Could The USA/British Empire have won on their own?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Politician01
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 02 Sep 2011 06:56

Could The USA/British Empire have won on their own?

Post by Politician01 » 29 Dec 2011 18:52

What if the German-Soviet alliance did hold a few years longer and Hitler decided to finish Britain of first?
Pearl harbour happens as in OTL and Hitler declares war on America.
Can the West win witouth the Soviet Union?

I think no.

Without a war against the USSR Germany can dissolve 50 out of its 150 Barbarossa divisions thus giving the German industry a huge injection in workforce and therefore production.

And even without the occupation divisions Germany would still have 100 first class divisions for combat.
Without all the aircraft and tanks and trucks and soliders ect that had to be sent to the eastern front, Germany can conquer Malta, and take Gibraltar, conquer North Africa and take over the Middle East.

U boat production would rise,possibly starving Britain into submition by 1942 or 1943.
The allied bomber offensive would have sustained much greater casualties than in OTL.

And the allies would have no hope of conquering North Africa or just setting foot on the European continent.
Facing an unwinable war would also have a great impact on morale.
Even if Britain would not be defeated it is very likely that it would agree to peace by 1943 or 1944.

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3146
Joined: 05 Jun 2003 16:22
Location: USA

Re: Could The USA/British Empire have won on their own?

Post by Kingfish » 29 Dec 2011 18:56

Until the first atom bomb is dropped...

Politician01
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 02 Sep 2011 06:56

Re: Could The USA/British Empire have won on their own?

Post by Politician01 » 29 Dec 2011 19:08

Kingfish wrote:Until the first atom bomb is dropped...
1. By mid 1941 the Nuke is 4 YEARS away and 99.99% of all people dont know about it.

2. Even against Japan the US needed 2 Nukes+the soviet invasion.

Against a germany winning 2 nukes woundt do much.

In this scenario theyr cities received perhaps 20% the damage of the bomber campaing in OTL.
How many nukes would be needed to make the same damage as 3 years bomber campaing??

Of course assuming that the US+Britain stays in a war they cannot win for 4 YEARS..... :roll:

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3146
Joined: 05 Jun 2003 16:22
Location: USA

Re: Could The USA/British Empire have won on their own?

Post by Kingfish » 29 Dec 2011 20:15

Politician01 wrote:Against a germany winning 2 nukes woundt do much.
I think you underestimate the effect a weapon that can wipe a medium-sized city off the map can have on a nation's will for continuing the fight, especially when said nation has virtually no recourse.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7301
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Could The USA/British Empire have won on their own?

Post by Michael Kenny » 29 Dec 2011 20:33

Politician01 wrote:How many nukes would be needed to make the same damage as 3 years bomber campaing??
If a man is aiming at you with a machine gun then you assume he has plenty of ammo. The fact he only has 20 bullets means nothing if you surrender before finding this out.
Have you seen the scene in Aliens where a near empty gun keeps the creatures out of one of the passages?

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5586
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Could The USA/British Empire have won on their own?

Post by glenn239 » 29 Dec 2011 20:40

Tough to see how the Germans can stop the USAAF.

nota
Member
Posts: 180
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 16:35
Location: miami

Re: Could The USA/British Empire have won on their own?

Post by nota » 29 Dec 2011 21:43

with fuel sure they could
also no shortage of trained pilots
they were never real short of aircraft even with the eastern front
but fuel and people they were short

add in extra AAA and the ability to attack the bomber bases too
sure not stop as in totally but greatly reduced and limited like early 42-43 high loss low results

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Could The USA/British Empire have won on their own?

Post by phylo_roadking » 29 Dec 2011 22:03

Without a war against the USSR Germany can dissolve 50 out of its 150 Barbarossa divisions thus giving the German industry a huge injection in workforce and therefore production.
....but in many cases ONLY the raw materials they had historically to produce with.
Without all the aircraft and tanks and trucks and soliders ect that had to be sent to the eastern front, Germany can conquer Malta, and take Gibraltar, conquer North Africa and take over the Middle East.
Germany didn't take Malta because of that. See the Crete WI presently on-hands, or any of the Malta ones.
U boat production would rise,possibly starving Britain into submition by 1942 or 1943.
Why? Where's the fuel oil for them? Where's the steel for them? You've just said they still have all the tanks and trucks etc...so they're not building submarines! See ANY of the threas on AHF about competing for resources.

