The US and Britain were land powers like Germany and the USSR

[T. A. Gardner]

How large would the British and US Armies have been had those nations not had to possess large navies and merchant fleets? The two spent somewhere around the equivalent of 3 to 4 Manhattan projects in money defeating the U-boat menace and about ten to fifteen times what Germany spent on U-boats.
If neither had to ship everything half way around the planet much of the time what sort of equipment might they have developed?

I'd think in the US's case the US Army would have easily exceeded 200 divisions on the same scale of equipment they had historically. I could see the number of armored divisions more than doubling. Without having to mount amphibious assaults, the Whermacht would be facing literally forces as large as their own but not equipped with crap scrapped up from every corner of Europe to fight with.
Also, unlike the Whermacht, US and British forces not having to dump huge amounts into shipping and naval forces would have been fully motorized, supported by vastly more artillery, engineers, and other support troops, and in short, would have made short work of the Germans. With the USSR in the mix it would have been a very nasty and stunning @$$ kicking.
What made it a slog for the Allies was they did have to spend billions upon billions to produce merchant ships, ASW vessels, maintain huge navies that took massive manpower and material to support that Germany didn't have to have.

On land, I also think the US and Britain would have produced better equipment than the Germans did pretty much across the board. They could focus far more cash into R & D along with new production designs than the Germans could ever hope to.

[maltesefalcon]

In order to obviate their navies, Britain and USA would need to be physically connected at least. As well Britain would need to be connected to Europe for their troops to fight there. So you are basically reshaping the continents?

The very fact that the USA and Britain were separated from their enemies by water; in all likelihood saved them from being overrun in the war's early stages.

Besides France, Italy and Spain were land powers and they still had powerful navies. So did Russia. Lets also consider if these nations didn't need a navy to confront Germany at least; then the Germans wouldn't really need a navy either correct? They could take advantage of the same protocols to increase their army spending to match.

Let's also consider that if UK had nothing much in the way of a navy, then they would not have conquered so much of the world in the 18th and 19th centuries. In the days before air and motor transport, ships were the best way to move lots of men and supplies from place to place.

But....

We are now talking in geological terms, not historical. If Britain was connected to France for instance, it may not have existed as a separate nation. In all likelihood it would have ended up as part of Gaul, at least for some time.

Figuring out how the US fits in is tougher. Where is/are the land bridges that join it to Britain, thus obviating the need to sail there?

Again if the North American continent were linked to Europe and/or Britain, why would the New World as we know it even exist? It would likely have been colonized by Europeans many thousands of years earlier than IRL.

This is a very tough question to answer without at least a map showing how the world would look.

[Guaporense]

I was thinking about that. "How the Western Allies could hope to win the war without the USSR?"

I'd think in the US's case the US Army would have easily exceeded 200 divisions on the same scale of equipment they had historically. I could see the number of armored divisions more than doubling. Without having to mount amphibious assaults, the Whermacht would be facing literally forces as large as their own but not equipped with crap scrapped up from every corner of Europe to fight with.

That depends. Historically the US had good equipment and good logistical supply because they focused their resources on small and well equipped 90 division army. If you expand the size of the army you would have a decrease in the quality.

Now, how big an army they could have, that's hard to estimate also one would need to think about the logistical cost of deploying in Europe. The US had more manpower per soldier in the field than the USSR or Germany mainly because of that: for each division of 25,000 soldiers in the field the US army had 35,000 men up all the way back in North America, for Germany it was more like for each division of 15,000 soldiers in the field there were about 10,000 soldiers.

Still in terms of field army size and total personnel in the theater of operations they were rather similar: Germany had ca. 1,850,000 men in the Western front in June 1944, of which ca. 890,000 were in the field army. The US had ca. 3 million men in the ETO in May 1945, of which ca. 1,600,000 were in the field army.

