Halifax.

[Geordie]

While the Air Marshalls will no doubt still be fantasizing about strategic bombing, it played no part in the defeat at all. Will the government insist it gets a lower priority over what is seen as more vital needs?

If the allies maintain a continental footing - most of France in TTL - will the strategic bombing argument fall on receptive ears?

I always understood that one of the main reasons for political support of strategic bombing was that the RAF were hitting the Germans at home. As far as public relations went, this was considered important. If the army is still present in France, the argument is greatly weakened.

 

[Astrodragon]

If the allies maintain a continental footing - most of France in TTL - will the strategic bombing argument fall on receptive ears?

I always understood that one of the main reasons for political support of strategic bombing was that the RAF were hitting the Germans at home. As far as public relations went, this was considered important. If the army is still present in France, the argument is greatly weakened.

While the Air Marshalls will still be fixated on it, I dont see it getting the priority it di OTL. As you say, it was the only way of actually hitting the Germans, but now the allies are concentrating on the battle of France Mk2. They will have other areas fighting for the limited resources.
With no BoB, the allies are certainly going to want a dive bomber, and overall a much higher comittment to battlefield interdiction - a better light bomber as well. After all, thats going to be one of the reasons they feel they lost the first round. I think they'd carry on development of the heavy bombers, but they wont get priority at this point.
The no BoB is going to have some interesing effects on the Luftwaffes makeup as well. Probably more so than the RAF, where the only real change is likely to be a dive bomber (although after Norway, I can see the RN arguing for better carrier planes. And probably the escort carriers too - they had them in mind, just didnt have the resources to build them. Without having to replace sunk merchant ships, they can build them now. But the RN as well want a better five bomber, so the pressure is going to be high for this type of aircraft)

However given the time scale, they need the beasts operational in a year. Doesn't give too much time for radical designs, I think they are going to have to modify/improve wherever possible.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

One problem is that Germany isn't likely to allow most of this to happen and, having been on the other end from 1919 they already know most of the tricks to get around arms limitations.

And if Hitler decided he's being set up I doubt a single British corps and 250,000 French soldiers, many of whom will be in the colonies, backed by 200,000 lightly armed 'gendarmes' will hold out for long, let alone take the offensive.

 

[Dilvish]

Regarding France's American arms purchases, how about diverting those purchases to Norway, Belgium, and the Netherlands? They need to rebuild their militaries. I didn't notice any restrictions on their militaries.

Concerning dive bombers for the Allies, France already has the Vindicators (Helldivers?) aboard Bearn. France has the Wildcats, which may still go to Britain, but they're land-based versions. So I'm thinking that Britain may want to buy the Douglas SBD, and hopefully Grummans of her own. (Sorry guys, but I don't buy into the belief that the Wildcat was one of the worst fighters of the war.)

 

[Grimm Reaper]

One advantage might be that the British were ahead of the Germans in fighter production so they can stockpile fighters and perhaps both the RAF and French can suddenly field a much larger force in the skies.

 

[NHBL]

French fleet?

Were any restrictions made at Versailles concerning the size of the French fleet? That could be important later on. If there are restrictions in quantity, I think the French might sell/lease/transfer some ships to Britain.

The old battleships are definately second rate, but the two second class battleships are a match for Scharnhorst and Gnieseneau, or any of the Italian rebuilds. The Jean Bart and Riechileu (sp?) aren't finished, but would be fine ships if they were completed. And with the French military limited in size, the resources to finish them are available.

 

[Astrodragon]

The British already have 2 planes suitable for the dive bomber role - the Henley and the Skua. They also have the Hurricane becoming available from its fighter role. So they dont need any US designs, and given their shortage of dollars would go with a domestic solution.

The Hurribomber is probably the best solution (maybe with a few more mods than in got in OTL), as once its dropped its bomb its a pretty useful fighter and fast enough to get away from most trouble.

Although depending on restrictions on France, the RAF might take the US aircraft and have them ready for transfer (say in Canada complete with a number of, ahem, French-Canadian pilots.....)

 

[stevep]

Regarding France's American arms purchases, how about diverting those purchases to Norway, Belgium, and the Netherlands? They need to rebuild their militaries. I didn't notice any restrictions on their militaries.

Dilvish

That's a possible option but who actually pays for them. Not sure if money had changed hands when France fell OTL because Churchill committed Britain to taking over the order, which makes me think the US hadn't been paid for them at the time. If so can the smaller nations afford them? Or would the French, desperate to rebuild their own forces as far as possible, be willing to pay for them and have them transferred to another power?

