If you had the choice in 1939

[R011]

British Empire:

 

A class of frigates available before the war supplemented by Flower Class corvettes in yards unable to build FF/DE's.

 

A good DP 4.5 to 5 inch gun with US directors standard on all ships larger than corvettes by the mid 1930's. Oelikons and 40 mm Bofors as standard as soon as available

 

Cromwell in 1940, Comet and Centurion with a ~90 mm gun in 1943, a <40 ton, ~90 mm gun tank by early 43/early 44.

 

RAF - No Defiant or Battle

 

FAA - a good dive bomber (like the SBD) and a modern torpedo bomber (like the TBD).

 

The British had good AT guns. They didn't really need a DP AA weapon as the 25 pounder could do that. Their problems were more doctrinal than equipment. A more modern small arms suite would have been good - say FAL's and M2's instead of Number 4's and Vickers, but the ones they had were as good as anyone else's and better ones would give them no real advantage.

 

US:

 

A working torpedo in 1941

 

Equivalent tanks to the ones proposed for the British (IOW,. serious R&D starting in the early thirties) plus a 90 mm TD on a medium chassis in lieu of the M10.

 

Wildcats instead of Buffalos.

 

Merlin powered Mustangs or equivalent in 1939 instead of P-40's.

 

Oelikons and 40 mm Bofors as standard for the USN as soon as available.

 

Again, US small arms could be improved (M14's and M240's) but were up to the task.

 

Soviets:

 

A three man turret in their tanks from the beginning with better ergonomics.

 

Modern monplane fighters instead of the biplanes available in 1941.

 

Germans:

 

Japanese tanks and small arms. French Army 1940 doctrines. Italian aircraft.

 

Japanese:

 

American early war torpedoes. More Italian aircraft.

 

I actually want them to do worse rather than better. The biggest German problem was overall strategy and increasingly micromanagement from the top. The Japanese were way over their head right from the beginning as well as having major issues with a military culture that encouraged disobedience by middle and higher level officers and savage atrocities against both civilians and enemy combatants.

[R011]

FAA - a good dive bomber (like the SBD) and a modern torpedo bomber (like the TBD).

200398[/snapback]

Though actually, the Swordfish probably did as good a job as TBD's would have. Something like the TBF rather than the Albacore would have been an improvement though, and getting Wildcats in widespead service at the same time the USN did would have been an improvement - as I understand it, they were still using Gladiators well into 1942.

[Tony Williams]

The simplest and most effective equipment innovation for the British which I could think of (it featured in 'The Foresight War', naturally) would be to produce Merchant Aircraft Carriers right from the start, to ensure that all convoys had their own air cover against U-boats. This would have dramatically assisted the war effort because it would have prevented most of the heavy losses of shipping and cargoes which happened in the Atlantic.

 

It would have been quite easy to earmark the large bulk carriers used, and manufacture conversion kits to give them flight decks as soon as the war began. Of course, it would have required a lot of Foresight

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Timo]

Instead of getting the Zero, the Germans would have better off having some technology transfer with Japan. In this case drop tank technology - I recall reading that 109C or D had a provision for an auxiliary fuel tank but it was omitted because it didn't work. On the other hand the Japanese knew how to make them work, IIRC.

 

Other than that, I would not cancel the Bf110 but make it a fast light bomber/ground attack plane and a dedicated night fighter from the beginning. If there is a number of fighter variants built already, they would be used for free ranging fighter sweeps using superior speed and altitude to bounce the enemy interceptors instead of being used as lousy escorts.

Edited July 28, 2005 by Timo

[Redbeard]

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. 

200338[/snapback]

 

In ship production (which is what I know most about) the British actually produced much cheaper, no matter if you count in money or man-hours, often with comparable US ship being two-three times more expensive than British, but US ships were generally built a lot faster and with higher quality materials (like extensive use of HT steel).

 

Basically the British had some very skilled labour, but were in general short of labour. So in British yards/factories the materials waited for the labour to get by, resulting in low cost pr. unit but long building times (the same principle is apparently used in road works). In US yards/factories, with abundant unskilled labour, the labour waited for the materials to get by, meaning a lot of high pay labour but very short building time.

