NATO: 1919

[Landshark]

Not a FedX History Teacher Thread, though it is one of the great man's ideas and I've already got a thread dealing with it.

This though is a bit more serious.

What If Britain, France and Belgium form a NATO like alliance for self defence in 1919? One which has standardisation agreements about equipment like NATO, has a unified command like NATO and see's British troops stationed in France and Belgium as part of a defence against Germany.

 

[DMA]

I'd dare say that the Germans will still overrun them in 1940. It's not really the alliance which counts, afterall a proto-NATO was kind of already in place. It's the tactics & strategy which is going to count. Change Allied strategy & tactics then things maybe radically different come WWII.

 

[Landshark]

I'm just wondering whether a closer alliance could mean closer military co-operation? Maybe a French Air Force equipped with Hurricanes and British tanks armed with guns that could fire high explosive not just armour piecing.

 

[Cherico]

Bring in the united states, or just add poland and the checks into the deal
and youll change history. If hitler gets squashed early then he gets squashed easy

 

[DMA]

I'm just wondering whether a closer alliance could mean closer military co-operation? Maybe a French Air Force equipped with Hurricanes and British tanks armed with guns that could fire high explosive not just armour piecing.

Interesting points. It would certainly give the French airforce a better chance. Could, though, a Matilda II carry a say French 75mm gun? I think they kind of tried & it proved impossible, but if some modifications could be made into the design prior to production, well we would be talking something very impressive in 1940.

Still, the Allies had more tanks in OTL 1940 anyway, yet that didn't help them. So it still gets back to significant changes to thinking, rather than equipment IMHO. Now whether the likes of Hobart et al can thus have a major influence on tactics & strategy is, I'd dare say, the key to Allied success in 1940.

 

[Blizrun]

I doubt such a thing were possible. France was even more nationalistic then than they are now, and still pulled out of the NATO command structure, while demanding NATO protection and a say in NATO policy.

 

[Ward]

Why would the French want to use a British tank .

 

[DMA]

Why would the French want to use a British tank .

Other than the gun, the Matilida II was better than anything else at the time including what the Germans had

 

[Landshark]

Why would the French want to use a British tank .

Other than the gun, the Matilida II was better than anything else at the time including what the Germans had

I wasn't suggesting the French would use a British tank rather that the British tanks could be armed with the same 47mm gun as the French tanks.

The French gun had an advantage over the British 40mm/2lber gun in that it could fire both armour piecing ammunition for anti-tank work and high explosive ammunition to deal with fortifications and anti-tank artillery. The British gun could only fire AP rounds, a major drawback for the infantry tanks.

 

[Landshark]

I doubt such a thing were possible. France was even more nationalistic then than they are now, and still pulled out of the NATO command structure, while demanding NATO protection and a say in NATO policy.

I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to tell you it was all Robert McNamara's fault but in the meantime I'll take a go.

First this would be an alliance of equality between Britain and France rather than one dominated by a single Superpower, in fact France would have the biggest army in the organisation, so that dilutes much of the nationalistic opposition.

Second there's more likely to be agreement over actions outside of Europe. Britain, France and Belgium, (and Portugal and Italy if they join along with their WW1 allies), have empires outside of Europe and want to keep them. I can see London and Paris agreeing to support each other in Africa or agreeing not to as neither wants foreign troops messing about in their private sandboxes.

Third the issue nuclear weapons and flexible responce is non-existant. If one country is attacked all it's allies go to war to defend it, not only go to war after certain parts of it have been overrun.

 

[DMA]

I wasn't suggesting the French would use a British tank rather that the British tanks could be armed with the same 47mm gun as the French tanks.

The French gun had an advantage over the British 40mm/2lber gun in that it could fire both armour piecing ammunition for anti-tank work and high explosive ammunition to deal with fortifications and anti-tank artillery. The British gun could only fire AP rounds, a major drawback for the infantry tanks.

Oh I'd go one further & use the 75mm. Why muck around with a pop-gun when the 75mm is just sitting there begging to be used?

 

[Landshark]

Oh I'd go one further & use the 75mm. Why muck around with a pop-gun when the 75mm is just sitting there begging to be used?

