It's A Long Way To Nagasaki: The Anglo-Japanese War
- Thread starter SealTheRealDeal
- Start date
I imagine that the Anti-Comintern Pact is rapidly and indecently scrambling towards Paris to secure a new Great Power to back them up against the Soviet Union. That would imply no one wanting to make an aggressive move, but that would very much risk opening the door to Soviet Union 'Peacekeeping' intervention.
Winter War is still on though!
(RE the Death of Hitler: I don't know how much it was 'intended' so much as being a natural consequence of the PoD.)
Hadn't considered that; Japanese bunkers might do as much to spur British tank development as Japanese tanks. A handful of tanks in each British squadron had 3.7-inch or 3-inch howitzers rather than 2-pounders, but most of the ammunition issued for them were smoke rounds.
Infantry tanks are far more useful in jungle fighting, but there might be fighting in more open spaces in China where cruisers will be useful. It's quite possible that something similar to the Churchill will be worked up, the first Churchills had a turret-mounted 2-pounder and a 3-inch howitzer in the hull.
I expect the Australian efforts to convert the 25pdr mountain gun into a tank cannon will pay some dividends in this timeline. That's a (near-as-makes-no-difference) 88mm howitzer throwing HE hands into whatever you point it at. Ammunition storage will be your only real limiting factor there and is going to be invaluable against fortifications and/or built up areas.
I'm under the impression that a big part of the reasons why British Close Support tanks fired mostly smoke was the Royal Artillery getting pissy about those damned Tankers intruding on 'their turf'. As well as a lack of exercises that could demonstrate the issues with this.
How nice of the Japanese to help fund live fire exercises.
RE Infantry Tanks (and the Churchill especially.) There's a reason they deleted the Howitzer right quick for subsequent marks. The reason being that the Mark I was basically the prototyping phase. If it had actual pre-production testing, then the Howitzer would have been deleted *before* serial production.
IMO, I can't really see the British designing a Tank for the Chinese plains. Right now, they're fighting in the Jungles, with supply lines for Armoured Vehicles stretching, in most cases, all the way back to Blighty. So the lessons they're going to learn are going to be shaped by that.
I submit that the lessons learnt, regarding armour design, shall be:
- Tanks, most of the time, aren't fighting other tanks, but softer, often crunchier, targets. As such, 'Soft Attack' is essential. (Watch the RA suggest that, as an alternative to a main gun that fires a good HE shell, more machine guns should be added.)
- Powerful engines and good suspensions, enable good off road performance, are essential.
- Good optics are a force multiplier (even essential; a tank can't kill what it can't see, absent accidentally running it over.) Radios, also. Signal flags don't exactly have a good range in the Jungle; opening a hatch, sticking yourself out and waving flags around doesn't tend to increase life expectancy.
- A method to safely communicate with attendant Infantry is, likewise, a good force multiplier.
- Reliability. Reliability. Reliability. (As well as ease of repair.) Reliability means availability. Availability means capability. Especially with supply lines being as long as they are.
- It is impractical to armour a tank to the point of invincibility, especially against close-range threats. Sufficiently dedicated infantry, if they get physical access to the tank, will find a way to disable it. A tank that takes a point-blank Field Gun HE shell isn't likely to survive the experience no matter how many inches of steel you put in the way.
- The answer, then, to such close range threats is... Well, not tanks. It's infantry.
- Tanks work better when they can work together not only with infantry, but with themselves. Three Tanks in a coherent platoon provides more capability than three tanks all off doing their own thing.
To my eye, the critical factor is that more armour means more weight. And more weight is bad for many reasons!
- Means less torque for any given engine, so worse off-road performance more stress on the drivetrain, suspension etc. thus lower reliability.
- More weight, if you compensate for it with a more powerful engine, means a higher fuel consumption. Less operational range and a larger logistical burden.
--- (And if you do want a more powerful engine, odds are the RAF is gonna hiss and say 'No, we need those.')
- Speaking of operational range, it also puts more stress on the tracks. Those have a lifespan and are a bitch to replace. Yay, more logistical burden!
- Each tank just requires more steel, and steel is not something available in unlimited quantities. Less armour means less weight, means more tanks for the same amount of steel.
- And, of course, these are colonial operations we're talking about. Local infrastructure won't exactly be accommodating for heavyweight behemoths.
So I'd expect British Tanks to (slowly) trend towards standardising on a Cruiser, not Infantry, tank.
...And we haven't even considered the potential utility of armoured cars. Dear me.
Last edited:
On a separate note, the Inskip award hasn't happened by this point OTL, has it? I wonder how all this is affecting the FAA.
(I presume that the RN is yelling 'We can't fight a war like this, with the RAF controlling our planes!' and the RAF is yelling 'We're fighting a war! We can't fiddle with the high-level organisation now!')
(I presume that the RN is yelling 'We can't fight a war like this, with the RAF controlling our planes!' and the RAF is yelling 'We're fighting a war! We can't fiddle with the high-level organisation now!')
A Commonwealth victory in the Anglo-Japanese war would enormously strengthen the British Empire's popularity in Australia & New Zealand IMO.
Instead of ANZACs dying for the Mother Country in faraway Europe, you get huge British Battlefleets sailing to Singapore to knee-cap their #1 security problem - That would send a very powerful message in favour of the Empire.
Aus & NZ will undoubtedly contribute a disproportionate number of the troops, but the Poms will be doing the heavy lifting in the Naval / Air war, and everyone will know it. The UK would probably end up supplying them with a lot of equipment they couldn't produce (a kind of Lend-Lease) too. Also, no WW2 means the US remains isolationist, so no ANZUS. The Brits, whose reputation will be boosted if/when they win this, will be the only game in town for security.
