Alternate rearmaments of Britain/France/Germany and their effect on WWII

[Snaut]

I've asked some of those questions before at different points, but didn't get answers to all of them. So now I'll ask them together.

1. In the years leading up to WWII there was a tendency to overestimate Germany's strength. How might a more realistic asessment on the part of Britain and France have altered their behavior during that period?

2. Suppose rearmament in general proceeded at a different rate then in OTL, leading to a scenario where although political/military developments until 1940 end up being more or less the same, the German attack on western Europe occurs in a situation where both sides' infrastructure and military hardware are:

a) on similar levels as they were in OTL one year before, i.e. in 1939?

b) on similar levels as they would have been if both sides had had prepared for a year longer then in OTL? (i.e. a hypothetical German army of 1941 versus hypothetical French/British armies of 1941)?

How does the western front develop? Which side's ground and air forces perform better?

3. Before the defeats of 1940, did Britain and France have any particular plans about what to do with Germany after the war? If so, what were they?

 

[Snaut]

Bump. filler

 

[jsb]

Not sure but,

1
Less fear of bombers ? Stronger French attack in 39 ?

2
If one year less, does Germany have sufficient Pz Divs to quickly kill Poland ?

If one more year does the AdA sort out all its problems ? if so does it and RAF stop the Germany advance simply by numbers (of fighters) ?

JSB

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I've asked some of those questions before at different points, but didn't get answers to all of them. So now I'll ask them together.

I think the Germans Attacked at just the right time - given another year and Britain would have had a lot more fully mechanised and better trained divisions (20-25?) + a lot more tank units and fighter squadrons available than in 1940 - also France was the Worlds 2nd largest producer of tanks after Russia at the time and those tanks were superior to anything the Germans had - also another year would have allowed an additional year of modernising the French Army which had only realistically began the process in 1939 due to the instability of previous governments.

Anything before 1940 on mainland Europe and your pretty much doing it without the British army which was in the process of being formed (it sent a handful of divisions to France in 1939) - and what we now know about the French army is that it was incapable of attacking Germany at that time.

So -

1. In the years leading up to WWII there was a tendency to overestimate Germany's strength. How might a more realistic asessment on the part of Britain and France have altered their behavior during that period?

No I think the Germany Army in Say 1936/7 was much smaller than the French Army - however after absorbing Austria and Czechoslovakia it gained a great deal of Industry and man power and Hitler gained more 'power' to expand the German armed forces very quickly and I think France and to a lesser extent Britain were caught out by this.

2. Suppose rearmament in general proceeded at a different rate then in OTL, leading to a scenario where although political/military developments until 1940 end up being more or less the same, the German attack on western Europe occurs in a situation where both sides' infrastructure and military hardware are:

a) on similar levels as they were in OTL one year before, i.e. in 1939?

b) on similar levels as they would have been if both sides had had prepared for a year longer then in OTL? (i.e. a hypothetical German army of 1941 versus hypothetical French/British armies of 1941)?

How does the western front develop? Which side's ground and air forces perform better?

Again British and French Equipment was already equal or Superior to German Equipment - the main British Divisions for example were all fully motorised and had much better artillery than their German Counter parts - which were largely Horse Drawn

The French Tanks And the British Matilda II were superior to anything the Germans had.

Its just that it was poorly used.

The French Army just needed to be better organised and led - the British went to France in 1939 thinking like many at the time that the French Army was the best in the world and were shocked at the state of many of the units they worked with.

I think 'slovenly' pretty much covers what they discovered.

Germany is not geared up for a long attritional war vs the Empires of Britain and France in 1939 / 40 so I think that it will be at a serious disadvantage had the Allies not done everything in their power to make the incredibly risky Fall Gelb (case Yellow - the German plan to attack through the Ardennes) plan a stunning success - had this plan failed then the Germans are reliant on a more 'conventional' style of warfare.

This type of battle would have ironed out qualitative differences between the fighting skills of the 2 sides - the best lessons are learned by the survivors.

3. Before the defeats of 1940, did Britain and France have any particular plans about what to do with Germany after the war? If so, what were they?

I think in 1940 it was to force the Germans to restore the borders of the 'occupied' nations - they may have required that Herr Hitler stood down. But other than this I don't believe that they planned on dismembering Germany.

It was Roosevelt who told the Worlds Press that he would accept nothing less than unconditional Surrender of Germany much to Churchill's shock and surprise.