 

Regardning quality the US engineers were allowed to go for best, no matter if the last 10% improvement cost 90% of the effort. The British were in a desparate situation and needed anything now, so going for the "good enough" would be optimal.

 

In this context I'll claim that both countries had the production system optimal for their needs and that a further "copy and paste" would have been equally disastrous on both sides.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[cdnsigop]

I have to say the biggest plus would of been to have a to build up a strong attack force after 1939 and then in 1940 take that force into Germany. Instead of waiting for them to attack. Both the British and French have strong fighter forces and large tank units that if used in offenenive into germany may have the changed the course of war and forced Germany to sue for peace.

 

The French had more of had batter tanks than the Germans, linked to together with BEF and Free Polish units who had combat experience would of been more than enough if used correctly. It was meant that going though Beligum of course, but with war being taken to German getting Beligum to agree would not of been that differecult and most like they would added their forces to the assualt as well.

 

Failing that, just having the British hold their ground in battle of France would most likely slowed and stalled the German advance. Instead they withdraw before actually getting into combat which forced beligum to surrender and left France alone and with out any support.

[Pachy]

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

200220[/snapback]

Once could imagine that Spitfire could have been license-built in France. It's true that there perhaps was an opportunity window when the MB.150 early protoypes were disastrous, the mass production of the MS.406 was a nightmare, and the D.520 was not ready yet. But the Hurricane... well the Finns found the MS.406 to be superior anyway. Actually, IIRC it WAS planned to license-build Merlin engines in France.

 

A good idea for France would have been to entirely drop the "chars légers" programme, and use the saved money to build more B1s/S35s instead of all those useless 2-man tanks.

 

Less fortifications and more light AA guns would have been a nice idea too.

 

A few SPAA prototypes were trialed in the early 1930s, and some (twin 13.2 Hotchkiss on Berliet 6x6 chassis) found to be satisfactory. How about having more than 3 of them built?

[gewing]

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...

194389[/snapback]

 

 

 

DROOOOOLLLLLLL!!!!!

[Fermi2]

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.

193615[/snapback]

 

False!!. The Bomb wasn't going to come any earlier because the theory wasn't complete. Putting more money into something doesn't make Enrico Fermi et al get smarter. The Bomb came as soon as it could have.

 

Mike

[gewing]

False!!. The Bomb wasn't going to come any earlier because the theory wasn't complete. Putting more money into something doesn't make Enrico Fermi et al get smarter. The Bomb came as soon as it could have.

 

Mike

200882[/snapback]

 

 

But if we know enough to focus on it, we know enough to speed it up. imo.

[Argus]

This whole question is pretty loaded, I mean the one thing I would change in WWII is the spec on all German 7.92mm ammunition to replace the propellant with sand.

 

I'd like to substitute sand for nitrocellulose, trinitrotoluene and all other explosives and propellants used by Germany, but the original point is ONE change, so I'm takeing the leagalistic approach.

 

Using sand would have been a great advantage and ecconomy, reduceing the potential fire hazard of munitions, improveing range safety, increaseing marksmanship levels (every shot would have to be pushed home by hand) and would have saved trillions of Marks, Pounds, Dollars, Franc's, Lira, Yen and every other currency.

 

Not meaning to be picky but I've a few issues with this long list that seems to be developing.

 

- 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.

 

There were many areas where the UK could have done better, Electronics production being a prime example, the Automotive sector too. BUt there wasn't much they could do in wartime. To effect real change in these industries, they would have had to start pre-war to get the nessesary industrial infrastructure, tooling etc in place. They had neither the time nor resources to tip whole industries on their heads in the middle of a war. However to have done this pre-war puts it on a commercial footing, and even if the UK was willing to make the effort, where's the motivation for US companies to give away their commercial edge to a competitor?

 

- 2/ Do technology transfer to the Aus + Canada.

