If you had the choice in 1939

[arctic fox]

Germany should have invested less on trucks and more on railroads, especially on the troops that converted and rebuilt Russian tracks.

 

Finland should have bought rifles, uniforms, artillery and ammunition.

[lostinhistory]

USA: Make M1 Garand w/ 20 round detachable magazine, shorten barrel to 20 inches. Make a Para version,18" barrel, 30 round mag, collapsable or folding stock (like Berreta 59). Give BAR a box magazine like the current M249 SAW. Maybe 50 to 60 rounds. Also retain the earlier fire selector switch for semi auto/full auto fire.

Make the bazooka 3.75" from the start. Make the round of the M1/M2 carbine a bottle necked case, similar to Ruskie 7.62x39mm, not loaded to quit that high of pressure. 30 to 40 rd magazine.

M4 Shermans armed with Brit 17#'er as soon as it was found to work in that turret.

Speed up development of the A1 Skyraider aircraft.

 

Germany: Get rid of the aweful rear sights on the K-98 Mauser. Replace with just about anything bigger, easier to see. American M1 sights are good, steal that design. Also increase mag capacity to 10-12 rds. Make mag unlock from the bottom (like SKS rifle) to aid in unloading/cleaning. Shorten barrel to 20-21". Change design of barrel attach on the MG34/42 like MG3. Slow rate of fire down to 800-900 rpm. On MP38/40 sub machine guns, increase caliber from 9mm to something like the current 10mm cartridge. Or a bottle neck design like the current 357 Sig, which is a 9mm bullet.

Focus on PZIV tank production 1939 to 1943. Stop PZII production right after PZIII's arrived in numbers. Get L43/48 barrel 75mm on the PZIV asap. Do not build PZVI Tiger or PZVIb. Work out bugs on PZV before introduction. Do not make any of the assault gun vehicles until PZV Panther has bugs worked out. Use ME262 as a fighter only !

 

Russia: Redesign the PPK (?) submachine gun to use a round like the M1943 7.63x39 (even loaded to lower pressure, better than 9x17mm pistol round). Redesign the M44 carbine/rifle (shortened M1930) to use the M1943 round. Full sized 7.62x54mm round to much for that short rifle. Concentrate tank production on T-34s. Speed the development of T-44 and new 100mm gun.

 

British: Shorten the Enfield rifle barrel by 2-4". Use the MkIV action without the lightenting cuts on a jungle carbine version. Should make it more accurate. Get the 3.7" AA gun on a mobile tracked chassis. Develop an AP round for same. Get the Cromwell done in 1942 w/ 75mm gun, or even 6#er. Get Comet done in Mid 1944. Drop the Infantry tank concept. Build Churchill as heavy tanks. Up armored like Jumbo Shermans.

[DwightPruitt]

I'd have adjusted the timer on Georg Elser's bomb.

[Tomexe]

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

193402[/snapback]

 

Then the RAF would of gone ahead and fixed the Westland Whirlwind, replacing its Peregrins with Merlins, instead of just going "what do we need a twin engine day fighter for?" and junking it when the Peregrins turned out to underperform.

 

And they would of pressed on with Supermarines Project 219- the quad-Griffon engined bomber that was Spitfire designer William Mitchell's last design, instead of abandoning it after the Luftwaffe destroyed the prototype in its hanger...

 

It would of had B-29 level performance avaliable in 1941 or 42 instead of 1944

Edited July 12, 2005 by Tomexe

[Tomexe]

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...

194197[/snapback]

 

 

The US would of had the fully enclosed M44 "Armored Utility Vehicle" in time for the invasion of Japan. It was part of the "Heavyweight Combat Team" that included the Pershing.

 

And the only reason it was THAT late was the same malase that convinced them to not build the Pershing earlier. The shock of the fighting in Normandy convinced them to speed up the Pershing in time to get a very few over within six months, but there was no such push to replace the half tracks.

 

Technology was not the reason why a "real" APC was not pursued.

 

Sadly, the post war budget killed the M44 with only 6 built.

 

Even by modern standards it seems that the M44 was a piece of work. It weighed in at a nice 26tons, was all steel, and carried a impressive 24 riflemen, about the same as the Marines LTV-4 series.

 

Its large capacity was one of the things that killed it! Amazingly the Armored Force could not find a answer to the question why they needed a 24 seat APC to lift 12 man squads!

