WI fewer losses/evacuations.

Just looking at Britain's early war years, it's quite an impressive list of losses and evacuations; Norway, France, Nth Africa, Somalia, Greece/Crete, Nth Africa again, Malaya/Singapore, Dieppe. After that things picked up.

But WI some of those operations were avoided or successful or even partly successful?
 
Just looking at Britain's early war years, it's quite an impressive list of losses and evacuations; Norway, France, Nth Africa, Somalia, Greece/Crete, Nth Africa again, Malaya/Singapore, Dieppe. After that things picked up.

But WI some of those operations were avoided or successful or even partly successful?

They obviously have knock-on effects to each other to a degree

Tony Williams' "The Foresight War" includes no British evacuation of Norway, making it easier to supply the USSR through the N route, and also for Allied forces to operate in N Russia. It also keeps Finland neutral in Barbarossa

Not sure how no evacuation of Crete stacks up, since it means British forces remain somewhere where they did not in OTL, and German occupation forces don't - though with Britain in Crete, you'd probably see a greater build-up of Germans in the Dodecanese for example

Dieppe's a bit different - its too early to make a full-scale invasion, and it was evacuate or die. I guess you COULD try to look for a RN-supported enclave there, but its going to come under daily mass bombardment from artillery and from the Luftwaffe, and u-boats and e-boats are going to make it Hell to continue to supply

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Just looking at Britain's early war years, it's quite an impressive list of losses and evacuations; Norway, France, Nth Africa, Somalia, Greece/Crete, Nth Africa again, Malaya/Singapore, Dieppe. After that things picked up.

But WI some of those operations were avoided or successful or even partly successful?

They obviously have knock-on effects to each other to a degree

Tony Williams' "The Foresight War" includes no British evacuation of Norway, making it easier to supply the USSR through the N route, and also for Allied forces to operate in N Russia. It also keeps Finland neutral in Barbarossa

Not sure how no evacuation of Crete stacks up, since it means British forces remain somewhere where they did not in OTL, and German occupation forces don't - though with Britain in Crete, you'd probably see a greater build-up of Germans in the Dodecanese for example

Dieppe's a bit different - its too early to make a full-scale invasion, and it was evacuate or die. I guess you COULD try to look for a RN-supported enclave there, but its going to come under daily mass bombardment from artillery and from the Luftwaffe, and u-boats and e-boats are going to make it Hell to continue to supply

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Norway is difficult, I think that OTL RN could have stopped the invasions of Bergen, Trondhiem and Narvik, and mounted successful lands of their own in these palces. But stopping the landings in Oslo and Kristiansand, and the conquest of the south of the country, is beyond OTL Allied forces. So that leaves us with a front in central Norway, as France is invaded.

France is worse than Norway. I think perhaps the best that could be hoped for there is to escape the encirclement and evacuate from Normandy with most of the equipment. However this would have momentous after effects. Saving the BEFs equipment means that the invasion scare isn't so drastic, and a pool of equipment is available for use overseas from October.

Nth Africa, Greece and Crete are interlinked, I think the best bet there would be to avoid Greece and concentrate on Nth Africa before Rommel arrives. Also I'd reinforce Crete as much as possible, it would be a handy base if it was held. Malaya/Singapore could also benefit mightily from avoiding Greece and taking Tripoli by April 1941 since the Australian and Indian divisions plus substantial air and naval forces would be available for redeployment to Malaya months before Pearl Harbour.

As for Dieppe, I think the conception was good enough, but execution was bad, so the only options there are success or abandonment.

None of these things require equipment changes, just changes to decisions, priorities and possibly most important, timings.
 
Norway is difficult, I think that OTL RN could have stopped the invasions of Bergen, Trondhiem and Narvik, and mounted successful lands of their own in these palces. But stopping the landings in Oslo and Kristiansand, and the conquest of the south of the country, is beyond OTL Allied forces. So that leaves us with a front in central Norway, as France is invaded.

True, as Tony Williams has in "The Foresight War" Britain needs to deploy substantial forces of a heavier nature and get it right earlier in order to be able to sweep the Germans back into the sea

France is worse than Norway. I think perhaps the best that could be hoped for there is to escape the encirclement and evacuate from Normandy with most of the equipment. However this would have momentous after effects. Saving the BEFs equipment means that the invasion scare isn't so drastic, and a pool of equipment is available for use overseas from October.

That would be a very GOOD best, to get away with the equipment. But more likely is an orderly evacuation from Le Havre etc where much of the equipment is abandoned due to the carrying capacity. Of course this is STILL an evacuation, but it is by way of an orderly withdrawal in the normal scheme of things rather than a "Shit, get us out of here !" scenario

North Africa, Greece and Crete are interlinked, I think the best bet there would be to avoid Greece and concentrate on North Africa before Rommel arrives. Also I'd reinforce Crete as much as possible, it would be a handy base if it was held.

Very true and it would be very distracting for the Germans ! We can ASSUME perhaps that no Greece would roll up Libya before Rommel can properly intervene, but it is not necessarily so. The situation could easily be that the British are bogged down in a costly and difficult siege of Tripoli, since the Italians aren't going to abandon their crown jewel like Rommel would later do

Malaya/Singapore could also benefit mightily from avoiding Greece and taking Tripoli by April 1941 since the Australian and Indian divisions plus substantial air and naval forces would be available for redeployment to Malaya months before Pearl Harbour.

The problem could be WHY deploy them there BEFORE the need becomes obvious ? With finite resources, the European/N African theatre looks paramount, and whilst imperial grand strategy may say send them East, the doom mongers will be saying keep them close to home, use them against the Germans, they are the ones who have been bombing our cities...

As for Dieppe, I think the conception was good enough, but execution was bad, so the only options there are success or abandonment.

What WAS the aim for Dieppe ? If its NOT intended to be hit and run, staying there is going to be EXCEPTIONALLY difficult

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top