Absolutely. But that could have happened in 1939 from a 1938 war, and Britain would have been able to recover even fewer men - assuming they'd made it back to the coast. British troops in France, even in 1939/1940 were only ten percent of the allied force which was mostly French. When the French collapsed, the British couldn't do much at all. The same would have very possibly occurred a year earlier.
(Oh, and it's the British Army, not the Royal Army, just for the record - Bill of Rights 1689 means the Army is Parliament's, not the Monarchs, although he or she is their Commander-In-Chief).
Royal Air Force Gains were matched by the Germans.
Not in terms of technology. The BF109 was in general service by late 1937, early 1938. At the time of the Munich Agreement (30th September 1938), about 100 Hurricanes had reached squadrons, and the Spitfire hadn't even reached its first operational squadron (that happened within a week of Munich, though, so it was close). By the time the war started a year later, there were 500 Hurricanes and 270 Spitfires in service. From 100 to 770 modern fighters in that year.
Royal Navy gains weren’t needed in a 1938 war, when the Germans had little to nothing to match them.
Except the Gneisenau (the Scharnhorst probably could have been commissioned within a few weeks in a crash program as well), the Deutschland, the Admiral Graf Spee, the Admiral Scheer, the Prinz Eugen, the Blucher, and the Admiral Hipper.
Navy:
1938 - 29 coastal submarines / obsolete and small surface combatants
Obsolete and small surface combatants?
One brand new battleship of 35,000 tons. Six modern heavy cruisers of 12 - 14,000 tones.
The Kriegsmarine's light cruisers were obsolescent, but once you get smaller than that, Germany had over a dozen recent (as in less than five years old) destroyers in service.
All of the new British battleships had little effect during the war, except for patrolling for German raider runs, which almost never came.
Yes, because of the existence of the battleships. If they hadn't been there, the Germans would not have been so constrained.
True, but the Germans had 50% of the men and almost no real tanks (Panzer I was more like the Bren carrier) in 1938. But your point is taken, that allowing a phony war period makes any allied superiority in 1938 a mute point. But the issue of will vs. capability is heart of the point that I was making.
(Oh, and it's the British Army, not the Royal Army, just for the record - Bill of Rights 1689 means the Army is Parliament's, not the Monarchs, although he or she is their Commander-In-Chief).
Interesting, I'll remember that.
Not in terms of technology. The BF109 was in general service by late 1937, early 1938. At the time of the Munich Agreement (30th September 1938), about 100 Hurricanes had reached squadrons, and the Spitfire hadn't even reached its first operational squadron (that happened within a week of Munich, though, so it was close). By the time the war started a year later, there were 500 Hurricanes and 270 Spitfires in service. From 100 to 770 modern fighters in that year.
Careful about treating the Bf109 as a standard item. The pre-E models were not at all comparable in capability to the E model, with only 60% of the hp. Additionally, the landing gear on the Bf109 was so weak, that up to 1941, half of the force would be out for damage incurred while landing at any one time.
Except the Gneisenau (the Scharnhorst probably could have been commissioned within a few weeks in a crash program as well), the Deutschland, the Admiral Graf Spee, the Admiral Scheer, the Prinz Eugen, the Blucher, and the Admiral Hipper.
The German pocket battleships and heavy cruisers were never a threat to even the vintage British battleships, as born out during the war. Really more propaganda than reality there.
Obsolete and small surface combatants? One brand new battleship of 35,000 tons. Six modern heavy cruisers of 12 - 14,000 tones. The Kriegsmarine's light cruisers were obsolescent, but once you get smaller than that, Germany had over a dozen recent (as in less than five years old) destroyers in service.
Gneisenau and Scharnhorst were not battleships. They had 11" guns. They were heavy cruisers overlapping into the light battle-cruiser category. Impressive for what they were, but a concept that never worked out. Guns won over speed at Jutland, and this continued to be the case. We built a similar type in the Guam and Alaska, and they too failed as a concept. No doubt that these heavy cruisers gave the Royal Navy much consternation, but other than threatening the northern convoys, of what real threat were they?
Yes, because of the existence of the battleships. If they hadn't been there, the Germans would not have been so constrained.
The Germans had no problems keeping the British out of the Baltic and near North Sea, without battleships. And the new battleships were still too slow to run down the Scharnhorst, so it is hard to see their great advantage. Yes, having more battleships allowed them to hold down the German fleet in Norway, but I'm talking about having fought and ended the war before Norway was occupied.
This would be a great conversation for an evening with cigars and scotch. I'll have to see if you are close enough for an invite. Alternative history is never more than a guessing game, but it does make you think, especially of the unintended consequences of alternative paths, such as Stalin jumping unexpectedly into Poland, even without a German invasion, or a German conciliation in 1938 that would have allowed them to mature the Z-plan before going to war.
All interesting stuff.