US in World War 2

@Octospire:

@MrMalachiCrunch:

The british were doing fairly well in North africa by the time the US joined in and started getting spanked in Africa in order to learn the lesson the other allies had already learned.  The americans had this really annoying habit of ignoring the lessons learned by the other allies and required a bit of a bloody nose in algeria to take things seriously.

Hey don’t get me wrong, the allies really appreciated the american help.  Nothing like fighting nazis for 27 months by yourself to really appreciate some help.  Now as for those 50 WW I era destroyers being the do all and be all of the nazi defeat in the atlantic……  Ummm I beg to differ.  Yes, they helped more than nothing, much more than nothing, but it was a minor token effort in the big scheme.  The situation in the atlantic was really bad and much of it was due to stupid british arrogance in not being serious about military codes.  It was so bad in the atlantic the Canadians were smashed in convoy duty.  It got so bad the Canadians had to give up escorting atlantic convoys for awhile because we were getting slaughtered.  Yeah, not something we like to brag about but the war was neary lost in the north atlantic.  It was not until Alan turing and bleatchly (sp) park cracked the enigima that the war in the atlantic and hence THE war turned.

Indeed the British were holding North Africa quite well and were getting ready to go on the offensive. Grizzly you forget that the British had an entire empire of to draw on for man power a great number of Montgomerys troops in North Africa were Australian or New Zealanders they were the troops who broke through German lines to give the British the upper hand at El Alamein. This all before a single American soldier set foot in North Africa. The WW1 destroyers were better than nothing but hardly decisive in the battle for the Atlantic and the Americans got 99 year leases on many British base’s throughout the Carribean and indeed throughout the world in return, the U.S clearly got the better part of the deal. Without US aid Britain would of survived with aid coming from all 4 corners of its empire, even from as far aflung as Australia and New Zealand. The Canadians in particular made sure of that with the convoys of across the Atlantic escorted by Canadian made and crewed Corvettes. The Royal Navy was still a massive hurdle that the Nazi’s could not of gotten over as long as the RAF continued to rule the skies above southern England. Britain would of survived and with aircraft and crews coming from all over the world they would of eventually (in 4 or 5 years) been able to rule the skies over northern France especially after Barbarossa.

The Germans attempted to sue for peace many times with the British, with perfectly reasonable terms such as we have a free hand in Europe and you keep your empire. Each time the British refused. Even if the British were some how befallen with a terrible misfortune perhaps the loss of a large portion of the RAF worst case scenario they would of accepted the Nazi’s offer of peace. Hitler had no hate for the British he admired their empire and their world wide influence, he repeatedly tried to make them his allies against Stalin but failed.

The US was still one of the most powerful armies in the world (more powerful then the UK)

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Dylan:

@Octospire:

@MrMalachiCrunch:

The british were doing fairly well in North africa by the time the US joined in and started getting spanked in Africa in order to learn the lesson the other allies had already learned.  The americans had this really annoying habit of ignoring the lessons learned by the other allies and required a bit of a bloody nose in algeria to take things seriously.

Hey don’t get me wrong, the allies really appreciated the american help.  Nothing like fighting nazis for 27 months by yourself to really appreciate some help.  Now as for those 50 WW I era destroyers being the do all and be all of the nazi defeat in the atlantic……  Ummm I beg to differ.  Yes, they helped more than nothing, much more than nothing, but it was a minor token effort in the big scheme.  The situation in the atlantic was really bad and much of it was due to stupid british arrogance in not being serious about military codes.  It was so bad in the atlantic the Canadians were smashed in convoy duty.  It got so bad the Canadians had to give up escorting atlantic convoys for awhile because we were getting slaughtered.  Yeah, not something we like to brag about but the war was neary lost in the north atlantic.  It was not until Alan turing and bleatchly (sp) park cracked the enigima that the war in the atlantic and hence THE war turned.

Indeed the British were holding North Africa quite well and were getting ready to go on the offensive. Grizzly you forget that the British had an entire empire of to draw on for man power a great number of Montgomerys troops in North Africa were Australian or New Zealanders they were the troops who broke through German lines to give the British the upper hand at El Alamein. This all before a single American soldier set foot in North Africa. The WW1 destroyers were better than nothing but hardly decisive in the battle for the Atlantic and the Americans got 99 year leases on many British base’s throughout the Carribean and indeed throughout the world in return, the U.S clearly got the better part of the deal. Without US aid Britain would of survived with aid coming from all 4 corners of its empire, even from as far aflung as Australia and New Zealand. The Canadians in particular made sure of that with the convoys of across the Atlantic escorted by Canadian made and crewed Corvettes. The Royal Navy was still a massive hurdle that the Nazi’s could not of gotten over as long as the RAF continued to rule the skies above southern England. Britain would of survived and with aircraft and crews coming from all over the world they would of eventually (in 4 or 5 years) been able to rule the skies over northern France especially after Barbarossa.

