Oh no, not again - a UK WWII ISOT

[Buba]

I'm not that knowledgeable about India

Yes the gague is pretty much the same. However would tunnel sizes be an issue? Ditto with weight on bridges, both rail and road.

If something does not fit the British loading gauge - 9'/2700mm and 13'/4m, it might fit the Berne Gauge of 10'4"/3150mm and 4250-4300mm. Mind you, these are the minimal widths - some lines were wider. E.g. the Churchill - 3250mm - could be moved about most of Europe by rail.
The narrowness of British tanks as well as early adoption of trailers to move them about was due to that narrow loading gauge.

FDR winning a 3rd term? Without there being a big war over in Europe where the Evul! Nazis have just overrun France? With awareness that he is at death's door? Would the DNC even nominate him? I have my doubts.

Another thing the British "know" - the winter of '39 is just around the corner. It will be very snowy and cold. Sane(ish) people will stop fighting in October and not resume until April/May.

 

[ATP]

No, not possible in a meaningful timeframe.
Polish AF "dywizjon" = British "squadron" (in Navy same). And "eskadra" = "flight".
In Army - "szwadron" = "squadron". Confusing, eh?


They need two-three weeks to get to German border. Unlike Lannister armies in ASOIAF the British Army has not mastered teleportation. As Piłsudski's goons - equally incompetent as their master - lost the campaign inside the first week, only British "shock and awe" with airforce and diplomacy can save Poland from occupation in 1939.

1.Indeed,it would be more practical to target german cities - fighters would must go defend them,and bombers alone would be not that effective.

2.Piłsudzki was actually more incopetent - his goons at least tried to develop air forces and mechanized units,when he failed in both regards.
I thought about TL when he live till 1939 and we lost in week as result,or in 1928 ,and we have 700 planes and 12 tank battalions in 1939 as was planned for 1942.Still lead by moron Rydz-śmigły.

Especially since a lot of the British 45 equipment, while much more powerful is also a hell of a lot heavier so that could cause a lot of problems on rail let alone road movements with bridges and the like. Furthermore you not only need to get the fighting forces to the front and in some sort of prepared plan but you need the masses of supplies and support facilities their going to need to mount, let alone maintain an offensive.

Plus even with 45 equipment a mine or skillful placed AT gun from ambush will be a problem to equipment while the pbi, a force Britain is rather short of still have to take and hold ground and they can't do that from within armoured vehicles.

Indeed.
7tp tank/althought weight really was 10t/ was named just that becouse dyvision ponton bridges were for 7t,max 10t .
10tp/really 13t/ was named that becouse army bridges could take 10-max 13 ton.
Even Stuarts would not be useful there.

The same goes for planes.Hurricane or Spitfire could be used on polish field airfields,but bomber,even medium,probably not.

All in all - IF sralin attack,Rydz-Śmigły would not leave army and run,and considering how well trained soviet were,we could hold them as long as we have ammo - which mean 3-6 months.
Before that,Lancaster starting from Poland would turn Moscov into rubble.

 

[raharris1973]

Since the consensus here is that British AirPower cannot be applied directly to the Polish battlefield, and cannot be based or logistically supported from Polish or even continental airbases, but can mainly indirectly help by visiting mass destruction and terror on northwestern Germany and diverting Germany's fighter forces, I do have a suggested course of action for the Allied powers to take with their 'downtime' Dominion and colonial forces.

Air Force diversion and terror bombing may work to cause a coup, deter Soviet participation, or slow the Polish conquest down for lack of air support, but in case not, the British and French should direct their downtime colonial garrisons serving in the Middle East to begin to begin a deployment up to the Black Sea and Romania, secure Romania's participation in the war, and ensure the Polish forces maintain a clear line of retreat to southeastern Poland and the Romanian beach-head, from where they can be, over the medium-term, resupplied, and reinforced, with Romanian, British and French Colonial forces, and eventually Indian and Dominion forces, and Central European territory wouldn't be left solely at the mercy of locally strong Nazi and Soviet forces.