 

The M44 though had been designed to not just be used by the Armored Infantry Battalions of the Infantry Divisions. They were also supposed to equip either Carrier Battalions attached to regular Infantry Divisions or Carrier Compaines in each Infantry regiment (they never did come to a decision before the M44s were cancelled) and the extra seating would have been used lift either one battalion at a time or one regiment at a time in leapfrog fashion. Like the USMCs Amtraks. Also the hull was intended to also be used as a mortar carrer, ambulance, command post vehicle, ammo resupply vehicle for tank and SPG battalions.

 

Since so few were built and none used no one noticed the opportunity to use that extra space to install a rudundant Stuart turret- or a not so redundant Chaffee turret- and make the worlds first IFV...

 

All it would need is a diesel engine and some spaced or reactive armor and it would be a decent machine even today.

[Paul F Jungnitsch]

German

 

Divert the construction effort in the large surface ships to the U-boats, and switch U boat design to the Electro boats as soon as possible.

 

Stop fiddling with the Grief's double engines and bolt 4 proper engines on, thus making a Lancaster out of a Manchester. Use the resulting bird to break the Soviet power generation dams.

 

British

 

Keep building the bombers, but use them to smash the oil refineries, coal mining areas and hydrogenation plants, and the power stations. As mentioned, lure Harris away by any means necessary.

[Tomexe]

US side:

 

introduce a good GPMG

Make M1 Garand w/ 20 round detachable magazine, shorten barrel to 20 inches. Make a Para version,18" barrel, 30 round mag, collapsable or folding stock (like Berreta 59). Give BAR a box magazine like the current M249 SAW. Maybe 50 to 60 rounds. Also retain the earlier fire selector switch for semi auto/full auto fire.

 

Yes the Garand needed a box magazine and a shorter barrel. Had the war gone into 1946 we would of had both. Contracts for the US Rifle Cal. 30 M2 were issued the week we dropped the A bombs. They were cancelled a month later. The design work went into BOTH the BM59 and M14- with the Beretta ironcally being closer to the original.

 

But it would have been nicer had it been done in 1937, at the same time they could have adopted the Colt Monitor, which would have given the Army and Marines the shorter, lighter automatic weapon they needed. The BAR was a better weapon that the Bren and the German GPMGs for offensive work, but it suffered from too many years of interwar attempts to try and make it a LMG. The original M1918 was a better weapon than the M1918A2's we were stuck with in WWII, and the Monitor- lighter and shorter than even the original M1918- would have been better still. The tough part would be getting the US Army to actually learn something from the hated Marines and adopt fire teams to actually use that firepower to good effect.

 

We still needed a more flexable MMG than the M1919. Although it was mechanically sound not having a bipod was a serious tactical liability. And when they did finally graft a set on in the A6 model they were very awkward and made the gun heavier. We probably should have gone through with what we toyed with and built a .30/06 MG42- but only to replace 1919s and 1917's.

 

Whether we needed to keep the M1917 at all, or should have concentrated on building more M2's is another issue- but for most of WWII there was a shortage of M2 Brownings so the M1917s were probably a case of better something than nothing.

 

The infantry platoon should have been kept at 50 men throughout the war. Three 12 man rifle squads with at least two and preferably three BARs each on top of the Garands plus a bazooka. Keep the pre war 8 man "automatic rifle squad" but make it a light MG squad now with 2 M1919s. And then the 6 man HQ (Plt Ldr, Plt Sgt, the "guide" or scout Sgt and his Cpl, and two Pvt message runners- signallers and medics where handed down from above back then).

[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 Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

Then the RAF would of gone ahead and fixed the Westland Whirlwind, replacing its Peregrins with Merlins, instead of just going "what do we need a twin engine day fighter for?" and junking it when the Peregrins turned out to underperform.

 

The Whirlwind was a bit small for that. So in TFW they choose the Gloster Reaper - an actual design for a twin-Merlin fighter.

 

And they would of pressed on with Supermarines Project 219- the quad-Griffon engined bomber that was Spitfire designer William Mitchell's last design, instead of abandoning it after the Luftwaffe destroyed the prototype in its hanger...

 

In TFW the heavy bomber they produce from mid-war is a new design - effectively a 'super Mosquito' with four supercharged Merlins and a pressurised cockpit for the small crew.

 

I've been smiling as I read through these posts, as they very much reflect the kind of thinking I went through before I decided that the only way to stop such ideas bouncing around my head all the time was to write them down. I decided to put them in the form of a novel to make it more fun! (P.S., you can read the first chapter online free - link from my website )

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Tomexe]

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.