Possibly, given Britain's considerable production when it comes to a/c, some sort of deal could be worked out to transfer some of the surplus to boost the smaller powers. It might be more likely for Britain to do this because it's in a more secure position and since the a/c used would be British and some payment received it would probably be more attractive to all parties.

Steve

 

[stevep]

(2) While in OTL Germany was still at war at that point, and so could keep the full war economy going, this time he isnt. Granted, hes going to attack Russia, but if Germany keeps up full war production while at peace, even Stalin is going to notice

Im a bit skeptical about this as I read recently that the US has effectively managed to keep itself on a permanent war footing since the end of the second world war. It was a dubious source admittedly but when you think about the vast proportion of US GDP going to defence it rings true.

At this stage the Germans can use the weak excuse that they are just rearming themselves after so many years under the Versailles Treaty too.

Sausage

I think it depends on what you define as a war footing. Compared to what they had before WWII the US army was a lot larger. Even so it demoblished the vast bulk of the forces and struggled to get forces as late as 1950 to defend the Korean peninsula when the north attacked.

Later on you got the long period of the cold war and something of an arms race. Even so I don't think, on the western side, it really approach say the build-ups before the two world wars, in terms of proportion of GNP for instance. [Could be wrong here].

Steve

 

[merlin]

Given the new view of dive bombing effectiveness, both the RAF and the French will probably want to develop their own divebombing capability. It'll take time to develop completely new aircraft, but as an interim measure, the Fleet Air Arm currently has a dive bomber in service, and still in production - the Skua. A couple of squadrons worth could be redeployed to the RAF, and new aircraft built to enable them to develop doctrine/tactics while a new and better dive bomber (possibly suitable for both RAF and FAA use?) is developed.

Why will the RAF want their own divebombing capability? The Stuka demonstration, has been less than OTL - when the RAF ignored the requirement. Deeming it a luxury - a 'one trick pony', hence in OTL fighters like the Hurricane that had passed their 'sell by date' were converted into fighter-bombers.
The RAF only had one successful Dive-Bomber and that was the Vultee Vengence - which served in Burma.
Even with the threat of invasion, no steps were taken, to issue the Henleys to any Squadrons instead the 'waste' of drogue-target pulling.
Pilots of the FAA Skuas appartently cheered after the LW destroyed many of their aircraft on the ground, such was the misuse that RAF Coastal Command (to which they had been attached) had put them to.

The French, yes the Navy Air Arm anyway will continue with the US aircraft on their way.

 

[merlin]

While the Air Marshalls will still be fixated on it, I dont see it getting the priority it di OTL. As you say, it was the only way of actually hitting the Germans, but now the allies are concentrating on the battle of France Mk2. They will have other areas fighting for the limited resources.

No, the perception may be that with French airfields available, the heavy bombers, can carry a heavier load with less distance to travel.

With no BoB, the allies are certainly going to want a dive bomber, and overall a much higher comittment to battlefield interdiction - a better light bomber as well. After all, thats going to be one of the reasons they feel they lost the first round. I think they'd carry on development of the heavy bombers, but they wont get priority at this point.

No. the reason they lost first time, was not having enough fighters to ensure air superiority. This the LW had to give their bombers the opportunity to bomb. So, do not see any RAF requirement for a dive-bomber. They needed what they got later - Mossie & Beaufighter twins, and fighter-bombers. And the imagination to deploy aircraft on anti-flak missions - perhaps loads of frag bombs!

The no BoB is going to have some interesing effects on the Luftwaffes makeup as well.

Problem here is - that is before Dowding's plea of no more Hurricanes to France. The RAF are confident, but the don't know in this TL how good their aircraft are, or how bad their tactics are!

Probably more so than the RAF, where the only real change is likely to be a dive bomber (although after Norway, I can see the RN arguing for better carrier planes. And probably the escort carriers too - they had them in mind, just didnt have the resources to build them. Without having to replace sunk merchant ships, they can build them now. But the RN as well want a better five bomber, so the pressure is going to be high for this type of aircraft).

Still disagree - the FAA even after the Stuka display prior to the BoB - coastal convoys - didn't replace the Skua, except with mult-role aircraft i.e. Barracuda - which weren't used for dive-bombing - apart from attacking the Tirpitz.

However given the time scale, they need the beasts operational in a year. Doesn't give too much time for radical designs, I think they are going to have to modify/improve wherever possible.

The only part I agree with!

 

[Geordie]

The only part I agree with!

To be infuriatingly pedantic, you must agree with at least two other posts. The one you agree with is an expansion of a discussion between Astrodragon and myself earlier on the same page!

