How would the British military fare against the Soviets in 1941?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Assuming the unlikely scenario where an Operation Pike situation has happened in 1941, the Brits bomb Baku and the Caucasian oil fields from Mosul Iraq out of desperation for some reason (wave hands about), how would the British military then stand up to a Soviet invasion of the Middle East? For the sake of argument Barbarossa doesn't happen so the Soviets are free to act in the Middle East without any hindrance from Germany. This happens in Spring 1941, so the Iraqi Rebellion hasn't happened yet and doesn't get off the ground due to the threat from the USSR and British moving troops into the country and region to fight. Zhukov is tasked with running the invasion of the region via Turkey and Iran due to his performance against the Japanese in Mongolia in 1939 and like then has the full pick of units, equipment, and commanders, as well as supply priority. The British have Indian divisions, loyal Iraqi units, part of the Turkish military (part is kept to defend against a potential move by Germany) and the full Iranian military, plus any British/Commonwealth units they can ship in. How well can they stack up against the best the USSR has to offer?
 
Plenty depends on two things: Soviet logistics, and how much and what quality of RAF will be deployed in the area. Also - how many ground forces will the adversaries deploy.
 

Daniels

Banned
OTL the Soviets steamrolled the Iranian forces and that was with 95% of the Red Army fighting the Germans. Half a dozen British/Commonwealth divisions will not change a thing especially if the Soviets can concentrate all their forces in this area. I estimate that in Spring 41 the British had perhaps 300 aircraft and 300 tanks in this area, OTL the Soviets attacked with 1000 tanks and 800 aircraft. If the Soviets can manage to supply their forces, they could overrun the entire Middle East within a few months.
 
Brits aren't going to do that.

OTL's Pike was when the French were still in the war, and the USSR was not-exactly-allied with Germany.

Britain and France, together, have a hope of doing this (and do note that they thought better of it iOTL), Britain alone? Somebody makes sure they lose the order until Churchill wakes up in the morning sober....
 

Deleted member 1487

OTL the Soviets steamrolled the Iranian forces and that was with 95% of the Red Army fighting the Germans. Half a dozen British/Commonwealth divisions will not change a thing especially if the Soviets can concentrate all their forces in this area. I estimate that in Spring 41 the British had perhaps 300 aircraft and 300 tanks in this area, OTL the Soviets attacked with 1000 tanks and 800 aircraft. If the Soviets can manage to supply their forces, they could overrun the entire Middle East within a few months.
IOTL the British were also invading from Iraq and via the Persian Gulf coast, plus bribing generals not to mobilize the army. The Iranian military was pretty much sabotaged from within while being invaded from 4 sides externally, so using OTL as an example isn't really fair:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
 
Well, the British aren't going to be doing much in the way of attacking, because there's not much in the way of sensible objectives and because it's very much a third priority after troops for Home Defence and Africa. So the actual defence will be done by logistics, really. This suggests that a hasty shoestring effort by the Soviets could be repulsed, but if they take the time to build up a supply base and railways, then they could probably just march in.

It is a large area tbh. Turkey, Iran, Iraq, French Syria and Egypt. Maybe six months to get to Basra, and another six to reach Suez?
 

Daniels

Banned
IOTL the British were also invading from Iraq and via the Persian Gulf coast, plus bribing generals not to mobilize the army. The Iranian military was pretty much sabotaged from within while being invaded from 4 sides externally, so using OTL as an example isn't really fair:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

And OTL the Soviets attacked with 200 000 troops and 1000 tanks while some 4 million and 15 000 tanks were engaging the Germans. This Middle Eastern Coalition can mobilize perhaps 40 divisions with 500 tanks and the same number of aircraft. Without a war against Germany the Soviets outnumber them 20:1, have limitless supplies and no natural barriers as in the Winter War. Only the lack of supply can stop them, otherwise they steamroll the Middle East.
 
When I saw the headline of the thread, I thought it was within a ATL where, for whatever reason, British Forces were co-operating with Germany's in the was against Russia in 1941!
 

