single chamber W1 going as proof of concept and then convert it to multi chamber for testing and possibly aircraft installation.
 
Too bad you need two different fuel types

US mixed powerplant aircraft like the B-36 and Fireball used Avgas for the turbines, Jet turbines can run on almost any liquid fuel.
Kerosene has advantages, like being cheaper and flashpoint, but they don't have to run on it
 
.......... Too bad you need two different fuel types, but IMO 1943 is too early for long range jet bombers.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Why?
During the Cold War, the USAF flew C-123 Providers with a pair of piston engines and a pair of jet booster engines.
Meanwhile, a dozen navies flew Lockheed P-2 Neptunes with a pair of piston engines and a pair of jet booster engines, but only one fuel system.
Jet engines are like diesels in that they will burn almost any flammable liquid that will flow through their injectors.

Early-adopters of jet engines specified kerosene because it was less expensive to refine than high-octane gasoline.

And I agree that a properly-funded Frank Whittle could have fielded a functional jet engine 2 to 5 years earlier.
 
Last edited:
Having enough Hurricanes and Spitfires in service earlier in 1939, means that improved versions, Hurricane Mk 2 and Spitfire Mk V might be around for May 1940, presupposing Rolls Royce can get the Merlin 45 to replace the Merlin XX ahead of schedule. Unfortunately I can't think of a reasonable way of ditching the Battle as the main light bomber of the day.

Interesting side thought: Would more Hurricanes in service earlier also mean that more would be available for the Belgian Air Force. OTL they build the airframes in license but had to import the engines. Overall in May of1940 there were only a handful of them available as production was only just starting to seriously rev up. But would more available engines have made a difference? More and better engines available for export would also give them the chance to produce their own designs like the Renard fighter in greater numbers. Likewise with the Ikarus fighters in Yugoslavia...
 
.......... Too bad you need two different fuel types, but IMO 1943 is too early for long range jet bombers.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Why?
During the Cold War, the USAF flew C-123 Providers with a pair of piston engines and a pair of jet booster engines..
I was thinking it's early since engine tech may not yet reliably fly from Britain to Berlin and back.
 
Last edited:
The Power Jets W.2B engine success coincided with the discovery, or creation of Nimonic 80, per LB Pfeil, of the Mond Co., Hereford. Development of more powerful and more reliable engines await the birth of Nimonic 80a, 4 years later, per Nene and Ghost. Whittle could have made an engine sooner, but a reliable engine likely has to wait for the stuff to build it with.
 
Which is obviously dependant on some serious money being invested in R&D. Something Power Jets didn't have, so advancing the timetable appears to be a non starter.
 
Top