 

[Astrodragon]

Why will the RAF want their own divebombing capability? The Stuka demonstration, has been less than OTL - when the RAF ignored the requirement. Deeming it a luxury - a 'one trick pony', hence in OTL fighters like the Hurricane that had passed their 'sell by date' were converted into fighter-bombers.
The RAF only had one successful Dive-Bomber and that was the Vultee Vengence - which served in Burma.
Even with the threat of invasion, no steps were taken, to issue the Henleys to any Squadrons instead the 'waste' of drogue-target pulling.
Pilots of the FAA Skuas appartently cheered after the LW destroyed many of their aircraft on the ground, such was the misuse that RAF Coastal Command (to which they had been attached) had put them to.

The French, yes the Navy Air Arm anyway will continue with the US aircraft on their way.

Simple. You havent worked out the implications of the war stopping in June.

Now the Allies have had numerous complaints from the troops that they couldnt live with the bombing, and in particular the precision dive bombing. They can see it is a very useful weapon. What they dont really see is how vulnerable the stuka is - this wasnt driven home until the BoB, when it was shown it was useless unless heavily escorted. So they think dive bombers are a must have (remember, they lost - so there is a big 'what the Germans used must work well' syndrome here, as well as the current evidence). The navy will also be agitating, after the losses they suffered in the Norway campaign, for a better dive bomber than the Skua. They'll see it as necessary to take on the Japanese

And the Hurribomber was actually a very good solution. It could deliver a bomb accurtely, then had a much better chance of escaping after - and if it had to fight, at low level it could hold its oen against all but the latest German fighters (at least once it had dropped its bombs). At the time it was introduced - 1941 - it was a very useful aircraft indeed. And its available - the Spitfire is taking over air defence, they have all these hurricanes that can be modified.

 

[xt828]

On armour: IIRC the best-performing British tank of the BoF was the Matilda II - it was essentially invulnerable to anything short of an 88, and its 2pdr was good for the lighter tanks and if lucky the Pz3. The only Matildas lost were due to breakdowns and immobilisation, most commonly due to optimistic driving during the retreat. British armoured doctrine has not really been battle-tested, so while they'd be interested in learning about what the Germans did, I don't think they'd drop everything to copy the German model. Keep in mind, too, that the German Panzerwaffe which conquered France was predominantly light tanks - Panzer Is, IIs, 35(t)s and 38(t)s. Additionally, the Panzer IVs were exclusively infantry-support variants.

The French, on the other hand, have just had it explained to them that their armoured doctrine needs serious work, as do their tanks. I think they'd be looking to completely revamp their armoured branches.

 

[Fletch]

I have to say, albiet the tech is not my strong point, what Atrodegaon is saying makes a lot of sense. I can see the defence industries of both the UK and France pushing for a dive-bomber, given the manner of the defeat.

Also xt828 has a good point with regards to the Matilda II. I would gather that in an effort to re-arm, many Matildas would be flying off of the production line, many of which would be heading to the French. I can also see Canadian and US factories producing weaponry for the British(and by extension the French, whom the British will be stockpiling for in additon to themselves.)

With regards the smaller powers, Norway has basically set up a guerrilla force should Germany invade, to cause havoc within the lines, but it is accepted that should Britain not help, they will be finished.

Belgium and the Netherlands are in both a particularly dangerous positon.

Belgium, remember has an occupation force in the south, which means that should the Brits and French go to war, then they will get dragged in. They will be well aware of the threat of the Germans but also due to the occupation forces, they have to fear a German or Franco-British invasion also(German forces sittin on the flank in Belgium would be considered far too big a risk to ignore) in event of a new war. Either way, their national independence is fucked.

The Dutch Government is simply happy that the Dutch have kept their liberty, and dont believe that the British and French can stop the Germans so are playing as neutral and as friendly to all powers as possible. In the low countries, re-armament is a dirty word.

About the French equppment, obviously, if they took on board their entire orders to the US, then France and Germany would be at war quicker than you could say 'Treaty violation'. Britain, as I have stated bought some of the equipment, as did Canada, but much of the equpment and material lies in the States as yet.

The French fleet was a sore point for the British upon the end of the war. Obviously handing the French fleet over to the Nazis screams make Sealion semi-plausible, so no, that never happened. Quite a bit of the French fleet was sent to British ports to be scrapped. What parts, though were up to the French, the restrictions placed them with a fleet set at 90% of the German fleet, not nearly as bad restrictions on the Navy, but Aircraft Carriers cannot invade Berlin..