The US armed forces were 11,500,000 men strong in 1944. Each US division had a manpower slice of 60,000 men so if they completely shut down their navy of 3.4 million they could have mobilized 56 divisions out of it. The USAAF had 2.6 million men and also aircraft production employed 2.1 million workers while production for the navy employed about 1.8 million workers. So decreasing navy size by 100% and airforce size by 50% only thinking about tactical aircraft and drafting the workforce in those industries involved.

Also, supplying the extra soldiers of the army wouldn't require as many workers in industry since ammunition expenditures were 5 billion dollars in 1944 versus 25 billion in aircraft and ships in 1943, using 1945 prices. So most of the workforce employed in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries could be transferred to the army. Also, ammunition production involved a large volume of bombs so that bomb production could be shifted to ground ammunition production without increasing total economic expenditures on ammunition.

We get:

55 divisions out of the Navy (3.4 million men)
22 divisions out of the shipbuilding industry (3/4 of their labor force) (1,350,000 men)
13 divisions out of the aircraft industry (3/4 of 50% of their labor force) (800,000 men)
22 divisions out of the USAAF (50% of their manpower) (1,300,000 men)

Increasing the army size by 112 divisions to a total of 192 divisions and total army manpower by 6,850,000 men. Still an army of ca. 12,000,000 men with 192 divisions wouldn't be enough to face the Wehrmacht alone. That's because one should take into account that one needs numerical superiority when facing the German military and also the manpower requirements of replacing casualties.

By the way, German soldiers were not equipped with "crap", according to historical accounts the quality of their equipment was good (in fact, higher than the allies, specially because Germany monopolized trade with Switzerland who produced high quality optics used for fire control).

[T. A. Gardner]

I was thinking about that. "How the Western Allies could hope to win the war without the USSR?"

I'd think in the US's case the US Army would have easily exceeded 200 divisions on the same scale of equipment they had historically. I could see the number of armored divisions more than doubling. Without having to mount amphibious assaults, the Whermacht would be facing literally forces as large as their own but not equipped with crap scrapped up from every corner of Europe to fight with.

That depends. Historically the US had good equipment and good logistical supply because they focused their resources on small and well equipped 90 division army. If you expand the size of the army you would have a decrease in the quality.

You forget that the US supplied their various allies with masses of equipment. That includes about a third of all AFV for Britain and the Commonwealth, enough more to equip two French armored divisions and the equivalent of about 6 more to the USSR (nearly 8,000 tanks alone, with Britain and Canada sending about another 4,500). That's just AFV. The US Army could have easily doubled in size without significant decreases in quality of equipment.
It certainly would not have had to resort to horse drawn vehicles and using every piece of captured (Beute) equipment it got its hands on to equip its units, like the Germans did.
Just taking many of the separate battalions and regiments the US Army had and organizing those into divisions would have resulted in easily another 10 to 15 divisions, including a number of armored ones. The USMC had 6 organized divisions as well.

Now, how big an army they could have, that's hard to estimate also one would need to think about the logistical cost of deploying in Europe. The US had more manpower per soldier in the field than the USSR or Germany mainly because of that: for each division of 25,000 soldiers in the field the US army had 35,000 men up all the way back in North America, for Germany it was more like for each division of 15,000 soldiers in the field there were about 10,000 soldiers.

Still in terms of field army size and total personnel in the theater of operations they were rather similar: Germany had ca. 1,850,000 men in the Western front in June 1944, of which ca. 890,000 were in the field army. The US had ca. 3 million men in the ETO in May 1945, of which ca. 1,600,000 were in the field army.

The US armed forces were 11,500,000 men strong in 1944. Each US division had a manpower slice of 60,000 men so if they completely shut down their navy of 3.4 million they could have mobilized 56 divisions out of it. The USAAF had 2.6 million men and also aircraft production employed 2.1 million workers while production for the navy employed about 1.8 million workers. So decreasing navy size by 100% and airforce size by 50% only thinking about tactical aircraft and drafting the workforce in those industries involved.

