1940 What if?

[dougeagle]

Hi gang,

A few days ago, I was looking at my early war micro armour, deciding what I should do with it. I have early Germans...Panzer 38t, Pak 35, Panzer IVD and various other vehicles as well as infantry, then I also have British troops with A9 cruiser tanks, 25mm ATG and other odds and ends. Then I got thinking about what if the German advance into France was stopped by determined and well trained French and British troops? How would have the war been then?

Edit
The idea would be what if Germany had not (supposedly) changed their plans when an Me-109 had to land in Belguim due too some sort of a mechanical failure and the plans the pilot was carrying had fallen into the intelligence of British, French, Belgium hands. If Germany had not changed their plans due to this happening, would the Allied defensive strategy worked instead of the way it did go...with the German forces outflanking Allied positions. Something definitely worth looking into for some good gaming

Anyone else have these ideas and actually played them out?

[Mk 1]

I happen to love early war scenarios. What-if's can play a big part in that. So, for example, in the AAR thread you can see my gaming of a what-if of the Italian forces in Libya moving against the French in Tunisia as part of the 1940 campaign. There are probably dozens of scenarios I could cook up just based on that premise.

I don't happen to collect British forces. But there is a great set of kit available for those who do, from the early cruisers, to the (dare I say it for fear of spontaneous ovations?) Mathilda 1, to various armored cars, and even the Bofors 37mm AT gun (every bit as worthy as the French 25mm if you are doing BEF).

You don't need a single continuous timeline to game what-ifs in that period. You can simply toss together un-related what-ifs by making various assumptions. So for example:

1. The Britsh wake up to the threat a bit earlier (say 1936 instead of 1938). This is a very simple alternate timeline. They don't get any advantage in producing new kinds of kit, but have larger quantities of the real-life kit by the time the Germans move in 1940. So actual fully trained formations of A9s, A13s, Mattie 1 + 2, and more 25pdrs and 2pdrs. Oh, and get some Hurricaines overhead to keep off the Stukas.

2. Lord Gort gets going. Somehow (How? I don't know -- wave your magic wand) the French release Gort for independant action against the breakthrough at Sedan. Very simple alternate timeline. Just read up on what he had, and take it into action against the mobile spearpoint of the Panzer forces.

3. The British and the French play their hand more actively. Invasion of the Saar in the fall of 1939 ... the French do the breakthrough, and the British provide the mobile maneuver force. German forces are rushed from the East to counter-attack.

4. Desert without Greece. The British don't send the cream of their desert forces to Greece (to leave behind as they once again withdraw), and so have well trained and fully formed forces on hand when Rommel shows up. Here the Germans are not yet formed or trained as the Afrika Korps -- just the leadng elements of a light division straight from the continent, facing fully equipped, recently R&R'd, grissled and desert-savvy Brits.

Just some ideas off the top of my head. So many possibilities. I just hope you take some pictures to post for us!

[dougeagle]

I happen to love early war scenarios. What-if's can play a big part in that. So, for example, in the AAR thread you can see my gaming of a what-if of the Italian forces in Libya moving against the French in Tunisia as part of the 1940 campaign. There are probably dozens of scenarios I could cook up just based on that premise.

1. The Britsh wake up to the threat a bit earlier (say 1936 instead of 1938). This is a very simple alternate timeline. They don't get any advantage in producing new kinds of kit, but have larger quantities of the real-life kit by the time the Germans move in 1940. So actual fully trained formations of A9s, A13s, Mattie 1 + 2, and more 25pdrs and 2pdrs. Oh, and get some Hurricaines overhead to keep off the Stukas.

Oooo...I like this idea. Because I use GHQ-WW2 rules mostly, I think having both Germans and British at the same cohesion level would definitely make for a good battle. Most excellent idea...thanks for the suggestions as well Mk1...I appreciate it.