No monies changed hands at the end of the war, as that would imply war guilt, although the German force of occupation does drop a heavy hint at who won.

As to the comparitive strengths of the Allied and Axis forces, they will change over the next twelve months, I assure you...

The British already due to the Causes of Deafeat Committee blame leadership and tactical ineptness for the defeat in June. Since the French have taken part, and given the comparitive power shift between the Allies, they have little option but to accept the Committees findings. The French, as much as the British are reforming their military. Of their 250,000 troops, the vast majority are trained in Artillery and in Tank divisions. The Gendarmes, who are a new class of Gendarme, officially part of the police, and officially classed as Police riot support units they would be trained in infantry tactics in their spare time.

As I said though, given the situation, Hitler was not concerned about the Western powers at this stage. He viewed them as paper tigers, who would fold if he pushed at them. As such, regardless of all this, and given how any plans to attack would be noticed by the Germans and in his belief, crushed, he allows the sabre-rattling to continue. As I also mentioned, it gives him an excuse to to Stalin over the German economy still being on a war footing.

Also, over Emil Hácha. Oops. Wasn't particularly thinking over names, simply events and the name must have Havel must have slipped out. I assure you, there is no time portal in this time line(shades of Nixon there methinks).

 

[Sealion]

The navy will also be agitating, after the losses they suffered in the Norway campaign, for a better dive bomber than the Skua. They'll see it as necessary to take on the Japanese

And the Hurribomber was actually a very good solution. It could deliver a bomb accurtely, then had a much better chance of escaping after - and if it had to fight, at low level it could hold its oen against all but the latest German fighters (at least once it had dropped its bombs). At the time it was introduced - 1941 - it was a very useful aircraft indeed. And its available - the Spitfire is taking over air defence, they have all these hurricanes that can be modified.

In OTL one offshoot of the Hurricane was the Sea Hurricane, the carrier capable version, also introduced 1941. This was quite successful (and iirc an improvement on the Fulmar).

Maybe the RN would adopt a Sea Hurribomber to be a duel purpose Fighter/Strike aircraft? The RN liked multi role aircraft (it maximised the flexibiliy of the comparitively small carrier air wings), after all the Skua which it replaces was officially duel role Fighter/Dive Bomber, so a Sea Hurribomber would be seen as a direct replacement.

 

[merlin]

Simple. You havent worked out the implications of the war stopping in June.

Now the Allies have had numerous complaints from the troops that they couldnt live with the bombing, and in particular the precision dive bombing. They can see it is a very useful weapon. What they dont really see is how vulnerable the stuka is - this wasnt driven home until the BoB, when it was shown it was useless unless heavily escorted. So they think dive bombers are a must have (remember, they lost - so there is a big 'what the Germans used must work well' syndrome here, as well as the current evidence). The navy will also be agitating, after the losses they suffered in the Norway campaign, for a better dive bomber than the Skua.

The Army campaigned OTL both Ironside & Brooke, in '40, '41, & '42, questions were asked in the 'House' all to no avail - the RAF were almost obsessed with not having them. Probably, this stemed from an early belief that modern aircraft would be too fast to dive-bomb - the aircrew couldn't cope with the blackouts, that any aircraft could be adapted, and early trials either resulted in accidents - bombs striking prop's, or poor accuracy.
Even with Beaverbrook in charge of Production, and ordering US dive-bombers, the delivery dates kept slipping by years.
In OTL the Anglo-French also 'lost' so no change - if anything in OTL the loss is more catastrophic.
I think, it is a crying shame that the Henley wasn't available instead of so many Battles. But you need an earlier POD to get that - an RAF 'Udet'.
Likewise, with FAA - no difference with OTL, and as I wrote before no English Channel coastal convoy attacks by Stukas.
Again, think the Skua should have been replaced in mid-40 by the Sea-Henley (with guns in the wings) - but again that needs an earlier POD.

 

[Astrodragon]

The Army campaigned OTL both Ironside & Brooke, in '40, '41, & '42, questions were asked in the 'House' all to no avail - the RAF were almost obsessed with not having them. Probably, this stemed from an early belief that modern aircraft would be too fast to dive-bomb - the aircrew couldn't cope with the blackouts, that any aircraft could be adapted, and early trials either resulted in accidents - bombs striking prop's, or poor accuracy.
Even with Beaverbrook in charge of Production, and ordering US dive-bombers, the delivery dates kept slipping by years.
In OTL the Anglo-French also 'lost' so no change - if anything in OTL the loss is more catastrophic.
I think, it is a crying shame that the Henley wasn't available instead of so many Battles. But you need an earlier POD to get that - an RAF 'Udet'.
Likewise, with FAA - no difference with OTL, and as I wrote before no English Channel coastal convoy attacks by Stukas.
Again, think the Skua should have been replaced in mid-40 by the Sea-Henley (with guns in the wings) - but again that needs an earlier POD.