You leave off a lot there. The US built a massive world-wide base infrastructure to support the Navy and operations of the military virtually anywhere on the planet. The amount of money put into civil engineering projects was staggering, along with the sheer size of many of these. Then there was the US draft. The US military turned down about one in three draftees for service nationally. In some areas this rose to as much as 1 in 2. The US never expanded the age requirements, nor did they lower standards like the Germans did... Several times.
That requirement for infrastructure ran into billions, many times the cost of almost any other program the US go involved in. Look at just one civil engineering project the US did... The Alcan highway. The bulk of the work was done by about 5,000 army engineers supported by about 10,000 military and civilians at a rough cost of $140 million in 9 or so months. This project involved more construction machinery than the entire Wehrmacht could have mustered up. Over 900 bulldozers alone were used. The total equipment amounted to over 10,000 vehicles.

Also, supplying the extra soldiers of the army wouldn't require as many workers in industry since ammunition expenditures were 5 billion dollars in 1944 versus 25 billion in aircraft and ships in 1943, using 1945 prices. So most of the workforce employed in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries could be transferred to the army. Also, ammunition production involved a large volume of bombs so that bomb production could be shifted to ground ammunition production without increasing total economic expenditures on ammunition.

We get:

55 divisions out of the Navy (3.4 million men)
22 divisions out of the shipbuilding industry (3/4 of their labor force) (1,350,000 men)
13 divisions out of the aircraft industry (3/4 of 50% of their labor force) (800,000 men)
22 divisions out of the USAAF (50% of their manpower) (1,300,000 men)

Increasing the army size by 112 divisions to a total of 192 divisions and total army manpower by 6,850,000 men. Still an army of ca. 12,000,000 men with 192 divisions wouldn't be enough to face the Wehrmacht alone. That's because one should take into account that one needs numerical superiority when facing the German military and also the manpower requirements of replacing casualties.

So, even with your numbers they get 200 divisions, more or less. Those wouldn't be units with sub-standard manpower that was over or under aged, had health or mental issues, and the like either. Nor would these units have to rely on captured equipment, a reduced TO&E, using stuff like horses and horse drawn wagons, or accepting foreign nationals, and using POW's (Hiwis) like the Germans did.

By the way, German soldiers were not equipped with "crap", according to historical accounts the quality of their equipment was good (in fact, higher than the allies, specially because Germany monopolized trade with Switzerland who produced high quality optics used for fire control).

I'd refer you to threads on "Beute" equipment in German service on this very board. The Germans put everything they captured to use, much of it obsolescent or even obsolete. They had whole divisions equipped with "stuff" they captured from who-knows-where. Look at the 21st Panzer in France. That unit started with nothing but French 1940 captures, many of which were subsequently modified into all sorts of self-propelled guns and what not.
How many divisions had some polyglot of civilian motor vehicles from all over Europe? Even their best units rarely, if ever, had uniform equipment in trucks, motor vehicles, or even often the preferred ones. I think Panzer Lehr was singularly the only panzer division to manage for a short time to have all its panzergrenadier mounted in half tracks.
How many divisions had horse drawn equipment? Bicycles instead of motorcycles or vehicles? Horses / cavalry still in use? How much of the horse drawn equipment was captured material rather than standard German military issue? In German infantry divisions most of the artillery was horse drawn, not motor vehicle drawn. How much German artillery was captures or of foreign manufacture? What was the level of issue for radios and telephones? How many German leg infantry companies were issued radios or telephones as standard equipment? What's the chance a infantry division ended up with say, Czech, Russian, French, machineguns?
Sure, in some areas the best German equipment was better than Allied equivalents. In some cases, much better. Too bad it was usually in short supply and erratically issued to some units and not others. On the whole, the Wehrmacht more often had crap.

If the US did as Germany had, and started seizing civilian motor vehicles and rolling out all the obsolescent stuff in storage the military had with an expanded draft how many second-string divisions could they have raised? Add in possibly a call for civilians to turn in military weapons in private possession and even some limited use of civilian firearms.