Canada and South Africa... will probably view things differently since Japan isn't really a mortal threat to them, but Aus/NZ will feel like they're finally getting "their turn", so to speak.
Last edited:
South Africa I agree on, maybe a few business and trade types will appreciate no longer have to compete with Japanese firms in East Africa, but nothing significant.
Canada I certainly agree doesn't see a mortal threat from Japan, but did have interests in the Pacific and had a series of bruising trade fights with Japan in the early 1930s. There will be nowhere near the boost in Australia and New Zealand, but I think there would be a noticeable increase in positive feeling towards Britain and the Empire. Well as long as it doesn't turn into a long drawn out bloodbath with huge casualties.
Knowing Japan they'll give it some additional blood and body count with everything they've got the balls to utilize 0:
Tbf considering that Britain would be much more powerful than otl without WWII even if they would be bruised by the Japanese would Britain be the main power that is the rival power to the Soviets trying to wrangle the rest of Europe against them?
That'd be very interesting considering that Empire never dies even if the Brits have to downsize and lose some of the African colonies, and America only becoming important at the tail end of the 20th century instead when Britain and the USSR are spent.
That'd be very interesting considering that Empire never dies even if the Brits have to downsize and lose some of the African colonies, and America only becoming important at the tail end of the 20th century instead when Britain and the USSR are spent.
Hmm. The restoration of faith in the British Empire as a result of the war with the Japanese could result in the Dominions remaining close to Britain, potentially even creating CANZUK.
However eventually India will go, peacefully or violently. The British will remain a great power but they will be steadily declining in influence and the USA would not remain unimportant at all.
Idk how India would go (but they'd go hopefully without a Pakistan partition) and Britain would lose most of the lands in Africa too I think (South Africa and Rhodesia will want out and the ME is a basketcase so they'd probably be important allies but not be part of CANZUK. I could see Nigeria staying with a lot of USSR interference, I could see Nigeria having some autonomy but there'd be a bunch of preferential economic treaties with the UK), but the UK would still be strong, especially if a CANZUK parilement gets established in London and the Anglophone countries are more tight knit than otl.
If we get a nationalist China (with or without Manchuria) I could see China being part of the informal British empire too with China's industry being built by the British.
Tbf I wonder what would happen with Israel considering that a bunch of Israelis moved into Israel and they should be numerous enough to cause problems.
I also wonder what will happen with West Papua. Considering how West Papua became part of Indonesia I could see the UK occupying West Papua, claim that the referendum isn't done properly, and that they should merge with Papua new Guinea.
Finally I wonder what's going to happen in Africa in general, considering most of the Europeans are still in Africa, from Italian Somalia to French Algeria. A France that keeps Algeria would be very interesting...
Considering that WW2 appears to be prevented with the German Civil War, imperialism will have a much tighter grip and a longer lasting life than it did historically. The key aspect is the attitudes that the europeans approach it with. Depending on how they play their cards they could end up with more overseas territories (like Gabon staying with France) and tighter allies in post colonial nations.
India I could see being let go in a larger Indian Union (no partition) and could be a great ally to Britain if treated properly. It would also be nice to see a surviving Central African Federation to the benefit of the people there.
Also this is just hoping but maybe apartheid could somehow be prevented in South Africa and some kind of racial reform occurs (unlikely but I can hope).
India I could see being let go in a larger Indian Union (no partition) and could be a great ally to Britain if treated properly. It would also be nice to see a surviving Central African Federation to the benefit of the people there.
Also this is just hoping but maybe apartheid could somehow be prevented in South Africa and some kind of racial reform occurs (unlikely but I can hope).
If Jan Hofmeyr doesn't end up working himself to death (which is quite possible, with a shorter war, and with war against Japan rather than Germany Smuts has less opportunity to go AWOL and leave Hofmeyr in charge), then he could lead the party into the 1948 elections, and possibly even win.
Will be interesting to see if we wind up with self-propelled guns like Bishop, Ram or Yeramba, a 25pdr-armed tank like AC3 Thunderbolt, or both. The former could lead to the development of ersatz APCs like Kangaroo. If Australian industry gets its act together, Menzies remains in office and doesn't put up with union shenanigans and Australia plays a larger role in the war, there could be an expedited development of vehicles like Sentinel or Thunderbolt, and possibly self-propelled guns (and ersatz APCs) based on their hulls.
Interesting points I hadn't considered; I'd originally thought of the Australian Army's rejection of light tanks after heavy losses of M3 Stuarts in New Guinea, the largely successful employment of Matildas later in the war and the selection of Churchill over Sherman after an evaluation of both types in jungle conditions (the war ended before most of these were delivered, and the remainder of the order was cancelled). Given time, a proto-Centurion may emerge; the situation Britain is in is considerably less dire TTL so there's less emphasis on just getting tanks out the factory door in quantity, less squabbling over resources and more leeway to roll in improvements or create clean-sheet designs as combat experience bears out what works and what doesn't.
OTL Canada John Inglis Company customized a Bren gun for China on the Lend Lease Act, which chambered for the 7.92-mm Mauser ammunition.The Chinese called a 七九勃然(7.92mm Bren ). Can ITTL Canada customize a batch of 7.92mm Bren gun for China in advance?
OTL February 27,1942,inspecting Bren gun during visit John Inglis Company of Chinese officials.
https://urbsite.blogspot.com/2012/06/footnote-on-bren-gun.html?view=flipcard
OTL February 27,1942,inspecting Bren gun during visit John Inglis Company of Chinese officials.
https://urbsite.blogspot.com/2012/06/footnote-on-bren-gun.html?view=flipcard
Last edited: