The Forge of Weyland

So, has anyone noticed the little gotcha in DeGaulles report?
The part about using armour the counter-attack/plug breakthroughs, the bit about joint exercises, or something else?


The vast majority of the French military budget had been gobbled up by the Maginot Line...
I can't speak to the Armée de l'Air or the Marine Nationale but the Maginot Line wasn't that expensive in the greater scheme of things, IIRC its construction only cost around five per cent of the annual defence budget during its construction and fitting out.


The RAF has already established that the best aircraft weapon is the 20 mm cannon.
Sorry, do you mean in-timeline or in our timeline? I'm assuming the former but just wanted to clarify.
 
The vast majority of the French military budget had been gobbled up by the Maginot Line
Not as much as people tend to think. Sure the Maginot Line cost 3 Billion Francs, but that spending was spread over the decade or so it took to build. For a bit of scale in late 1935 they spent 1.3 billion on the first Richlieu-class battleship, then in autumn 1936 the French govt. announced a 'rearmament plan' to spend 14 billion Francs on the army and air force over the next four years and that was all on top of the standard defence budget.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
Well the Royal Navy could standardise on the Oerlikon 20 mm auto-cannon, assuming the Air Ministry got its finger out the RAF the Hispano-Suiza HS.404 20 mm auto-cannon. The Army can get by until the shortages have eased slightly before changing over.



Have they? If you look at the aircraft their most likely opponents are currently fielding in-timeline twin, or quadruple, 0.50-inch calibre heavy machine guns loaded with a large percentage of tracer ammunition seem like they would be adequate. As marathag wrote even during the Battle of France the German aircraft would still be susceptible unless something changes. There's also the cost issue – auto-cannons are going to be more expensive than heavy machine guns.



Unfortunately if the Army looks for a heavy machine gun they're likely going to have to use the Vickers .50 machine gun rather than the M2 Browning due to cost and nationality issues.
In fact the RN used the Vickers 0'5 mg. Though AIUI the American build one could use the Browning
 
To some extent the French small tanks were the 'in thing' in the 30's - look at the British and their light tanks.
They did work out they needed medium tanks, but the chaos in French Industry was such it took too long to get them.
Come to that, Germany didn't exactly do brilliantly in getting its medium tanks into service either.

The problem with all the small tanks was that better tank and anti-tank guns rendered them ineffective, no matter how many you had.
 
On AA guns, this was a Dragon mounting a 40mm
Dragon40mm.JPG
 
as far as AA is concerned (and ignoring the vickers with a pom pom sold to Siam) there were 3 variants of the light tank produced albeit after 1939-40 which had if i recall correctly
  1. the 4 x besa (which made it into production)
  2. 4 x browning turret (like on the BP Defiant)
  3. 2 x 15mm Besa
it depends what the aim (no pun intended) is - do you want tp put off the attacking aircraft in which case high ROF multiple RCMG would be ok or do you actually want to seriously damage the attacking a/c in which case you want the 0.5" or 15mm (assuming 20mm isnt option at this stage) - that said not sure the 15mm Besa is the right tool (low ROF ) - in all cases better than a single magazine fed Bren on a lakeman spring mount
 
RTC exercise report 1938
RTC report on the 1938 Summer Exercises

We are pleased with the results of the exercises overall, although they did show there were areas that still need considerable work. With all the new equipment having its first use, this was expected, but it has helped pinpoint the areas that are in need of most improvement.

The faster and more powerful tanks proved effective in the breakthrough exercise. The extra speed and reliability, and the thicker armour (resulting in fewer losses to the AT guns) had made exploiting a weak point the Cavalry had located a lot easier. Not without losses, but a far more acceptable rate of loss. The light armoured cars had proved to be very effective; the light tanks had worked well, although the small number of the new Daimler heavy armoured car had actually worked better. This had been a surprise - they had thought that the light tank would be more useful over rough ground, but except for a couple of areas with very poor conditions the lack of tracks hadn't been a problem, and their speed was most useful. The officer commanding them had pointed out that they had avoided the really bad conditions, but the feeling was that in Western Europe doing this in a real battle wouldn't be an issue. We still need a way to handle mines better, while we didn't have any tanks killed by them, the umpires adjudicated we had a number immobilised.

The mobility of the new infantry tank had also been a surprise. The speed of attack had not been anticipated by the infantry, and their heavy armour had helped them take little damage. The infantry had complained they needed more heavy AT guns and mines if such beasts were to be let loose on them! They had also been upset at the losses the Umpires had determined due to the HE guns on the tanks.

