How would the War Changed if the allies had 6 more months to reequippe

So the Allies have 6 more months to Reequippe there Armys and air forces
as well as reorganize there Units . Would this make a difference to how the War went . The French would have 6 DCR Divs besides there other div's they were raising .
 
The British could pour more men into France and send many more aircraft. Some agreement might be reached with Belgium to let the front be on the Belgian-German border.

The Allies had more and better tanks than the Germans OTL so they could make a much more superior force and beat the Germans.
 
Well, it's winter when the Germans attack through the Ardennes. (May/June to December), and that didn't work well in The Bulge. When are you putting this extra 6 months in?
 
Want an example of when the German Army began an offensive when the opposition had months to prepare a defense in depth try Kursk.

The main problems in France in 1940 were political and organizational in nature. The French did have more and better tanks, their fighter aircraft were as good as their German counterparts. None of these were deployed properly. In Paris, unless there ia a way to get every one united behind the war effort it wouldn't matter if you had 6 extra months or 6 years it would end the same way. In OTL with France occupied, French generals and politicians were still fighting each other over who was in charge even after the Torch landings.
 
Want an example of when the German Army began an offensive when the opposition had months to prepare a defense in depth try Kursk.

The main problems in France in 1940 were political and organizational in nature. The French did have more and better tanks, their fighter aircraft were as good as their German counterparts. None of these were deployed properly. In Paris, unless there ia a way to get every one united behind the war effort it wouldn't matter if you had 6 extra months or 6 years it would end the same way. In OTL with France occupied, French generals and politicians were still fighting each other over who was in charge even after the Torch landings.

They were forming New Armor Divs and reorganizing the second line Div's and replacing a lot of the bad officers . The French Air Army was change form 2 nd line air craft to first line Aircraft .
 
The tanks equation is a little deceptive:
It is true to say the allies had more and better tanks than the Germans, but the 2 facts are only true in isolation.
The majority of French tank strength was the 2000 odd Renault FT17s and these were so useless they remained (mostly) in storage for the duration of the campaign. There were another 1000 odd H35 types with short 37mm guns again not what you want for tank to tank combat, leaving only 1000 odd Somua and Char B1 Bis. The Brits contribute another 200 roughly mostly cruisers, some light perambulator types and only a handful of Matildas. All told yes the allies had more and some of them were better but the majority were worse than the German vehicles.
Given another 6 months the British would have more tanks to send to France but could they have been gotten over the channel in time to deal with a German invasion? It is also likely that at least some of the new 6 pounder AT guns would have been produced but again could they have been deployed in time?
French heavy tank production seems to have been very slow and I would expect no more than another 400 of the Somuas and Char B1 Bis at most.
The equipment may be completely secondary to the outcome: With an additional 6 months the French may have gotten a bit more leery of the danger to their centre and garrisoned the Ardennes with 2-3 corps instead of just 2 light infantry divisions and maybe a better fortified Belgium. These 2 things would most likely have scuppered the German plans for a short victorious campaign.
 
It should also be noted that the German tanks had 3 man turrets while the French tanks had only one man in the turret making his job impossible.
 

Cook

Banned
The British could pour more men into France...

The British took six months to increase the size of the B.E.F. from six divisions to ten divisions by May 1940, and that includes two untrained and badly equipped T.A. divisions.

