"Some What Ifs seldom discussed" Topic

As these are in the favor of the Allies, they are seldom mentioned. Follow
3.7 inch or 90mm tank guns in 1942 on Allied or Soviet armor or the equivalent
Radios and or 3 man turrets on Allied or Soviet tanks
An AT rocket launcher like the 3.5 inch bazooka in 1942 for the Allies and Soviets.
A more reliable SMG for the British
An Allied heavy tank comparable with the Tiger or Stalin in 1943
Any one or two of these was possible only blocked by their nations bureaucracies yet were still more probable than the Axis A bomb or super submarine

Why not add – the Allies and Soviets copy the MG34 from 1940 (and carry 2 per section in motorized, airborne, commando etc. units)

US declares war on Germany when France and Britain do in 1939.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Germany doesn't declare war on Poland over Danzig
France invades over Czechoslovakia
Hitler dies in WWI
Stalin doesn't purge the officer corps
Japan stays out of the wider war, content to attempt to occupy all of China

French get their act together about a year faster: in 1940 the tanks have radios, and the armored units are trained together.
Or they just stop the remilitarization of the Rhineland, and WWII as we know it never happens.

This is why I stick to TACTICAL what-ifs. The miniatures are for sale, and I don't have to work out the specs on a weapon which never went into serial production.

Italy aligns with the Allies
Leopold does not renounce the Franco-Belgian alliance
Germany and the Soviet Union do not enter into their pact prior to German invasion of Poland
French armored divisions follow German organization and tactical doctrines
Germany sends large force to attack Soviets through southern Finland in 1941

> US declares war on Germany when France and Britain do in 1939.

promptly followed by the US sitting out the rest of the war starting in 41 due to Roosevelt losing the election of 1940 in a landslide to whatever isolationist opponent he faces, heck in 39 he might not (most likely would not) even make the Democratic ticket.

3,000 years BC devout Bhuddism takes over the entire world..everyone is really happy with the situation, and live in a complete state of peace and enlightenment, no other religious or political divergence ever occurs – the world exists in total peace and harmony ever after.
There hasn't been so much as a fist fight for 5,000 years.
The end.

Well, hard to top that one

How about – Germany and Japan act like real allies; the Japanese give the Germans ten squadrons of Zero fighters – with their very long flight endurance times – during the Battle of Britain and the Germans reciprocate with anti-tank and tank technology; both come with a coordinated attack plan on the Soviet Union in 1941, with the agreement to the Japanese that Middle Eastern oil will be available to them and that both of them leave the Americans alone

An Allied heavy tank comparable with the Tiger or Stalin in 1943

The US should have adopted the M6 and M26. The M6 to replace many of the M4s.
And the M26 introduced to US Armor forces much sooner.

It would have probably saved more US Tankers lives …

France and Great Britain declare war on Russia after Russia invades Poland. Russia allies with Germany to win the war.

The US should have adopted the M6 and M26. The M6 to replace many of the M4s.
And the M26 introduced to US Armor forces much sooner.

US could have built the M25, which was essentially the M26 with not quite as much armor, probably by late '43 IIRC. Or put the M25 turret (with 90mm gun) on the M4A3. Surely could have brought out the M36 TD, or something similar, by then.

On the strategic level, Britain and France came close to intervening in the Russo-Finish War on the side of Finland; that would have led to some real complications!

he US should have adopted the M6 and M26. The M6 to replace many of the M4s.
And the M26 introduced to US Armor forces much sooner.

Not really much of a what-if…The M6 (and M26) would have been pretty much just as vulnerable to 75mm/l48 plus rounds or IAT at the sort of ranges (<500m) US tanks were engaged at in Normandy (in the relatively few tankvtank engagements they had anyway)..The gun would have made no real difference either:
The way I heard it, the Germans lost nearly all of their armour in France anyway…a PIV knocked out by a 90mm is no different to one abandoned by its crew because it ran out of fuel/hit by artillery/aircraft
The Allies would have course had FEWER tanks and replacements due to shipping constraints and the M26 wouldn't have fitted very well into landing craft…
Poor trade at best.

It was far from obvious that a heavier tank would have been a great plan back in 1943.
I'm not convinced it was anyhow.

Switching tank production is a big deal.
I looked into how much earlier a heavier tank could practically have been produced.
IIRC it was in the order of 6 months maximum.
Even once they make it, there would then be problems shipping the things to Europe.
The Jumbo was a better idea than another type of tank – and they had them.

The German Army figures out how to blow up a single room with a syphaletic, hypochondriac, vegan, lazy, failed artist with slovenly personal habits and incredibly bad breath in it. Once you get that down then try and conquer the world.

