British Army of 1944-45 equipment/power Vs Wehrmacht 1940-41

[Yodasgrandad]

Hi,

How would the British Army of 1944-45 (Manpower, equipment) perform against the Wehrmacht (Manpower, equipment) of 1940-41?

Would the Brits have better equipment, tanks etc?

What would the Battle of France in 1940 look like? BEF be better prepared?

[stg 44]

Hi,

How would the British Army of 1944-45 (Manpower, equipment) perform against the Wehrmacht (Manpower, equipment) of 1940-41?

Would the Brits have better equipment, tanks etc?

What would the Battle of France in 1940 look like? BEF be better prepared?

Equipment-wise they'd slaughter them. I'm assuming we are leaving out the air forces, which would turn this into a massive route by the Brits. In terms of squads things still pretty equal if not on the Germans' side due to the GPMG system they have vs. the Bren gun, but in terms of armor the Sherman and Comet would rip through anything the Germans had in 1941. Artillery-wise again the Brits have it in terms of technology, but the one issue that would exist is that the Germans have a lot larger army than the Brits. Something like triple or more the British army in 1941 vs. 1944. Division for division the Brits would smash the Germans, but the entire German army of 1940 vs. the British army of 1944 one on one would see the Brits just surrounded and slaughtered due to the numbers imbalance, especially with air power removed from the equation. It really is in the air where the Brits would dominate if that was factored in.

[Carl Schwamberger]

I'm of the 'Its How You Use It' school. The BEF of 1940 can do better tactically, but operationally they make the same mistakes. So the weapons are wasted as applied in the operational standards of 1940.

Turn it around and think about the counter attacks on the Pz corridor, the Arras battles in latter May 1940. WI the Brits had the air/ground cooperation of 1944, the infantry closely coordinated with the tanks, and prompt accurate artillery support from long before H hour? How much longer does the 7th PzD hold up if Rommels famous cannon line is swiftly nuetralized or suppresed by timely airstrikes and artillery attacks? This extends to battlefield service support. After the 7th PzD is savaged the Brit 1st AD & its parent corps replenishes overnight and does the same to the adjacent 5th PzD on the morrow? Shiny baubles are not necessary if you are playing at the top of the game.

[Kingfish]

Division for division the Brits would smash the Germans, but the entire German army of 1940 vs. the British army of 1944 one on one would see the Brits just surrounded and slaughtered due to the numbers imbalance, especially with air power removed from the equation. It really is in the air where the Brits would dominate if that was factored in.

Why would that be a given?

Trying to surround and slaughter an army that possess far greater mobility and firepower is going to result in WW1-era casualty rates among the attacker. How long do you think the Germans could keep that up?

Better yet, how long do you see the German line holding when the Brits decide to launch a Goodwood-style blitz into their ranks?

Re: the numbers imbalance, 21st AG was hamstrung by severe manpower issues throughout '44-'45 but that restriction wouldn't be in effect in this WI.
Since the majority of British casualties would be incurred by the line infantry it would be a simple matter to replace like for like from the still relatively untapped manpower pool across the channel.

[Sheldrake]

Hi,

How would the British Army of 1944-45 (Manpower, equipment) perform against the Wehrmacht (Manpower, equipment) of 1940-41?

Would the Brits have better equipment, tanks etc?

What would the Battle of France in 1940 look like? BEF be better prepared?

The British Liberation Army of 1944 had roughly similar numbers of divisions to the BEF of 1940. The Wehrmacht was much larger than the BLA - but Britain did not fight the Germans alone in 1940 or in 1944. Do you want to consider a slice of the BEF or say the BLA of 1944 and the reconsituted French army of 1945?

There is no point comparing troops armed with the techonology of 1944-45 with those of 1940. The fighter aircraft, tanks and anti tank weapons of a 1944 army would give a serious edge. The AA weapons included radars for early warning, target acquisition and fire control - and proximity fuses that did not exist in 1940.