And even if somehoe they did build more...all THAT gives is the british and Americans a more target-rich environment courtesy of Bletchley Park!
The allied bomber offensive would have sustained much greater casualties than in OTL.
Why? The problem for interfering with the night raids was the practicalities of the Kamhuber Line, not the number of fighters I.E. how they were managed.
And the allies would have no hope of conquering North Africa or just setting foot on the European continent.
Why?
Even if Britain would not be defeated it is very likely that it would agree to peace by 1943 or 1944.
After the Battle of Britain, the Blitz, Coventry??? Not a chance.
2. Even against Japan the US needed 2 Nukes+the soviet invasion.
No, the U.S. decided to use the Bomb to obviate the need or high casualties and the potentially HUGE civilian catastrophe in Japan. In the absence of the Bomb....they'd have taken their licks but still gone in, with gas and longrange strategic bombardment (the Loon, their backengineered copy of the V-1).
Against a germany winning 2 nukes woundt do much
A decapitation strike it would have cut the head off the hydra...remember, the majority of German generals saw the war as unwinnable in the long term as early as 1942-3. Absent Hitler and his cronies....and peace would prevail.
How many nukes would be needed to make the same damage as 3 years bomber campaing??
Not as many as you think! :wink: the numbers on that were crunched many times during the Cold War - I need to find my vopy of Laurie, but IIRC NATO at least equated the damage done to Germany by the strategic bombing campaign in WWII to the damage done by less than a dozen Hiroshima-type bombs; reckoned out on factors available for rebuilding the country AFTER such a strike - miles of railway destroyed, numbers of locmotives and rolling stock destroyed, bridges dropped, homes destroyed or made unhibitable etc., etc..
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Could The USA/British Empire have won on their own?

Post by phylo_roadking » 29 Dec 2011 22:06

they were never real short of aircraft even with the eastern front
If you look at some of the threads generated by Guaporense....Britain on her own equalled Germany in total airframes and various aircraft types; add American production on top of that.....

The suprising thing is quite how few aircraft the Germans actually mustered against the Allies in total during the war.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

nota
Member
Posts: 180
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 16:35
Location: miami

Re: Could The USA/British Empire have won on their own?

Post by nota » 29 Dec 2011 23:54

'''Why? Where's the fuel oil for them? Where's the steel for them? You've just said they still have all the tanks and trucks etc...so they're not building submarines! See ANY of the threats on AHF about competing for resources.'''

fuel/ in the form of crude oil was coming from USSR
right up to the invasion
no invasion no fuel shortage

and with no eastern fight
huge increase in pilots

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Could The USA/British Empire have won on their own?

Post by phylo_roadking » 30 Dec 2011 00:02

fuel/ in the form of crude oil was coming from USSR
right up to the invasion
no invasion no fuel shortage
How much longer was that going to go on? Remember - relations were already falling apart fast....and the Soviets were rapdly becoming disenchanted with the "technological exchange" and what little they got from that.

There may not have been war with the USSR - but the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pacts was failling to bits.
and with no eastern fight
huge increase in pilots
Pilots yes - but no overall icnrease in the number of aircraft/airframes produced. All that does is allow the Luftwaffe to rotate/rest pilots properly as the RAF did; operational tours, rests instructing in training units etc.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

gurn
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 24 Jan 2010 18:46

Re: Could The USA/British Empire have won on their own?

Post by gurn » 30 Dec 2011 01:25

"How much longer was that going to go on? Remember - relations were already falling apart fast....and the Soviets were rapdly becoming disenchanted with the "technological exchange" and what little they got from that'

I'd think that if there was no war with the Soviet on Hitlers agenda then relations with the soviets would be better and perhaps moreoil would be shipped than historical.

"All that does is allow the Luftwaffe to rotate/rest pilots properly as the RAF did; operational tours, rests instructing in training units etc.'

Proper rest and rotation is not that "small" a thing.Morale would be better and combat effectiveness would be enhanced.

As to the "nuke" bit. It was ready late in the war and it is debateable as to wether the allies would continue to fight until their wonder weapon was ready.Also the german nuclear program may develop faster without the added pressure of pending doom?

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 9166
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Could The USA/British Empire have won on their own?

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 30 Dec 2011 01:41

nota wrote:'''Why? Where's the fuel oil for them? Where's the steel for them? You've just said they still have all the tanks and trucks etc...so they're not building submarines! See ANY of the threats on AHF about competing for resources.'''

fuel/ in the form of crude oil was coming from USSR
right up to the invasion
no invasion no fuel shortage
Actually fuel was tight before 22 June 1941. The quick victory in the west left some military reserves, but in the longer term German industry and the military were both looking at inadaquate stocks of petroleum. That was one reason Germany arm twisted Rumania into breaking agreements/contracts with the Italian government and other customers. Germany was not reciving as much of the Rumainian production as it needed. In part that was because Germany could not compete price wise. The fiscal boost from the Austrian & Cezch banks had largely run out, and Poland had not much to contribute to the fiscal solvency of the nazi regime. By the winter of 1940-41 the nazis were resorting to every more complex scheme of smoke & mirrors to pay for goods from the nuetral nations. German credit and soft currency was seen as increasing risk and tangible payment by gold (which Germany was in short supply) or better usefull goods were demanded. Even Italian businessmen were balking at the payment schemes of German banks and government.