France invades over Czechoslovakia

I can beat that one: how about France INVADES Czechoslovakia?

3,000 years BC devout Bhuddism takes over the entire world..everyone is really happy with the situation, and live in a complete state of peace and enlightenment, no other religious or political divergence ever occurs – the world exists in total peace and harmony ever after.
There hasn't been so much as a fist fight for 5,000 years.
The end.

That one's a bit tricky, not only because "Buddhism is peaceful" is a myth that has no basis in world history, but because 3,000 BC would predate Buddhism by, well, about the same number of years!

The German Army figures out how to blow up a single room with a syphaletic, hypochondriac, vegan, lazy, failed artist with slovenly personal habits and incredibly bad breath in it. Once you get that down then try and conquer the world.

You forgot, according to the latest research, "drug addicted"!

*6 pounder introduced on schedule rather than being pushed back due to losing their gear in Dunkirk.

Those Panzers in the desert won't be as daring.

*Soviets restructure their armoured forces before Barbarossa instead of after.

*France and Britain throw all their air power at the Germans up front instead of being picked off in bits and pieces.

US-
Better torpedoes for the US Navy.
Ram Tank manufacture instead of Lee/Grant.
M2 Autocarbine right off the bat.
Recoiless Rifle cannon earlier.
P39 with turboboost.
Britain-
Semi-auto Enfield
Sten with better mags and … .357 magnum caliber.
(the Bren was perfect)
Better web gear/storage etc.
Better radios.
Russia-
Ideally, no purge
Copy the Sherman's insides for the T34 series. No more using a ballpeen hammer to switch gears.
Develop the AK sooner.

Mass production of the 1941 New Zealand .303 Charlton gas operated automatic rifle.

"An allied heavy tank comparable with the Stalin"?

Mate, the Stalin WAS an allied tank.

More reliable Brit SMG? Disastrous. Desperation led the Brits to the best possible outcome: dirt cheap, easily manufactured, almost throwaway sprayguns that broke the mould of unnecessarily over-engineered SMGs. End result? Britain was able to arm partisans from Norway to Borneo, and if they couldn't get you the guns, they could at least get you the plans and you could build it in your garage. No way any of that could have been achieved using BSA-Thompsons.

Not really much of a what-if…The M6 (and M26) would have been pretty much just as vulnerable to 75mm/l48 plus rounds or IAT at the sort of ranges (<500m) US tanks were engaged at in Normandy (in the relatively few tankvtank engagements they had anyway)..The gun would have made no real difference either:
The way I heard it, the Germans lost nearly all of their armour in France anyway…a PIV knocked out by a 90mm is no different to one abandoned by its crew because it ran out of fuel/hit by artillery/aircraft
The Allies would have course had FEWER tanks and replacements due to shipping constraints and the M26 wouldn't have fitted very well into landing craft…
Poor trade at best.

And yet, many have discussed this very topic. As an interesting "what if". We have all heard what was posted on this topic from other sources as well. And why it was or was not a good idea. And the M26 may not have fit on an LCM … but probably on an LST, etc. So there is an interesting "what if". They were unloaded at major port like Antwerp, etc., IIRC …

So if your facts are correct. And they certainly sound right AFAIK.

The M6 (and M26) would have been pretty much just as vulnerable to 75mm/l48 plus rounds or IAT at the sort of ranges (<500m)

Sounds about right. But I'd think most tankers would rather have an improvement to the M4.

US tanks were engaged at in Normandy (in the relatively few tankvtank engagements they had anyway)..

So having less M4s and some M6 and/or M26s available instead would still give the US a tactical edge.

The way I heard it, the Germans lost nearly all of their armour in France anyway…a PIV knocked out by a 90mm is no different to one abandoned by its crew because it ran out of fuel/hit by artillery/aircraft

Still again, the M6 and M26 would have given the US Tankers a tactical edge. And sometimes that all it takes …

The Allies would have course had FEWER tanks and replacements due to shipping constraints and the M26 wouldn't have fitted very well into landing craft…

But if most German AFVs were knocked out by CAS or FA, etc.,. So then the US wouldn't need as many Tanks. ?

Poor trade at best.

Not if you were one of those M4 crews that had to go toe2toe with a Mk.VIa or b, etc., … Better to have a big gun and not need it than the other way around.

Some current WWII gamers need to run a few actual historical scenarios and replace M4s with M6s and or some M26s. Could be some interesting games ?

It was far from obvious that a heavier tank would have been a great plan back in 1943.
I'm not convinced it was anyhow.

