1) What do Republican forces gain?
2) What do the Nationalists gain from Germany & Italy?
3) What is the ripple effect with Poland, Norway, Finland, Yugoslavia and Greece?
4) What is the ripple effect outside of Spain? Specifically, AOI (Italian East Africa)?
By opening the warehouses of their considerable stocks of WWI surplus as an excuse to gently kick start industry coming out of the Great Depression;
Yeah, there's a lot of similarities here with NATO supplying arms to a Soviet-calibred Ukraine. But at least NATO shares standards. The interwar British, French, and Americans shared little (other than the US having adopted some French artillery calibres during WW1). What the war in Ukraine tells us is that on-going ammunition supply and technical support for all those western weapons supplied to Spain would be the most important factor.
2) What do the Nationalists gain from Germany & Italy?
I'm unclear on this question. Are you asking whether Italy and Germany escalate their support for Franco in response to western shipments? If so, I'm not sure that, materially, either nation had much more to give.
Manpower might be a factor though. In OTL, Italy provided 70,000-to-75,000 fighting men (with the CTV fielding a max of 50k at one time). German numbers were about a fifth of that (albeit, with the majority being skilled technicians - aircrews, panzer crews, etc.). So, one possible Nazi response to greater western aid might be a numerical increase in Wehrmacht 'volunteers' in Spain.
Let's see - logistical headaches (.303, 8mm Lebel and .30-06 added to the 7.92x57 Mauser) vs not having enough rifles / "beggars can't be choosers". As far as polyglot ordnance supply issues, that was already clearly illustrated during China's Warlord Era.
Amercan FT17 light tanks, with Spanish Republican upgunning modifications.
Liberty Bombers turned into Republican close support bombers ...
I'll make it clearerer. Do the Facists send their first heavy tanks, after the Mk Is and IIs? M11/39s? Neubaufahrzeugs and Mk III/IVs? ...
I think additional foreign manpower would be the main benefit for both sides...
... Don't think anything would change on the aircraft equipment side tho.
WW1 equipment, except in the field of small-arms, would have been more of a hindrance than a help. Using the opportunity to test new equipment & techniques would have been a better option (as the Germans, Italians & Russians did)...
If the planes were supplied with pilots, crews & ground support they may have led to useful combat experience for (future) Allied pilots & the development of new tactics prior to WW2 ... Depending on how willing their respective heirachies were to listen to combat tested aircrew espousing combat tested practices, plus feedback on the performance of aircraft types.
On the ground Matilda IIs, which are contemporary with Pz.Kpfw IVs & only a little later than Pz.Kpfw IIIs, would have suited the Spanish terrain & have been a significant challenge for the Axis tanks operating in Spain, being almost invulnerable to their guns & having a gun capable of destroying them. "Allied" involvement would, also, have given them experience against some early iterations of what became "Blitzkrieg".
Sending the B-10 to Spain as a bomber would have been interesting.
Other nation participation...
..........
On the ground Matilda IIs, which are contemporary with Pz.Kpfw IVs & only a little later than Pz.Kpfw IIIs, would have suited the Spanish terrain & have been a significant challenge for the Axis tanks operating in Spain, being almost invulnerable to their guns & having a gun capable of destroying them. "Allied" involvement would, also, have given them experience against some early iterations of what became "Blitzkrieg".
..........
On the ground Matilda IIs, which are contemporary with Pz.Kpfw IVs & only a little later than Pz.Kpfw IIIs, would have suited the Spanish terrain & have been a significant challenge for the Axis tanks operating in Spain, being almost invulnerable to their guns & having a gun capable of destroying them. "Allied" involvement would, also, have given them experience against some early iterations of what became "Blitzkrieg".
So if the Germans and Italians encountered the Matilda II in the Spanish Civil War, there's every chance that they would have enacted the development and equipping of a larger and higher velocity gun for the likes of the Pz.Kpfw III and Pz.Kpfw IV earlier, which would have put the Germans in a far better position to combat both the French B1 bis, Matilda II, to say nothing of the Soviet T-34 during the prevailing Second World War.
I'm guessing it would work both ways, with the British hopefully also learning the shortfalls of their Matilda II's puny QF 2pdr (40mm) gun - especially it's dismal lack of a HE round. Perhaps, spurring on a more urgent development and fitting of the QF 3pdr (47mm) gun or even better and more practical, a 6-pdr (57 mm) high-velocity gun!
MAD
By opening the warehouses of their considerable stocks of WWI surplus as an excuse to gently kick start industry coming out of the Great Depression;
Britain gave lots of Rhomboids to Russia after WW1 & much at Bovington Museum was scrapped in 1939/40. Maybe if, like Russia, they just warehoused it all for a possible future use ?
