All,
We have been alluding to this one before, but maybe we could further ‘ponder’ this.
Hitler had wanted to turn on the West immediately after the fall of Poland.
Hitler was drafting his memo to the generals, while Brooke was was fearing how it would go if Germany attacked (Arthur Bryant)
Brooke was alerted to a German attack on 15 October – this coming from the French HQ. Commander had decided that if so, the Franco-British forces should advance into Belgium to meet the attack.
Again From Bryant: “To Booke and Dill this seemed madness. Their unarmored troops could not yet hope to meet a German attack except behind the defences they were so busy strengthening”
Hitler fixed the date for the attack as 12 November.
The weather messed it up: Wet and extremely cold, heavy snow and other calamities.
Here is the thing: The British were not even at half the projected strength at spring. The French were not prepared at all and no coordination was done with Belgium.
It opens a few scenarios:
Shlieffen V2.0
October/November would mean dusting off the old plan as Britain and France expected Germany to do.
If the weather had ‘behaved’ would it have been a success? After all, the attack would have gone in with a lot more battle-proven German troops vs. not a lot of British troops and even less in tanks etc.
With the weather as OTL, could it have been forced anyway? LW could not fly, but neither could anybody else.
Manstein plan
Driving through the Ardennes in spring was hard, try that in heavy snow and the whole thing could stall – badly.
But again: If the weather ‘behaved’?
Brooke was busy building a defensive line. Anything would be better than Plan D, but could it be held for any longer time?
Another ‘twist’ could be that Churchill would see where it was going and sacked Gort and put Brooke in instead (or Dill?)
Could that have tilted the balance with a defensive line and a more professional approach?
On a side note: Amazing to see how the weather determined this – and other battles
We have been alluding to this one before, but maybe we could further ‘ponder’ this.
Hitler had wanted to turn on the West immediately after the fall of Poland.
Hitler was drafting his memo to the generals, while Brooke was was fearing how it would go if Germany attacked (Arthur Bryant)
Brooke was alerted to a German attack on 15 October – this coming from the French HQ. Commander had decided that if so, the Franco-British forces should advance into Belgium to meet the attack.
Again From Bryant: “To Booke and Dill this seemed madness. Their unarmored troops could not yet hope to meet a German attack except behind the defences they were so busy strengthening”
Hitler fixed the date for the attack as 12 November.
The weather messed it up: Wet and extremely cold, heavy snow and other calamities.
Here is the thing: The British were not even at half the projected strength at spring. The French were not prepared at all and no coordination was done with Belgium.
It opens a few scenarios:
Shlieffen V2.0
October/November would mean dusting off the old plan as Britain and France expected Germany to do.
If the weather had ‘behaved’ would it have been a success? After all, the attack would have gone in with a lot more battle-proven German troops vs. not a lot of British troops and even less in tanks etc.
With the weather as OTL, could it have been forced anyway? LW could not fly, but neither could anybody else.
Manstein plan
Driving through the Ardennes in spring was hard, try that in heavy snow and the whole thing could stall – badly.
But again: If the weather ‘behaved’?
Brooke was busy building a defensive line. Anything would be better than Plan D, but could it be held for any longer time?
Another ‘twist’ could be that Churchill would see where it was going and sacked Gort and put Brooke in instead (or Dill?)
Could that have tilted the balance with a defensive line and a more professional approach?
On a side note: Amazing to see how the weather determined this – and other battles