And yet most Armies in the ETO were trying to produce heavier and heavier Tanks with bigger guns. So why didn't the US just produce more M5 Stuarts than any M4s or even the M26 ?

Switching tank production is a big deal.

But if anyone could have done it. It would have been the USA at that time.

I looked into how much earlier a heavier tank could practically have been produced.
IIRC it was in the order of 6 months maximum.

That is why it's called a "what-if" … No ?

Even once they make it, there would then be problems shipping the things to Europe.

And yet some M26s made it to the ETO …

3 man turret for T34 from the get-go.

> Some current WWII gamers need to run a few actual historical scenarios and replace M4s with M6s and or some M26s. Could be some interesting games ?

Or run some of those historical scenarios with 10 M4s and NO enemy tanks with no M4s or M6s or M26 tanks.

A more interesting what if would be all the Shermans having a gun equivalent to a Firefly (with good HE ability thrown in, no idea why it was not done, if you can fit X amount of explosive in a 75 you should be able to do the same with a 76). Till the King Tigers and similar things became common (OK, common is stretching it) the Firefly tanks were the match of any German tank.

That would be interesting … But I think I was looking more for M6s and or M26s taking the place of the M4s. Or mixed in with the M4s. To see how they'd fare vs. German Armor, etc. ? It is just a hypothetical exercise, regardless.

Put the M6 heavy tank into series production right away and fix the bugs as you go along. The US did that with many production weapons from the Sherman to the P51 Mustang. It's not that large and if the Germans could ship Tiger Is to North Africa the US could ship M6 tanks anywhere in the world without that much difficulty.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

How about retro arming the M4 Shermans with 76mm guns. Set up production line to turn out modified turret and 76mm gun change over all production to 76mm Shermans. Modify the production line for 75mm turrets (and guns) to 76mm turret and guns and put together update kits to be shipped to European and Mediterranean theater. Earmark all remaining 75mm Shermans to Pacific theater.

In mid 1943 there was a plan to produce 500 M25s and 500 M26s but it got nixed. If this plan had gone through about the time of the Normandy Invasion one battalion in each armored division could have been equipped with 90mm gun tanks.

British using a tank engine other than the Liberty? A reliable engine could have made a lot of difference in early war tanks.

The reason the 17pdr had a poor HE ability was because of the higher muzzle velocity from the larger charge. The walls of the shell needed to be thicker to withstand the forces in the barrel meaning less space for HE filler.

Would it have been possible to fit a 17pdr HE shell with a less powerful charge meaning it wouldn't need the thicker walls? or would that lead to problems with the sights meaning effectivly two types of sight, one for HE and one for AP?

They had two types of sight for HE and AP anyway as the flight characteristics were so different.

All the high velocity 75mm guns suffered from low(er) HE capability, the 17pdr, the US and 76mm and the 75L70. They weren't dreadful, just not as good as the lower velocity ones. For their US guns their lethal area as about 10% less than for a 75.

As the War Office operations notes somewhat drily noted, just fire more shells at the target.

I have to say that all this tactical fiddling around with bits of kit would have made very little difference to the overall outcome of the War, whereas a German A Bomb certainly would have done.

The things which would have really helped the Allies were mainly air and naval (centimetric radar, effective ASW, more of a focus on ground support, more reliable torpedoes).

Britain – hardware: the entire concept of the turreted fighter is a dead horse – stop flogging it. Ditto single-engined bombers.

All merlin engines destined for Defiants, Battles and Fulmars repurposed for Whirlwinds.

Fleet Air Arm gets independent procurement instead of having to make do with the RAFs leftovers.

Joint design teams for tank development – avoiding the mishmash clunky compromises produced by separate 'gun teams', 'armour teams', etc.

Operational – face down the dockers who refused to load British armour for France unless it was unfuelled, unloaded, and partially dismantled. Replace those jobsworth amateur Bolsheviks with Army Pioneers and Naval personnel, load the armour in deployment-ready condition.
Would have been a huge force multiplier for the BEF.

Forget Greece once Yugoslavia falls. You're sitting there looking at Bulgaria – Yugoslavia crumbles like a stepped-on cookie, and suddenly the Axis forces are behind you. The game's lost right there. Every bullet and drop of blood spent from that point on is wasted.

As soon as it becomes apparent that Freyberg doesn't grasp the threat of airborne invasion and isn't acting on the ENIGMA intel – replace him with someone who does, and will.

Forget Dieppe. I don't even know where to start on that one.

Start fortifying the hell out of Singapore the moment you decide to join the embargo against Japan. Anybody who has qualms about the effect this might have on the delicate sensibilities of the local burghers is on the next boat home.