Aside from having the First Armoured Division deployed en mass with the B.E.F. and a few better trained T.A. divisions they would not have been able to get much more to northern France.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
The tanks equation is a little deceptive:
It is true to say the allies had more and better tanks than the Germans, but the 2 facts are only true in isolation.
The majority of French tank strength was the 2000 odd Renault FT17s and these were so useless they remained (mostly) in storage for the duration of the campaign. There were another 1000 odd H35 types with short 37mm guns again not what you want for tank to tank combat, leaving only 1000 odd Somua and Char B1 Bis. The Brits contribute another 200 roughly mostly cruisers, some light perambulator types and only a handful of Matildas. All told yes the allies had more and some of them were better but the majority were worse than the German vehicles.
Given another 6 months the British would have more tanks to send to France but could they have been gotten over the channel in time to deal with a German invasion? It is also likely that at least some of the new 6 pounder AT guns would have been produced but again could they have been deployed in time?
French heavy tank production seems to have been very slow and I would expect no more than another 400 of the Somuas and Char B1 Bis at most.
The equipment may be completely secondary to the outcome: With an additional 6 months the French may have gotten a bit more leery of the danger to their centre and garrisoned the Ardennes with 2-3 corps instead of just 2 light infantry divisions and maybe a better fortified Belgium. These 2 things would most likely have scuppered the German plans for a short victorious campaign.

Most of the German army was horse drawn, or at best truck driven at this point so an FT-17 could have done a lot of damage. Pretty much like the Panzer I did even though it was a 'practice' tank. The key tank advantage the Germans had was radio and tactics. Only the unassailable Matilda put a dent in their superior tank killing techniques. Not because of better tanks, just better use of them. Once they had better tanks too...

Six months of extra Panzer III & IV production. 108 Type E Panzer IV were made in 1940, so you could expect 50-60 extra in that six months, probably type D still. Panzer III production is less clear, but based on 1939-1940 production 250 would be likely. A tank Battalion is about 45-60 tanks. So this is five extra battalions of good tanks. Perhaps six at a push.

Panzer Divisions 1935-1939

Each division had one Panzer Brigade composed of two tank regiments with two abteilungs (battalions) each along with other units. Each battalion had four companies with 32 light tanks (PzKpfw I and II) each. Entire brigade had 561 tanks including command tanks.
So each division needed 561 light tanks? Maybe 62 medium tanks (50 PzIII+12 PzIV) would be enough for a 'medium' tank battalion alongside three battalions of 128 light tanks? That would free up a battalion of light tanks from 4 divisions (512) allowing enough for an extra similar division. Improvement and growth.
 
Last edited:

Cook

Banned
So the Allies have 6 more months to Reequippe there Armys and air forces
as well as reorganize there Units . Would this make a difference to how the War went . The French would have 6 DCR Divs besides there other div's they were raising .

Are you meaning the invasion of Poland is delayed from September 1939 until the spring 1940 or do you mean the Battle of France is delayed?
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Are you meaning the invasion of Poland is delayed from September 1939 until the spring 1940 or do you mean the Battle of France is delayed?
I assumed the latter (BoF delay) since France is credited with more preparation, but Poland isn't. Wartime production and planning might be more urgent than rearmament on the allied side.
 
The switch over from the French 400's to the 500's planes is complete, and the Pilot retraining is complete. So are the new Factories in the South
The 400's are sent to Algeria, as they can no longer be transfered to Poland.
The American Planes arrive in France, and more are ordered.

Britain produces an Bunch of Planes & Tanks. With no Fighting ongoing, These are stockpiled, or sent to NAfrica/Malaysia.
Both the British and French prosecute the Anti Sub War. The extra Ships from the French help the Allies win the Battle of the Atlantic Quicker.
Without the Fall of France - no Lend lease, no Blank Check of US Military Expansion.
With Fall Gelb postponed till Octobre, FDR doesn't run for a third term.

No Japanese occupation of Indochina in Summer 1940, so no Oil Embargo of Japan.
 
The big question I want to know is why would Germany basicly throw away the entire 1940 campaigning season like that?

Only thing I could think of is have Mussolini try and jump on Yugoslavia and/or Greece a year ahead of time. The Italian invasion gets bogged down and Britain and France send in help, thus making Germany and Italy allies sooner, and Hitler has to send forces south to bail him out.

Unless Hilter plans to launch a Winter offensive, nine months, if not a year would be more realistic by the time a Balkan front got wrapped up.
 
Top