Romania was a pre-war ally of Poland, and with the demo of kick-ass British AirPower and news from the future, should be willing to participate on the British-Polish-French side from early on.

 

[Buba]

@raharris1973 what you are suggesting, i.e. the trampling of Turkish neutrality, is pretty much what was seriously considered in OTL in regard to the Winter War. There the idea was to "help" Finland by first invading Norway and then occupying northern Sweden ...

Turkey might be amenable to bullying and bribery i.e. FDI, expansion of infrastructure etc. However, the UK is skint. Less skint than in OTL, as most of the WWII debt to the USA and others (?) has been written off. This "not being up to eyeballs in debt" probably merits a thread of its own due to implications post war*. Still, a precarious financial and economic situation. Wouldn't any gold reserves - if any still exist - be in Canada, BTW? Here France would be the richer partner, awash with gold (reserves 2nd to USA only) and with an intact economy not skewed by war.

With the Allies in the Black Sea the Soviet Union will scream murder and ... not do anything else.
Well, besides using their 5th columnist traitors in France and UK for "industrial action" and sabotage. Although in the latter case some disruption of channels must have occurred. The traitors from the Cambridge Five and similar are still serving the Motherland of the Proletariat, right? Considering how high up these filth were, the Soviet Union will inevitably obtain quite extensive and accurate information. Not overnight, of course, the scum have to re-establish contact with Soviet agencies first.

Like I said, I think that there is not enough time to save the 2nd Republic if terror bombing and diplomacy does not lead to a coup inside two weeks.

As to Japan - the UK has over 200 (saying - two hundred) uboats. With the Kriegsmarine assuredly being "no longer with us" inside a few weeks, and Italy docily neutral and certain to stay that way, all those boats can be sent to the Far East. I don't have to describe what this fleet would do to Japanese shipping in case of war, do I?

* there is a fascinating thread on AH-com discussing the economic and financial impact on UK of the war ending half a year (or a year?) earlier.

 

[ATP]

Since the consensus here is that British AirPower cannot be applied directly to the Polish battlefield, and cannot be based or logistically supported from Polish or even continental airbases, but can mainly indirectly help by visiting mass destruction and terror on northwestern Germany and diverting Germany's fighter forces, I do have a suggested course of action for the Allied powers to take with their 'downtime' Dominion and colonial forces.

Air Force diversion and terror bombing may work to cause a coup, deter Soviet participation, or slow the Polish conquest down for lack of air support, but in case not, the British and French should direct their downtime colonial garrisons serving in the Middle East to begin to begin a deployment up to the Black Sea and Romania, secure Romania's participation in the war, and ensure the Polish forces maintain a clear line of retreat to southeastern Poland and the Romanian beach-head, from where they can be, over the medium-term, resupplied, and reinforced, with Romanian, British and French Colonial forces, and eventually Indian and Dominion forces, and Central European territory wouldn't be left solely at the mercy of locally strong Nazi and Soviet forces.

Romania was a pre-war ally of Poland, and with the demo of kick-ass British AirPower and news from the future, should be willing to participate on the British-Polish-French side from early on.

Yes,and our plan was to keep part of Poland on romanian border fighting.Considering,that soviets were so incopetent they could be delayed at least 3 months till they get there.
By that time,germans would be arleady beaten/no ammo and oil to fight/
So,all we need in 1940 campaign to beat soviets from Poland.I would say,that 10 modern british dyvisions could do so.

@raharris1973 what you are suggesting, i.e. the trampling of Turkish neutrality, is pretty much what was seriously considered in OTL in regard to the Winter War. There the idea was to "help" Finland by first invading Norway and then occupying northern Sweden ...

Turkey might be amenable to bullying and bribery i.e. FDI, expansion of infrastructure etc. However, the UK is skint. Less skint than in OTL, as most of the WWII debt to the USA and others (?) has been written off. This "not being up to eyeballs in debt" probably merits a thread of its own due to implications post war*. Still, a precarious financial and economic situation. Wouldn't any gold reserves - if any still exist - be in Canada, BTW? Here France would be the richer partner, awash with gold (reserves 2nd to USA only) and with an intact economy not skewed by war.

