Arsenal of beating Germany

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
black96lt4c4
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 06 Dec 2013, 01:11

Arsenal of beating Germany

#1

Post by black96lt4c4 » 29 Jun 2015, 02:19

If the US had supplied Allies with beans and bullets instead of entering the war, would the allies win?

ML59
Member
Posts: 414
Joined: 26 Dec 2007, 12:09
Location: GENOVA

Re: Arsenal of beating Germany

#2

Post by ML59 » 29 Jun 2015, 21:45

Yes, no doubt about it. That is what actually they did and by purpose. By 1942 the American strategy was to win over Hitler by using American materiel and Russian blood. And there is no doubt that, strictly military speaking, there was no need to intervene in Europe at all after 1943, Soviet Union was already winning its war against Germany.


steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Arsenal of beating Germany

#3

Post by steverodgers801 » 29 Jun 2015, 23:19

ML, the Us was fighting on to fronts and was trying to build an army, navy and air force at the time. It takes time and the a lot of equipment needed to train US troops were being sent over seas. The US was simply not ready to invade FRance until 1944

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Arsenal of beating Germany

#4

Post by BDV » 30 Jun 2015, 16:52

Without US manpower participation, it would be a much closer run thing than historically. It dragged on pretty long (3 and 1/2 years), in any case.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Arsenal of beating Germany

#5

Post by stg 44 » 02 Jul 2015, 15:18

Probably, but it could have ended in stalemate. Without US participation, but still build up you'd see more LL to the British, but not the Soviets because their import capacity was topped out by 1944; they just couldn't move more material into the country. I'm assuming the US still fights Japan at least or maybe not?

Basically without the US the North African campaign drags on, Normandy is impossible until 1945, and the Luftwaffe isn't slaughtered over Western Europe/the Mediterranean. The USAAF destroyed some 30k aircraft over Europe or via bombing, plus locked down 2/3rds of the LW fighter arm over Western Europe. In 1943 all the forces that were used in Tunisia could have been used to try and break the ring around Stalingrad and failing that could have seriously helped during Operation Little Saturn. By Kursk there were only 500 some odd fighters on the entire Eastern front, about 300 at Kursk, while on all other fronts there were about 1400 fighters by July. If even 800 of those were sent to the Eastern Front in 1943 and half of those 800 were at Kursk you'd have more than double the German fighters at Kursk and German air superiority. Plus without the US you'd have no reason to call off the battle of Kursk, as there would be no Sicily landings. All the German forces used in the Italian campaign would instead be sent East. The Soviets would have been far more bloodied and German production would have remained untouched by USAAF bombing in 1943-45.

The RAF would have found the German night fighters seriously enhanced in 1943 without the LW having to fight the USAAF and by early 1944 had mastered the night battle historically, but it was the Normandy landings that broke the German radar screen that allowed the RAF to continue and be far more effective. There wouldn't be the successful oil campaign that destroyed the LW, nor the attrition in the Mediterranean in 1943 that broke the LW fighters over Europe in early 1944. The Jumo 222 engine was ready and rated for 2500hp and supposed to be in production in early 1944 but for USAAF bombing of Dessau, so it would have resulted in a serious enhancement of German airpower, especially as the Ostmark engine facility would have started production in 1943 but for USAAF bombing in 1943. 1943-44 would be totally different in the East without the US in the war invading Italy, bombing Europe and diverting the LW/damaging German industry, and Normandy diverting huge Wehrmacht resources (2200 AFVs that were lost by August 1944, more than were even present during Bagration in July that would have stopped the Soviet offensive dead in its tracks).

German jet aircraft would have a chance to mature and become a significant force, plus the V-1 threat to Britain would not have been solved by the Normandy landings, so Britain would be in serious trouble in 1944-45 (historically the V-1 launches started after Normandy, so the launch sites were quickly overrun and forced out of range so it allowed it to be stopped early on).

Aber
Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: 05 Jan 2010, 22:43

Re: Arsenal of beating Germany

#6

Post by Aber » 02 Jul 2015, 19:09

stg 44 wrote:Probably, but it could have ended in stalemate. Without US participation, but still build up you'd see more LL to the British, but not the Soviets because their import capacity was topped out by 1944; they just couldn't move more material into the country. I'm assuming the US still fights Japan at least or maybe not?

Basically without the US the North African campaign drags on,
Why?

