If you had the choice in 1939

[Rickshaw]

We can look back with the benefit of hindsight and see that quite often there are pivotal weapon systems which didn't get adopted, which should have, which could have changed the course of events a little later down the track.

 

A good example in my opinion is the Fw187 Falke. Intended to be a long ranged, twin engined fighter, designed by Kurt Tank but rejected by the Luftwaffe because it didn't fit into its tactical theories and they already had the much larger, less maneauvrable Bf110 for the zerstorer role. However, imagine if they had adopted it and had it in 1940 during the Battle of Britain? It would have provided advantages over both the single-engined Bf109 and the Bf110, allowing the vulnerable bombers to be protected all the way to London and back. It might not have enabled the RAF to be defeated but it might have made it a lot harder for the Luftwaffe to lose.

 

I'm sure there are numerous other such "might have beens".

[gewing]

One option?

 

http://www.unrealaircraft.com/wings/ccf_liftbody.php

 

 

Others... IMPROVE US TANKS.

 

 

Apparently lockheed proposed a jet fighter, complete with afterburner? in about that time frame.

[Arminius]

US side:

 

introduce a good GPMG

start Tank design earlier ( spend more money there! )

 

Germany:

 

replace Hitler and don´t start a war... ( at least not against Russia! )

 

British side:

 

replace the 2 pdr EARLY ( just after design ), start with the 6 pdr ...

 

 

just my .02, H

[Chris Werb]

I read somewhere that the Germans were developing a four-engined strategic bomber (not the He177) prior to WW-2 and that the LW General chmpioning it died in a plane crash after which the project was cancelled. The Germans getting four-engined bombers would have been bad news.

[Guest fyadlol]

I read somewhere that the Germans were developing a four-engined strategic bomber (not the He177) prior to WW-2 and that the LW General chmpioning it died in a plane crash after which the project was cancelled. The Germans getting four-engined bombers would have been bad news.

193363[/snapback]

 

That would be the JU-89, I believe.

 

[Chris Werb]

That would be the JU-89, I believe.

 

193376[/snapback]

 

That's the one!

 

Armament:

Sixteen 220 lb. (100kg) bombs or similar combinations.

 

OUCH!!!!!!

[Rickshaw]

Defensive armament thought was two, two-man 20mm turrets! The Ju89 would have been a fighter pilot's dream. Slow, unmaneauvrable and underarmed. However, that aside, the Germans in 1940 were in a much better position to adopt night bombing, accurately, whereas the RAF couldn't even find most German cities, let alone drop a bomb on them.

[Paul in Qatar]

Nothing would have made as much of a difference as American torpedos that worked.

[Tony Williams]

We can look back with the benefit of hindsight and see that quite often there are pivotal weapon systems which didn't get adopted, which should have, which could have changed the course of events a little later down the track.

 

A good example in my opinion is the Fw187 Falke.  Intended to be a long ranged, twin engined fighter, designed by Kurt Tank but rejected by the Luftwaffe because it didn't fit into its tactical theories and they already had the much larger, less maneauvrable Bf110 for the zerstorer role.  However, imagine if they had adopted it and had it in 1940 during the Battle of Britain? It would have provided advantages over both the single-engined Bf109 and the Bf110, allowing the vulnerable bombers to be protected all the way to London and back.  It might not have enabled the RAF to be defeated but it might have made it a lot harder for the Luftwaffe to lose.

 

I'm sure there are numerous other such "might have beens".

193322[/snapback]

 

There are indeed (irresistable opportunity for a plug ) - my alt WW2 novel 'The Foresight War' is full of such 'might have beens' - including the Fw 187 in full squadron service instead of the Bf 110!

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[DesertFox]

Push the "Flying Pancake" a bit more

[yak_v]

Put T-34M into production.

[Arminius]

If ALL German torpedoes would have functioned if they should, during the Norwegian Campaign alone!, the RN would be robbed one third of her most capable ships ...

 

From the Warspite off Narvik to Scapa Flow, there would be some wrecks more!

 

H

[p620346]

Give highest priority to the B-36 and the manhattan project. Think of what could have been accomplished if they were available in late 1943 early 1944.

[gewing]

Push the "Flying Pancake" a bit more

193419[/snapback]

 

 

:):)

[Paul F Jungnitsch]

So much could be done not by adopting new things but by changing emphasis:

 

U.S.

 

Skip the light tanks, the tank destroyers and the whole Pershing family. Use the engineers and manufacturing freed up to develop and manufacture the Sherman to its capability with a 90mm general version and a Jumbo assault version.

 

Germany

 

Speed standardization on the PzIV, giving it a long 75mm from the start.

Push the Sturmgewehr development earlier instead of the various semiauto full cartridge rifles.

Skip the V2 and put the same effort into Wasserfall.

Get enough of an atomic program together (just a 'dirty bomb' would probably be enough) to hold London hostage against an allied atomic attack.

[FlyingCanOpener]

For the Soviets, I would suggest (1) Not gutting your senior officer corps of "unreliables" and (2) develop a credible counter-CAS capability for the VVS. Needless to say, both would have been useful on 22 June 1941...