With the Allies in the Black Sea the Soviet Union will scream murder and ... not do anything else.
Well, besides using their 5th columnist traitors in France and UK for "industrial action" and sabotage. Although in the latter case some disruption of channels must have occurred. The traitors from the Cambridge Five and similar are still serving the Motherland of the Proletariat, right? Considering how high up these filth were, the Soviet Union will inevitably obtain quite extensive and accurate information. Not overnight, of course, the scum have to re-establish contact with Soviet agencies first.

Like I said, I think that there is not enough time to save the 2nd Republic if terror bombing and diplomacy does not lead to a coup inside two weeks.

As to Japan - the UK has over 200 (saying - two hundred) uboats. With the Kriegsmarine assuredly being "no longer with us" inside a few weeks, and Italy docily neutral and certain to stay that way, all those boats can be sent to the Far East. I don't have to describe what this fleet would to Japanese shipping in case of war, do I?

* there is a fascinating thread on AH-com discussing the economic and financial impact on UK of the war ending half a year (or a year?) earlier.

All true - but,unless british traitors somehow made England made peace with soviets over Poland corpse,soviets still would be kicked out.
And 200 submarines vs Japan- WHY? 50 would be enough.Japan never seriously tried fight american submarines,even in OTL after loosing most of merchant fleet,so they would not start it now.

Just like never seriously tried allied merchant fleet.It seems,that their commanders had mental problems blocking them from both using submarines properly,and defend from them.

 

[stevep]

@raharris1973 what you are suggesting, i.e. the trampling of Turkish neutrality, is pretty much what was seriously considered in OTL in regard to the Winter War. There the idea was to "help" Finland by first invading Norway and then occupying northern Sweden ...

Turkey might be amenable to bullying and bribery i.e. FDI, expansion of infrastructure etc. However, the UK is skint. Less skint than in OTL, as most of the WWII debt to the USA and others (?) has been written off. This "not being up to eyeballs in debt" probably merits a thread of its own due to implications post war*. Still, a precarious financial and economic situation. Wouldn't any gold reserves - if any still exist - be in Canada, BTW? Here France would be the richer partner, awash with gold (reserves 2nd to USA only) and with an intact economy not skewed by war.

With the Allies in the Black Sea the Soviet Union will scream murder and ... not do anything else.
Well, besides using their 5th columnist traitors in France and UK for "industrial action" and sabotage. Although in the latter case some disruption of channels must have occurred. The traitors from the Cambridge Five and similar are still serving the Motherland of the Proletariat, right? Considering how high up these filth were, the Soviet Union will inevitably obtain quite extensive and accurate information. Not overnight, of course, the scum have to re-establish contact with Soviet agencies first.

Like I said, I think that there is not enough time to save the 2nd Republic if terror bombing and diplomacy does not lead to a coup inside two weeks.

As to Japan - the UK has over 200 (saying - two hundred) uboats. With the Kriegsmarine assuredly being "no longer with us" inside a few weeks, and Italy docily neutral and certain to stay that way, all those boats can be sent to the Far East. I don't have to describe what this fleet would do to Japanese shipping in case of war, do I?

* there is a fascinating thread on AH-com discussing the economic and financial impact on UK of the war ending half a year (or a year?) earlier.

That would be the key factor as Britain as a belligerent sending stuff through the straits would breach the rules on their use. Otherwise I think it would be a very useful idea.

Unfortunately the Cambridge traitors will still be there. Not sure when they report to Moscow that the reaction would be to oppose Britain that much given what they would report. However definitely seek to gain as many secrets as possible, especially on nuclear stuff and not sure where Fuchs would be on 1-9-45 but hopefully outside the UK.

 

[Agent23]

Throughout the war, the British were very heavily reliant on US manufacturing might, how hard will it be for them to sustain their war effort without all of the goodies they were buying from the US throughout the war?

Remember, America did not jump into the war in 1939, but even before that a massive amount of US industrial output was going towards the aid of the allies, for profit, of course.