Actively support Finland against the USSR in 1939. Substantial military support would have made the Reds think twice about coming back for round two, and kept Finland out of the Axis.

Forget the Arctic convoys. High-risk, high-cost operations carried out in appalling conditions at a time when the majority of British aid to the USSR was going overland through the Middle East in (comparative) safety. Send the lot that way.

I have to say that all this tactical fiddling around with bits of kit would have made very little difference to the overall outcome of the War, whereas a German A Bomb certainly would have done.

Of course but we are talking about little discussed and "what-ifs" … Yes ? And again on a tactical level more US Tankers may not have died with better equipment.

In mid 1943 there was a plan to produce 500 M25s and 500 M26s but it got nixed. If this plan had gone through about the time of the Normandy Invasion one battalion in each armored division could have been equipped with 90mm gun tanks.

Yes, this IMO, would have made difference on a tactical level.

Would it have been possible to fit a 17pdr HE shell with a less powerful charge meaning it wouldn't need the thicker walls? or would that lead to problems with the sights meaning effectivly two types of sight, one for HE and one for AP?

Well, I'd think you'd want to keep the best AT characteristic of the main gun as you could. And also remember, all M4 versions had a bow and co-ax .30cal MG. These were primarily there for Anti-Personnel work.

Plus the external .50 cal. could be use for not only AA. But Infantry and even against light vehicles. A .50 will chew thru brick walls with ease. As well as the thin armor of some AFVs.

It's not that large and if the Germans could ship Tiger Is to North Africa the US could ship M6 tanks anywhere in the world without that much difficulty.

That is very true as I said, it could have been done to ship M6s and M26s the ETO. And one or both could have been designed earlier, as noted and reduced US Tank crew losses. In the long run …

Being a former Mech Grunt during the Cold War and frequently being attached to Tank Bns. I'd like to think it would have been better to save more WWII US Tankers lives. Than otherwise …

Actively support Finland against the USSR in 1939. Substantial military support would have made the Reds think twice about coming back for round two, and kept Finland out of the Axis.

And put Britain and France at war with the USSR, which really would have complicated things if/when Germany invaded the USSR.

I do not believe Russia would have been willing to bite on that sandwich.
I think it's more likely that the prospect of Finland being supported with British munitions would have deterred the Soviets, rather than provoking them.

Also; with the 'Pact of Steel', Russia was already firmly in Germany's camp. There was no percentage for the Allies in trying to keep Russia sweet.

That only changes with Barbarossa, which brings us to this: Barbarossa easily trumps all other considerations for the USSR.

Another interesting what-if is that there were some tentative signaling in the mid 30's between the Soviets and the UK about an anti-German pact.

Nothing came of it until Barbarossa obviously but might have changed quite a few things around.

The big problem with the M6 and M26 heavy tanks is that they didn't fit in the LSTs (well, OK, you could only fit like 5 instead of 15). That's a rather critical failure.

A 90mm turret on a Jumbo would have done the job acceptably.

One hell of a what-if is what if the US actually fielded the T24 LMG (aka the MG42 in .30-06), and fielded them in place of BARs and M1917/M1919s.

Fixing the Mk14 (submarine) and Mk15 (destroyer) torpedoes sooner (say, by actually testing live warshots!) would have completely smashed the IJN even faster.

That's a rather critical failure.

Depends … 5 M26s or 15 M4s. Quality vs. quantity …

Forget the M26. Start tactical air in 1942.

But I like Tanks supported by CAS …

These what-if's are fun for tactical wargaming consideration.

Yet I wonder if we actually understand what we are asking for in our what-ifs.

The M6? Yes, I will admit it could be interesting, but more like how a Russian T-35 is interesting, not like how a Tiger tank is interesting.

I mean really, a 57 ton tank, 3m high, with a 3-inch gun and a co-axial 37mm gun in the turret, and no fewer than 4 forward firing hull MGs (two pivoting .50cals, and two fixed .30cals), all protected by a maximum of only 80mm of frontal armor. You want to take THAT into a battle with the German Panzerwaffe in 1944? Thanks, but I'll pass.

And we want the M25 and M26s that were requested for production in 1943? We're going to start production on tanks before the features are even settled, much less waiting until there are actual blueprints or, heaven forbid, a working prototype.