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Arsenal of beating Germany

#7

Post by stg 44 » 02 Jul 2015, 19:24

Without the US moving into Tunisia the Afrika Korps and Italians don't have to retreat as quickly or as fully and can make a stand. If forced back into Tunisia they are further away from Malta and have far better port facilities and rail lines close to the front, British supply lines are very stretched out, the Axis are only fighting on one front, have a pre-war French defensive line to take over, and have modern air bases in French Tunisia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mareth_Line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Mareth_Line
As it was historically the British only faced the Italians at Mareth, not the combined Axis forces, so could probably be stopped.
As the Italian 8th army is pulled out of Russia, survivors upon recovery can reinforce Africa. If necessary German reinforcements can be moved in.
If worse really came to worse the Axis forces could pull out of Africa and hold in Sicily with the vast majority of the African forces and their equipment without reinforcement. Plus the French forces are going to be more wiling to fight the British than they were the US, so probably would help out defending their turf if the British invaded like they did Syria-Lebanon. It was the US presence that really collapsed Vichy military resistance. If the British first army invaded Algeria alone in 1942/43 then the Axis forces plus Vichy, who would now be an active belligerent due to British invasion, would resist. Without the US forces the British would have to detach a major part of their 1st army to garrison Morocco and Algeria instead of fighting and without the US forces that were part of the British 1st army historically in 1943 the British would be short a huge corps with armored forces and attached French troops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_F ... April_1943

ML59
Member
Posts: 414
Joined: 26 Dec 2007, 12:09
Location: GENOVA

Re: Arsenal of beating Germany

#8

Post by ML59 » 02 Jul 2015, 19:35

Historically untrue. The Armata Corazzata Italotedesca was beaten already before the US invasion of French North Africa, without any hope of recover. There were 750.000 Commonwealth troops in the delta region alone against about 250.000 Axis troops. After El Alamein there was no more recovery possible because the Axis lacked the resources to rebuild and resupply an army so far away from their major ports.

Only tactical proficiency of some Axis commander and the very cautious attitude of the British allowed the Axis to gain some time in Tunisia before the inevitable end, that was never under discussions even among the German leadership.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Arsenal of beating Germany

#9

Post by stg 44 » 02 Jul 2015, 22:20

ML59 wrote:Historically untrue. The Armata Corazzata Italotedesca was beaten already before the US invasion of French North Africa, without any hope of recover. There were 750.000 Commonwealth troops in the delta region alone against about 250.000 Axis troops. After El Alamein there was no more recovery possible because the Axis lacked the resources to rebuild and resupply an army so far away from their major ports.

Only tactical proficiency of some Axis commander and the very cautious attitude of the British allowed the Axis to gain some time in Tunisia before the inevitable end, that was never under discussions even among the German leadership.
I'm not saying that rebuild in Egypt, they would have to retreat to Benghazi at least. Without the US landings they could have continued on at that point with reinforcements before the British had built up their logistics enough; as it was they had to continually fall back as all reinforcements/replacements were going to Tunisia to defend against the Anglo-American invasion in Algeria. If forced to fall back into Tunisia, they had the Mareth Line to hold while they took advantage of the much better infrastructure in Tunisia to rebuild. Now if the British opted to land their 1st army in Algeria it would be without the US corps that it had historically and have to occupy Algeria in the face of much harder Vichy resistance than it historically faced without the US component. In that case we get the historical situation just with a weaker British 1st army, tougher French resistance, and no US forces. The lack of US naval and air forces would be a serious loss to the British, as would the help of the Vichy forces that historically switched sides. So the Axis can hold out a lot longer in Tunisia.

The Axis is denied those forces in the East, but they can survive without them. Instead they have a lot more air power not killed by the USAAF in 1942-43 in the East and a lot less forces lost in the Mediterranean, plus no need to form the 10th and 14th armies to fight in Italy or send the historical forces to Sicily. No need to lock down 1st Panzer in Greece without Sicily, nor the need to transfer 9 armored/motorized divisions over the course of 1943 through Italy. No Allied bases in Italy to bomb Romania, saving 5% of all German air defenses in 1943 for other fronts, no bombing of North Italy, and the Mediterranean remains closed to Allied shipping. Italy stays on side with Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_the_Reich
Casualties and losses
at least 15,430 aircraft in combat[Note 2]
Est. 18,000 aircraft through bombing[3]
Boog 2001, p. 180 and Hooton 1997, p. 284. Figures are for 1943 and 1944 only. Boog gives the loss of "8,286 defensive aircraft" in 1943 and Hooton gives 3,706 day fighters and 664 night fighters for 1944. Added are 2,634 day and 142 night fighters lost in "Western Sorties" in 1944.
That's not counting USAAF inflicted losses in the Mediterranean:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF ... ffe-5.html

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Arsenal of beating Germany

#10

Post by Michael Kenny » 02 Jul 2015, 23:44

Aber wrote:
Why?
I fear common sense is not going to intrude here. I see the typical 'you owe us everthing' rant.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Arsenal of beating Germany

#11

Post by Michael Kenny » 02 Jul 2015, 23:50

stg 44 wrote:Without the US moving into Tunisia the Afrika Korps and Italians don't have to retreat as quickly or as fully and can make a stand. If forced back into Tunisia they are further away from Malta and have far better port facilities and rail lines close to the front, British supply lines are very stretched out, the Axis are only fighting on one front, have a pre-war French defensive line to take over, and have modern air bases in French Tunisia.

I believe the Torch Landings had a significant number of non-US Troops.

Not that I am knocking the Torch operation but it was meant to be a cavalry charge into the Rommel's rear and at the end 8th Army ended 'rescuing' the cavalry!