You are quite right, but the big difference this time is that we lost - no matter how tarted up the excuses - and the comittee set up to decide why is going to have a lot of weight.
Not enough to stop the Air Marshals fixating on strategic bombing, nothing short of a firing squad is going to do that, but I think they are going to have to make some compromises. And after all, there is already a dive bomber developed, it can replace the planes shown to be useless, and still allow development of the heavy bomber they want (more money helps here, its much easier to get them to agree to developments if they can keep their heavy bomber program going)

 

[Astrodragon]

One thing I thought of, which will affect a lot the ways the allies rearm, is what time scale are they working on?

Obviously in the near term they need to rebuild stocks, tanks, etc, and fix someof the problems that the war showed up (as many as can be done with existing designs, of course).

But how long do they think they have? I would suggest something like this...

In the months folowing the armistice, they assume germany is rebuilding its war stocks. After all, they used a lot of shells, need to replace tanks and planes, and so on. However after a while, its going to be obvious they are actually strengthening their forces, with current designs. Now this is interesting, since logically (if the Germans arent ooking for a war soon), they'd replace, then look at new designs incorporating the war lessons before starting to produce them. With a (German) expected war date of summer 41, they wont have time to do this, they have to go with what they have (of have developed ready), albeit with maybe some changes in the composition of the forces.

At what point do the allies realise that the Germans are working on a short timescale to a new war? I would assume they think its against the SU (although this may cause confusion early on, after all the M-R pact is still in force), but given the assumed timescale, who else is there to attack? After all, Germany just beat the allies, so why attack them again after a year?

The reason I'm bringing it up is that the timescale worked on makes a lot of difference as to what gets built after the first few months of rebuilding. Once they realise they only really have a year or so, they are going to have to go with either stuff already developed (but not in production), or stuff that can be sensibly improved and then got back in production in a short tme scale.

As an example, tanks.
The British have 2 reasonable tank designs ready, the Matilda2 and the Valentine (just ready, but not in time to take part in the fighting last time around). Obviously at teh start they will be churning out Matildas as fats as possible. However its going to be immediately obvious that the Matilda had problems. First its reliability, then its lack of a gun big enough to attack anti-tank guns, then its speed. The valentine, otoh, has good reliability, less armour, and teh same gun.
The object is to get a strong tank force in 12-18 months, now. So..how about the following.
Keep building the Matilda, but with a crash project on improving the reliability (hopefully allowing retrofit). For the time being, leave the gun the 2-pdr. The arour is fine, although the engine could be bigger.
Another crash project would involve the tank engines - for bot Matilda and valentine. This probably requires a new mark of tank, although some improvements could be made, they will impact range (a bigger engine drinks more fuel).
For the next tank, do some more radical changes to the Valentine (keep the production line going on the Mk1, but develop the Mk2 in parallel). The 6-pdr gun is already developed, so fit it - it will allow good penetration of the newer German tanks, and a reasonable (if not huge) HE round. If a better engine can be developed in time, either allow the tank more speed, or thicken the armour. This is similar to some of the improvements that were done to later models of Valentin in OTL. As they initially think they have more than a year, I think they would do something like this. Whether or not they have to change things after they work out what the German timescale is, will probably depend on how far they have got with the upgrades.

Oh, and on tank tactics - the British have people who understand how and what the germans did - they are sitting out in the Middle east..!!
I suspect Hobart will be heavily involved this time around in how to use the armour, after all the people who didnt listen last time got it all wrong

 

[Dilvish]

Regarding the French navy, in what way is the French navy to be 90% of the German navy? Is it overall tonnage, tonnage according to ship types, or numbers of each ship type? Is that 90% fixed to German navy strenght at the time of the treaty, or is it a floating value. (pun intended) What will happen with Germany's fleet?

Battleship-wise, France should be fine. Richileau (butchered the spelling) is ready, but Jean Bart isn't. The older ships are already semi-retired or close to it.

Cruisers and destroyers are a problem, as France had a lot more of each than Germany. Scrap the oldest ships, or sell them to some combination of Norway, the Netherlands, and Belgium. The Dutch have been wanting additional heavy units for the East Indies.

For the carriers, Bearn is being used as an aircraft transport, which should allow France to finish the carrier being built.