The Germans attempted to sue for peace many times with the British, with perfectly reasonable terms such as we have a free hand in Europe and you keep your empire. Each time the British refused. Even if the British were some how befallen with a terrible misfortune perhaps the loss of a large portion of the RAF worst case scenario they would of accepted the Nazi’s offer of peace. Hitler had no hate for the British he admired their empire and their world wide influence, he repeatedly tried to make them his allies against Stalin but failed.

The US was still one of the most powerful armies in the world (more powerful then the UK)

Before they entered the war, Romania had a larger army

But it could take literary less then a month for the US to get up to power just to (help?) Britain in N. Africa, Italian Campaign, Operation Overlord, Invasion of Western Germany

@Dylan:

But it could take literary less then a month for the US to get up to power just to (help?) Britain in N. Africa, Italian Campaign, Operation Overlord, Invasion of Western Germany

I would disagree. After all, 11 months separated Pearl Harbour from OP TORCH.

You simply cannot achieve much in a month.

#555

@allboxcars:

@Dylan:

But it could take literary less then a month for the US to get up to power just to (help?) Britain in N. Africa, Italian Campaign, Operation Overlord, Invasion of Western Germany

I would disagree. After all, 11 months separated Pearl Harbour from OP TORCH.

You simply cannot achieve much in a month.

#555

I hope you know were talking about the US here.

@Dylan:

@allboxcars:

@Dylan:

But it could take literary less then a month for the US to get up to power just to (help?) Britain in N. Africa, Italian Campaign, Operation Overlord, Invasion of Western Germany

I would disagree. After all, 11 months separated Pearl Harbour from OP TORCH.

You simply cannot achieve much in a month.

#555

I hope you know were talking about the US here.

Then your hopes are realized: I know we’re talking about the US hence the Pearl Harbour reference although most US Divisions were formed prior to that time.

Mind you the point applies to any army. A month is no time at all.

#556

@allboxcars:

@Dylan:

@allboxcars:

@Dylan:

But it could take literary less then a month for the US to get up to power just to (help?) Britain in N. Africa, Italian Campaign, Operation Overlord, Invasion of Western Germany

I would disagree. After all, 11 months separated Pearl Harbour from OP TORCH.

You simply cannot achieve much in a month.

#555

I hope you know were talking about the US here.

Then your hopes are realized: I know we’re talking about the US hence the Pearl Harbour reference although most US Divisions were formed prior to that time.

Mind you the point applies to any army. A month is no time at all.

#556

Pearl Harbor this, Pearl Harbor that, it wasn’t even in a state, it was on an island (which now is a state,) but still!

@Dylan:

@allboxcars:

@Dylan:

@allboxcars:

@Dylan:

But it could take literary less then a month for the US to get up to power just to (help?) Britain in N. Africa, Italian Campaign, Operation Overlord, Invasion of Western Germany

I would disagree. After all, 11 months separated Pearl Harbour from OP TORCH.

You simply cannot achieve much in a month.

#555

I hope you know were talking about the US here.

Then your hopes are realized: I know we’re talking about the US hence the Pearl Harbour reference although most US Divisions were formed prior to that time.

Mind you the point applies to any army. A month is no time at all.

#556

Pearl Harbor this, Pearl Harbor that, it wasn’t even in a state, it was on an island (which now is a state,) but still!

OK no idea what the geography or statehood of Pearl harbour has to do with it being a causus belli.

Point is that if you could manage the logistics to even get 1ID into North Africa by January 42, say to assume the offensive action the South Africans were conducting or even hold the line, you’d have buried a lot of Americans needlessly.

Imagine Winn Grens and HK but on a much, much larger scale.