The new Birch guns had worked very well. While new, the crews were familiar with the guns, and only one of the rather inexperienced drivers had got his gun stuck badly enough to need serious assistance. They'd had a few other problems, but properly trained crews should take care of them.

The carriers had also proved a success. While not dissimilar in mobility to the old dragons, the crews had found the rear doors a big improvement, must faster and easier to use. Again they'd had a few more issues than expected, the crews weren't familiar with them yet, but this could be fixed with more training time.

The improved speed and protection had also worked well in the counterattack. One advantage had been the use of radio by the carriers. It was too expensive to fit them all with radios, but they were operating in groups of fours, three infantry squads plus the command, and the command vehicle had a radio. So coordinating the infantry support had been much faster and easier. It had also shown they needed a lot more practice in netting, as well as speeding the process up. While radios weren't cheap, the suggestion was that they fitted one in four vehicles for the Armoured Infantry Brigade. It might be of less use to pure infantry units, that would have to be looked at.

One point we would like to raise is that we currently have no good anti-tank or anti-personel mines in service. The infantry have used mock-up mines to considerable effect against us, and surely they would have equal efficiency against an enemy force. We suggest this lack be looked into, and also ways of us neutralising them, or at least minimising their effect.



All in all, they were very happy with the results. Not only had they clearly won, despite the infantry being well-organised and equipped with ant-tank weapons, it had showed up a lot of faults. None of these were insurmountable, and they expected to have all these fixed up in time. The suggestion was that they incorporate the necessary fixes and modification in the next batch of tanks - apparently Vickers had offered to increase the armour, as well as fitting the new Wireless Set No 9 which was just finishing development, to make a Mark 2. More armour was always considered a Good Thing by tankers.

General Brooke had spent some time with the French observers, his excellent French making this productive. He'd made some notes on the French armoured expert, a colonel DeGaulle - "personally arrogant and supercilious, tends to consider French tactics always the best, but he certainly knows his stuff. Have suggested to him some sort of joint exercises would be useful to both parties if these could be arranged."
 
One point we would like to raise is that we currently have no good anti-tank or anti-personel mines in service. The infantry have used mock-up mines to considerable effect against us, and surely they would have equal efficiency against an enemy force. We suggest this lack be looked into, and also ways of us neutralising them, or at least minimising their effect.
thats a game changer for the Infantry as well
 
Unfortunately if the Army looks for a heavy machine gun they're likely going to have to use the Vickers .50 machine gun rather than the M2 Browning due to cost and nationality issues.
More due to the fact it's already in large scale use by the RN and Tank Corps so no new production lines are needed to build it or it's ammunition. They can have Vickers .50 armed AA vehicles in 3 months or Browning .50 armed AA vehicles in 18 and war is coming.
 
I never understood why the British, who'd found how effective mines were in WW1, and expected to be fighting a defensive war (at least initially) ignored mines pre-war
I believe this is Martels fault (because he is at the root of so many problems). He and Inglis developed a mine roller that you could fit on a Mk.V tank at the very end of WW1 and then did some trials in the 1920s, from which they drew the conclusion that mine fields could be easily defeated and so weren't worth bothering with.

In fairness he was sort of right, if you were properly prepared and equipped you could blast through even a very dense minefield fairly easily (see El Alamein). Of course if you were an isolated, tank heavy spearhead unit that had out-ran your engineering support, then you would be in trouble. But sadly that was not a scenario they had considered likely.
 
Lovely couple of updates. The outside perspective of du Gaulle's 'dissenting opinion' is a decent mirror to be held up to the testing, slightly amusing he considers the new infantry tanks 'heavies' (we haven't got far enough in the timeline to see TTL's version of the Churchill yet).
I agree with him on the need for a heavy gun for 'breakthrough' tanks, I'm sure someone will figure out a mounting for a HV 3" gun in short order, particularly if they abandon the need for a turret for 'specialist tanks' like the Birch.
 
Lovely couple of updates. The outside perspective of du Gaulle's 'dissenting opinion' is a decent mirror to be held up to the testing, slightly amusing he considers the new infantry tanks 'heavies' (we haven't got far enough in the timeline to see TTL's version of the Churchill yet).
I agree with him on the need for a heavy gun for 'breakthrough' tanks, I'm sure someone will figure out a mounting for a HV 3" gun in short order, particularly if they abandon the need for a turret for 'specialist tanks' like the Birch.
To be fair, the only thing heavier than the A11/12 is the Char B
 
Top