Take note of this: The Wehrmacht as a whole consisted of about 80% to 85% infantry divisions of one sort or another. These formations were almost entirely ineffective offensively in the West on their own. In fact, on their own German infantry divisions were, with one exception, never able to successfully operate offensively against Western (US or British / Commonwealth) divisions.
That leaves the bulk of the Wehrmacht combat ineffective for offensive warfare against the West. It would fall on the small number of panzer and panzergrenadier divisions to do all of the offensive fighting.

The reverse isn't true. Any US or British / Commonwealth division of any sort was offensively capable against the Wehrmacht. So, it could easily be argued that the US alone with 200 effective divisions would have a preponderance of combat capacity over the 30 to 40 really combat effective German divisions with the other 200+ being really little more than place holders. Many couldn't even move much of their heavy equipment, transport being so short in supply.

[maltesefalcon]

I'm still not sure how you think that the US or UK could function without a Navy.

Are they connected by land bridges to each other and to Europe?
If not, they could each make a trillion tanks and they still could not attack the European continent. If yes explain where they are connected and how history still somehow evolves to create these nations.

Bear in mind they also needed to fight Japan. Hows that going to happen?

The US would not have fought the Spanish American War and the Brits would not have fought the Boers with no navy either. Plus neither the US nor UK would have any colonies or foreign protectorates to speak of.

One more thing. The Soviets had a modern powerful navy in WW2, despite being a land power as suggested in the title. This thread seems to be off on a tangent already but the original concept seems a bit flawed IMHO.

[T. A. Gardner]

The OP is a thought experiment. It wasn't intended to be analyzed as some viable actual scenario but rather an imaginary one where the US and Britain could fight as land powers rather than as sea powers.

[maltesefalcon]

No offense intended, but in my opinion your thought experiment needs more thought.

Both nations needed imports to produce military goods. Things like nitre, manganese, tungsten, bauxite, copper, rubber. In the case of the UK, you can add to the list more basic items like foodstuffs, oil, iron ore, wood, textiles.

So no I don't think they would produce more powerful forces at all. And even in peace time, the UK was not self sufficient so they would starve or freeze pretty quick with no shipping imports.

[Guaporense]

No offense intended, but in my opinion your thought experiment needs more thought.

Both nations needed imports to produce military goods. Things like nitre, manganese, tungsten, bauxite, copper, rubber. In the case of the UK, you can add to the list more basic items like foodstuffs, oil, iron ore, wood, textiles.

So no I don't think they would produce more powerful forces at all. And even in peace time, the UK was not self sufficient so they would starve or freeze pretty quick with no shipping imports.

My though experiment was only "if the US allocated it's resources for ground forces like Germany did, how many divisions could they have fielded?" I arrived at ca. 190 divisions of the same size as the historical 90.

Of course, historically it would have been almost impossible for the US to do that, although I still think that they could reduce their navy and airforce by half without war with Japan and get a fair number of extra divisions (besides increasing total economic mobilization a little bit).

[maltesefalcon]

I was replying to the terms of the original post which included Britain in the mix. (If one keeps changing the terms you can make pretty well any premise work eventually.)
Bear in mind you can have as many land divisions as you please. Without a powerful navy to ferry them and a substantial air force to protect them, they are moot.
Historically, it took until May 1943 to win the Uboat war and until spring 1944 for air superiority.

Any reduction of these elements invites disaster.

You can change the terms I guess, like eliminating Japan from the mix, per above to try and make sense of this. Still does not explin how non-domestic strategic items magically appear with no merchant or fighting ships.

Oh yes. What happens to Russia in 1941-42? With no Murmansk run to bring food and trucks in their first year of the war I think they'd collapse. And who owns/controls Hawaii and Alaska under those circumstances? With no shipping, certainly not the US.

Maybe someone else can comment and inject some sanity to what is in effect a very unlikely set of circumstances.

[OpanaPointer]

One thought. Without a Navy and merchant marine the isolationists would have been more willing to allow the Army to expand. Their reasoning would have been that the defense of the US would be stronger with a larger Army and without mobility it couldn't be used "in any foreign wars". Most of the isolationists believed in a strong defense for the US, the main issue there is what constituted vital US interests. Some favored hemispheric defense, some only North America, some just the US, and some wanted no defense at all.

