WI WW2 is delayed a few years

[gloster meteor mk3]

You would be surprised mate about the meteor if you read up on the bird.

As with German jets, the development of the meteor was severely hindered by technical difficulties with new jet technology, and although work on it's design was started in 1940, the first prototype did not fly until March 1943. From July 1944 20 pre-production machines < called the mark 1> fitted with the Rolls-Royce Welland turbines which produced 905kp of thrust, were in use but the model,s performance was disappointing.

Now if the design is started and finished in 1940, The British jet turbines were low on power but had long life, the Germans had the opposite problem plenty of power but had a short life. If the metals in the turbines had a big leap forward we could get the meteor into service in mid 42 but you would need the air ministry to be a bit more smarter in 35 when whittle bench tested the tech.

 

[Craig_Truglia]

You would be surprised mate about the meteor if you read up on the bird.

As with German jets, the development of the meteor was severely hindered by technical difficulties with new jet technology, and although work on it's design was started in 1940, the first prototype did not fly until March 1943. From July 1944 20 pre-production machines < called the mark 1> fitted with the Rolls-Royce Welland turbines which produced 905kp of thrust, were in use but the model,s performance was disappointing.

Now if the design is started and finished in 1940, The British jet turbines were low on power but had long life, the Germans had the opposite problem plenty of power but had a short life. If the metals in the turbines had a big leap forward we could get the meteor into service in mid 42 but you would need the air ministry to be a bit more smarter in 35 when whittle bench tested the tech.

A later DoW is not going to make the production of the plane any quicker though.

 

[Craig_Truglia]

Do a little research on "Tube Alloys".

The U.K. program was heading in a direction which likely would have mitigated much of the US costs of researching everything at once and may have borne fruit much earlier.

One of the great "What if"s of history.

Oh, and that would be British with a "B".

Regards,

Frank

You are aware that the british only developed a bomb by 1952? So, no way on earth that instead of taking 13 years it takes 5 years or so for them to do it, other than ASBs bringing them nuclear secrets from the future.

 

[NthBelisarius]

You are aware that the british only developed a bomb by 1952? So, no way on earth that instead of taking 13 years it takes 5 years or so for them to do it, other than ASBs bringing them nuclear secrets from the future.

IIRC, Britain basically offloaded their nuclear research to the US by merging their Tube Alloys Project with the US' project to focus on the most devastating war in history - one they were not fighting safely from across 2000 miles of ocean making them effectively immune to attack but were 30 miles away from. Cut them some slack.

What's more, I believe the merging of the projects happened with the agreement that if it worked out and nuclear weapons were developed then both the US and Britain would share in the results - except the US then turned round after developing them and told Britain where it could stick it . So they were stuck developing them themselves in an effectively bankrupt state after their economy was absolutely wrecked by the war - of course it took them a few years. If they had had the chance to develop it before war broke out they probably would have gotten a bit further and if the USA wasn't in the war they might have done so before them - I don't see how you can treat it as ASB that a later war might speed up British nuclear arms.

 

[lukedalton]

You are aware that the british only developed a bomb by 1952? So, no way on earth that instead of taking 13 years it takes 5 years or so for them to do it, other than ASBs bringing them nuclear secrets from the future.

You must count the fact that at the time the British were bankrupted so resources were very meager on the other side, without the help of the Commonwealth scientist the american nuclear program will not be so advanced.

Regarding Germany, the problem is that she can't afford to delay the entry of the war, her economy can't sustain that kind of crash rearmament so she will need to demobilize and greatly slow her aquisition process on the other side the rest of the big power are catching up, by 1942 even the French will have concluded the upgrade of the armed forces (tank with radio included) and so they will be harder nut to crack.

Japan is in bad position, if the oil embargo is goin on schedule she face the choice to war or reatreat from China...and knowing the people on power they will choose war; unfortunely this time they will no face some colonial troops with poor equipment and no experience, plus Indochina will not be handed over without a shoot by the French.

Italy ironically is better off with a delayed war, a conflict was expected in 42/43 so there will be more time for upgrade the equipment and address some problem.

 

[MancFrank]

You are aware that the british only developed a bomb by 1952? So, no way on earth that instead of taking 13 years it takes 5 years or so for them to do it, other than ASBs bringing them nuclear secrets from the future.

Did you bother to research Tube Alloys or merely decide to react (badly!) to my post?

Do some research chap! Tube Alloys was fully subsumed by The Manhattan Project which, incidentally, is largely kickstarted by The Maud Committee reports. A later start to WW2 means T/A continues as a U.K. only project.

The reasons why, IOTL, the U.K. develops its first fission weapons as late as 1952 are many but may be summed as follows:

Loss of T/A to the U.S.

Denial of information sharing upon conclusion of The Manhattan Project despite the U.K. contribution to same.

The rather more pressing need to rebuild after suffering the ravages of war, economic and otherwise.

In a world where WW2 is delayed, these barriers are removed and research continues apace.

Regards,

Frank

 

[Craig_Truglia]

Too much asb britain wanking on this thread. I'm out.