 

Well the British did have a problem with its DP guns and directors, but you need to cut 20mm out of that list.

 

Something like half of all aircraft destroyed by naval AA fire in the US Navy, which HAD a good DP gun and director AND the VT fuze from mid-1942, were shot down by the same 20mm guns the RN used. It would have been very hard to justify placing that much emphasis on 40mm in the face of those results.

 

The only reason, the sole reason, that US navy ships started sporting all those quad 40mm Bofors was the Kamakazi. When it was no longer adaquate to just shoot a aircraft down, it had to be shot into splinters- only then was 20mm inadaquate. And then the 40mm Bofors was not much better. As a result we built the 3"/50 cal automatics, the smallest caliber that could use the VT fuze at the time, to deal with this and the even faster 3"/70cals which didn't make it in time.

 

The last models of 3"/70cal used by the RN and RCN could even handle Styx missiles.

 

However we could of made 37mm or even 20mm work as a anti-Kamakazi weapon had somebody in the Navy remembered the electric driven Gatlings that they had tested as far back as 1901...

 

Along these lines- what if instead of the Browning type quad 1.1s the USN fooled with in the prewar-early war years and never really debugged they HAD built a 6barrel 25mm or 37mm Gatling? Something like the Mauler gun the Army tested, then unwisely abandoned in favor of the Chaparrel missile, in the early/mid 60's

Edited July 12, 2005 by Tomexe

[9mmMakarov]

I wouldn't malign the browning M1919 too much, it just wasn't the right route to a true GPMG. Had we adopted a real GPMG (say a belt fed BAR, maybe with the action turned upside down.. in .276 Pedersen of course) the 1919 could have reverted to to its original role of rifle calibre HMG. The receiver was massive enough that even the air cooled versions could fire from a closed bolt without fear of cookoffs, and the water cooled HMG as Browning demonstrated could fire literally thousands of rounds at a single sitting. .30-06 was still on the hefty side of cartridges giving range and punch for the HMG role, with the constant fire capabilities that the .50 M2 lacked (not that that didn't fill a very useful niche either).

 

I'm not sure whether the Sherman concept (i.e. we can bring a whole lot more of them across the Atlantic than we can Pershings, etc.) was all wrong, as we almost always had tanks present while the Germans did not, especially later in the ETO. Sherman coul have used some upgrades and done without the unnecessary duplication- M10, M18, M36.

 

As far as US strategic efforts- oil plan, transportation plan, whatever, just pick one and stay with it. I liked the Transportation plan, as it seems that interdiction was the most useful role for strategic air in the war, aside from denuding the Luftwaffe of pilots, fuel and planes. Jets wouldn't have made much of a difference. There wer always Mustangs everywhere, but only rarely were 262's encountered. Numbers, and more important, availability wins, especially over early jets (though I admit I'd love to see a P-80 smoke a 262)

[Tomexe]

I wouldn't malign the browning M1919 too much, it just wasn't the right route to a true GPMG. Had we adopted a real GPMG (say a belt fed BAR, maybe with the action turned upside down.. in .276 Pedersen of course) the 1919 could have reverted to to its original role of rifle calibre HMG.

 

Well the MAG 58 is a upside down- (or is it sideways? Feed from left, eject bottom instead of feed from bottom, eject right?) BAR action incased in a 1919 pattern riveted stamped metal reciever with a MG42's feed tray on top for good measure (at least in the non-disintegrating metal belt version, the feed for disentegrating links in the L7/M240 versions I don't know where it came from- perhaps the aircraft version M1919?)

 

I am not maligning the 1919 so much as I am pointing out that it did have one little problem with its use as a ground gun in its dependence on a tripod.

Course when you consider that it had not been designed as a ground gun and only got the job when the Army's M1916 Lewis Gun fleet wore out en mass in the 30's...

 

As big or bigger a problem than the gun lacking a bipod was the US Army misusing it and the BAR. The USMC figured out how to get the M1919 and M1918 to work togeather, it was well into the Korean War before the Army finally copied them.

 

Its a very tough, maybe even impossible, call (especally as they never faced each other) as to which was tougher, the Series F/G USMC squad with its 3 teams and 3 BARs or the German Panzergrenadier and Fallshirmjager squads with their 2 truppe and 2 MG 34/42

[swerve]

As far as US strategic efforts- oil plan, transportation plan, whatever, just pick one and stay with it.  I liked the Transportation plan, as it seems that interdiction was the most useful role for strategic air in the war, aside from denuding the Luftwaffe of pilots, fuel and planes. 

