The RN and Frwipe out Guderin's tin tanks along the coast. Brtian reinforces Dunkirk.

Nov 2017
557
Guadalajara
OTL Britain and France had everything to defeat Germany in 1940. They lost, only because they panicked.

Guderian had few and mostly extremely vulnerable Pz I and II, the former with MG and the latter with a 20 mm cannon and MG, both with extremly thin armor.
The allies had excellent and abundant Hurricanes and Spitfires to defend the channel ports and ships defending them. They had hundreds of devastating heavy gubns and thousands of still formidable CL and DD guns and secondary guns from capital ships.

The French had the excellent, rapid fire, light, 25 mm gun and the British the 40 mm AT gun. The French also had thousands of excellent 75 mm guns (which OTL were used by French general Koenig in Bir Hakeim to destroy many tanks, stronger than the Pz I and II). The British also had excellent field guns.

The allies had nearly 1/2 million troops, large ammo, food, stores, etc, which were captured. OTL Britain evacuated 330,000 Brits, French and Poles from Dunkirk, the rest died or surrendered).

ATL Churchill does not panick, he realizes that he has a golden opportunity to blunt the edge of the German column, stall the offensive and win the war.

He travels to France and requests that the French navy send all its old ships, strand them and cover them with and bags against bombing attacks, Brtitain will do the same. Their guns will be invaluable against weak German armor. He also asks Reynaud to deploy French fighters to operate from the British and French coasts to wipe out Stuka, etc, He !!!, etc, while the better planes deal with the Bf 109 in orxer to defend modern ships blasting away with their guns. Their heavy guns reach 30 km inland, so large German forces will never reach the coast. the 30 km corridor will prevent encirclement and the allies can easily supply qt night the coast and transport the wounded to Britain.

All AAA from London, etc, and from France will be deployed along the channel (both coasts). Heavy allied naval presence will ensure that all allied pilots are rapidly rescued and German pilots arrested and shipped to Scotland and Ulster.

The KM lost most of its ships in Norway and is no match for the allies navy anyway. submarines are quite useless against large destroyer concentrations in the channel.

Troops from southern France will redeploy through Cherbourg to reinforce the north French coast. Troops arriving from Canada, India, South Africa, Dakar, Tuunisia, etc, will also deploy there to relieve those which have had to withdraw and fight for days.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2017
2,976
Connecticut
Going to disagree. The UK and France did not have everything they needed to defeat the Germans, in WWI,it is clear IMO without the Russians the war in the West would have ended in 1914. Anyway the French's entire foreign policy going back into the 19th century was predicated on not being able to defeat Germany and except for the 20s and 30s this held true.

France was preparing to fight a defensive war and I guess they had everything they needed to defend against a German invasion(no need to retake the lost provinces like in 1914) but the Germans went around the Maginot line, things weren't looking good for France even by WWI standards. In WWII outside of the USSR(due to mere scale), getting air superiority was checkmate and the Germans got a lot of the French air force on the ground and the planes that survived were quickly defeated. Once you have air superiority, even if the enemy is rallying on the ground, you can just bomb the points of resistance at will until they are dealt with. This is the thing, the whole "if only France used their organized tanks as formations" and your unique scenario doesn't take into account, if they did this Germany could just blow them up with aircraft and I'm pretty sure at the time you are referring to, France's airforce was basically finished. Also with Dunkirk the Germans also held back instead of attacking.

Let's say your scenario happens, what can those guns do even without the air factor?
 
Feb 2016
5,049
Atlantic Ocean
so the Royal navy would sit in the narrow channel or sit beached in a couple lines and fire point blank against Panzers? German artillery would leave them alone? one hit to the ammo locker and the whole lien goes kaput
 
Nov 2017
557
Guadalajara
so the Royal navy would sit in the narrow channel or sit beached in a couple lines and fire point blank against Panzers? German artillery would leave them alone? one hit to the ammo locker and the whole lien goes kaput

As stated, large naval guns reached 30 km inland, so they start destroying tanks long before they reach Boulogne, Dunkirk, Abbeville or Calais (as Prince Eugen wiped out plenty of T-34 in Lithuania in 1944 when Strachwitz requested support and US Texas wiped out a Panzer division in France just beyond its range, when the captain flooded one side of the ship to raise its guns.
Destroyers are rather good at firing at pointblank, an in Omaha (unfortunately they did start long hours after thousands of US casualties, that incompetent USN!