 

- It was done as an ongoing process

 

It was an ongoing process, and again more could have been done with pre-war resources. But the Dominions had a limited ability to absorb the transer, and it would have again been seen as comercialy stupid. We lacked the population and skilled manpower to expolit industrial developments and a limited market to support them. There's a number of good reasons for Imperial trade patterns, and one of them is that the Dominions could not yet support the industrial infrastructure in peacetime, of course again we're having companies cut their own throats in peace to bolster a war that hasn't happened yet.

 

- 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.

 

For a start, I see the original comment as refering to radials only not radials and inlines. But Herr Baron is still right. There was nothing wrong with Bristol radials that could not have been resolved with little fuss if the will had been there to do so. The problem was not a lack of good radials, it was an Air Ministry dazzeled by the Merlin, and so partizan to inlines. The whole Napier Sabre Vs Centaurus etc has to be the biggest waste in the whole UK aeroengine scene across this period. If half the effort blown on the Sabre had been invested in the Bristols....

 

- 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.

 

Technically I agree with the Baron, but I've got to say my answer would be to tell Shorts to stuff the Sterling and stick to Sunderlands - Put a Sterling type wing with 4 x Herc's on an extended flying boat hull etc. The UK NEEDED ASW, VLR aircraft were vital to that effort, and Shorts were the British firm in this area, so why divert them into an type that is already covered by FOUR other companies (Avro, HP, Vickers & Supermarine)?

 

- 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.

 

Sorry I have to differ with the both sides on this one, the USN were miles ahead of the RN in AA gunnery pre-war.

 

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-066.htm

 

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-052.htm

 

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-056.htm

 

In short the USN had a tacymetric FC system with remote power control of the gun mountings directly from the FC gear.

 

However the only reason that the RN did not have a system like this, was that they had not ordered one (probably becuse they could get the Exchequer to pay of it). Yes they could have tried to get the USN system, although there's no certenty that it could/would have been provided. But they could also have gone to Vickers and simply asked for one instead of HACS. Vickers could make them, and infact had one for the 3.7" AA gun.

 

There's also the matter of guns, the RN's medium caliber gun battery was a bit of a mess, to have invested in an expensive fire control system, there would have to be some serious attention paid here too. But the historical 4.5" mount, set up for 4.7"/50 Mk. IX gun would have been a good basis to work from.

 

Simply adding tracer to the 2pdr shell would have helped too, and adopting the 40mm Bofors and 20mm Oerlikon pre war would have been a great leap forward. Oh yes and we'd have to convert the whole RN to AC power if the USN system were adopted. A god thing in the long run but yet another hurdle to a direct transfer.

 

I'll skip point 6 as I don't know enough to comment.

 

- 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.

 

The production angle is a valid point. But I'd question the use of the 3.7" for all the reasons noted, and suggest the 3" 20cwt AA gun would have been suitable for this role. Especially if it were updated to a simmilar performance spec as the 17pdr AT gun.

 

- 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?

 

Well for a start a rimless .303 loaded to the same pressures would only require existing stocks of SMLE's to be FTR'd. Recut the chamber, replace the magazine, sight leaf and bolt head and it should work fine. Not only that, but the program would help boost the small arms sector in the run up to rearmament.

 

IMHO the whole change over problem was a bit of a myth, blown up to help justify putting off the change for financial reasons time after time. If we look at the last 50 years before the SMLE, the Empire cycled its way through 4 calibers and five or six different cartridges in 5 different primary infantry long arms. Obviously it was not something to be done lightly (or to be repeated in such frequency), but it was possiable. In this particular case the change could have been phased through the Empire, existing stocks of ammunition and un converted weapons used for training (possiably alowing more range time pre-war) etc.

 

The same roughly applies to an automatic rifle, especially if the rimless .303 allowed some overlap with the SMLE.

 

However it has to be said that all this woud have been expensive and the money would have had to come from somewhere. ON the whole it would have been 'nice' but I don't see it as essential.

 

- 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.

 

As I understand things Valentine suspension had little/no room for weight growth, it was adapted from a lighter tank to start with and was overstained for most of its life. But I do agree it was the potential savious of the UK's tank situation if a few choisces had been made differently.

 

The Val was a private venture, and I'd suggest the best solution would have been to give Vickers some money so they didn't have to cut corners by 'parts bin engineering' the Val, and asking them to build in a litte room for growth.

