AHQ: Royal Marines acting like USMC
- Thread starter NoThymeToulouse
- Start date
Given the difference in scale of economy, population and military size, a more appropriate question might be "AHQ: British Military acting like USMC".
The concept probably woupd appeal to certain elements of the military, although the requirements of the BAOR might have made it a non-starter.
The concept probably woupd appeal to certain elements of the military, although the requirements of the BAOR might have made it a non-starter.
The cuts don't go deep enough for that, didn't he want to disband the Marines or if he couldn't manage that reduce them to providing security on ships and a few raiders?
OK, here's a rough scenario. Not that it turns the RM into the USMC, there's not enough for them.
Britain finishes WW2 with more carriers than OTL - Vanguard is completed as a third Audacious-class carrier, and some of the others are less overworked and in better condition.
The US likes the idea of another nation that can provide strike carriers, so when the cold war gets going, the US is happy to put more money into ground forces in Germany, and less into carrier aviation. The RN picks up the slack, but the BAOR is wound down to provide the budget. Lots of US tanks in Germany, but no British.
The British work with the Norwegians to cover the Northeast Atlantic, and base some aircraft on Iceland.
By 1975, the RN has 3 Audacious-class fleet carriers, 3 smaller helicopter carriers for ASW and convoy work, and 3 similar to serve as LPH. The British Army is set up as a fairly light force (very like the USMC) who expect to land in Northern Norway, hold their bases against the Soviets, and move up towards North Cape, allowing the RN and USN to push towards Murmansk.
The RAF retains UK air defence, but adds anti-shipping and long range aircraft to support the RN in the Atlantic, based out of Scotland and Iceland. They also have several wings of rough-strip aircraft to land in Norway with the Army and support them.
By 1975 the old carriers are wearing out, and new construction arrives. By 1985 the RN has 3 new fleet carriers (probably similar to CVA-01) flying Supersonic Harriers, 3 Invincible-class ASW carriers, and 3 Ocean-class LPH/LPD.
The Army doesn't have the Chieftain or Challenger, but they have a lot of helicopters, the CVR(T) family and possibly the Leopard 1. Lots of light infantry.
The RAF has Tornado ADV and antishipping, and more Supersonic Harriers to send to Norway for CAS and air defence.
If the Tornado ADV can provide air cover for the carriers (assuming tanker support), the FAA can concentrate on anti-shipping strikes.
I know this probably ignores lots of strategic realities, but history doesn't always make sense!
Britain finishes WW2 with more carriers than OTL - Vanguard is completed as a third Audacious-class carrier, and some of the others are less overworked and in better condition.
The US likes the idea of another nation that can provide strike carriers, so when the cold war gets going, the US is happy to put more money into ground forces in Germany, and less into carrier aviation. The RN picks up the slack, but the BAOR is wound down to provide the budget. Lots of US tanks in Germany, but no British.
The British work with the Norwegians to cover the Northeast Atlantic, and base some aircraft on Iceland.
By 1975, the RN has 3 Audacious-class fleet carriers, 3 smaller helicopter carriers for ASW and convoy work, and 3 similar to serve as LPH. The British Army is set up as a fairly light force (very like the USMC) who expect to land in Northern Norway, hold their bases against the Soviets, and move up towards North Cape, allowing the RN and USN to push towards Murmansk.
The RAF retains UK air defence, but adds anti-shipping and long range aircraft to support the RN in the Atlantic, based out of Scotland and Iceland. They also have several wings of rough-strip aircraft to land in Norway with the Army and support them.
By 1975 the old carriers are wearing out, and new construction arrives. By 1985 the RN has 3 new fleet carriers (probably similar to CVA-01) flying Supersonic Harriers, 3 Invincible-class ASW carriers, and 3 Ocean-class LPH/LPD.
The Army doesn't have the Chieftain or Challenger, but they have a lot of helicopters, the CVR(T) family and possibly the Leopard 1. Lots of light infantry.
The RAF has Tornado ADV and antishipping, and more Supersonic Harriers to send to Norway for CAS and air defence.
If the Tornado ADV can provide air cover for the carriers (assuming tanker support), the FAA can concentrate on anti-shipping strikes.
I know this probably ignores lots of strategic realities, but history doesn't always make sense!
I don't see the Brits adopting German Tanks, but in interest of cost and weight savings they may opt for something more like the Vickers MBT series.
I dont see why UK would want to wind that down and have to admit publicly it's not one of the big WWII great powers any more? (even if it really is not!)
Also, if they pull out of Germany why not just let HMT save the money......
Maybe not, but they won't need so many tanks as in OTL, and if they join in the development it won't be a purely German tank . . .
