You are missing something. The airbase at RAF Habbinyah saw some fierce fighting between the British and the revolters in May 1941.Wasn't the Iraq problem resolved without a shot fired? Or am I missing something here?
You are missing something. The airbase at RAF Habbinyah saw some fierce fighting between the British and the revolters in May 1941.Wasn't the Iraq problem resolved without a shot fired? Or am I missing something here?
OTL yes, but ITTL?
Wasn't the Iraq problem resolved without a shot fired? Or am I missing something here?
The railways were run into the ground on at least some counts in the original timeline. Wartime build locomotives such as the 'Austerity' class with critical design flaws in areas such as the firebox did not help. https://www.lner.info/locos/O/o7.php...As for the financial situation post war, ITTL or IOTL, it wasn’t as bad as it first seemed, and particularly after WWII, Britain had a number of unseen advantages, it didn’t have after WWI. Unlike after WWI, when Germany and the majority of British industrial rivals in Europe were intact, post WWII Germany and the majority of other European nations have suffered extensive damage to their industry and infrastructure. Britain on the other hand, has other than in 1940 not suffered extensive bombing, and even IOTL the German V weapon campaign was concentrated against London, not the industrial heartland in the midlands and north. Britain had in addition spent considerable monies on modernising much of its industry...
RR.
See 10 May 1941Wasn't the Iraq problem resolved without a shot fired? Or am I missing something here?
Japan has had to pull the best of its units out of the initial force, while Britain has far more troops in the area than OTL. I think there's a strong possibility of them holding.For Burma anything later than April is likely useless given the very heavy rains from May to Nov 1942 rendering the roads virtually impassable and effectively ending large scale combat.
However if Rangoon and surrounding area is still tenable (ie the Japanese have not crossed the Sittang River) and in British Imperial hands then those units will certainly be useful if they are in place and inserted into the various Burma corps that will likely be in the region.
I thought Michael Gambier-Parry was CO of the 2nd Armoured Division?Major-General Harold Charrington
Interesting, had to go back over stuff to see what I had done with him. Yes, he was GOC 2nd Armoured: (1st Armoured Brigade & Support Group which was sent to Greece, and 22nd Armoured Brigade. During TTL Battleaxe he commanded 22nd Armoured Division (which here was the first 'Mixed Division'.) When 2nd Armoured Division was reconstituted (1st A Bde re-equipped with Valiants and 22nd A Bde) it was given to Charrington, who'd commanded the tanks in Greece. 2nd Armoured Division is now under Vyvyan Pope's XXX Corps. I haven't mentioned what happened to G-P, I thought I had, but I can't see it in my Word document. I had it in my head that he went to either 8th Army or 10th Army as Advisor Armoured Fighting Vehicles.I thought Michael Gambier-Parry was CO of the 2nd Armoured Division?
Will this lead to a Collab with JeanDeBueil? Two of our top writers for sure. The only problem is as Allan keeps on writing so well it reminds me Zheng He’s excellent Alternate ‘42 Indian OceanOne what-if related to the Brandt 75mm rounds has to do with the Cavalry's tanks. The Cavalry in the 1930s officially was armed only with "armored cars", for doctrinal reasons...even though several of their vehicles were tracked and cannon-armed. One of those was the AMC 35, also known as the ACG-1, a fast light tank that was effective in the Cavalry's scouting / interdiction / exploitation roles. The Cavalry however felt two further needs: to have greater abilities to fight through prepared infantry roadblocks, and to fight against enemy tanks. To address the former, Renault suggested the ACG-2. This modification of the reliable ACG-1 design was to carry the same short, high-pressure 75mm gun as later used in the B1 bis and ter tanks, flexibly mounted in a hull casemate much like the later B1 ter design. The turret remained for the commander, but with only a machine gun.
Upon evaluating this eminently workable design, the Cavalry concluded that while it would be effective against infantry, they wanted more fighting power against tanks than that gun would provide, in conjunction with the minimal ability of the light-tank design to hold out enemy tank shells.
Simultaneously the S35 was being considered, and the Cavalry focused on that design...certainly a medium tank, whatever it was called. Interest ceased in the ACG-2.
By the late 1930s, the Cavalry had come full circle, and again wanted more cannon-power against prepared infantry defenses. Thus the SOMUA SAu-40 assault gun design was created. But, it was designed around a special 75mm gun that had unsolvable production problems. So the Cavalry went into the 1940 fighting with no 75mm-gun capability at all.
What if instead the Cavalry had separated their two needs, and had chosen the ACG-2 in the mid 1930s as their high-mobility assault gun? And, what if that vehicle's 75mm gun later had been provided with a version of Brandt's 75mm APDS rounds?
The Brandt company, a world leader in ordnance innovation, was greatly stymied by the Infantry's institutional inability to envision the future. They never gave much consideration to the Cavalry as a customer, because the Cavalry focused so much more on mobility than firepower. That in hindsight was a mistake all around.
The ACG-2 never could have been heavily armored...but as the successful M18 tank destroyer later showed, sometimes speed and agility can take the place of heavier armor protection. At typical Cavalry tank-engagement ranges, the ACG-2 with Brandt APDS could have been frontally first-shot-lethal against any German AFV through at least 1941.
Off topic, but is there any news on Zheng He?Will this lead to a Collab with JeanDeBueil? Two of our top writers for sure. The only problem is as Allan keeps on writing so well it reminds me Zheng He’s excellent Alternate ‘42 Indian Ocean
Not in the last two years AFAIK. Unfortunately, I suspect he's shuffled off his mortal coil.Off topic, but is there any news on Zheng He?
I'm afraid that he hasn't been seen on the site since September 2020, so I too fear the worst.His last post was that he was dealing with some health issues I believe so prospects are not particularly positive given the subsequent time that has passed.
RIPI'm afraid that he hasn't been seen on the site since September 2020, so I too fear the worst.
I asked the admins (who did not know) and saw some posts something to do with a grandson that he had to look after.Not in the last two years AFAIK. Unfortunately, I suspect he's shuffled off his mortal coil.
Another thing I like to bag on US Ordnance, yet another one of their screwups, as the Italians were able to do so, with the Browning adjacent Breda-SAFAT that had a HEI-T for their 12.7x81SR ammo, and this was also done in Japan, with their 12.7mm Browning based MG, that had an even better HEI round.Colt in the USA--the primary pre-WWII manufacturing licensee of the BMG in USA--in conjunction with their ammunition manufacturing partners, had been unable to develop a reliable 12.7mm contact-fuzed explosive shell at an acceptable manufacturing cost because the caliber was just too small for existing fuze manufacturing technology. FN, partly because of the 13.2mm caliber's slightly larger size, was able to overcome this barrier. The propellant case did not change dimension, so all feed subsystems designed for 13.2mm (and 12.7mm) ball and AP remained compatible