 

If the 6pdr had been specified as an upgrade from the start, there are a few possiabilites for getting the mess under control. But I'd say the biggest favour we could do the British Tank folks, is get RR to sell the diesel Kestral to someone else before the war. There's half a dozen firms it could have gone too, Napier, Armstongs, one of the car companies... There would have been a slight commercial conflict here, but provisos not to use it for aircraft could have helped and a licencing deal might have been possiable.

 

- 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.

 

This is a pretty complex point and I'm no radio expert. But While the Germans might have pinched a few ideas from the Poms, they had plenty of their own worth borrowing. British radios were not perfect, nor were German ones and the US had some mighty fine kit too. There was plenty of room for improvement in UK wireless.

 

- 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.

 

I have to agree too in principal. Both with Oldsoak and the Baron. BUt then there's the question of production time lines, A lot of these aircraft were built simply to keep the factories employed until better designed could reach production. If we eliminate them, then either the British aircraft industry is small in 1939 and slower to expand, or we've got factories sitting around idle and squadrons short of planes. It took a fair bit of time to change a factory over to a new type then get back up to speed.

 

And then these ype aslo played their part in the development cycle. We can look back and say this worked and that didn't, but at the time, they had to suck it an see. Oh and if we ban biplanes what do we do for a Swordfish (or a Tiger Moth if training types aren't exempt)?

 

With hindsight there are a lot of improvements that could be made and type dispenced with, but its a complicated situation.

 

- 4 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.

 

Again I generally agree. But I'd say with a rimless .303 the the MG field could do with a more radicle cleanup. We had the Bren, VGO/VB, Bersa, Browning and Vickers in the first line, and I submit the first three could all have been replaced by a single family on a base of either ZB or VB. I'm not putting the Vickers up on a pedestal, but if a watercooled MMG was desired as an essentaial part of the armoury, then if it anin't broke...

 

I figure, you'd need two recievers, two barrels, and two or three lower recievers and a couple of different bolts and buffers to cover the whole range of RC air cooled MG's.

 

This is with the two magazine types historically produced, a 30rnd box and a 200rnd drum.

 

The usual disentigrating open pocket type belt should still work with the Vickers, so could become the standard.

 

A magazine and a belf fed reciever - let darwinian slection sort out the better option for section support. The belt fed version can cover a multitude of sins.

 

For the Infantry put the belt fed one in at company level initially, so:

Section - 'Bren'

Company/flexiable mounts - Belt fed Bren

Battalion - Vickers

 

A Light and a Heavy barrel to cover each role as needed. Note the 'rifle' sights would probably have to be offset across the whole range. The gas port might need an extra notch to deal with lifting the belt when approperate.

 

The three lower recievers would be a:

- Pistol grip and shoulder stock for ground work.

- Spade Grip for flexiable mountings

- Solinoid for fixed mounts in aircraft and AFV's.

 

Even with .303 rimmed, the duplication between Bren and VGO/VB could have been eliminated at no cost if the government had taken a sensiable line.

 

- 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.

 

I'm with the Baron on this one too. The whole Battledress/Patt 37 kit could have been better, but I don't think Camo is the improvement I'd put at the head of the list.

 

shane

Edited July 29, 2005 by Argus

[Fermi2]

But if we know enough to focus on it, we know enough to speed it up.  imo.

200923[/snapback]

 

 

Take it from a nuclear engineer. NO we couldn't have. Knowing enough isn't good enough with the bomb, you had to know EXACTLY and that depended on Enrico Fermi mostly. They went as fast as Fermi could solve problems. It wouldn't have mattered how much money or resources they put into it because they were dependant on smarts, not resources.

 

 

Mike

[p620346]

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

 

At the time the .303 was developed the UK was aware of the rimless German 8mm cartridge for the Model 88 Commisssion Rifle. However, the UK decided to go with a rimmed cartridge so that existing Martini-Henry rifles could be rebarrelled for the .303

[Manu]

My own grain of salt into the cooking

 

France :

good and widespread field radios along with the training and doctrine to use them from low echelons up to high comand.