[groundlber]

dougeagle - Your campaign idea would set up more encounter scenarios. Combining the situation of the Germans encountering more first line French troops and most gamers agressiveness, you would have the 'what if' situation of more of the French command having fire in their bellies. I have run a bunch of France 40 scenarios over the years, the French side has won a fair share of the games.
A good mini-campaign would be the original British /French double pincer at Arras: several divisions in action instead of one brigade.
The French fought well on more occaisons than the British of Germans want to give them credit for. Unfortunatly, the superior German generalship and the sloooww French respone left the few hard fought battles in the footnotes of history.
I enjoy the early war scenarios because the equipment is usually more equal, and, units can manuever outside of the effective range of most direct fire weapons and still remain on the wargamiing table.
Groundlber

[ed*b]

For a reasonably entertaining fictional account of an alternate history where the war starts in 1938 over Czechoslovakia, you could take a look at Hitler's War by Harry Turtledove. It looks like the start of another series by him. Of course, in that story the 38T's are being run by the Czech army, so the Germans are a little short of decent panzers.

Probably the best account of the critical early battles in 1940 is in "The Breaking Point: Sedan and the Fall of France 1940" by Robert Doughty. Even though poorly led, unfamiliar with the terrain, and understrength the French troops at Sedan put up a very good fight in the first few days. It is not hard to create a scenario where the French line held long enough for armoured forces to be effectively mustered for a counterattack.

If you just look at raw specs, the French tanks are so superior to what the Germans had that you have to work in the command and radio limitations to make a balanced fight.

[Mk 1]

If you just look at raw specs, the French tanks are so superior to what the Germans had that you have to work in the command and radio limitations to make a balanced fight.

Not to take the thread too far afield, but this is one of the areas where I like to test wargaming rules, and is one of the reasons I do so enjoy early-war gaming.

Both in France in 1940, and on the Eastern Front in 1941, if you look only at the mobility vs. guns vs. armor question (in your rules), you can't possibly understand how the Germans won at the tactical level. Rules that have unit scales of 1-to-many kind of wash over this by giving the Germans high "cohesion" ratings, or by assigning firepower or defense factors to German units that vary wildly from the actual gunpower and armor comparisons of the vehicles in question. I understand that this gives a more realistic result, but it gives a false impression of superiority to German tanks. For example with the old board game PanzerBlitz I always found it enormously frustrating that a unit of 5 Pz IVs had a defensive factor of 8, while a unit of 10 T-34s had a defensive factor of only 9.

When I play a France 1940 game, I want the rules to show me that the S35 had better armor and a better gun than a Pz IIIe. I even want the rules to make the lowly R35 a tough nut to crack for the German player. But I also want the French player to be hampered by his poor rate of fire, his inability to manuever effectively once combat begins, and his inability to communicate between armor and infantry/artillery formations, while the German player dances around him in his "inferior" panzers.

[dougeagle]

One thing that I have been considering for this idea is what if the British, Belgium and French are doing well at holding off the Germans that the war in France continues into 1941 and the fighting in North Africa never happens. Which leads me to this question...would the Crusader 1 tank with its 2pdr gun makes it debut in France?
Hmm...definitely something to look into...

ed*b wrote:
If you just look at raw specs, the French tanks are so superior to what the Germans had that you have to work in the command and radio limitations to make a balanced fight.

Not to take the thread too far afield, but this is one of the areas where I like to test wargaming rules, and is one of the reasons I do so enjoy early-war gaming.

Both in France in 1940, and on the Eastern Front in 1941, if you look only at the mobility vs. guns vs. armor question (in your rules), you can't possibly understand how the Germans won at the tactical level. Rules that have unit scales of 1-to-many kind of wash over this by giving the Germans high "cohesion" ratings, or by assigning firepower or defense factors to German units that vary wildly from the actual gunpower and armor comparisons of the vehicles in question. I understand that this gives a more realistic result, but it gives a false impression of superiority to German tanks. For example with the old board game PanzerBlitz I always found it enormously frustrating that a unit of 5 Pz IVs had a defensive factor of 8, while a unit of 10 T-34s had a defensive factor of only 9.

When I play a France 1940 game, I want the rules to show me that the S35 had better armor and a better gun than a Pz IIIe. I even want the rules to make the lowly R35 a tough nut to crack for the German player. But I also want the French player to be hampered by his poor rate of fire, his inability to manuever effectively once combat begins, and his inability to communicate between armor and infantry/artillery formations, while the German player dances around him in his "inferior" panzers.