The M25 in that time frame did not exactly promise all that wargamers crave. The armament was not yet settled in 1943 when the 500 were requested, and by my recollection of the various memos going back and forth regarding the various development projects, I think there was still a residual question of whether the M25 would get a 75mm gun with auto-loader, but the primary choice seemed to be the 76mm gun, with some voices arguing that the 105mm howitzer should dominate production. It's kind of hard to see how a wargamer will gain advantage from a US medium tank with 75mm frontal armor, a 75mm or 76mm gun, or 105mm howitzer, compared to the M4s of that time. That, of course, assumes the wargaming ignores the impact of these tanks on logistics, unless you like to play issues of reliability -- the electric drive system planned for the first builds demonstrated significantly lower meantime between failures in the T20 program than the well-proven transmission in the M4, and I rather doubt that upping the weight by 20-30% with the same engine and suspension will improve the overall reliability, no? BTW the volute spring system planned for the M25 at this time struggled with higher weights, as witnessed by the reliability issues in the M6 and even in the Sherman Jumbo programs. Certainly makes one wonder why it would be worth reducing your supply of tanks by 40-50% and retraining your crews.

The comment about the LST bears a little examination. Look at the Torch landings. The US didn't have serviceable LSTs yet, and so only the Stuart light tanks could be landed on the beaches (unloaded from freighters in to the landing craft for the trip to the shore). The M3 and M4 mediums had to be off-loaded at docks. That meant seizing port facilities before getting ANY mediums ashore. After Dieppe (an adventure we all would agree was a bitter lesson) it was pretty clear to all that no one was going to storm ashore and seize a working port in France. So, by the end of 1942, building those new-fangled LSTs became a high priority.

Yes, there was a problem with weight and width in carrying. Where you could put the M4s two across and 7 or 8 deep, you could only put the M25/M26s one across and 4 or 5 deep. But there was a bigger problem with the doors. An M25 / M26 could in fact fit through the bow doors of an LST, but with less than 1 foot to spare. OK, now, among our veteran tankers here, how many of you would be comfortable driving a tank through an opening that only leaves 1 foot of total width to spare (6 inches per side)? Now let's whittle that down a bit to less than 6 inches per side. In a tank with clutch-and-brake steering, of course (no tiller here, boys). And your platform is rolling with the waves as you try to move to and through that opening. And … here's the kicker … if you, or ANY of the greenback 12 week wonders behind you, so much as touch one of the doors, the ship is no longer sea-worthy for the return (those doors MUST be water-tight for an LST to sail the seas).

I'm guessing that the offloading would be rather slower. Don't you think? That, or the beaches at Normandy would be littered with the beached LSTs that are no longer sea-worthy. So after you get your 5 tanks ashore (instead of 15), now ask yourself how the second wave and replacements will get ashore. And remember, you'll need MORE replacements, because your meantime between failure will be notably higher.

But it is the actual historical possibilities that show the real impact.

Maybe, with M6 heavy tanks on the beaches in 1945 (aggressively allowing only a year to re-design and build a fleet of landing craft to carry them) we could finally see the western allies break out of the Normandie beach head in less than a year! Maybe even less than 6 months!

And if the M25 and M26 tanks actually become a reality, then the western allies could have actually pushed the Germans out of France after they broke out of the beach heads. Imagine how the war would have changed if they could have swept across France and reached the Seine before winter, or even late fall! And maybe the US would not have lost the battles in the Ardennes when and if the Germans counter-attacked.

And if the Russians had had the IS-2 by 1943, maybe the Tigers would not have overrun the defenses and the Russians could have won at Kursk. That could have opened up the potential for the Red Army to actually seize the initiative in the second half of 1943, maybe even pushing the Germans back as far as the Dniepr by the end of 1943.

The mind boggles at the possibilities.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

With all Shermans in Europe equipped with 76mm guns these would have been the tanks to make the initial landing. After securing the beach then the M-25s and M-26s would start landing. As far as the clearance off of the LST goes, I have driven an APC on to a flatcar for shipment and slow and careful does work.

I'm quite intrigued by the possibilities of British troops landing in Finland to fight the Russians in 1939-40 if Norway had been delayed…

All good and interesting points Mark 1. And some of those comments I heard and thought about before. But yes, it is a very good, "what-if" for gaming. And interesting from a historical and AFV design standpoint.

As far as the clearance off of the LST goes, I have driven an APC on to a flatcar for shipment and slow and careful does work.

Yes, I thought similarly having loaded and unloaded all types of AFVs, wheeled, etc., vehicles on rail cars and even aircraft. A number of times while on active duty, '79-'90. In the states, the ROK, and Europe. Being assigned to 1 Air Assault Bn and then 3 Mech(M113) Bns.