#557

Military aircraft production represents a (somewhat) reasonable proxy for overall military production. In 1940, military aircraft production was as follows:

UK: 15,000
Germany: 11,000
USSR: 11,000
US: 6,000
Japan: 5,000

A large portion of the American aircraft production was being sent to Britain, through lend-lease and other means. Moreover, British and American leaders had made plans to expand American military aircraft production to the staggering total of 72,000 planes per year, with half of that production going to Britain. Those plans placed significant intermediate-term pressure on Germany; and created a strong incentive for it to increase its access to manpower, raw materials, and industrial capacity to counter the Anglo-American threat to German cities and the German population. Hitler hoped to conquer the Soviet Union before the Anglo-American air threat had really kicked in. At that point, he’d use the resources gained from that conquest to even the odds in the air war.

In 1941, the US increased its aircraft production to 19,000 planes, even though it was still technically at peace until December of that year. By 1943, it had increased military aircraft production to 86,000 per year; surpassing the goal American and British leaders had set back in 1940. If that American military aircraft production could have been kept neutral (as opposed to being sent to the British and Soviets under Lend-Lease), it would have radically altered the strategic equation.

In 1942, military aircraft production was as follows:

US: 48,000
USSR: 25,000
UK: 24,000
Germany: 15,000
Japan: 9,000

Those numbers would seem to spell doom for the Axis, even if American military aircraft production could have somehow been removed from the equation. However, if American industrial capacity had remained neutral (as opposed to being sent to the Allies), Hitler would have had the option of waiting to invade the Soviet Union. That would have allowed Germany to consolidate its position in Central and Eastern Europe, while building up its industrial capacity. By 1944, increases in military productive capacity had led to the following aircraft production:

US: 96,000
Germany: 40,000
USSR: 40,000
UK: 26,000
Japan: 17,000

It’s also worth noting that in 1942, Germany produced 4,000 tanks (excluding light tanks) to the Soviets’ 15,000 tanks (excluding light tanks). That difference was exacerbated by the fact that over 12,000 of those Soviet tanks were T-34s; which were significantly better than any widely produced German model of that year. In 1944, however, Germany produced 17,000 tanks (excluding light tanks), to the Soviets’ 21,000 (excluding light tanks). 5,000 German tanks were Panthers or Tigers; which were qualitatively superior to most Soviet tanks.

For the Axis to have had a realistic chance of victory, the following would have needed to occur:

• The U.S. would have needed to stay neutral.

• American military production would have needed to remain neutral (no Lend-Lease)

• Hitler would have needed to wait until 1944 to invade the Soviet Union.

• Germany would have had to obtained a 1944 military production level at or near historical levels without prior access to Soviet POW manpower or resources obtained from conquests of Soviet territory

• The German military would have needed 12 million people (historic 1944 level) rather than 8 million people (historic 1941 level).

I think this was a very key consideration for the UK, Germany, Russia and Japan:

@KurtGodel7:

However, one reason for Hitler’s impatience in invading the Soviet Union was the British food blockade of Germany; and the resulting starvation in German-held lands. Delaying the invasion of the Soviet Union by two years would have meant two extra years of famine conditions; especially in occupied territories and population groups assigned low or mid-level priorities for scarce, precious food calories.

Only the US and some parts of the British empire had abundant food.  The UK, Germany, (and later Japan) were squeezed by naval (or submarine) blockades.  Russia was squeezed by the vast territories taken by the Germans.  Of course I’ll grant that in the early part of the war, Germany did quite well by taking the food and supplies found in France, Belgium, Ukraine, etc.

Grizzly, you make a good point.  The Germans were never going to be able to invade the UK; but they did try to starve them.  An excess of wheat in Australia and Canada does no good for the UK if it cannot be delivered.  I guess we disagree on whether or not British hunger, lack of heating oil, etc. would have been sufficient to make them either sue for peace with Germany…If the British were hungry enough (and I think without the US merchant marine), I could see them saying screw the French, lets have a ceasefire and let the USSR and Germany fight it out.

Regarding the USSR, I once read an estimate that 7/8 of the entire Germany war effort was fought on the eastern front.  This estimate includes the forces in Norway, the battles in Africa and the Balkans, Crete, the U-boat effort, the battles in Italy, the defense of France after D-day, the V-1 and V2 and other technological weapons, etc.  The defense of France required minimal forces in the early part of the war, especially early in the war when it was obvious the UK was in no position to invade.  I don’t think this small difference would have been enough to turn the tide in the East despite the small margin of victory by the USSR during 1941 and 1942.  I even doubt Hitler would have reduced the forces occupying France at this time had the UK capitulated.