I totally agree. German armour wasn't as good, nor were their guns, they just had better training and tactical doctrine which allowed them to win the Battle of France.

[piersyf]

The greatest advantage early war german tanks had was the fitting of radios in virtually every one. Guderian was a signals officer in WW1and understood the multiplying factors of good command control. This may be what is being grouped into 'unit cohesion' in the rules. The other factor that plays a major role is the 3 man turret; not just for rate of fire but also for spotting and acquiring targets. This also re-appeared with the Panther which, despite having a 3 man turret, blinded the gunner by not giving him a periscope. All he had to look through was the magnifying gun sight. A post war assessment by the French army said that it took 30 seconds on average for the gunner to acquire a target nominated by his vehicle commander!

Do I go on? Early war German vehicles were faster and generally had better suspension, making it quicker and faster for the gunners to lay on their targets after movement. The French limitations of their vehicles inclined them to fight from static positions.

[Mk 1]

One thing that I have been considering for this idea is what if the British, Belgium and French are doing well at holding off the Germans that the war in France continues into 1941 and the fighting in North Africa never happens. Which leads me to this question...would the Crusader 1 tank with its 2pdr gun makes it debut in France?

This "what-if" is largely the premise of the Massive Online Multi-player Game "World War 2 OnLine". The French and British sides start with a selection of actual 1940 kit, but as the campaign rolls along all kinds of new stuff starts to show up, including Crusader I and III, 6pdr and eventually 17pdr ATGs, and Lend-Lease M3A3s, M4A2s, M10s, and eventually M4A3E8s.

Of course on the other side the Germans get Pak38s, Pak40s, Pz IIIh, then Panzer IVg, and eventually Tigers!

I totally agree. German armour wasn't as good, nor were their guns, they just had better training and tactical doctrine which allowed them to win the Battle of France.

Ah, but don't forget the value of a 3-man turret! (Or at least a 2-man turret, as in the Pz38t, vs. the 1-man turrets in most French tanks.) And also the value of good commo gear. One of the greatest advantages that the Germans had was that their tanks fought as a coordinated force, while each French tank fought its own lonely solo battle, although perhaps in the company of other lonely solo-fighting French tanks.

This is an issue that should not be under-rated. The Renault FT-17 may have been a model for all subsiquent successful tanks, with its armament concentrated in its one turret. But the Pz III -- so often neglected in the annals of great and influential tanks, was (I believe) the first series production tank that put a dedicated commander, with a radio, in the turret of every tank in a formation. THAT made for a very effective fighting force.

Sadly, it is a factor in armor that is so often missed in the construction (and playing) of micro armor wargames. I just LOVE fighting where weaker tanks (in armor and gunpower) can out-fight big lumbering beasts due to other factors (like C&C).

[foxbat]

I think the lack of radios, and the one-man turret, though they indeed hampered the French armour, should not be overstated in game terms. There are quite a few instances where the French tanks fought well and won the upper hand over the Panzers: Montcornet, Stonne, and even a minor tactical victory at Hannut-Gembloux, which was the biggest tank battle of the campaign. Thier biggest problem, in my opinion, was the lack of organic infantry with the armour. That was the reaspon why, for instance, the Chars B had to fall back from Stonne...
What killed France in 1940, however, was not so much the lack of equipment or its deficiencies, or the lack of moral fiber of its soldiers, as the dismal manoeuver executed by its High Command. Essentially, the Panzers had a free run from Sedan to the Channel, while the Allies were struggling to extricate their best forces from Belgium and rush improvised forces from the south to plug the hole. Had France discarded the manoeuvre Dyle-Escault, and adopted a more defensive stance, resting on prepared positions along the Belgian border and keeping the highly mobile 1st Army and Cavalry corps behind the front center, things could have been very different.
In gaming terms, I'd suggest giving French tanks a poor rate of fire, and enacting a command limitation : a good example was the Spearhead system, where the Germans are allowed to change orders on a roll of 2-6, while the French need to bring a 6 on a D6. This, and keeping the organic weaknesses of the French armoured divisions (DCR and DLMs) should be enough to make playing the French challenging enough (but not as desperate as most sets make it )

Ok, ok, I know i'm pleading pro domo...