[maltesefalcon]

Let's go back to the original post:

"How large would the British and US Armies have been had those nations not had to possess large navies and merchant fleets?"

What is our point of departure from the OTL? Both countries had a long maritime tradition and frankly neither would have thrived, yet alone existed without a navy to defend their commercial fleets. Each country's economy depended on maritime trade with other nations whether in war or peace. Neither was entirely self sufficient and depended to some extent on imported goods.

Despite claims that the USA was isolationist, they had many colonies or dependencies to tend to. With no navy, what would have happened to Alaska, Hawaii, Midway, Guam, the Phllippines, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands? With no navy how could the UK hold their colonies in India, the Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East , Singapore and Hong Kong?

Besides the navies that fought in WW2 were for the most part constructed years ahead of time. Of course new ships were built but by then the die was cast.

[OpanaPointer]

I have no problem saying the US was largely isolationist in 1939, but that changed in June, 1940, and never turned back.

[maltesefalcon]

Nations that have navies for over 100 years then suddenly don’t, just when they need them most? This was an absurd premise from the get-go but I’ll take one more shot at it. The previous posts have focused on increasing the size of the US/UK armies at the expense of both their navies and air forces.
Let’s examine this in detail. Both countries are capitalist democracies, with powerful people in military and industrial roles in both the naval and aerial spheres. Any US/UK government that suggested that either force be scrapped and the resources used to reinforce the army would be voted out of office pretty quick.
Some of the resources worked in parallel and some were common. Parallel resources would be things like shipyards, aircraft plants and the aluminum industry. Both nations had suffered under the depression and these industries sorely needed work to survive. In any case, they would not have been much use in building tanks. Common resources would be things like steel, of course. They would have to share. Manpower? Naturally. But instead of using 15,000 men to create a 91st division, you could train 15,000 air crew. On a man-for-man basis a single rifleman is never going to have the same impact as a pilot in a P-51.
But it’s not just about numbers. It’s about what you do with them. In 1940, I think France alone had 200 army divisions. Despite the fact that the Allies outnumbered them and had comparable equipment, the Wehrmacht crushed the armies of 4 nations and pushed the Brits off the continent in 6 weeks.
In the desert war, the battle raged back and forth for 3 years. Both sides again were often evenly matched in terms of size of force and quality of equipment. But the edge that tipped the game in favour of the Allies? Better air and naval forces that interdicted Rommel’s supply chain. Bold tactics may win battles, but logistics win wars.
Look at the Battle of the Bulge. When the Allies became separated from their air support they did not have things their way. This is just a fact, but not necessarily a weakness.
The Anglo/Americans had one advantage they lacked in 1940. Most of the German army was occupied either in Italy, or the Eastern front, which by June 1944 was already going badly for Germany. The Anglo Americans could therefore bide their time and strike into France when the time was right. Why wait? Because unlike the USSR, their philosophy was not just to achieve victory, but to do so with minimum casualties. They had much more artillery and air element and used it to great advantage.
It’s also worth mentioning that a US Army division cannot be directly compared to its Wehrmacht counterpart. A US infantry division alone had a higher authorized armoured strength than the theoretical strength of a Panzer division. US armoured divisions had twice more than that. Add to that, for the last year of the war, most Panzer divisions had nothing near their authorized strength in any case.
Add to that the fact that for much of the Western Europe campaign, only a small portion of the troops were engaged at any one time. More tanks and infantry could have just added to the supply woes.
One more thing. There is still Japan to contend with. It’s not likely they would/could have invaded the US mainland, but with no naval or air forces opposing them, they would have things pretty much their way in the Co-Prosperity Sphere.
IRL, once Japan’s merchant and naval fleets had been decimated along with most of their air element the only tactic they had left was to use their still considerable land force and wait until the enemy came to you. We all saw how that worked out for them.
Sorry for the long post. I’m done on this topic now.