 

 

And in the end, the transportation plan worked. By the time Allied armies were charging through Germany, Germany was littered with factories idle for lack of parts, vehicles idle for lack of fuel, wapons unusable for lack of ammo, & elsewhere stockpiles of what they needed, useless because it couldn't be moved.

 

A pity it wasn't earlier. I think you're on the nail with " pick one and stay with it". Some of the others could also have worked, but transport was my favourite.

[Tomexe]

Get the US Navy to give up on their insistance that aircraft carriers had to be small enough to fit throught he Panama Canal.

 

Build the Midway class by 1944, have Midway with a a air wing composed entirely of Grumman F7F Tigercats available for the Iwo and Okinawa campaigns...

[capt_starlight]

I'm not sure whether the Sherman concept (i.e. we can bring a whole lot more of them across the Atlantic  than we can Pershings, etc.) was all wrong, as we almost always had tanks present while the Germans did not, especially later in the ETO. 

194356[/snapback]

 

It is an interesting fact that the US had to request the release of Shermans from British (Lend-Lease) stocks in the UK because they had underestimated the loss of vehicles in late 1944 (and had insufficent themselves in their stocks in the UK). Similarly the British had over-estimated their losses for the same period and could release them (and replace them with home-produced vehicles if need be).

 

Then there is also the case for US field regiments that were converted to 25 pdr because of lack of ammunition (production and transportation of 105mm ammunition had been eroded prematurely and it saw the re-opening of factories in the US mainland in 1945).

 

It also was one of the reasons that the British in NW Europe returned their M7 Priests (or "defrocked" them) and replaced them with Sextons - to ease their logistic burden by removing one ammunition range as well as free up ammuntion supplies for US forces. They retained their M7 in Italy because of stocks on hand and an inability to arrange for the necessary shipping of Sextons to the theatre and suffer the necessary "downtime" to re-equip and re-train the regiments.

 

Frank

 

Edited for a couple of typos

Edited July 27, 2005 by capt_starlight

[Nobu]

Replace German production of Bf-110s in 39-40 with license-built Mitsubishi A6M2. Retrofit with self-sealing gas tanks and cockpit armor.

[GregShaw]

Replace German production of Bf-110s in 39-40 with license-built Mitsubishi A6M2. Retrofit with self-sealing gas tanks and cockpit armor.

199799[/snapback]

Two things, the A6M didn't exist in '39, And why? You now have a 5200 lb fighter with 950 hp rather than a 4800 lb fighter with 950 hp. Compared the 109E at 5800 lbs and 1175 hp. Only advantage of the A6M would have been range, Hurricanes would have outclassed it, and Spitfire the I/II would have slaughtered it. And self-sealing tanks would have reduced the range anyways.

 

By the time the A6M2 was in service the Fw 190A was as well. And there is no comparison between them, the 190A is nearly 100 mph faster, rolls better and has better firepower.

 

Greg Shaw

[Nobu]

And why? You now have a 5200 lb fighter with 950 hp rather than a 4800 lb fighter with 950 hp. Compared the 109E at 5800 lbs and 1175 hp. Only advantage of the A6M would have been range.

 

Greg Shaw

199820[/snapback]

 

Range to escort Luftwaffe bombers and loiter time for extended fighter sweeps over England.

[GregShaw]

Range to escort Luftwaffe bombers and loiter time for extended fighter sweeps over England.

199889[/snapback]

 

Just put drop tanks on the Bf 109E, and have a fighter that was competitive in performance with the RAF. The 1942 A6M2 was not competive with the 1940 Spitfire I/II and barely a match for the 1940 Hurricane I. As I mentioned, start sticking self sealing tanks and armor on the A6M and a lot of its range advantage disappears. Besides, a lot of the Zero's range was due to operating procedures: high manifold pressure, low rpm, lean the mixture out and low speed cruise. You could get away with that over the Pacific. Cruising around at 125 mph IAS over the British Isles on the other hand is not conducive to long life. At higher combat cruise speeds and combat power settings the A6M would have been at best about 40% more endurance than the Bf 109E. Useful - yes, decisive - no.

 

Most importantly - the A6M wasn't even around in the summer of '40. There were a few pre-production models in China about the time the BoB finished, but that was it.

 

Greg Shaw

[seahawk]

For the German side I see 3 major developments that could have changed the war, apart from not starting it in the first place.

