Butterfly’s of altered British Priorities WW2

With the number of good British TL’s and TL’s that due to impacts in other countries result in better outcomes in WW2 for the British.

I’ve been thinking about things they could do that would alter the outcomes of the war. Particularly in Africa, The Far East (I’m Australian) and the Battle of the Atlantic.

So basically everywhere, except for mainland Europe as with the exception of the major battles i’m Not massively familiar with the eastern front. And the western zone could be massively different with some butterflies.

Another thing that interests me would be what can the Empire/Commonwealth do to minimise their reliance on outside powers. And i’m Particularly referring to economic cost to the Empire/Commonwealth of purchasing from the US in USD and the fire sale of assets that ensued.

With the Empire only spending the USD it has at the start of the war, plus what income that investments and trade bring into the Sterling zone, lend-lease may either not begin at all, or may be delayed as the UK may not be perceived as being bankrupt....plus Roosevelt no doubt wants to extract the greatest possible benefits for US industry before he starts to pay the bill.


Air:
So lets say that the UK does not take over French aircraft orders after the fall of France, and limits purchases to folding wing versions of the Grumman Martlet (Wildcat) to equip all FAA Fighter squadrons, with the Fulmar to remain in for the GR/RS Role until a British successor design (folding wing Hurricane or Tempest?) can be introduced.

Is there anyway of having the Battle replaced by something else in the light bomber role prior to the battle of France? I know some people like the idea of a production Hawker Henley for this and others a Hurricane IIB variant.

A decision that significant numbers of heavy bombers should be sent to Coastal Command until such time as they have sufficient numbers, instead of sending so many to bomber command.

Diverting more light aircraft (Spitfire and Hurricane) to the Middle East and Far East once there are sufficient numbers in the UK for defensive purposes, especially once Germany launches the invasion of Russia.

Also, kill the Turret fighters!

Land:
The main thing I can think of here would be to rationalise tank production, one big thing would have been an early decision about converting the Merlin or another inline aircraft engine into a tank engine, or otherwise in a perfect world a decision in the 1930's that all future army vehicles (except motorcycles) are to be powered by Diesel engines to simplify logistics, though I can't think of how to come to that decision.

With an earlier decision on Meteor or something similar, that would hopefully remove the Liberty from contention and lead to a better/faster Churchill or an earlier Cromwell/Comet with the availability of a better powerplant.

Sea:
Would the RN be better off with building something along the lines of the River Class Frigate or Black Swan class Sloop possibly with slightly more powerful engines then they would have building the 86 Hunt Class destroyers? (~104 completed during WW2 not counting J,K,N class & Hunt)

How would the RN have gone continuing with producing Tribal class destroyers only from 1936 onwards, except with the guns being able to elevate 70 degree's until being replaced in Production by the Battle Class with 4.5" guns in fully enclosed Turrets.

I don't know, why but I like the Dido-class cruisers, especially the thought of them as Fleet Escorts because they can keep up with the Battleships and Carriers in weather where the smaller destroyers cannot, but have a crew complement significantly smaller then the larger cruisers.

One thing I haven't got a lot of information on, is what the UK built in terms of Merchant ships during World War 2. Both with regards to size, the quantities produced and the speed of those ships. Were they mostly welded construction or rivetted, if rivetted how much investment would be required to modernise construction techniques?

So basically, i'm trying to work out what the UK and the Commonwealth could have done better, and then trying to work out what decisions could actually realistically actually be made.
 
Ok step by step I will go through your points .

Air .

The Fulmar was ideal for it's purpose as a fleet fighter . ignore the dive bombing idea . It was perfect for the role it was intended for . it was not supposed to fight land based fighters or fight japan .
The Wildcat was the best fighter for Naval aviation in my opinion in 1940 . it was ideal for the mid part of the war . however it needed adequate radar GCI control to work at it's best . The Fulmar and it's 2 person crew played a very big part in the creation of this .

The aircraft France ordered and which the RAF took over consist of the following .
32 Brewster buffalo . agree bad purchase made worse by buying more with a weaker engine .
120 liberator bombers . these closed the atlantic gap .
50 Curtis bc-4 biplanes ……. no idea why they went ahead with this .
Curtis model 75 . 229 diverted from French orders . these would have been perfect in the Far East . however considered obsolete they never got sent . if given 6 .303 brownings they would have been effective against Japanese aircraft . this is a possible POD
230 Curtis P-40 . again a good purchase that was highly effective in the western desert .
254 DB-7 Havok . gave a good account as night fighters and intruders .
75 Martin Maryland . good medium bombers , served well .
400 Martin Baltimore . good medium bomber , again served well .
81 or 91 Wildcats . The value of these exceeds all other on the list in my opinion .
300 vultee vengeance .