Deleted member 1487

And OTL the Soviets attacked with 200 000 troops and 1000 tanks while some 4 million and 15 000 tanks were engaging the Germans. This Middle Eastern Coalition can mobilize perhaps 40 divisions with 500 tanks and the same number of aircraft. Without a war against Germany the Soviets outnumber them 20:1, have limitless supplies and no natural barriers as in the Winter War. Only the lack of supply can stop them, otherwise they steamroll the Middle East.
Well assuming 13k men per division, 40 divisions would yield 520k men against 200k Soviets. There is no way that the Soviets could supply even 2 million men across the Caucasus, nor were that many really ready for offensive operations anywhere, let avoid in the Middle East. Getting 500k men for offensive operation (not counting occupation forces) would be a substantial logistical effort. In Summer 1941 there aren't a lot of T-34s or KV-1s to project into the Middle East, so we're probably looking at T-26s and BT-7 against whatever the coalition forces could muster. In mountainous terrain infantry and AT or artillery guns could stop armored attacks. Projecting force out of the Caucasus would be difficult for the Soviets deeply into the Middle East, so it's not going to be a blitz by the time they get to Mosul (assuming they reach it) and will probably require a lot of work on rail line construction and capturing ports to east the rail burden.

Well, the British aren't going to be doing much in the way of attacking, because there's not much in the way of sensible objectives and because it's very much a third priority after troops for Home Defence and Africa. So the actual defence will be done by logistics, really. This suggests that a hasty shoestring effort by the Soviets could be repulsed, but if they take the time to build up a supply base and railways, then they could probably just march in.

It is a large area tbh. Turkey, Iran, Iraq, French Syria and Egypt. Maybe six months to get to Basra, and another six to reach Suez?
So you think it is a given that the Soviets would roll over them eventually even with LL extended to Turkey and Iran as well as Britain?
 

Daniels

Banned
520k men against 200k Soviets.

These 500 000+ MEC troops are spread from eastern Turkey over the Suez Channel to Iran. While the Soviets are unable to supply millions of men in this area, they should be able to supply twice the historical number = around 400 000 troops and 2000 tanks. Also the equipment and training of Iranian, Turkish and Iraqi troops is far below the Soviet level. The British might win a few battles but it wont change the final outcome.
 

Deleted member 1487

These 500 000+ MEC troops are spread from eastern Turkey over the Suez Channel to Iran. While the Soviets are unable to supply millions of men in this area, they should be able to supply twice the historical number = around 400 000 troops and 2000 tanks. Also the equipment and training of Iranian, Turkish and Iraqi troops is far below the Soviet level. The British might win a few battles but it wont change the final outcome.
They could ship in a fair number of additional Commonwealth and British troops to stiffen their spines.

BTW the invading Allies in 1941 had 200k troops and all that equipment...not the Soviets alone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran#Invasion
The invading Allies had 200,000 troops and modern aircraft, tanks, and artillery.[17]

Plus the Iranians weren't exactly useless either:
In response to the invasion, the Iranian Army mobilised nine infantry divisions, some of them motorised; two of the divisions also had tanks. The Iranian army had a standing force of 126,000–200,000 men. While Iran had taken numerous steps through the previous decade to strengthen, standardise and create a modern army, they did not have enough training, armour and air power to fight a multi-front war. Reza Shah's modernisations had not been completed by the time war broke out[2] and the Iranian Army had been more concerned with civilian repression than invasions.[18]

The Iranian army was armed with the vz. 24 rifle, a Czech version of the German Mauser.[19] Iran had bought 100 FT-6 and Panzer 38(t) light tanks and additional La France TK-6 armoured cars, enough to outfit their 1st and 2nd divisions.[20] Further Iranian orders had been delayed by World War II.[21] While it was a large order and they were excellent tanks, they were not enough to defeat a multi-front invasion by two great powers. The changing nature of air warfare in the 1930s made all but 50 of them obsolete when the invasion began. Prior to the attack, the Royal Air Force RAF dropped leaflets on Iranian troops, asking them not to fight and to understand their country was "not threatened" as it was being "liberated" from possible Nazi destruction.[17]
 
Top