The BLA of 1944-45 was well equipped with Light AA and anti tank weapons and a much higher proportion of armoured formations than the BEF of 1940. This was because the doctrine of the British Army of 1944-45 was designed around defeating German methods. The BLA had three armoured divisions and one specialised armoured engineer division, six independent brigades and was well equipped with anti-tank units at divisional and corps level and a substantial AA formations forming part of an integrated AA defence system with radar in the field. The integrated AA system of 1944, supported by field radar was much more capable than the Fighter command Dowding system of 1940. The 1944 BLA would stop a 1940 style blitzkrieg in its tracks. Victory in North Africa gave confidence in its methods.

[Aber]

The 1944 BLA would stop a 1940 style blitzkrieg in its tracks.

IIRC the 1940 version proved fairly resilient - the Germans mostly went around the British, not through them.

[Sheldrake]

The 1944 BLA would stop a 1940 style blitzkrieg in its tracks.

IIRC the 1940 version proved fairly resilient - the Germans mostly went around the British, not through them.

True, but the BEF was unbalanced, with no adequate armoured formation. The British Army was inadequately equipped with anti tank and AA weapons as subsequent operations in Greece, Crete and North Africa demonstrated.

[Attrition]

The 1944 army also had a much better organised system of wireless interception and the decryption of Enigma messages, hence despite its disadvantages in 1940-41, it always managed to clove up in a corner and mysteriously dodge the knock-out blow.

[Guaporense]

No difference from 1940: Allies are crushed in 6 weeks like historically. They were crushed because their combat effectiveness was lower and they lacked numerical superiority they got in 1944 when they outnumbered the Germans 3 to 1.

Technological changes were minimal over the period: artillery and small arms were essentially the same accross those years and so 95% of casualties were inflicted in the same fashion by the same weapons, in fact the British were still using guns from WW1 in 1944. Heavy tanks might have some psychological impact but not enough to make any real difference. Amateurs in warfare tend to overestimate the impact of fancy things like tanks and aircraft, when in fact they were only specialized pieces of equipment and not the main dish.

Qualitatively the German army of 1940 was vastly superior to the poorly trained and hastily assembled remnants that the Germans had in the Western front I has 44. If the 140 divisions the Germans used in 1940 were sent to battle the 60 poorly manned divisions in the western front in 44, these 60 divisions would be encircled and destroyed in 15 days tops: each 1944 division was about 2/3 of the size of a 1940 division and they were under strength in 1944, which means their effective size was even lower like 55-60% of the size of a 1940 division. Hence, the German army in the Western front in 1944 was equivalent to about 35 divisions of the 140 divisions in 1940.

[Guaporense]

Hi,

How would the British Army of 1944-45 (Manpower, equipment) perform against the Wehrmacht (Manpower, equipment) of 1940-41?

Would the Brits have better equipment, tanks etc?

What would the Battle of France in 1940 look like? BEF be better prepared?

The British Liberation Army of 1944 had roughly similar numbers of divisions to the BEF of 1940. The Wehrmacht was much larger than the BLA - but Britain did not fight the Germans alone in 1940 or in 1944. Do you want to consider a slice of the BEF or say the BLA of 1944 and the reconsituted French army of 1945?

There is no point comparing troops armed with the techonology of 1944-45 with those of 1940. The fighter aircraft, tanks and anti tank weapons of a 1944 army would give a serious edge. The AA weapons included radars for early warning, target acquisition and fire control - and proximity fuses that did not exist in 1940.

The BLA of 1944-45 was well equipped with Light AA and anti tank weapons and a much higher proportion of armoured formations than the BEF of 1940. This was because the doctrine of the British Army of 1944-45 was designed around defeating German methods. The BLA had three armoured divisions and one specialised armoured engineer division, six independent brigades and was well equipped with anti-tank units at divisional and corps level and a substantial AA formations forming part of an integrated AA defence system with radar in the field. The integrated AA system of 1944, supported by field radar was much more capable than the Fighter command Dowding system of 1940. The 1944 BLA would stop a 1940 style blitzkrieg in its tracks. Victory in North Africa gave confidence in its methods.