German artillery should not even approach the coast.

In WW I the RN chase away the Germans from the Belgian coast, which did not fall throughout the war.

Imagine a duel between a German battery and a heavy cruiser with six 8" guns and 8 or more, rapid fire 6" guns. Not to mention a battleship, even an old one, designed to take heavy shells and fire tons of steel and explosive per minute.
 
Last edited:

notgivenaway

Ad Honorem
Jun 2015
5,780
UK
The French and British messed up some key strategy, such as the Maginot Line. However, comparing it to Overlord a few years later is moot. The Allies by that time had air supremacy, and could use air support to kill tanks and trucks, as much as naval bombardment. Naval bombardment has a limit anyhow. Ships could fire to Caen, but if a tank depot near Paris had to be cleared, then it would have needed fighters or bombers.

If the Allies had better strategy and not made the same mistakes, they could have held out against the Germans, but then this would have required near total naval and air control. The Kriegsmarine in 1940 was far stronger, and the RN had to nullify the U-Boat menace. Moreover, the RAF and French Air Force were not up to the Luftwaffe's standard in numbers or training at that time.

It would have been difficult, and the only hope was to hold out against the Nazis and form a unified beachhead. If the RN in this example, as well as the French Navy, had bombarded German units they would have been cauhght out by U-boats and Luftwaffe attacks.
 
Jan 2018
1,609
China (Hong Kong SAR)
In my opinion, Nazi Germany introduced modern warfare (e.g. Blitzkrieg, bombers, tanks, submarines etc.).

The UK and France were quite obsolete.
 
Nov 2017
557
Guadalajara
The French and British messed up some key strategy, such as the Maginot Line. However, comparing it to Overlord a few years later is moot. The Allies by that time had air supremacy, and could use air support to kill tanks and trucks, as much as naval bombardment. Naval bombardment has a limit anyhow. Ships could fire to Caen, but if a tank depot near Paris had to be cleared, then it would have needed fighters or bombers.

If the Allies had better strategy and not made the same mistakes, they could have held out against the Germans, but then this would have required near total naval and air control. The Kriegsmarine in 1940 was far stronger, and the RN had to nullify the U-Boat menace. Moreover, the RAF and French Air Force were not up to the Luftwaffe's standard in numbers or training at that time.

It would have been difficult, and the only hope was to hold out against the Nazis and form a unified beachhead. If the RN in this example, as well as the French Navy, had bombarded German units they would have been cauhght out by U-boats and Luftwaffe attacks.
When Guderian arrived in Abbeville, Britian and had a large number of fighters in South England and a large number of bases on both sides of the Channel. They definitely had air superiority over the Channel, which Germany took weaks to achieve. Britain and France were producing more fighters than Germany and planes were comming from the US. They had Polish, Czech, French and British pilots, so if Guderian's tin Panzers are wiped out, Germany doesn't stand a chance in hell of taking Calais, much less France.

The KM had been trounced in Norway (it had lost half of its ridiculous 20 destroyers and several cruisers and battleships sunk or heavily damaged.). It had also lost Graf Spee in the River Plate and many U-Boots, . It was so weak that most of it was kept out of the war for a while! The number of U-boots was ridiculous, compared to British and French destroyers and smaller craft and planes. The few and primitive U-boot in 1940 did not stand a chance in hell of defeating the RN and French navies. The few hundred Stuka would have taken time to deploy to the Channel and would have faced overwhelming Hurricane, MS.406 and Spitfire attacks and naval and land AAA.
 
Nov 2017
557
Guadalajara
In my opinion, Nazi Germany introduced modern warfare (e.g. Blitzkrieg, bombers, tanks, submarines etc.).

The UK and France were quite obsolete.
True, yet they still had formidable forces and industry (much greater than Germany's) and could have easily stopped the weak German forces in May 1940, much as they eventually did in 1914. Germany had ridiculously few and primitive tanks, practically no navy left and simply could not cope with high Panzer and plane losses longer than during a month. They lost only because they panicked after the ovelwhelming initial attack where France was weak, in the Ardennes, but taking a coast covered by naval guns and air support was impossible for Germany, much like the Belgian coast never fell in 1914,
 
Last edited: