Battle for the Atlantic - it result without US
Battle for the Atlantic - it result without US
Royal Navy cud win the Battle for the Atlantic if Hitler didn't declare war on USA ?
-
- Member
- Posts: 2047
- Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
- Location: Canada
Re: Battle for the Atlantic - it result without US
The US Navy was well into an undeclared naval war with Germany prior to 7/12/41.
Germany damaged one warship and sank Reuben James in that pre-war period.
I think if Japan would have brought the US into the war, an escalation of US involvement was inevitable.
Even if only to provide supplies to the UK to fight Japan...
Germany damaged one warship and sank Reuben James in that pre-war period.
I think if Japan would have brought the US into the war, an escalation of US involvement was inevitable.
Even if only to provide supplies to the UK to fight Japan...
- T. A. Gardner
- Member
- Posts: 3546
- Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
- Location: Arizona
Re: Battle for the Atlantic - it result without US
Even if the USN doesn't get involved a Guerre de Course of commerce raiding is not a winning strategy at sea. The law of diminishing returns applies for one. As you sink merchants the remainder become more valuable and better protected. The sea power will also devote increasing resources to defeating the commerce raiders.
Since Germany is in a major land war with Russia in any case, and Britain can't be invaded by Germany, nor can Germany invade or take Commonwealth nations with the resources Britain needs, the British will eventually win the U-boat war. It may take longer, and cost more, but they will win it and Germany will eventually lose.
Bringing in the US only hastens Germany's defeat at sea.
Since Germany is in a major land war with Russia in any case, and Britain can't be invaded by Germany, nor can Germany invade or take Commonwealth nations with the resources Britain needs, the British will eventually win the U-boat war. It may take longer, and cost more, but they will win it and Germany will eventually lose.
Bringing in the US only hastens Germany's defeat at sea.
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10056
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: Battle for the Atlantic - it result without US
The OP is ambigious. This question can go in two directions.
1. The US and German are not in a declared war, but the Nuetrality or Exclusion Zone still expands as planned, and the US is building replacement cargo ships for Britain as planned.
2. The US has a more limited Nuetrality Zone, & the US does not build replacement cargo ships in the quantities planned.
With #1 Germany is limited to the Eastern Atlantic for submarine operations, sinkings are less, and cargo ship replacement rises above losses.
In #2 the odds are cargo ship replacement will not keep pace with sinkings through 1942 & into 1943. Britain will have to alter its global strategy to preserve its cargo fleet.
1. The US and German are not in a declared war, but the Nuetrality or Exclusion Zone still expands as planned, and the US is building replacement cargo ships for Britain as planned.
2. The US has a more limited Nuetrality Zone, & the US does not build replacement cargo ships in the quantities planned.
With #1 Germany is limited to the Eastern Atlantic for submarine operations, sinkings are less, and cargo ship replacement rises above losses.
In #2 the odds are cargo ship replacement will not keep pace with sinkings through 1942 & into 1943. Britain will have to alter its global strategy to preserve its cargo fleet.
-
- Member
- Posts: 298
- Joined: 23 Jun 2010, 09:37
Re: Battle for the Atlantic - it result without US
... It's complicated ,
first of - does Lend Lease function globally or is restricted to British isles ?
If it functions globally, then USSR continous to receive bauxite, alluminum, copper wires, tanks and planes from the USA , and manages to stop and later push back the Germans before Moscow.
If it doesn't function globally, the USSR ony receives supplies from the British Commonwealth, and is unlikely to have the resources to rebuild it's infrastructure, and to actualy produce own warplanes and tanks, etc, meaning most likely outcome is they get pushed onto the Ural line.
If so, there would be another war, the GErmans could turn their attention to the Mediteranean and Africa (imagine redeployments of Luftwaffe groupens from the Eastern Front to Sicily in early 1942), and possibly win North Africa for the time being.
In turn, this could lead to another chain reaction somewhere else. Etc.
For example, a prolonged stalemate (or victory) along the Ural line could bring a great number of aircraft from the East to the West. Specifically the long ranged He-111s could play a significant part in the convoy battles of the Atlantic.
There is also the problem of number of Uboats sunk. Without US involvement, there would be no mid-Atlantic-gap-stopper (B-24 Liberator with radars) , and thus losses would continue to be felt there. Also, US escort ships arrived in big numbers since late 1942/early 1943, and without them, it is questionable how many Uboats would have been destroyed in that critical phase of the war.
first of - does Lend Lease function globally or is restricted to British isles ?
If it functions globally, then USSR continous to receive bauxite, alluminum, copper wires, tanks and planes from the USA , and manages to stop and later push back the Germans before Moscow.
If it doesn't function globally, the USSR ony receives supplies from the British Commonwealth, and is unlikely to have the resources to rebuild it's infrastructure, and to actualy produce own warplanes and tanks, etc, meaning most likely outcome is they get pushed onto the Ural line.
If so, there would be another war, the GErmans could turn their attention to the Mediteranean and Africa (imagine redeployments of Luftwaffe groupens from the Eastern Front to Sicily in early 1942), and possibly win North Africa for the time being.