 

[MancFrank]

Jesus Craig...

Why don't you spend a little time looking in to it?? You might just learn something!

Regards,

Frank

 

[King Augeas]

From Wikipedia, but it's probably broadly correct:

On 15 July 1941 the MAUD Committee approved its two final reports and disbanded. One report was on 'Use of Uranium for a Bomb' and the other was on 'Use of Uranium as a Source of Power'. The first report concluded that a bomb was feasible, describing it in technical detail, providing specific proposals for developing a bomb and including cost estimates. It said that a bomb would contain about 12 kg of active material which would be equivalent to 1,800 tons of TNT and would release large quantities of radioactive substances which would make places near the explosion site dangerous to humans for a long period. It estimated that a plant to produce 1 kg of U-235 per day would cost £5 million and would require a large skilled labour force that was also needed for other parts of the war effort. It suggested that the Germans could also be working on the bomb, and so it recommended that the work should be continued with high priority in cooperation with the Americans, even though they seemed to be concentrating on the future use of uranium for power and naval propulsion.

The second MAUD Report concluded that the controlled fission of uranium could be used to provide energy in the form of heat for use in machines, as well as providing large quantities of radioisotopes which could be used as substitutes for radium. It referred to the use of heavy water and possibly graphite as moderators for the fast neutrons. It concluded that the 'uranium boiler' (i.e., a nuclear reactor) had considerable promise for future peaceful uses but that it was not worth considering during the present war. The Committee recommended that Hans von Halban and Lew Kowarski should move to the USA where there were plans to make heavy water on a large scale. The possibility that plutonium might be more suitable than U-235 was mentioned, and it suggested that this work should be continued in Britain.

Britain was at war and felt an atomic bomb was urgent; the USA was not at war. It was Marcus Oliphant who pushed the American programme into action. Oliphant flew to the United States in late August 1941 in an unheated bomber, ostensibly to discuss the radar programme, but was actually tasked to find out why the United States was ignoring the Maud Committee's findings. Oliphant reported: "The minutes and reports had been sent to Lyman Briggs, who was the Director of the Uranium Committee, and we were puzzled to receive virtually no comment. I called on Briggs in Washington, only to find out that this inarticulate and unimpressive man had put the reports in his safe [in March 1941] and had not shown them to members of his committee. I was amazed and distressed."

In a situation of rearmament but no war, there should be the manpower and finance available for a British project to get started, although I've no idea if the MAUD estimates were actually accurate. The plant would probably be built in Canada, close to supplies of heavy water and American industry. I've no idea what timescale is plausible for a British bomb, but four or five years is probably reasonable, given the lesser resources, giving the first bomb around 1946.

But what would the US do, with the UK pursuing its own project? Much of US rearmament only got started after the Fall of France, which obviously wouldn't happen in a delayed WW2. Similarly, without war, there'd be no Tizard Mission to donate technologies to the US. Of course, the US won't sit back while Europe rearms, particularly with stories of intense British interest in uranium, but it's entirely plausible for the UK to have a bomb first.

The delivery system might be a problem, but Barnes Wallis proposed a heavy bomber in 1941 capable of carrying a ten tonne bomb. It was rejected because it wouldn't be ready in time and because of its inflexibility, but in this situation there's time and a clear need for such a bomber.

 

[JWinOH]

time use

Biggest issue in movng war back is what each side does with the extra time. Does UK invest in turning out large numbers of Spits , Huricanes, Defiants, Battles and Wellingtons or wait to produce Meteors and Lancs. Do they figure out that they are going to need the 6 pdrs and some better tanks or crank out 2 pdrs and existing tanks.
Does Germany get heavy bomber program back on track and put industry on wartime production footing They were well into the war before that actually did that. Hitler was big on quanity or quality at times.

My bet is that without a shooting war the UK and France continue doing what they were doing, Rearmament but not at a fast pace and being cautious about new systems. Probably still have horse cavalry.and not sure what to do with those noisy smelly tank machines. RAF probably would still be testing Meteors.

 

[gloster meteor mk3]

Exactly if WW2 was delayed by three years we would be in a better position after the war. The lancs would be capable of dropping the bomb on a target but it could be a kamikaze mission if you cannot get to altitude so no need to develop a bomber just for the bomb.Plus ICI Billington was were we got the uranium, it was protected by the best thing in the day out of sight out of mind would be the best description.

 

[Blackfox5]

The Allies are in a superior economic, financial, and technological position than Germany. The longer the delay of WWII, the better it is for them.

Both Britain and France began rearming later than Germany and had some catch up to do, but they were well on their way in 1939. They had new production models coming out as well as new American models being sold to them. Britain was in the midst of modernizing their armed forces. They were ahead of the world in radar, jets, and atomic research. Two extra years improves Britain and France (and Poland) a lot more than Germany relative to the two sides.

One major reason it appeared that the Germans were ahead of them was the Allies concentrated only on technologies that could be mass produced in the expected timeframe of the war, while the Germans put experimental models into production too early. With two or three more years of peacetime research, we will see quicker introduction of a lot of Allied models.