After 6 years of bombardment and heavy reliance on the USA, I am kinda skeptical as to the health of the British manufacturing sector.

Grim Economic Realities

he net effect of all these factors meant that even in the depths of the Depression, American war-making potential was still around seven times larger than Japan's, and had the 'slack' been taken out in 1939, it was closer to nine or ten times as great! In fact, accroding to Kennedy, a breakdown of total global warmaking potential in 1937 looks something like this:

Country	% of Total Warmaking Potential
United States	41.7%​
Germany	14.4%​
USSR	14.0%​
UK	10.2%​
France	4.2%​
Japan	3.5%​
Italy	2.5%​
Seven Powers (total)	(90.5%)​

 

[Buba]

but even before that [1939]a massive amount of US industrial output was going towards the aid of the allies

No.

how hard will it be for them to sustain their war effort without all of the goodies they were buying from the US throughout the war?

Hard.
And in some areas and/or in the short term - impossible.
But this is IX.39 and the Wehrmacht is puny and semi-clueless.

 

[Agent23]

No.

I am talking about the US entry into the war, not 1939.

 

[Buba]

I am talking about the US entry into the war, not 1939.

OK. I did not understand that that you meant sales of US made materiel in 1940 and 1941.
I'd still not call the quantities "massive".

 

[Agent23]

OK. I did not understand that that you meant sales of US made materiel in 1940 and 1941.
I'd still not call the quantities "massive".

Look at the table I quoted.

The USA had over 40% of the industrial output of all the belligerent countries combined.

Even more, considering that they were better organized and their companies and factories were better run.

If anything, I think that the combined fleet site might be understating how important private business and entrepreneurs were for the war effort.
Am to sleepy and lazy to dig out that book and push a few nice quotes RM, though.Poke me tomorrow.

 

[ATP]

No.

Hard.
And in some areas and/or in the short term - impossible.
But this is IX.39 and the Wehrmacht is puny and semi-clueless.

And soviets army was so fucked,that their tank corps during invasion of Poland was stopped by mechanical faiures.If we only fought,we could keep them till we have ammo.
Enough for brits to come through Romania.

 

[Buba]

The USA had over 40% of the industrial output of all the belligerent countries combined.

Industrial output does NOT equal war materiel output.
In September 1939 the production of war thingies in the USA was in its infancy. It reached volume and quality in 1942/43.

 

[raharris1973]

@raharris1973 what you are suggesting, i.e. the trampling of Turkish neutrality, is pretty much what was seriously considered in OTL in regard to the Winter War. There the idea was to "help" Finland by first invading Norway and then occupying northern Sweden ...

Turkey might be amenable to bullying and bribery i.e. FDI, expansion of infrastructure etc. However, the UK is skint. Less skint than in OTL, as most of the WWII debt to the USA and others (?) has been written off. This "not being up to eyeballs in debt" probably merits a thread of its own due to implications post war*. Still, a precarious financial and economic situation. Wouldn't any gold reserves - if any still exist - be in Canada, BTW? Here France would be the richer partner, awash with gold (reserves 2nd to USA only) and with an intact economy not skewed by war.

That would be the key factor as Britain as a belligerent sending stuff through the straits would breach the rules on their use. Otherwise I think it would be a very useful idea.

Using the Turkish straits doesn't have to be a dealbreaker. It could just compel an extra step, Britain and France convincing Turkey, which received and accepted a British guarantee before the war at the same time as Poland and Romania, to join the war on the British side as well. Real-time demonstrations of aerial might against the Germans could be the most persuasive argument. The next most persuasive argument could be sharing news from the future (including the fact that Turkey ultimately declared war on the side of the victorious Allies to be eligible for the United Nations) and asking the Turks if they want to be bordered on three sides by Soviet or Communist power (Soviet Caucasus, Communist Bulgaria, Communist-trending Greece), or if they preferred to ally now with Britain, France, Romania, and Poland to have a counter-weight to Soviet power in the Balkans, Black Sea and Central Europe. The final argument could be bribery in terms of money, and possibly, territory like Iraq's Mosul region.