In turn, this could lead to another chain reaction somewhere else. Etc.
For example, a prolonged stalemate (or victory) along the Ural line could bring a great number of aircraft from the East to the West. Specifically the long ranged He-111s could play a significant part in the convoy battles of the Atlantic.
There is also the problem of number of Uboats sunk. Without US involvement, there would be no mid-Atlantic-gap-stopper (B-24 Liberator with radars) , and thus losses would continue to be felt there. Also, US escort ships arrived in big numbers since late 1942/early 1943, and without them, it is questionable how many Uboats would have been destroyed in that critical phase of the war.
Re: Battle for the Atlantic - it result without US
No US navy in the Atlantic means more US navy in the Pacific, and the added pressure against Japan could lighten the British load somewhat.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb
~Babylonian Proverb
Re: Battle for the Atlantic - it result without US
IIRC the British anti-uboat measures were so efficient that the first "happy time" ended abruptly in March 1941.
The second "happy time", by itself, accounted for 1/4 of shipping losses to UBoat attacks.
There would be no second "happy time" under this scenario.
The second "happy time", by itself, accounted for 1/4 of shipping losses to UBoat attacks.
There would be no second "happy time" under this scenario.
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
-
- Member
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
- Location: Canada
Re: Battle for the Atlantic - it result without US
Docs in the OG 51ASW STUDY show a massive increase in merchant ship construction . In 1942 it triples and for the rest of the war its 7 times the early naval war level . U-Boat losses more than doubled due to aircraft ASW attacks about the same time....who produced the merchant ships ; aircraft & CVE to prosecute this ASW war?
Re: Battle for the Atlantic - it result without US
It would have been more difficult,but Britain would have won .AriX wrote:Royal Navy cud win the Battle for the Atlantic if Hitler didn't declare war on USA ?
-
- Member
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
- Location: Canada
Re: Battle for the Atlantic - it result without US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... rld_War_II
According to the above site the UK built roughly 7 million tons of warships during WW-II plus another 13 million tons of merchant cartage. Historically the UK started the war with a supply line of ~ 42 million tons annual delivery, but lost 24 MILLION TONS OF MERCHANT SHIPPING TO THE GERMANS FROM 1939-1945. This would leave just a minimum offensive war fighting capability of maybe 20 million tons to wage war against Hitler’s Germany. The historically excess amount appears to have been ~64 million tons more than the amount needed to keep the UK afloat. If true this covers either “Lend Lease” to UK & USSR –or- Combined Bomber Offensive –or- Operation Overlord/ second front.....etc.
Either NO soft underbelly; NO destruction of Luftwaffe /bombing of GERMANY; NO Overlord or second front for that matter. What they could achieve would be just ‘self defence’ for the UK and its EMPIRE.
If all this happens- Germany would have achieved one of its main strategic war goals.
According to the above site the UK built roughly 7 million tons of warships during WW-II plus another 13 million tons of merchant cartage. Historically the UK started the war with a supply line of ~ 42 million tons annual delivery, but lost 24 MILLION TONS OF MERCHANT SHIPPING TO THE GERMANS FROM 1939-1945. This would leave just a minimum offensive war fighting capability of maybe 20 million tons to wage war against Hitler’s Germany. The historically excess amount appears to have been ~64 million tons more than the amount needed to keep the UK afloat. If true this covers either “Lend Lease” to UK & USSR –or- Combined Bomber Offensive –or- Operation Overlord/ second front.....etc.
Either NO soft underbelly; NO destruction of Luftwaffe /bombing of GERMANY; NO Overlord or second front for that matter. What they could achieve would be just ‘self defence’ for the UK and its EMPIRE.
If all this happens- Germany would have achieved one of its main strategic war goals.
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10056
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: Battle for the Atlantic - it result without US
Mr Lakowskis previous post gets at the heart of it. I'm to strapped for time to get the refrences down from the shelf & writ up a summary of the numbers. But, Ellis 'Brute Force' and 'The Battle of the Atlantic' lay out the losses & construction of cargo ships over the way & show clearly when the critical periods were & why. They both do the same for German submarine construction/losses.
What the numbers clearly show its the attacks of cargo ships, by air surface raider, mines, and submarines never were big in actual destruction of cargo destined for the UK. The threat was in eliminating the cargo ships available. The numbers also make it clear the crisis of the BoA was in 1942 & not in the wither/spring of 43 as was assumed at the time.
What the numbers clearly show its the attacks of cargo ships, by air surface raider, mines, and submarines never were big in actual destruction of cargo destined for the UK. The threat was in eliminating the cargo ships available. The numbers also make it clear the crisis of the BoA was in 1942 & not in the wither/spring of 43 as was assumed at the time.
Re: Battle for the Atlantic - it result without US
Are we taking into account the contribution from other allied nations?
IIRC, Norway gave the British a huge boost in terms of merchant shipping.
IIRC, Norway gave the British a huge boost in terms of merchant shipping.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb
~Babylonian Proverb