 

could have made a drastic change to the campaign in France, as well as enabled better odds in he offensive.

 

This woul have had the most pervasive effect as it would have affected each and every kind of units toward improvement.

[cdnsigop]

The SMLE ireally didn't need to be changed. It was the fastest bolt action rifle in service and the British really didn't be replace it. And with the number 4 they had the best mark already in development. It would of nice to replace the rimmed round wold a rem less one as it would made things easier. But the British had a great small arms set up the Enfield and Bern worked well. The only thing I would change if adding a belt feed MG for those times when one needed more firepower. The Vickers was just too be big and heavy.

 

For the British I would have to say they needed better tank designs. Maybe a trip to Russia would of helped and getting their hand on a few Bt-7's would of improved their designs some.

 

Forgot something, the British need to replace their outdate helmet, with something offers more protection and is less viewable in the field. Some more along the lines of the para- helmet would be a good choice.

 

For the Germans it would be more work on their airforce it was tactical air force only and they lacked transport planes and heavy bombers. they should been working on four engine bombers and transports in 39. maybe buying the DC-3's would of helped them. With long range heavy bombing they could hit sites in the Britian or gotten to the Russian tank factories.

Edited July 29, 2005 by cdnsigop

[Guest SILL]

...

 

 

Less fortifications and more light AA guns would have been a nice idea too.

 

...

200825[/snapback]

 

Or more fitting. Spend 90% of their budget on building the M. Line to the Channel and the Med. Then sit behind it dithering. Might have actully kept Jerry out, would have been interesting to AAR.

[R011]

Or more fitting.  Spend 90% of their budget on building the M. Line to the Channel and the Med.  Then sit behind it dithering.  Might have actully kept Jerry out, would have been interesting to AAR.

201132[/snapback]

Even with the Maginot Line, the French had more than enough equipment and personel in 1940 to defeat a German offensive, or even take the offensive themselves. What they needed was a complete rethink of their doctrines and C3I structures beginning no later than the early 1930's. This would have given them tanks with longer road range and two or three man turrets deployed in mechanized divisions and used as well as the Germans used theirs.

[cdnsigop]

It's Myth that the Maginot Line robbed the French resources and money as the line completed by 1936. An it did stop the Germans that why they went though the ardenne region. German also spent tons money and resourses on their lines of defence and this was after 1936 both eastern Germany and along the French border.

 

I haven't done enough research on sudject but the fall of France is not due to the Maginot Line, or lack of 3 men turrents in their tanks. So many factors played in the fall of France. In the only real tank battle of 1940, it was French who came out on top, as they had tanks than Germans. most german tanks were MK1 or Mk2's so it wasn't tanks that won the battle of France.

 

The Germans took to offenive and stayed with it, where the British and French just seemed to have fell apart.

[Anthony EJW]

Failing that, just having the British hold their ground in battle of France would most likely  slowed and stalled the German advance.  Instead they withdraw before actually getting into combat which forced beligum to surrender and left France alone and with out any support.

200657[/snapback]

 

I'm pretty sure that the BEF did fight the Germas in 1940...

 

No matter how good (or bad) the BEF was, 10 divisions were never going to be the decisive factor in the battle of France given the size of the French and German armies.

[nitflegal]

For the Germans it would be more work on their airforce it was tactical air force only and they lacked transport planes and heavy bombers.  they should been working on four engine bombers and transports in 39.  maybe buying the DC-3's would of helped them.  With long range heavy bombing they could hit sites in the Britian or gotten to the  Russian tank factories.

201045[/snapback]

 

Problem was, what do they cut to allow this? A credible long range bombing force needs either sheer numbers or long range escorts and still sizable numbers. That's expensive. So, what do the Germans cut to make room for that budget? Fighters? Tanks? If you read some of the budget stuff, you'll see that there was always an interest in long range bombers, they just couldn't get agreement to fund them and cut projects deemed more important. The He-177, for example, was a bit of a flop because it was way too heavy so as to allow for dive bombing. What is often missed is that the only way the Luftwaffe could justify a non-tactical bomber was the dive-bombing dodge. This was partly policy but also because it was recognized that they needed to conserve resources for the essentials: tactical air support and fighters. Beyond that, barring a German P-51C/D, long range bombers would have been slaughtered and Germany just didn't have the resources to keep feeding men and machines into the grinder like the USA/UK did.