Similarly Britain could try to leverage "news from the future" with Greece [Greece also was given and accepted an April 1939 British guarantee] and Yugoslavia to get them onside to get additional air and land vectors against Germany, using the record of nasty German occupation and explosive growth of Communist power by the end of the war to influence them. And some petty cash. But mostly testimony.

I accept for reasons of logistics and the numbers of governments you need to persuade to cooperate that any effort to keep the Polish Republic alive and supported on its home territory will be slow and weak. The main air theater will have to be over western and northern Germany, and the main ground theater will have to be from France into western Germany.

The main theater would still be the air, with a gradual transfer of air ops to France, alongside with a small but sharp BEF capable of defending in France and attacking in tandem with the French. Blast the hell out of northwest Germany, then encourage persistence and expansion of Saar offensive, and keep going. That is main vector until infrastructure for other vectors with 1939 or 1945 tech can be built up. Consider using 'news from the future" to persuade Denmark to host 1945 level air and land forces to expand land and especially air threat vectors.

 

[Buba]

attacking in tandem with the French

Which will happen at same time as OTL Saar offensive, for reasons of French mobilization and moving BEF and its Lines of Communication to the continent.

Gather wits post ISOT, move unit to port at same time sending ships to said port, loading troops and their kit on the ship, moving to French port (hopefully first telling the French about it), unloading and troops and associated kit, gathering their wits, moving to French border ... sounds about two weeks from D-Day?

As you mentioned Denmark - had Churchill been in power I'd not be surprised by a British invasion and setting up shop there. With Attlee I don't know.

Flying in the two Airborne Divisions - 48h? With the Heer in Poland and on the Westwall there is nothing the Germans can bring to bear on them, aside from from some 3rd line Landwehr formations, for close to a week. By that time the mighty Tetrarch tanks would be in place and shielding the unloading of Anti Nazi Liberators on their Security Mission of Fraternal Internationalist Aid.

 

[stevep]

Look at the table I quoted.

The USA had over 40% of the industrial output of all the belligerent countries combined.

Even more, considering that they were better organized and their companies and factories were better run.

If anything, I think that the combined fleet site might be understating how important private business and entrepreneurs were for the war effort.
Am to sleepy and lazy to dig out that book and push a few nice quotes RM, though.Poke me tomorrow.

Agent23

I think the point is not that the US is a massive economy but whether it is needed for 45 Britain aided by France and possibly other allies to take down 39 Germany? Given the technological and operational edge Britain will have, especially but not only in the air, I would say not.

Britain has a lot of equipment that comes from the US and maintaining that as spares run out will be a problem, especially since much of that equipment isn't produced in the 39 US. However it also has a hell of a lot of its own military production to maintain its forces. Plus since it should have access to 39 assets outside the UK it can still buy stuff from the US.

Definitely having the US even in its 39 form as a belligerent would be very useful but not only is that unlikely to occur its not necessary.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Using the Turkish straits doesn't have to be a dealbreaker. It could just compel an extra step, Britain and France convincing Turkey, which received and accepted a British guarantee before the war at the same time as Poland and Romania, to join the war on the British side as well. Real-time demonstrations of aerial might against the Germans could be the most persuasive argument. The next most persuasive argument could be sharing news from the future (including the fact that Turkey ultimately declared war on the side of the victorious Allies to be eligible for the United Nations) and asking the Turks if they want to be bordered on three sides by Soviet or Communist power (Soviet Caucasus, Communist Bulgaria, Communist-trending Greece), or if they preferred to ally now with Britain, France, Romania, and Poland to have a counter-weight to Soviet power in the Balkans, Black Sea and Central Europe. The final argument could be bribery in terms of money, and possibly, territory like Iraq's Mosul region.

Similarly Britain could try to leverage "news from the future" with Greece [Greece also was given and accepted an April 1939 British guarantee] and Yugoslavia to get them onside to get additional air and land vectors against Germany, using the record of nasty German occupation and explosive growth of Communist power by the end of the war to influence them. And some petty cash. But mostly testimony.