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Arsenal of beating Germany

#12

Post by stg 44 » 03 Jul 2015, 01:05

Michael Kenny wrote:
stg 44 wrote:Without the US moving into Tunisia the Afrika Korps and Italians don't have to retreat as quickly or as fully and can make a stand. If forced back into Tunisia they are further away from Malta and have far better port facilities and rail lines close to the front, British supply lines are very stretched out, the Axis are only fighting on one front, have a pre-war French defensive line to take over, and have modern air bases in French Tunisia.

I believe the Torch Landings had a significant number of non-US Troops.

Not that I am knocking the Torch operation but it was meant to be a cavalry charge into the Rommel's rear and at the end 8th Army ended 'rescuing' the cavalry!
Sure, the British 1st army was mostly not US troops, but there were more elements of the landings than just the British 1st army; plus there is the response of the Vichy French to a US-less invasion. They didn't exactly have a good experience the last time the British came knocking in 1940.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Torch
The British were fearful of that historically and it was the US that handled all the diplomacy with the French.

Also the Germans pulled out of the troops defending against the 8th army to fight the Anglo-American force to attack Kasserine Pass. Without the US forces making that move the German troops can be far more balanced in their disposition. Plus without the USAAF forces bombing Europe in 1942 the Luftwaffe can put more effort into Tunisia if needed.

The Western Task Force (aimed at Casablanca) comprised American units, with Major General George S. Patton in command and Rear Admiral Henry K. Hewitt heading the naval operations. This Western Task Force consisted of the U.S. 2nd Armored Division and the U.S. 3rd and 9th Infantry Divisions—35,000 troops in a convoy of over 100 ships. They were transported directly from the U.S. in the first of a new series of UG convoys providing logistic support for the North African campaign.[8]

The Center Task Force, aimed at Oran, included the U.S. 509th Parachute Infantry Regiment, the U.S. 1st Infantry Division, and the U.S. 1st Armored Division—a total of 18,500 troops. They sailed from Britain and were commanded by Major General Lloyd Fredendall, the naval forces being commanded by Commodore Thomas Troubridge.

The Eastern Task Force—aimed at Algiers—was commanded by Lieutenant-General Kenneth Anderson and consisted of two brigades from the British 78th and the U.S. 34th Infantry Divisions, along with two British Commando units (No.1 and No. 6 Commando), totaling 20,000 troops. During the landing phase the force was to be commanded by U.S. Major General Charles W. Ryder, commander of the 34th Division, as it was felt that a U.S.-led invasion would be more acceptable to the French defenders than one led by the British; many British troops wore American uniform, for the same reason.[citation needed] Naval forces were commanded by Vice-Admiral Sir Harold Burrough.
Most of Torch was US troops in fact and were occupied with the occupation of Morocco and Algeria historically, freeing up the British troops of the 1st army to fight. Plus of course the Vichy troops that changed sides, which probably won't happen here, as they were willing to fight in 1941 in Syria-Lebanon. Plus of course the landings required a large US air and naval component, most of it in fact was US.
After the German and Italian occupation of Vichy France and their unsuccessful attempt to capture the interned French fleet at Toulon (Operation Lila), the French Armée d’Afrique sided with the Allies, providing a third corps (XIX Corps) for Anderson. Elsewhere, French warships—such as the battleship Richelieu—rejoined the Allies.
I doubt Vichy wouldn't fight the British and that they would switch sides if they lose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria%E2% ... #Aftermath
Most refused to join De Gaulle in 1941. In fact the British probably couldn't afford the shipping to make a Torch analogue invasion in 1942 and would have to do it at the earliest in mid-1943 without US troops or shipping. That then means pulling men from Britain, so then any landing in France is off the table in 1944-45, as the entire available British military force would be in North Africa.
Last edited by stg 44 on 03 Jul 2015, 01:10, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Arsenal of beating Germany

#13

Post by stg 44 » 03 Jul 2015, 01:07

Michael Kenny wrote:
Aber wrote:
Why?
I fear common sense is not going to intrude here. I see the typical 'you owe us everthing' rant.
Its not even a question of that, just that without the US forces to get a similar force level the entire British ground army in the European theater would pretty much have to be thrown into North Africa, besides the defensive troops in Britain. Without US shipping and air power it takes a lot longer to get the men in place too, plus the French were far more willing to fight the British than the US.

Edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_for_Tunis
Another Allied attack was ready by late December 1942, when the Allied force comprised 54,000 British, 73,800 American and 7,000 French troops
Without the US troops there is a huge hole in the Tunisian Campaign OOB.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Arsenal of beating Germany

#14

Post by Michael Kenny » 03 Jul 2015, 01:18

stg 44 wrote:
Its not even a question of that, just that without the US................

It is a question of 'that'.

There are two ways to reply:

1 'Glad to have helped'

and:

2 'You needed us. Without us you would fail'


I don't remember seeing many of the type 1 replies.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Arsenal of beating Germany

#15

Post by stg 44 » 03 Jul 2015, 01:33

Given the huge US component in the North African campaign from the Torch Landings on there is a lot more than just 'glad to have helped'.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”