 

- drop tanks for the Me-109s

- instead of going gor V1 and V2 go for Wasserfall SAMs

- develop guided anti tank missiles (say eraly SS-11s.). Those would have been much cheaper and usefull in the anit armor role (on a PZ-II chasis) then the Jagdpanzers.

[Rick]

Limiting this to the original topic of 1939 weapons:

Germany: As Seahawk said earlier, drop tanks for the Me109.

France: Produce the Spitfire and/or Hurricane if possible

Britain: produce the 6lber as quickly as possible and with HE shells. I don't know if

the 6lber was on the drawing board at this time or not. If it wasn't I would

copy the U.S.N.'s 5"/38 and its directors.

Soviet Union: three man tank turrets

U.S.A.: "Change" the M1 into the M14 and use the .276 round. Use this round for

B.A.R. also.

[Panzermann]

Limiting this to the original topic of 1939 weapons:

Germany: As Seahawk said earlier, drop tanks for the Me109.

France: Produce the Spitfire and/or Hurricane if possible

I think that is comepletely impossible. why should the UK give France their best planes?

U.S.A.: "Change" the M1 into the M14 and use the .276 round. Use this round for

            B.A.R. also.

200201[/snapback]

Why the BAR, when there are "M14" for everyone?

[Guest SILL]

Allies - No aircraft will have more than 2 engines.

 

Germany.

 

General Staff discovers logistics post WWI and puts training on equal footing with other staff functions.

 

"Final Solution" is quashed. Jews can pay a tax for exemption (historically typical I think). German military/industry headcount increases by several million.

 

Circa 1933 - tax exemption for trucks with 3 or more axles and 10+ ton load capacity. Tax rebate for operators of heavy diesel trucks/combinations with 4 or 5 axles and 20+ ton load capacity. Tax/license for horse drawn wagons and farm equipment. Rebate for purchase of tractors and light trucks.

- Develop truck production and associate support/input industry.

- Develop fuel production and distribution industry (perhaps coal to fuel, perhaps from the Caucus).

- Train/develop drivers and mechanics.

- Speed up Autobahn construction.

[Ol Paint]

Allies - No aircraft will have more than 2 engines.

 

Germany. 

 

General Staff discovers logistics post WWI and puts training on equal footing with other staff functions.

 

"Final Solution" is quashed.  Jews can pay a tax for exemption (historically typical I think).  German military/industry headcount increases by several million.

 

Circa 1933 - tax exemption for trucks with 3 or more axles and 10+ ton load capacity.  Tax rebate for operators of heavy diesel trucks/combinations with 4 or 5 axles and 20+ ton load capacity.  Tax/license for horse drawn wagons and farm equipment.  Rebate for purchase of tractors and light trucks. 

  - Develop truck production and associate support/input industry.

  - Develop fuel production and distribution industry (perhaps coal to fuel, perhaps from the Caucus).

  - Train/develop drivers and mechanics.

  - Speed up Autobahn construction.

200249[/snapback]

How are you going to provide convoy air cover to fend off the U-boats without 4-engined bombers? What are you going to use to hoist the atom bomb (unless you prefer invading Japan)?

 

Choosing one improvement is tough...

 

For the US, I'd be hard pressed to choose between funding development of the jet (Lockheed had some paper studies and GE should have been able to be convinced to develop jets, given their turbine experience) or better torpedoes for US submarines.

 

I don't get the impression that the US Infantry was lacking in firepower. If anything, adopt 3-man fire teams with 1 BAR + 2 riflemen as the USMC apparently did.

 

Other options (but probably less impact than the jet or torpedoes):

-Divert the 90mm away from AAA batteries and push the deployment of the T25 in mid-late 1943.

-Scrap the treaties and build more BBs and CA/CL, in conjunction with CV/CVL. Divide the force into BB/CVL and CV/CA groups. The Japanese ended up building what they wanted, anyway. Heck, it makes a good jobs program.

-Double-check the price of the 40mm Bofors and develop the 3"/50 sooner.

 

Douglas

[oldsoak]

Lots of good points here - my humble 2 pennyworth is ( for the UK )

1 - Get GB to have a nice long look at US mass production techniques, and hire their engineers to help us do a job better, quicker and cheaper.

2. Do technology transfer to the Aus + Canada.

3. Rationalise aero engines - licence built US radials for bombers, in line liquid cooled for fighters.

- although there will be exceptions.