[UN-Interested Observer]

If Stalin doesn't gut his corps of 'unreliables', then isn't there a good chance that our beloved Comrade doesn't survive the dire winter of 1941?

 

As for changes, what about the Germans put a little effort into their own nuclear program, and just maybe they look under the dock when a ship transporting extremely important deuterium rich water stops in a certain Norweigan port... J/K I'm glad they didn't!

[cdnsigop]

"There are indeed (irresistable opportunity for a plug ) - my alt WW2 novel 'The Foresight War' is full of such 'might have beens' - including the Fw 187 in full squadron service instead of the Bf 110!"

 

Tony you have great ideas but your book really disappoints me, if your going to knowlegae of future as far back as 1936... their was no reason to let France fall to the Germans. Although I guess that is some what, like the real version, as it was the British retreat that really signed Frances defeat. Not sure if you have read this book but I'll list it for you just in case.

 

" The blitzkrieg myth" by John Mossier.

 

Now to answer the question of the thread.

 

For Germany it would be actually get their economy on a war footing, and to actually start build tanks.. for most 1939 and 1940 the bulk of their tank forces are Mk1 or 2's.

 

develope a semi-auto like the G-43

 

For the Allies, go the offenive, they had more tanks and plane than Germany and could taken the war to germany instead of letting germany bring to them. For 1940, call off the invasion of Norway. By Invading Norway the Allies extended war, and in turn cause Germany to invade to stop them of cutting off access to sweden. which was real allied goal of Norway.

 

Fro the British, better tank design. maybe just coping the panzer 4 would of been a good start

[FlyingCanOpener]

Using my paranormal senses, I detect a storm upcoming over the mention of the work of John Mosier...

 

Not sure if you have read this book but I'll list it for you just in case.

 

" The blitzkrieg myth" by John Mossier.

[Tony Williams]

"There are indeed (irresistable opportunity for a plug ) - my alt WW2 novel 'The Foresight War' is full of such 'might have beens' - including the Fw 187 in full squadron service instead of the Bf 110!"

 

Tony you have great ideas but your book really disappoints me, if your going to knowlegae of future as far back as 1936... their was no reason to let France fall to the Germans.  Although I guess that is some what, like the real version, as it was the British retreat that really signed Frances defeat. 

 

I have no doubt that if the British worked hard at it, and managed to persuade the French to sort themselves out (a big if), the initial German thrust into France could have been stopped. But what then? You would immediately be into great uncertainty as to Hitler's next actions, and much of the advantage gained from the advice from the future would have gone. So in my story the British took the view that they would play it safe, and not risk everything in France. They could have done something different, but you can write that story .

 

Historically, I don't think that you can blame the fall of France on the Brits; the main reason was the sclerotic French command and communications system which was incapable of reacting quickly enough to the speed of the German advance.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Redbeard]

UK:

 

Give priority to any implement that can and actually will be used to give Bomber Harris more healthy interests. It could be a very interesting book about gardening, a nice girl or whatever. If it works OK you could consider using them on others too...

 

Next realise that defensive armament on bombers is only a handicap and focus on high speed bombers instead (ie Mossies) - so for a fraction of the resources you multiply the results.

 

Kick in the door to the Inspector of Artillery and point your Webley at his head and say: "Distribute HE to the tanks and ATGs or I will blow out your brains!"

 

Go to the tank designers and repeat the above, but saying: "delete all those shot traps and give priority to reliability - or I will blow out....etc !"

 

Similar procedures to ensure all naval AAA production to be focused on 4,5" DP and 40mm Bofors - ie. no 5,25", 4,7", UP, 20mm and 0,50 cal.

 

Realise that high level bombing is no threat to moving naval targets and develop FC accordingly.

 

Have HMS Hood turn a second earlier or later at Denmark Strait 0600 24th of May 1941.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[Arminius]

No, I oppose this Hood remark!!

 

Have Hood refitted like the Warspite class, according to "Jutland" experiences! Long time since 1917!

 

Have you all read Massey´s(?) "Castles of steel"?

 

H

[DB]

A couple of Royal Navy related changes.

 

Allow the Navy to procure the aircraft types it needs, rather than have the RAF consign the RNAS to mediocrity, and to go with that deal with the requirement for a navigator by improving pilot navigation skills and/or other ways of finding your way back to the carrier.

 

Secondly, building much better sub hunters, and more of them. Boats capable of twenty knot performance in reasonably high seas, with the range to convoy all the way.

 

For the Air Force, sort out the 20mm Hispano so that downing bombers was more likely than not.

 

For the Army, how about a PIAT available a few years early, failing that a reasonably effective AT grenade?

 

David

[Colin]

Matilda with a turret that could be upgunned to 6pdr. Cruiser Tank with an engine that was actually reliable.

193403[/snapback]

 

Start building the GM 6-71 diesel, and heavier drive train components

 

Speed up the 6pdr, reduce light tank production

 

Increase mobile medium AA capability

 

The science for the PIAT was aviliable in 1935, so it could have been rushed into service 1939-40

 

Start Frigate construction to supplement corvettes

 

Start designing an APC

[Koesj]

Start designing an APC

194193[/snapback]

 

What technical advances had to be pushed post-WWII when people were starting to design and build *real* apc's? I guess there are some automotive and size challenges...