This is a huge amount of aircraft that made a massive difference to the ability of Great Britain to fight . not all of it was used well , some really dumb decision got made like shaving 200 hp off the engine of the Buffalo then adding 500 kg of weight . and expecting good performance . however in the greater part the aircraft purchased made a worthwhile difference .


LAND .

Ok the British Army was a small professional army that was underserved by it's Tank arm . very little disagreement of this would occur amongst most observers .
The Tanks had a single point of failure and that is the inability of thinking past WW1 . The Matilda was the most powerful tank in service when it was introduced . The British also had another problem . it was a very powerful railway organisation that strangled the lorry company's . no lorries no need to make big enough engines to be used in tanks . Diesels in particular did not get made .
The Merlin was desperately needed for fighters and would not be allowed until mid 43 .
other aircraft engines existed but again the need for aircraft for home defence was huge .
Interestingly the Alvis Leonida's could have been developed into a tank engine much as the wright whirlwind was use din Sherman's


SEA .

The Tribal's where a fantastic destroyer however the 40 degree Dual Purpose mount was a problem . 80 Degree's being considered a minimum by end of war . If the Tribal's had been given higher elevation main weapons they would have been better . However Destroyer design changes rapidly when funds are available and a continual improvement through classes was a good idea . The Tribal's got replaced incrementally on the slips by better destroyers etc . Radar changed the electricity generating requirements and also the mast and need for a radar room .

The Hunt class was a good escort destroyer but a poor fleet destroyer . The river class frigate and Sawn class sloop had uses that the Destroyers did not . they had escort as the only role . They could not be misused as a fleet escort . More Swan class in the early war would have been nice but not essential . Without these ships many more merchants would sink .

The Dido class really had the wrong guns (the 5.25 was a terrible weapon , not good enough in surface firing and too slow in AA firing . ) If they had been built with 6 twin 4.5 BD mounts they would have been lighter and more useful , however instead of calling them destroyer leaders they got called cruisers and needed to be able to fight one . This and an attempt to give Battleships a really powerful secondary DP gun created a lemon .

The Royal Navy had two problems leading up to WW2 , one was political the other was economic . The political was the carious naval treaties that no one else really followed correctly . the other was insufficient funds . correct either one and most problems go away .

The KGV should have been a class with triple 15 inch turrets and coming in at 45.000 ton without the treaties . Even with the original WNT the weight used for those 15 inch guns could have likely created a need for lighter secondaries and driven twin 4.5 turrets .
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
If only the tanks are running on diesel and everything else on gasoline how does that simplify logistics?

Also - with the right choices (I'm looking at you, Churchill) there is no protracted Western Desert fun - Libya gets overrun by the British in 2Q1941.
 
If you want a good POD have Curtis model 75's at Singapore armed with 6 .303 machineguns and doing a few mile per hour faster and a full 1000 FT per minute better climb rate . Power to weight is massively in favour of the Curtiss 75 . 0.186lb/hp compared to Also 0.136hp/lb . turn rate should be better . Zero had 0.18 hp/ib . so a curtiss model 75 should outclimb and out accelerate a zero .
 
If your tanks are all diesels then you should also need to run all your support vehicles on diesel. Problem is the Royal Navy had first call on Diesel fuel.
 
If you want a good POD have Curtis model 75's at Singapore armed with 6 .303 machineguns and doing a few mile per hour faster and a full 1000 FT per minute better climb rate . Power to weight is massively in favour of the Curtiss 75 . 0.186lb/hp compared to Also 0.136hp/lb . turn rate should be better . Zero had 0.18 hp/ib . so a curtiss model 75 should outclimb and out accelerate a zero .

And outdive, and outroll at speed. H-75 had an armored seatback, so has that over the Zero s well. Cowl guns could be '50s, too.
 
The easiest way to improve the performance in the Battle of the Atlantic is to use (a part of) the long range bombers for patrolling the sea instead of useless strategic bombing. Would have made life for the U-boats a lot harder.
 
Top