I accept for reasons of logistics and the numbers of governments you need to persuade to cooperate that any effort to keep the Polish Republic alive and supported on its home territory will be slow and weak. The main air theater will have to be over western and northern Germany, and the main ground theater will have to be from France into western Germany.

The main theater would still be the air, with a gradual transfer of air ops to France, alongside with a small but sharp BEF capable of defending in France and attacking in tandem with the French. Blast the hell out of northwest Germany, then encourage persistence and expansion of Saar offensive, and keep going. That is main vector until infrastructure for other vectors with 1939 or 1945 tech can be built up. Consider using 'news from the future" to persuade Denmark to host 1945 level air and land forces to expand land and especially air threat vectors.

As I said on the other site where we're been discussing this, if we can get both Turkish and Romanian agreement to join the allies I think this would definitely be worthwhile for various reasons.
a) It gives another front for an overstretched Germany to look after as well as strategic depth for Poland as they can possibly get supplies from there and if necessary retreat into Romania rather than being forced to surrender.
b) It also immediately denies Germany of its primary source of oil and tightens the allied blockade.
c) It also might make Stalin think twice about any attack on eastern Poland, as well as what's happening to German cities.

It would however take time to organise and get forces in place.

Agree however the key theatres would be the air and the western front.

 

[raharris1973]

As I said on the other site where we're been discussing this, if we can get both Turkish and Romanian agreement to join the allies I think this would definitely be worthwhile for various reasons.
a) It gives another front for an overstretched Germany to look after as well as strategic depth for Poland as they can possibly get supplies from there and if necessary retreat into Romania rather than being forced to surrender.
b) It also immediately denies Germany of its primary source of oil and tightens the allied blockade.
c) It also might make Stalin think twice about any attack on eastern Poland, as well as what's happening to German cities.

It would however take time to organise and get forces in place.

Agree however the key theatres would be the air and the western front.

Reasons to look in this direction are more postwar-political than wartime-military.

It's great to beat Germany, but Germany is on track to be beating Poland first. Upon German defeat, the default course of action would be to resuscitate Poland. The questions then are: What shape would resuscitated Poland be in, in your view? In one piece, or more? Who would be doing the resuscitating?

Setting up a southeastern flank gives Britain the best shot at answering those questions with:

What shape? Whole, not "pushed west"

In one piece? Yes, not partitioned

Who does the resucitating? Not the Soviet Union, but other neighbors (like Romania) more amenable to British influence.

 

[stevep]

Reasons to look in this direction are more postwar-political than wartime-military.

It's great to beat Germany, but Germany is on track to be beating Poland first. Upon German defeat, the default course of action would be to resuscitate Poland. The questions then are: What shape would resuscitated Poland be in, in your view? In one piece, or more? Who would be doing the resuscitating?

Setting up a southeastern flank gives Britain the best shot at answering those questions with:

What shape? Whole, not "pushed west"

In one piece? Yes, not partitioned

Who does the resucitating? Not the Soviet Union, but other neighbors (like Romania) more amenable to British influence.

Fully agree with this. If its possible but not sure how quickly we could get both Romania and Turkey into the alliance and then get forces to Romania. Definitely seek to avoid any Soviet involvement, which would be deeply unpopular in free Poland and also after a Soviet invasion of the east with the western powers.

 

[ATP]

Reasons to look in this direction are more postwar-political than wartime-military.

It's great to beat Germany, but Germany is on track to be beating Poland first. Upon German defeat, the default course of action would be to resuscitate Poland. The questions then are: What shape would resuscitated Poland be in, in your view? In one piece, or more? Who would be doing the resuscitating?

Setting up a southeastern flank gives Britain the best shot at answering those questions with:

What shape? Whole, not "pushed west"

In one piece? Yes, not partitioned

Who does the resucitating? Not the Soviet Union, but other neighbors (like Romania) more amenable to British influence.

Poland had plans for defending small part of our territory on Romania border in case of defeat.And,if soviets do not come,we would do so.Here,with modern England,it would keep us fighting no matter if soviets come or not.