With all Shermans in Europe equipped with 76mm guns these would have been the tanks to make the initial landing. After securing the beach then the M-25s and M-26s would start landing

That is another good point. The initial landing forces maybe lighter than the follow on forces. That is almost a stand, in some forced entry operations.

E.g., when I was an LT in the 101. You want to get as many forces on the LZ, on the ground as fast as possible. To secure the LZ, etc. With Infantry leading. Then our Jeep Mounted TOWs coming very shortly afterwards. The same is very similar with a forced entry beach landing, like Normandy.

I was fortunate to do cross-training with the USMC. At Little Creek, at Basic Amph Training Course too. So I have a general working knowledge of Forced Entry Ops. Which today we try to avoid at all costs. For obvious reasons.

And being a student of history like many here. Some of these "what-ifs" in USA Tank development in WWII is pretty interesting IMO.

Not really much of a what-if

So again I beg to differ as do others here.

Poor trade at best.

Again, Not from my standpoint. After playing beaucoup wargames before I went on active duty. Most dealing with WWII. In most games, M4s, generally all versions. Were usually at a distinct "disadvantage" when going toe2toe with most German armor. As well as studying this type of warfare constantly. Before and while on active duty.

And don't forget how poorly US M24s fared vs. North Korean T34/85s. At the beginning of the Korean Ear. The M26s brought in later gave the US Tankers a nice edge. And all the M4s were packing the 76mm. And even some [not so]old M36s eventually made it to the conflict.

So again, IMO, it would be interesting gaming with the M26 and other US MBTS that were meant to replace the M4. In battles verses the heavier German armor.

And I think we see that from the beginning of WWII thru the Cold War. That all armor forces developed bigger more well armored and arms MBTs, etc.,… The US made the decision to stick with the M4 with most having the 75mm. Think how things may have changed if the US landed many MBTs, [M6, M25, M26, etc.] that were "better" than the standard M4 at Normandy, etc., … Certainly would have saved some US Tanker lives, as well as others branches, I'd think. As Mark 1 pointed out …

Maybe, with M6 heavy tanks on the beaches in 1945 (aggressively allowing only a year to re-design and build a fleet of landing craft to carry them) we could finally see the western allies break out of the Normandie beach head in less than a year! Maybe even less than 6 months!

And if the M25 and M26 tanks actually become a reality, then the western allies could have actually pushed the Germans out of France after they broke out of the beach heads. Imagine how the war would have changed if they could have swept across France and reached the Seine before winter, or even late fall! And maybe the US would not have lost the battles in the Ardennes when and if the Germans counter-attacked.

Norman D Landings
"the entire concept of the turreted fighter is a dead horse – stop flogging it."

Actually it was more of a sickly cart horse which was used to run a steeplechase. If the Germans hadn't unsportingly conquered the Channel coast it might well have stopped unescorted bombers coming across the North Sea. Did you know that in 1942 the RAF in India asked if it was feasible to equip two sqdns with Defiants to deal with the Japanese raids on Calcutta which were practically the model of the type of raid the Defiant was designed to meet.

"All merlin engines destined for Defiants, Battles and Fulmars repurposed for Whirlwinds"

At which point you would have got a confused phone call from Westland asking "What the ____ are we supposed to do with these our revolutionary and very underrated fighter is designed round the Peregrine?" Even if we agree the Defiant is surplus to requirements, the Battle while crap had to be kept in production because there was nothing else to face the invasion they KNEW was coming (No 20/20 hindsight in 1940.) and if you cancel the Fulmar you are condemning the FAA to fight with the Skua and the Sea Gladiator for the foreseeable future. I know the Fulmar is poor substitute for a real fighter but its better than them.

Operational – face down the dockers who refused to load British armour for France unless it was unfuelled, unloaded, and partially dismantled. Replace those jobsworth amateur Bolsheviks with Army Pioneers and Naval personnel, load the armour in deployment-ready condition.
Would have been a huge force multiplier for the BEF.

Even if you could do this, prior to the fall of France I can't think of a better way to cause a political crisis in the UK, I doubt if there were sufficent numbers of trained personel in either service. Navy ships are loaded by civilians who work for the MOD. Even then it would mean BEF's tanks would have sat in holding areas in France from October until May instead of from December. If these dockers stopped tanks from being sent after May 10th thank God they did we lost enough equipment in France.

"Forget Greece once Yugoslavia falls. You're sitting there looking at Bulgaria – Yugoslavia crumbles like a stepped-on cookie, and suddenly the Axis forces are behind you. The game's lost right there. Every bullet and drop of blood spent from that point on is wasted."

True but by that time we were already their and there wasn't much else we could do.

Your FAA and Tank design points are very true especially the first.