Hey, I wonder when we'll see Mk.IV's & V's hitting the battlefields in Ukraine? ??? ;)
Hey, I wonder when we'll see Mk.IV's & V's hitting the battlefields in Ukraine? ??? ;)
Do these count?
..........
On the ground Matilda IIs, which are contemporary with Pz.Kpfw IVs & only a little later than Pz.Kpfw IIIs, would have suited the Spanish terrain & have been a significant challenge for the Axis tanks operating in Spain, being almost invulnerable to their guns & having a gun capable of destroying them. "Allied" involvement would, also, have given them experience against some early iterations of what became "Blitzkrieg".
So if the Germans and Italians encountered the Matilda II in the Spanish Civil War, there's every chance that they would have enacted the development and equipping of a larger and higher velocity gun for the likes of the Pz.Kpfw III and Pz.Kpfw IV earlier, which would have put the Germans in a far better position to combat both the French B1 bis, Matilda II, to say nothing of the Soviet T-34 during the prevailing Second World War.
I'm guessing it would work both ways, with the British hopefully also learning the shortfalls of their Matilda II's puny QF 2pdr (40mm) gun - especially it's dismal lack of a HE round. Perhaps, spurring on a more urgent development and fitting of the QF 3pdr (47mm) gun or even better and more practical, a 6-pdr (57 mm) high-velocity gun!
MAD
It was Wehrmacht doctrine to use the 8.8cm (88mm) in the AT role well before 1939, & it was a very effective Matilda II killer. It was just a matter of them not being in the right place at the right time.
In France; it was because they were mostly left behind in the name of speed. In Africa; good recce work & good luck meant the Matildas rarely ran into them (but, when they did, it wasn't pretty).
..........
On the ground Matilda IIs, which are contemporary with Pz.Kpfw IVs & only a little later than Pz.Kpfw IIIs, would have suited the Spanish terrain & have been a significant challenge for the Axis tanks operating in Spain, being almost invulnerable to their guns & having a gun capable of destroying them. "Allied" involvement would, also, have given them experience against some early iterations of what became "Blitzkrieg".
So if the Germans and Italians encountered the Matilda II in the Spanish Civil War, there's every chance that they would have enacted the development and equipping of a larger and higher velocity gun for the likes of the Pz.Kpfw III and Pz.Kpfw IV earlier, which would have put the Germans in a far better position to combat both the French B1 bis, Matilda II, to say nothing of the Soviet T-34 during the prevailing Second World War.
I'm guessing it would work both ways, with the British hopefully also learning the shortfalls of their Matilda II's puny QF 2pdr (40mm) gun - especially it's dismal lack of a HE round. Perhaps, spurring on a more urgent development and fitting of the QF 3pdr (47mm) gun or even better and more practical, a 6-pdr (57 mm) high-velocity gun!
MAD
It was Wehrmacht doctrine to use the 8.8cm (88mm) in the AT role well before 1939, & it was a very effective Matilda II killer. It was just a matter of them not being in the right place at the right time.
In France; it was because they were mostly left behind in the name of speed. In Africa; good recce work & good luck meant the Matildas rarely ran into them (but, when they did, it wasn't pretty).
Thanks for your feedback Old Wimbat.
I'm very aware of the improvised adoption of the 8.8cm Flak gun as an anti-tank weapon, but it was an improvisation through necessity vs design. Although irrufutably effective, the improvised employment of the 8.8cm Flak was also ungainly unquestionably ungainly due to it's anti-aircraft design/layout. Hence why I was alluding to a by-design vs improvisation.
MAD
I don't know where people get the idea using the 8.8cm was "improvised" (generally, by Rommell's troops during the desert campaign}.
The Germans trained their 8.8cm gunners & supplied them with AT ammunition from at least the early mid-1930's & they were formed in self-supporting AT formations just behind the front lines.
It was doctrine, therefore far from improvised.
The Russian BA3, BA6 and BA-10 saw plenty of action. Maybe early US armored car prototypes like the T3, T7 or the M1 armored car (https://tank-afv.com/ww2/US/M1_Armoured_Car.php)?
A more likely vehicle could have been a heavily modified Model T, like the FTB that the Poles used:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/2013%2C_%C5%9Awi%C4%99to_Wojska_PolskiegoDSC_2462.JPG/800px-2013%2C_%C5%9Awi%C4%99to_Wojska_PolskiegoDSC_2462.JPG)
Just checking - apparently Renault FTs would have been available (France even used some in WWII)...