Mechanised Force -retread and scaled down

OK so no likee my first take on Mech Force-despite it being VERY close to what was actually fielded by 1944...so here goes:

The EMF continued and evolved into 12 organised Mechanised Forces. Funding for this was partially released by the removal of 5th and 6th Infantry Divisions in Home Forces.

Each MF comprises:
HQ and signals squadron (plus HQ protection squadron with 6 tanks)
1 Cavalry regiment (36 Light tanks, 37 Cruisers, 8 AA tanks, 8 armoured cars, 12 liaison cars)(the other 10 cavalry regiments are all mechanised working with the Infantry Divisions, at Corps level or in overseas commands)
1 Tank Battalion (with 61 Matilda II's, 8 lights, 8 AA tanks, 12 liaison cars) (The RTC also has around a dozen independent companies for overseas garrisons)
1 motor rifle battalion (KRRC, RB, plus Guards) (Each battalion includes 6 3" mortars, 12 AA Bren, over 50 carriers of varying versions including 2pdr portee version)
1 RHA regiment (all motorised)(24 guns)
1 RA AA/AT battery (motorised- equipped with a tracked vehicle replacing the Birch Guns with the 3.7" gun mounted operating in dual AA and A/T role-around 12 vehicles)
1 RE squadron
1 MGC Squadron (16 MMG carriers)
plus necessary support (RAMC, RAOC, RASC, etc)
The MF also has seen the reformation of the Machine Gun Corps which adds a single motorised squadron to each MF. The MGC also raise several field battalions for the Infantry Divisions and colonial service.

Mobile Forces can be combined to form Armoured Divisions and have done on one exercise pre war.

In addition to all this there are 6 MF's in the TA, Canada can raise around 6 at a push, Australia can raise at least 3, NZ perhaps 1, South Africa could manage 2-3. UK can raise more as war reserves.

Regarding dispositions on outbreak of the Phoney War out of the 36 available to CIG's :
20 active
9 deployed France/Belgium
3 deployed India
1 deployed Malaya/Singapore- the MF is still experimenting and prior to declaration of war one was headed east to trial tanks in jungle ops..(Yup major butterflies here)
3 in Egypt
1 in Persia
1 deployed to Norway
1 in Burma (there was a tank brigade there IRL)

16 or so inactive
7 in UK training (1 each Canadian, Aus and NZ rest UK)
9 training/being raised (various locations)

Other notes:
The Mobile Forces have been active for over 14 years now hence they know how to cooperate together and are used to forming battlegroups. Radio communications are standard practice and adopted on every vehicle. Support is provided too-you can assume everything that the forces had to learn the hard way about basic mechanised warfare has been learnt (with the occassional exception). Vehicles have also developed and are 1.5 years ahead of real example-hence Matilda II being standard issue and Cruisers instead of awful awful lights. You can also assume there is greater energy towards armoured warfare and development.

The rest of the army is :
10 other cavalry regiments plus Yeomanry regiments and 8 war reserve regiments in armoured car, div recce and other roles
300 plus infantry battalions (around 140 regular, over 150 TA rest war reserve)
Before war there were 4 infantry divisions plus 12 TA, war reserves sees another 8 formed. There are several independent brigades. NZ, Aus, Canada, SA, African colonies and Indian Army between them add another 28 plus infantry divisions.
etc

So thoughts? How does this force fare against Nazi Germany? Bear in mind the Matilda II just laughs at the standard 37mm ATk gun but is vulnerable to the dreaded 88....
 
ITTL the British field combined arms brigadea rather than an armoured divisions?

So constituent units can coordinate with each other, what about with the rest of the army? Is it supposed to be an independent formation or attached to a Corps a la AGRA?

It's a relatively small formation and so would have good shock value. With this combined arms approach and mechanised units in Bren carriers why does the distinction between Cruiser and Infantry tanks still exist? for what ever reason I can see the distinction between the two being eliminated during the war rather than after/toward the end.

Coordination vs concentration of armoured assets, interested to see how this debate gets settled in the field:D.

P.S. Another thought occurs, given the fact this brigade size formation would be independent to some degree, I think this would be a
good case for restoring the rank of Brigadier-General. That and I always thought it sounded cooler.
 
Last edited:
A good point about the cruisers and infantry tank debate-hopefully yup maybe the debate would have concluded rather earlier and we would have seen a universal tank by 1940 rather than 45 IF the EMF had continued onwards and upwards. I only included them as that way the MF would be using the Infantry Tanks (Matilda's) to attack and consolidate with the cruisers flanking and pursuing, the lights (Tetrarchs) would be able to cripple a Pz1,2 and 3, not a 4 and would also be able to pursue but far better to scout. (I was just thinking about British historical reactions and perceptions of the cavalry compared to Chav Cav of the RTC/RTR).

With regards to the size of the force, yes its a combined independent brigade in scale-I guess over 1000 for the rifle battalion and MGC, 1500 for the RTC and Cav, near 1000 gunners and sappers and 750-1000 various others (even including Paymasters). I'm guessing that if the EMF had been expanded but retained a la my concept then when needing concentration 2-3 could form an armoured division. I think that with 12 regular, 6 TA and 6 war reserve (the new RAC regiments of the 22nd Dragoons and so on) then eventually you would be talking 1 Singapore, 4 India (watching Russia and Persia), 3 in Middle East (mainly watching the Eyeties), rest in France (up to 12?) and Britain (training up).

I think like the pitifully few armoured units we had at the start of the war in France, that the MF's would have been behind the lines of the Infantry Divisions and held perhaps at a rate 1 per corps-the rest held as a central reserve (one hopes). Remember that you have 10 other cavalry regiments plus assorted Yeomanry available at a rate of 1 per division and 1 at Corps level carrying out scouting and recce roles. I think the Mech Force would have given Jerry a deeper shock than he did receive by 7RTR....
 
They'll give the Germans a bloody nose to be sure but I think it will swifly become apparent that the force is overly tank heavy. Not only that the infantry batallion(s) will need to be fully mechanised (not just motorised) to coordinate effectively with the tanks at all times. They will need something in greater quantity and quality than the Bren carrier, so I can see some kind of half track or proto Kangaroo on the cards come 1942.

As for a universal tank by 1940, I think that's a tad optimistic (you said that the tanks were roughly a year and a half ahead of OTL). A universal tank may have been approved but this will take time (perhaps this will also be the first tank to be equipped with a 6 Pounder).

Interstingly you have 3 Mechanised Brigade Groups (The "Force" as in "Experimental Mechanised Force" referred to an autonomous or ad hoc task force, if these are regular formations they will have more regulat nomenclature) in North Africa. This means that a Compass analogue might be attempted almoist as soon as Italy declares war.

I'll be very interested to see how the TL pans out.

The organisation you have drawn up seems plausible for an early war formation given the context, but if will not solve all of Britain's problems in doctrine, this seems to represent a doctrine that is flawed in a different and still plausible way, althogh these can be more easily overcome.
 
Well thats the idea really that the flawed concept of different types of tank added to the methods of employment should and probably would've become apparent IF they had continued the experimentation with EMF. Fuller et al were way ahead of their time but this scenario would see their ideas taken on board with some conservatism kept-hence the slower pace with regards to the need to develop a universal tank. Now IF three of these brigade groups HAD encountered Rommels Panzer Div my guessing is that his division would have been completely (rather than partially) destroyed. The communications lines would have been severed and then the brigades-any of the others available plus the active ones already engaged, would then have launched a counter riposte, probably terminating at the border.
 

Markus

Banned
I´m seeing two little and three big problems.

Why would anyone station an MF in backwaters like Malaya and Burma in 39 when these places were considred not worthy of decent infantry in 41?

Persia, Belgium and Norway are neutral, no getting in allied troops unless you invade or the Germans do so first.
 
Top