The Soviet leaders understood all this. Payment for Soviet oil, grain, and raw materials had to be paid for with machine tools (which the German arms industry needed), chemicals, & like items. Stalin had little incentive to give Germany a price break & had the trends in valuation of the exchanged goods continued extortion would have become a better description than barter.
nota wrote:and with no eastern fight
huge increase in pilots
The east was the primary front for the German airforce only briefly. By mid 1942 over a third of the combat capable squadrons were in the Mediterranian, western Europe, or Norway. That trend continued. In 1943 hardly half the German air losses were in the east. While the propaganda men made much of the tactical victorys the hard fact is the Luftwaffe was shot out of the sky over Tunisia, Sicilly, Italy, France, and eventually Germany. One of the problems was the incompetence of Göring & his staff extended to aircrew training. Germany did not begain to revamp its peacetime training methods until 1942, which had already created severe problems in providing combat ready replacement pilots and navigators. The habit of stripping the schools of instructors for emergency operations in the east or west & Med aggravated the situation. More than one German air commander remarked that it did not matter how many aircraft German industry provided, they would never have the qualified pilots to fly them. Ending the war in the does not cancel the destructive habits of the air force leaders & their ill starred administration. Any reserves created by the lack of a eastern front would be squandered by the same foolish policies.

By Dec 1943 the combined combat worthy US/Brit air fleet reached 18,500 aircraft in the UK & Med. The Red AF fielded 8,500 or 32% of the total. At its peak in June 1943 the German AF managed to keep slightly over 5,000 aircraft combat worthy. Even without losses in the east German air force production and training cant keep pace with the output of Britain & the US. In 1943 104,000 of all types for the US/Britain vs 23,000 of all types for Germany.

Note that the US production of 73,000 aircraft in 1944 was not its peak potiential. In mid 1943 Marshall & his staff begain setting reduced goals for equipment procurement. With the survival of the USSR, surrender of Italy, the upper hand in the battle of the Atlantic, and the end of Japan's naval offensive capability 150 US ground divisions & proportionate number of air wings were judged not needed. Had the requirement existed the US could have continued to increase output substantially to offset the absence of the Red AF.

Bottom line here is the GAF would be a dead letter by 1945 if not sometime in 1944. Still capable of some tactical victories, but incapable of stratigic or operational influence.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 9166
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Could The USA/British Empire have won on their own?

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 30 Dec 2011 02:03

phylo_roadking wrote:
How many nukes would be needed to make the same damage as 3 years bomber campaing??
Not as many as you think! :wink: the numbers on that were crunched many times during the Cold War - I need to find my vopy of Laurie, but IIRC NATO at least equated the damage done to Germany by the strategic bombing campaign in WWII to the damage done by less than a dozen Hiroshima-type bombs; reckoned out on factors available for rebuilding the country AFTER such a strike - miles of railway destroyed, numbers of locmotives and rolling stock destroyed, bridges dropped, homes destroyed or made unhibitable etc., etc..
I've seen claims that the US could have built as many as 36 Plutonium & Uranium bombs into 1946. Rhodes 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb' cites US records that place actual production in 1945 as five plutonium bombs and eighteen more in 1946. Uranium bombs dont seem to have been scheduled as those isotopes were difficult to make and Uranium was wanted for reactors. But the Uranium bombs were easy to build with the isotopes already at hand.

So, assuming Germany is not yet defeated in August 1945? Three Plutonium bombs were actually ready for use in August and two more were available from the Plutonium at hand by late October. Roughly two more per month, at a minimum for the first half of 1946. Exactly how many more might have been built depends on how skilled the engineers were at keeping the three breeder reactors at Haniford Washington producing. Continuation of the 'hot' Uranium isotopes at Oak Ridge might have provided material for a several more Uranium fueled bombs.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17489
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Could The USA/British Empire have won on their own?

Post by phylo_roadking » 30 Dec 2011 02:33

As to the "nuke" bit. It was ready late in the war and it is debateable as to wether the allies would continue to fight until their wonder weapon was ready.
No harm to you, but in the words of James May - "that's a REALLY stupid idea!"

"We've got a REAL wonder weapon coming, but we'll just give up in the meantime???"

Also the german nuclear program may develop faster without the added pressure of pending doom?
That's an old saw, but discredited just SO many times, even here on AHF and in detail.

Exactly how many more might have been built depends on how skilled the engineers were at keeping the three breeder reactors at Haniford Washington producing
The plutonium used for the historical WWII plutonium A-Bombs came ONLY from the "A" and "B" pilot reactors, the small ones. The first of two production reactors - "C" - was six months late coming online....and IIRC after the end of the war, the building of the second one, "D", slowed down, but it was online in 1947. So plutonium production at Hanford spiked in 1948...but was a steeply climbing curve IIRC before that.
So, assuming Germany is not yet defeated in August 1945? Three Plutonium bombs were actually ready for use in August and two more were available from the Plutonium at hand by late October. Roughly two more per month, at a minimum for the first half of 1946.
And of course - if the Germans do bite the bullet and keep on fighting :cry: the steady stream of weapons arriving and being used prevents major military concentrations etc., puts a range of vital factories, possibly even underground ones, at risk, takes out the North German ports...AND deal with the huge civilian cost and death toll. In other words, the Germans can't fight the type of war they've been fighting for six years.

Under that steady pressure of huge hammerblows, can they mount an effective military defence?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Return to “What if”