Er because it wouldn't fit the tanks of the 1930's?

 

[DMA]

Er because it wouldn't fit the tanks of the 1930's?

Only because the turrent rings were a problem because they'd need a larger turrent for the 75mm, yet us Australians manged to fit a 3 inch howitzer into the same turrent for the 2 pounder. Furthermore the French had introduced the 75mm, albeit into the hull, in the Char B1 as did the Americans in the Grant/Lee.

And then it didn't take the Americans long before the Sherman came along with the 75mm in the turrent...

So if the British, whilst designing the Matlida, had access to the French 75mm, some bright spark may put two & two together, widen the turrent ring, slightly enlarge the turrent, & the British have a real heavy just in time for 1939...

 

[Jasen777]

Germany wasn't a threat right after WW1. No need for an alliance aimed at it.

 

[DMA]

Germany wasn't a threat right after WW1. No need for an alliance aimed at it.

Maybe so, but there's always those Bolsheviks, not to mention others

 

[David S Poepoe]

Don't see Belgium joining such an organization. I think it will go back to being neutral.

 

[DMA]

Don't see Belgium joining such an organization. I think it will go back to being neutral.

Yet don't forget they still had a treaty with the British even if not with the French

 

[Markus]

Two things:

• The 2-pdr could fire HE, buta 40mm HE-shell was not very powerful so the Brits did not buy one. Unlike the Yanks, French and Germans who all had HE for their 37mm guns.
• A unified command will greatly help in 1940. When the Germans the attacked Ardennes from the east and the French reinforcements came to the rescue from the west, the defending Belgian division withdrew to the north allowing German troops to across the difficult terrain largely unopposed. Except for one Company that did not get the order to withdraw- the messenger was taken POW by german paras- and thus defended its strongpoint and stopped the entire 1.Pz.-Div. for six hours.

 

[AMF]

I'm just wondering whether a closer alliance could mean closer military co-operation? Maybe a French Air Force equipped with Hurricanes and British tanks armed with guns that could fire high explosive not just armour piecing.

No advantage will result if the French use the Hurricane. The best French fighter, the Dewoitine D.520 had a marginally higher top speed than the Hawker Hurricane (Dewoitine: 332 mph, Hurricane Mk I: 325 mph), it also had a marginally higher rate of climb and a much more effective armament (Dewoitine: 20 mm cannon plus four infantry caliber machine guns; Hurricane Mk I: eight infantry caliber machine guns)

On the other hand a proto-Nato is a fascinating idea. Perhaps it should be Nato 1934 or 1935 rather than 1919 because in 1919, as Jasen 777 wrote already, there was no need for a defence organisation, with Germany having myriads of problems of its own.

Other possible advantages of a proto-Nato that come to my mind: use of Radar by the French and Belgians. Earlier use of cannon on British fighter aircraft, possibly use of the Belgian-made .50 caliber Browning as defensive armament on British bombers.
Military cooperation is supplemented by economic cooperation. The economies of all countries concerned will grow much more quickly if they open their markets to each other.

 

[Landshark]

No advantage will result if the French use the Hurricane. The best French fighter, the Dewoitine D.520 had a marginally higher top speed than the Hawker Hurricane (Dewoitine: 332 mph, Hurricane Mk I: 325 mph), it also had a marginally higher rate of climb and a much more effective armament (Dewoitine: 20 mm cannon plus four infantry caliber machine guns; Hurricane Mk I: eight infantry caliber machine guns)

The Hurricane has one big advantage over D.520 in that it entered production three years before the French plane. By 1939 approximately 500 Hurricanes had been built and if production lines had been started in France and Belgium then we could be looking at double that.

On the other hand a proto-Nato is a fascinating idea. Perhaps it should be Nato 1934 or 1935 rather than 1919 because in 1919, as Jasen 777 wrote already, there was no need for a defence organisation, with Germany having myriads of problems of its own.

From a strictly logical point of view there may be no need for a NATO like organisation in 1919 as Germany didn't pose a threat to anyone then but Europe had just been through the most destructive war in it's history, empires had collapsed, Communism was on the rise. The idea that the Western, capitalist democracies should band together defensively to prevent another war or a Red Revolution could well arise.