I'm assuming the budget is similar to OTL, so the BAOR has to shrink to provide enough money for all the extra carriers, aircraft and escorts. Of course if the government/Treasury is willing to pay for it, the expanded fleet and BAOR are possible.
Nah, looking at the actual history of Anglo-German tank projects during the Cold War it'll be 100% made by one of them or it simply won't exist.
My thoughts are that the money was more than they wanted to spend and did historically most of the time in peacetime, the only reason for OTL large budget for BAOR is the serious threat close by in Europe a short time after WWII, if they dont feel the need to concentrate on that threat is the more likely alternative not simply saving the money?
Did leopard not use the 105mm? Could Conq etc not have used a reliable German diesel and been a good tank?
If UK is pulling out of BAOR then it needs far fewer tanks so could simply buy them in small numbers if its gets a trade in terms of a large offset in aircraft/missiles/ships?
It's more a matter of pride. The UK doesn't want to be Italy, it wants a native defence industry capable of doing everything... or at least all the big ticket items.
And again, there's a domestic solution on hand, and one that's arguably better suited to the expeditionary warfare role TTL's UK is oriented towards.
Would UK not be happy to licence build Leopard 1 (with UK gun as OTL) if Germany agrees to UK taking the lead on an equally large joint project (aircraft or navy?)?
They can sell it as NATO standard interoperability and saving money?
There wouldn't be much in the way of savings, licence production fee + cost of setting up an new assembly line would be more expensive than just ordering an existing domestic design. Also, with no BOAR wouldn't there be less desire to standardize with Germany, not more?
Riain
Banned
Not with Hermes and Invincible with Sea Harriers as the centre of the Naval Task Force and the otherwise skun-out RN.
However if the RN had CVA01/02/Eagle/Ark Royal with up to date Phantoms and Buccaneers, Lion/Tiger/Blake with 6" guns, Type 82 DLG with Type 988 3D radar and Sea Dart Mk2 and all the other stuff that a more muscular RN would have then the situation would look quite different. Maybe landing at Port Stanley is still too hard, but such a TF would be inherently more capable of taking on the Exocets and 155mm guns than OTLs TF was and perhaps as a result the main landing would be at somewhere like Bluff Cove, still away from Port Stanley but much closer than San Carlos.
BTW I'm not advocating this, just spit-balling the physical requirements.
better than that, the Argies wouldn't have tried.
The Argentine invasion was very opportunistic and based on poor a reading of the UK's ability and willingness to fight back. In a TL where the UK is clearly still the second or third strongest navy in the world the Junta probably concludes that it should get its "short and popular war" by militarily settling its border dispute with Chile.
Frankly I am surprised no one brought up,
"The British army should be a projectile to be fired by the British navy."
Riain
Banned
Support for the Navy led invasion of the Falklands was the prerequisite for Navy support of the coup that put the Galtieri Junta into power in late 1981. The idea was to prepare for a year and invade in early 1983 in time for the 150 anniversary of British possession, but due to domestic unpopularity the Junta made a snap decision to invade immediately as a result of the scrap metal incident.
The British foreign office had been negotiating for years and the Argentine got away with invading South Thule in 1976 when Britain still had the Ark Royal in commission. The Argentines made absolutely no plans to defend the islands until the British Task Force sailed, they did not believe the British would even fight regardless of what military capability the British possessed.
Fisher and his successors somewhat failed to bring the Army around to that point of view in the early 1910's. Had they done, and it actually went well in WW1 (not guaranteed but an interesting POD) then that could possibly lock the British army into a true Expeditionary Force through the 20'th Century.
Even with a more muscular RN Operation Corporate would still have been very difficult. You still have that immensely long SLOC spread over thousands of miles of ocean, while a pair of CTOL carriers gives you a lot more punch, the drawback is that they would be consuming fuel at roughly twice the rate that Hermes and Invincible did. Also the Harriers were able to operate in sea states that would have grounded Phantoms and Buccaneers.
If the carrier programme had gone ahead then by 1982 the RN would have had CVA-02 “HMS Duke of Edinburgh” in commission along with Eagle, Queen Elizabeth would probably have been in for refit while CVA-03 was still on the slipway in Clydebank. If the junta wants to do the invasion then it’s going to have to think about how to counter a British response. Sending their navy directly at this alternate RN would be suicide, so they likely decide to strike at the supply lines, the loss of Atlantic Conveyor meant to original plan to travel across the island by Chinook was lost, imagine if they’d managed to sink some more cargo ships or some RFA tankers or even hit Ascension Island as was feared at the time.