 

 

Matt

[R011]

I haven't done enough research on sudject but the fall of France is not due to the Maginot Line, or lack of 3 men turrents in their tanks.  So many factors played in the fall of France.

201294[/snapback]

Quite, which is why I mentioned doctrines and C3I structures. Form following function, that would give them the kit with which to carry out that doctrine.

 

One could, with a bit of difficulty, conduct Blitzkreig or counter-Blitzkrieg with the historical French tanks, but had they changed their doctrines, those tanks would have been much closer to those of the Germans and Soviets in concept.

[istvan47]

I personally agree that there were no chances to have built license of A6M in 1940 even by germans.

 

But i cannot agree that A6m was "barely" at the level of the Hurricane and slaughtered by spitfire, when, even if flown by experts pilots, Zeros slaughtered Hurrricanes where they meet them in a awful manner.

 

Not just this. When Zeros A6M3 meeted Spitfires V over Australia they trounched spits without difficult and effectively protected their bombers. Also Ki 43 done quite well.

 

So if zeroe were available in 1940 i don't see how they coudln't change the things.

 

However, the germans could had done some other things like put in production the -Bf 109E-7 with aux tanks, the simplest things neeeded, one or two month before they done it ,when BoB was already started.

 

-Or they could had choiced the FW 187 falke or

 

-They could had modiphied Me 109 in a similar manner of D 520 with wing tanks

( i would produce on license the D 520 in Germany, eventually fitted with DB 601!)

 

-even the extrreme, they could choice the turn fighters and produce a sort of Zeros inshtead of the Bf 109 or 110. So , with large landing gear, wing tanks, teh same armament, a higher canopy, perhaps a radial engine, they could had a kind of A6M, or, with DB 601, a Ki 61-Super D 520.

 

In every chase, they were defeated by the inability of the Bf 110 to win the air battles, and better long range fighters could had been both the falke, the D 520 and the Zero. The fact that Me 110 was more powerful than these fighters don't means much: also the hurricane was much less powerful, even D 520 and Ms 406, but all them whipped Bf110 without difficult.

[Pachy]

-They could had modiphied Me 109 in a similar manner of D 520 with wing tanks

Could they? The D.520's structure was well suited for this, due to the relatively thick wing and the single spar design. Besides, these outer wing tanks were not meant to increase range for war missions, but only for ferrying flights where no ammunition was carried. Aerobatics were strictly prohibited when they were filled.

 

i would produce on license the D 520 in Germany, eventually fitted with DB 601!

With what I wrote above I don't see a point - the airframes are rather similar, the Emil being lighter.

 

The fact that Me 110 was more powerful than these fighters don't means much: also the hurricane was much less  powerful, even D 520 and Ms 406, but all them whipped Bf110 without difficult.

203178[/snapback]

There are accounts of MS.406 pilots having real "difficulties" with Bf 110s.

[Paul F Jungnitsch]

I haven't done enough research on sudject but the fall of France is not due to the Maginot Line, or lack of 3 men turrents in their tanks.  So many factors played in the fall of France.  In the only real tank battle of 1940, it was French who came out on top, as they had tanks than Germans.  most german tanks were MK1 or Mk2's so it wasn't tanks that won the battle of France.

 

The Germans took to offenive and stayed with it, where the British and French just seemed to have fell apart.

201294[/snapback]

 

Agree. From what I can see the main problem France had was leadership at the top, they could have beat the Germans with the weapons they had. (Though I'd vote for much greater production of anti-tank guns, fighter planes, and tank radios).

 

Bringing Weygand back from Lebanon before things were all but lost would have made the biggest difference.

[Gabe]

What France needed was a WMD deterrent. Build a strategic bomber command and threaten to smother German cities with sarin if attacked.

 

Ultimatly it would be the WMD deterrent that produced The Great European Peace following WWII. There's no reason it wouldn't be done with chemicals in lieu of nukes.