France would also have extended the Maginot Line farther in those years. The Maginot is obviously no panacea, but whatever the limits of fixed fortifications, they do help the defender delay the enemy longer with far less forces. Just be strengthening the fortifications east of the Meuse to the end of the true Maginot line would have greatly added to France's defense.

Poland would have completed its five year plan to build its Central Industrial Region in summer 1940. This project was taking a lot of Polish resources, but once it was over not only could Poland direct those resources to its military, they'd have more industrial resources to do so.

The United States had woke up to the threat of Hitler as well, and the rearmament begun by FDR in the late thirties would have been continued by whoever succeeded him as President in 1941. As American factories come to life building ships and planes for the US and export sale, the US would be better positioned to support the Allies once war did happen adding even more to their economic dominance.

Lastly, the Allies have more years to negotiate with other nations and prepare for the war. Once Hitler occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia, very few people really thought war could be avoided or that Hitler could be trusted. Having three years to negotiate with Belgium, Netherlands, and other countries rather than six months probably means those countries are much better prepared and perhaps even have agreed upon plans in case Germany invades.

Delaying the war only makes things easier for the Allies.

 

[Blackfox5]

Japan is in bad position, if the oil embargo is goin on schedule she face the choice to war or reatreat from China...and knowing the people on power they will choose war; unfortunely this time they will no face some colonial troops with poor equipment and no experience, plus Indochina will not be handed over without a shoot by the French.

Yes, a later start of the war in Europe will hurt the Japanese. China will get two or three more years of supplies being sent to it via the port of Haiphong. A Yunnan-Burma railway between Lashio and Kunming might even be built. This will greatly ease Chinese economic constaints and build up supplies.

Without the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact changing Stalin's calculations and without a Barbarossa in 1941, the Soviets will continue to supply the Chinese past 1941 and probably continue their border disputes with Japan along Manchuria. This will take additional pressure off China.

As the Allied military preparations improve, it's likely that Britain, France, and the United States will increase their aid to China as they'll fear a Japanese attack less and less. Some kind of military mission to help train and organize Chinese troops might even take place - although exact details can't be known. A lot of obsolete military equipment from the Allied rearmament might be sold as cheap surplus to China.

 

[gloster meteor mk3]

The Hurricanes probably from Britain. The illustrious class carriers hopefully more than four completed as well as more of the tribal class Destroyers and KGV class BB.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

A few assumptions:

1) Lebensraum was a primary motivator for Hitler
2) Russia was the primary target for Lebensraum
3) Stalin was reorganizing and rearming following the purges of the 30's

Conclusion: Hitler doesnt want to delay WWII for the same reasons he doesnt want to delay Barbarossa til 42. Any delays help the Soviets. Munich and Hitler's assumptions about the West intervening matter but it's Soviet rearmament that matters most and that leads to an earlier start.

 

[cubefreak123]

So after reading all these posts I think we can all conclude a few things here:

1) The British, French, and Poles could have matched Germany.
2) Hitler attacked at the exact right time OTL.
3) It sucks to be Poland in the 1940s.

 

[MattII]

Yes, but the British would have not been sending more men into france than the did OTL and it is possible by sept 1942 they would be at war with Japan first.

It's not, Japan wouldn't have been stupid enough to try to grab the colonies in the Pacific with the home nations not distracted by a war in Europe.

 

[King Augeas]

It's not, Japan wouldn't have been stupid enough to try to grab the colonies in the Pacific with the home nations not distracted by a war in Europe.

Agreed, although it does make me wonder what they'd do instead. Of course, if there's no oil embargo etc, they probably don't need to strike south at all. But if there is, where is the oil for China coming from? Will the military still propose striking south against undistracted French Indochina, the DEI, Malaya and the Philippines? Would someone be able to point out that this isn't a very good idea, and actually be listened too? Does the political situation in the Japanese military allow that?

 

[MattII]

Thing is, the Japanese know they'll be fighting a war with the two biggest Naval powers besides themselves, and several smaller but still potentially dangerous ones. The RN at the time (assuming the same time of 1940) will have between 15 and 20 battleships, 7 carriers, between 66 and 89 cruisers, between 184 and 236 destroyers and between 60 and 69 submarines. Now naturally they won't all get sent east in ever the direst emergency, but it's a sobering reminder of just how much power Britain can wield. Combine that with probably a fair portion of France's 8 battleships, an aircraft carrier, 20 cruisers, 70 destroyers and 80 submarines, and whatever the Dutch can bring to the party and you have a fair force. And that's just in the Southern Resource Area, so on top of that you have to keep ships home to protect themselves from the USN (all Southward attack plans included invading and seizing the Philippines).

 

[lukedalton]

Frankly if Japan had the choice between a 'diplomatic surrender' to avoid the oil embargo and attack even in a non optimal strategic situation, without a change of leaderships they will attack. Hell even 2 atomic bomb (who followed a systematic bombing campaign who razed entire cities) were barely sufficient for a surrender OTL.