4. Bigger wings for the Stirling bomber + larger bomb bay and a ventral turret please.

5. All Naval ships to have radar for gunnery purposes + study USN AA systems.

6 Look at USN torpedo aircraft for RN + get the Wildcat into FAA asap.

7 Investigate use of AA guns as AT weapons to defend strongpoints.

8 Get Canadians to look at development of .303 automatic rifle a la Garand ( or develop a rimless round in the same calibre ).

9 Corvettes by the ton please.

10 Bigger engine + better suspension in Valentine + better armour and get the 6pdr in it quick.

11. nick German radio sets and get a copies built.

12. Get Gee radio nav systems into RN and RAF.

13. No Whitleys, No Hampdens or biplanes.

14. nice though the Bren is - examine belt fed alternatives for a section LMG.

15. Start getting troops issued with camouflage.

 

just for starters.

[Rickshaw]

Lots of good points here - my humble 2 pennyworth is ( for the UK )

1 - Get GB to have a nice long look at US mass production techniques, and hire their engineers to help us do a job better, quicker and cheaper.

 

They did that.

 

2. Do technology transfer to the Aus + Canada.

 

It was done as an ongoing process

 

3. Rationalise aero engines - licence built US radials for bombers, in line liquid cooled for fighters.

- although there will be exceptions.

 

Why? British radials and inlines were as advanced if not more so in some cases, such as the Merlin were so superior that the US chose to use it, rather than its own inlines.

 

4. Bigger wings for the Stirling bomber + larger bomb bay and a ventral turret please.

 

The size of the Stirling was determined by the size of pre-war hangars. Ventral turrets were of dubious value in night bombing, which was the primary role of Bomber Command after 1940. Better to sacrifice the turret to improve performance.

 

5. All Naval ships to have radar for gunnery purposes + study USN AA systems.

 

A possibility although I suspect in 1939, both the RN and the USN were in the same boat as far as AA systems go.

 

6 Look at USN torpedo aircraft for RN + get the Wildcat into FAA asap.

 

In 1939, the USN didn't possese any aircraft that were necessarily superior to their comparable FAA ones.

 

7 Investigate use of AA guns as AT weapons to defend strongpoints.

 

Sure. OK, then what are you going to sacrifice to increase production of AA guns? I assume you mean the 3.7in, which in 1939 was a very heavy and expensive piece of kit, which was too important to waste when it was needed for AA work. You'd also have to find from somewhere a new towing vehicle because one of the problems they had, was that most of them weren't powerful to pull the 3.7in cross country.

 

8 Get Canadians to look at development of .303 automatic rifle a la Garand ( or develop a rimless round in the same calibre ).

 

OK, so what do you do with the massive stocks of SMLE rifles left over from WWI?

 

Not even the US Army was able to arm all its infantry soldiers with Garands. Where would you find the excess factory capacity to fulfill not only the US military's needs but also the British and Commonwealth's?

 

9 Corvettes by the ton please.

 

Again, perhaps easier said than done. Shipyard space in the UK was at a premium, as was manpower. In 1939, the only excess shipyard space I think you'll find was in the US. How much more would it cost the UK to build abroad?

 

10 Bigger engine + better suspension in Valentine + better armour and get the 6pdr in it quick.

 

Apart from the suspension, which was actually quite good as it was, I agree with you there but again point out, there simply wasn't the capacity to build 6 Pdrs.

 

11. nick German radio sets and get a copies built.

 

You mean build copies of a copy of radios already in production in the UK? German tank radios were based on British radios - except they were fixed frequency, whereas the British ones needed to be tuned. It made the British ones more difficult to use but it had the advantage they were more flexible, compared to the German ones which were essentially only on the one net, permamently.

 

12. Get Gee radio nav systems into RN and RAF.

13. No Whitleys, No Hampdens or biplanes.

 

Mmmm, agree with both of those but what should they have turned the excess production capacity over to? Wellingtons were better than either, in my opinion but required longer to manufacture.

 

14. nice though the Bren is - examine belt fed alternatives for a section LMG.

 

Penny-pinchers in treasury canned that, unfortunately. Too expensive in ammunition. Perhaps a weapon that could use both magazines and belt feed might have been better.

 

15. Start getting troops issued with camouflage.

 

Mmmm, not sure of the value of that one. Perhaps better camouflage discipline overall but the value of individual camouflage clothing is often over-stated in my opinion. It looks good but it often doesn't really do very much because the terrain simply doesn't make it useful.