Yeah right half a dozen UK divisions are going to stop 140 German divisions.

By the way the blitzkrieg is a myth. Germans just attacked and destroyed the enemy quickly from 1939 to 1941 because that's what happens when one side is much stronger than the other. Iraq in 2003 was also quick. In 1914 they failed to knock out France quickly because the attack was on a smaller scale and the Russians attacked soon after, in 1940 Hitler made a nonaggression pact with precisely that intention.

In 1944 it wasn't any qualitative aspect that allowed the allies to win, it was pure brute force of numerical superiority.

[Sheldrake]

By the way the blitzkrieg is a myth. Germans just attacked and destroyed the enemy quickly from 1939 to 1941 because that's what happens when one side is much stronger than the other. Iraq in 2003 was also quick. In 1914 they failed to knock out France quickly because the attack was on a smaller scale and the Russians attacked soon after, in 1940 Hitler made a nonaggression pact with precisely that intention.

In 1944 it wasn't any qualitative aspect that allowed the allies to win, it was pure brute force of numerical superiority.

Blitzkrieg isn't a myth. In 1940 the Germans defeated an enemy that, on many numerical measures was considerably stronger: in tanks, manpower and firepower. They did so with sound tactical doctrine and a brilliantly planned and executed operational manouvre.

[Attrition]

It was a myth, K-H Frieser said so as did Matthew Cooper in the 70s; Frieser even quoted Hitler deriding the term. The German sensation in 1940 was more accident than design and was a failure, since the British escaped and put France into the blockade that Germany had failed to break out of. Barbarossa was a blitzkrieg if you define it as a political, economic and strategic synthesis and went down the toilet from July to September 1941 at Smolensk. If anything succeeded in France it was Bewegungskrieg with a petrol engine. If Barbarossa can be compared with anything, I'd suggest the Verdun offensive of 1916.

[Kingfish]

Amateurs in warfare tend to overestimate the impact of fancy things like tanks and aircraft, when in fact they were only specialized pieces of equipment and not the main dish.

Again I will point out that had the warring parties viewed the tank as "fancy, specialized pieces of equipment and not the main dish" that view point would have carried over into the TO&E of the opposing armies of the cold war.

But instead the exact opposite occurred. The armies of both Warsaw Pact and NATO fielded huge tank fleets supported by mechanized infantry and artillery.

Why is that?

Well, the answer can either be:

a) the leaders of the respective armed forces of the world are "amateurs in warfare"
-or-
b) you opinion is entirely wrong

[Kingfish]

Yeah right half a dozen UK divisions are going to stop 140 German divisions.

I think the more pertinent question would be what will the Germans use to stop +1,500 allied tanks

[Sheldrake]

It was a myth, K-H Frieser said so as did Matthew Cooper in the 70s; Frieser even quoted Hitler deriding the term. The German sensation in 1940 was more accident than design and was a failure, since the British escaped and put France into the blockade that Germany had failed to break out of. Barbarossa was a blitzkrieg if you define it as a political, economic and strategic synthesis and went down the toilet from July to September 1941 at Smolensk. If anything succeeded in France it was Bewegungskrieg with a petrol engine. If Barbarossa can be compared with anything, I'd suggest the Verdun offensive of 1916.

Up to a point Lord Copper...

Sure, there was no "Blitzkrieg doctrine" ahead of the 1940 camapign. Success was largely due to Manstein's brilliant plan and the execution by the Panzer Corps in the Spitz led by the willfully disobedient Guderian. (Though these plans would have failed without the sound doctrine, organisation and training of the newly expanded Wehrmacht.)

However, and in trepidation of awakening the doctrine Kettenhund, the term Blitzkrieg does exist. It was created as a description of the effects of German success, as portrayed in the media. Whatever it was called, and whether by design or accident, the Germans success was against the odds and not by superior numbers.