Freyberg; Finland; and Singapore I understand were you are coming from and while I have some differences not enough to make it worth detailing.

Deippe and the Artic convoys I can't agree with but both are subjects which would take far too much time to cover and we would probably never agree any way. ;)

Fatman

I've never seen this one.

What if the US carrier group(s) from Pearl Harbor arrive back at the islands just as the Japanese attack is occurring, or just afterwards?

Also, never read any definitive info on when they were sortied, why (presumably for practice; conspiratorial rumors are to save them from the attack the President knew in advance was coming), and to where, so would love to know more info about that.

Also, never read any definitive info on when they were sortied, why (presumably for practice; conspiratorial rumors are to save them from the attack the President knew in advance was coming), and to where, so would love to know more info about that.

OK. Let's see if we can fill in the blanks in a "definitive" way.

On 7 Dec 41, USS Saratoga (assigned to the Pacific Fleet) was just entering San Diego after an interim dry docking at Bremerton, Washington. The Saratoga Air Group consisted of:

Bombing Squadron Three (VB-3) with 21 Douglas SBD-3 Dauntless
Fighting Squadron Three (VF-3) with 7 Grumman F4F-3 and 2 F4F-3A Wildcats
Scouting Squadron Three (VS-3) with 22 Douglas SBD-3 Dauntless
Torpedo Squadron Three (VT-3) with 12 Douglas TBD-1 Devastators

With Saratoga detached off to dry docking on the West Coast, there were two remaining Pacific Fleet carriers based at Pearl Harbor: Enterprise and Lexington.

On 7 Dec 41, the Enterprise Air Group consisted of:

Bombing Squadron Six (VB-6) with 17 Douglas SBD-2 Dauntless
Fighting Squadron Six (VF-6) with 16 Grumman F4F-3A Wildcats
Scouting Squadron Six (VS-6) with 10 Douglas SBD-2 and 8 SBD-3 Dauntless
Torpedo Squadron Six (VT-6) with 18 Douglas TBD-1 Devastators and 2 North American SNJ-3s

USS Enterprise departed Pearl Harbor on 28 Nov 41 on a mission to deliver 12 Grumman F4F-3 Wildcats of Marine Fighting Squadron Two Eleven (VMF-211) to Wake Island. The Enterprise, with the accompanying three heavy cruisers and nine destroyers, comprised Task Force 8 (TF 8). The Marine fighters were launched on 2 Dec when the Enterprise was 75 miles (120 km) north of Wake Island. She then turned east and headed back to Pearl Harbor where she was due to arrive on 6 Dec. Due to a storm, Vice Admiral William Halsey, commander of TF 8 in Enterprise, ordered reduced speed thus delaying the carrier's arrival at Pearl Harbor until 7 December.

At 0618 hours on 7 Dec 41, Enterprise launched SBDs of VB-6 and VS-6 to search a sector 045 to 134 degrees for a distance of 150 miles (240 km) and to then proceed to NAS Pearl Harbor on Ford Island. A total of 18 aircraft arrived over Pearl Harbor during the Japanese attack. One was shot down by U.S. antiaircraft fire, four by the Japanese and one crash-landed. The remainder landed at either NAS Ewa or NAS Pearl Harbor.

On 7 Dec 41, the Lexington Air Group was composed of:

Bombing Squadron Two (VB-2) with 15 Douglas SBD-2 Dauntless
Fighting Squadron Two (VF-2) with 16 Brewster F2A-3 Buffalos
Scouting Squadron Two (VS-2) with 1 Douglas SBD-2 and 14 SBD-3 Dauntless
Torpedo Squadron Two (VT-2) with 12 Douglas TBD-1 Devastators

In order to augment the air defenses for Midway Island, USS Lexington departed Pearl Harbor on 5 Dec with 18 Vought SB2U-3 Vindicators of Marine Scouting Bombing Squadron Two Thirty One (VMSB-231) aboard. Along with the heavy cruisers USS Chicago (CA-29), USS Portland (CA-33) and USS Astoria (CA-34) and five destroyers, the Lexington formed Task Force 12.

The plan was to approach within 400 miles (640 km) of Midway and fly the Marine squadron off to land on the island; Lexington would then be free to continue training/scouting. This position (400 miles from Midway) would have been reached by mid-morning of 7 Dec. Upon learning of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Lexington launched search planes to hunt for the Japanese fleet, and at midmorning headed south to rendezvous with USS Indianapolis (CA-35) and USS Enterprise (CV-6) task forces to conduct a search SOUTHWEST of Oahu until returning to Pearl Harbor on 13 December.

USN maintains records of the position and mission/orders of every ship, for every day. Even though we all have gaps in our own understanding or knowledge, here are no gaps in the record (that I know of). All it takes is a bit of research.

On the question of the carriers, that research has already been done for us. The December 7 dispositions for all the USN carriers in service or building on December 7 (CV-2 through CV-17) can be found here:
link

Hope that helps.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

75 years ago tomorrow … Dec. 7th, 1941 …

A decade ago, we played Totaler Krieg with the optional pre-WWII die-rolls to set up an alternative Europe. I was the West, can't remember who else was what, but…

In our game, Italy became Communist and allied with Russia (but not the West). Spain became a neutral fascist power, which allowed me to invade as the Germans (with their Polish allies) were busy with Czechoslovakia. I was just able to take all the cities of Spain and get the troops back onto the FR-GER-BEL border before Germany headed west. France held, in part because Germany got greedy and took Norway (!?) in the middle of its war against France. Britain remained neutral.

From my original review:

---

We rolled lots of dice, consulted charts, and figured out what happened to Germany after WWI. Boy, were we surprised!

Italy turned Communist and became a minor Soviet ally. Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Spain, and Turkey became German minor allies. Some minor country in between USSR and Turkey became a Western ally, as did Belgium, Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands, and Portugal.

Turkey declared war on France's Syrian colony (but after massive rules flipping we found that it was a special type of geographical/political region and couldn't be invaded without total war declaration, so Turkey went after that little Western democracy instead. Hungary and Poland declared war on Czechoslovakia, but were rebuffed outside Prague. France and Portugal declared war on Spain and eventually captured it. The USSR grabbed the Baltic States and half of Poland.

Then the Germans invaded and took Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Czechoslovakia. The USSR was in the process of bashing Turkey. Then the Germans attacked France, overrunning the Netherlands and most of Belgium, but shifting French forces returned from now conquered Spain and though the French bent, they did not break in 1940--making it safely to the mud season of the late fall.

Quite a year! That's where we called the game. It was pretty obvious that without Italy, Germany was in no position to threaten France or North Africa, and could not arm fast enough to knock out France as Britain put everything into an expanded BEF.

All told, we spent 15-16 hours to do a game year in, well, about a year of real year. It was tough to get the same trio together more than once every 3 months, but if you could play once a week for an evening of 3-4 hours, you'd probably be able to do the six-year war in about 60 hours or so.

---

On the geopolitical level, this was the first strategic-level WWII game we played where the makeup of European alliances could shift around.

Not sure if there were any others quite like this…

90mm? unnecessary. few tank v tank engagements. more logistical problems. trouble shipping heavier tanks

Russian radio communications were sorely lacking everywhere and not just in tanks. I have a feeling this is a reason why they did so poorly early in the war. they were still using telegraph. germans definitely got in their OODA loop. perhaps the most important lend lease item?

I actually think the sten was an amazing and clever design. Very cool gun recommend everyone learn about its manufacture. Thompson was an EXTREMELY expensive gun by the way for military use.

Bazooka? share the technology with russia? russia needed an infantry AT weapon, but perhaps they had enough tanks anyways

overall I think the allies calculated there weapons and logistics way better

My what ifs
Japanese semi-automatic rifle, submachine gun and panzerfaust, belt fed HMG, more land mines, order against banzaii charges, learns basic defensive tactics.

Germany concentrates and only produces the Panzer IV, successfully produces antiaircraft missile by early 1944, battle of britain never occurs, concentrates more on u boats

90mm? unnecessary. few tank v tank engagements. more logistical problems. trouble shipping heavier tanks

US had 90mm on their M36, so logistics should not be a problem. The other concerns were already addressed too. If the US wanted to. The M26 could at least have fielded 6 months to a year earlier. More US Tank crews survive. That is my theory, anyway …

Yes some, and I suspect in the great scheme of things a very small number (and it would be very small… tens, or maybe a few hundred at most ) of tankers lives could have been directly saved. Perhaps.
No bad thing at all. Trouble is, how many other lives are lost as a result of a decision like that? Lost because of decreased numbers of tanks, because of delays in training, because of possibly even a delay in the entire Normandy invasion in order to facilitate a major change in tank production. If it saved 500 tankers lives (and I doubt it would actually be a fraction of that) but delayed the end of the war by as much as one day then thousands of other lives would be forfeit on other battlefields, cities and camps all over the world.
That's why we play toy soldiers and don't have to deal with decisions like that thank god.
If you want a real life saving what if, try having penicillin available for mass production in 1933 instead of 1943.