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.
User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

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

Post by JAG13 » 08 Dec 2015 23:52

T. A. Gardner wrote:
JAG13 wrote:Please quote the part of the message were the Japanese actually declared war on the US and I will answer to the rest of your post. This point has to be addressed.
8O

Well, that took 30 seconds...
By the grace of Heaven, Emperor of Japan Emperor Shōwa, seated on the throne occupied by the same dynasty from time immemorial, enjoin upon ye, Our loyal and brave subjects:

We hereby declare War on the United States of America and the British Empire. The men and officers of Our Army and Navy shall do their utmost in prosecuting the war. Our public servants of various departments shall perform faithfully and diligently their respective duties; the entire nation with a united will shall mobilize their total strength so that nothing will miscarry in the attainment of Our war aims...

...In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hand and caused the Grand Seal of the Empire to be affixed at the Imperial Palace, Tokyo, this seventh day of the 12th month of the 15th year of Shōwa, corresponding to the 2,602nd year from the accession to the throne of Emperor Jimmu.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_ ... ish_Empire

http://www.emersonkent.com/historic_doc ... ration.htm

That occurred on December 8th 1941, Japanese time and 7 December 1941 in the United States.
LOL! Are you serious? War by newspaper? When was that notified to the US and did you notice that the very same source you quote indicates the 8th in the evening and that Pearl was kinda bombed in the morning of that day?

Should I also remind you that your claim was this:
T. A. Gardner wrote:
. The US declared war on Japan after Japan handed the US their declaration of war and had attacked Pearl Harbor. Or, did you forget the reason it was a surprise attack at all was the Japanese ambassador to the US was slow getting the message declaring war decoded and delivered to the US?
So, again, where in the message you alluded to did the Japanese declare war on the US?

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2878
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

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

Post by T. A. Gardner » 09 Dec 2015 00:16

JAG13 wrote: LOL! Are you serious? War by newspaper? When was that notified to the US and did you notice that the very same source you quote indicates the 8th in the evening and that Pearl was kinda bombed in the morning of that day?

Should I also remind you that your claim was this:


So, again, where in the message you alluded to did the Japanese declare war on the US?
You didn't even look at this source then.

http://www.emersonkent.com/historic_doc ... ration.htm

That document was originally signed by every important official in the Japanese government.

You are being obtuse. The Japanese declared war. The document they used to do that has been shown to you.

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

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

Post by JAG13 » 09 Dec 2015 01:01

T. A. Gardner wrote:
JAG13 wrote: LOL! Are you serious? War by newspaper? When was that notified to the US and did you notice that the very same source you quote indicates the 8th in the evening and that Pearl was kinda bombed in the morning of that day?

Should I also remind you that your claim was this:


So, again, where in the message you alluded to did the Japanese declare war on the US?
You didn't even look at this source then.

http://www.emersonkent.com/historic_doc ... ration.htm

That document was originally signed by every important official in the Japanese government.

You are being obtuse. The Japanese declared war. The document they used to do that has been shown to you.
Obtuse? This is what you wrote:
T. A. Gardner wrote:
. The US declared war on Japan after Japan handed the US their declaration of war and had attacked Pearl Harbor. Or, did you forget the reason it was a surprise attack at all was the Japanese ambassador to the US was slow getting the message declaring war decoded and delivered to the US?
Did you write that or not?

So, again, where in the message you alluded to did the Japanese declare war on the US?

Whos being obtuse now?

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2878
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

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

Post by T. A. Gardner » 09 Dec 2015 01:11

Obtuse.

It's been discussed here before too.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=105314

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

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

Post by JAG13 » 09 Dec 2015 01:37

T. A. Gardner wrote:Obtuse.

It's been discussed here before too.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=105314
Im sure there is a term for people that refuse to recognize when they are wrong no matter what, dont care enough to look it up, but you know... it is pretty clear...

...and funny.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2878
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

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

Post by T. A. Gardner » 09 Dec 2015 02:02

JAG13 wrote:
T. A. Gardner wrote:Obtuse.

It's been discussed here before too.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=105314
Im sure there is a term for people that refuse to recognize when they are wrong no matter what, dont care enough to look it up, but you know... it is pretty clear...

...and funny.
Then show us that rather than arguing I'm wrong when I've presented multiple sources that show exactly what I said.

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

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

Post by JAG13 » 09 Dec 2015 02:20

T. A. Gardner wrote:
JAG13 wrote:
T. A. Gardner wrote:Obtuse.

It's been discussed here before too.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=105314
Im sure there is a term for people that refuse to recognize when they are wrong no matter what, dont care enough to look it up, but you know... it is pretty clear...

...and funny.
Then show us that rather than arguing I'm wrong when I've presented multiple sources that show exactly what I said.
Sources?

Thats a lie...

T. A. Gardner wrote:
. The US declared war on Japan after Japan handed the US their declaration of war and had attacked Pearl Harbor. Or, did you forget the reason it was a surprise attack at all was the Japanese ambassador to the US was slow getting the message declaring war decoded and delivered to the US?
Did you write that or not?

So, again, where in the message you alluded to did the Japanese declare war on the US?

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

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

Post by Paul Lakowski » 13 Dec 2015 06:10

In 1940 Germany had 5.8 million men in arms and built 5-6 billion RM armaments. To support that many troops in battle cost 16 billion RM, so each million troops in service cost them 2.75 billion RM.

In 1941 Germany had 7.3 million men in arms and built >6 billion RM in armaments. To support that many troops cost 25 billion RM, so each million troops in service cost them 3.45 billion RM. The main difference is the manpower and forces raised for the war in the east. That's 1.5 million troops or 5 billion RM that could have essentially doubled the quantity or quality of arms built that year.

Big difference here is the cost per million troops in the field has increased by 1/4 probably due to Russian being an on going ground campaign while the previous war was more of short campaigns with long periods in between to prep for the next step. If at this point on the Germans are not locked into a massive Russia type war their cost per millions in arms will likely hover around 3 billion RM .

In 1942 Germany had 8.4 million men in arms and built ~9 billion RM in armaments. To support that many troops in battle cost 29 billion RM, so each million troops in service cost them 3.5 billion RM. This is an excess of 2.5 million troops in the east & is equivalent to < 9 billion RM ...which again almost doubles the quantity or quality of arms built that year. more so if they are not locked into a war of attrition on any front.

In 1943 Germany had 9 million men in arms spent ~15-20 billion RM in armaments. To support that many troops in battle cost 33 billion RM, so each million troops in service cost them 3.7 billion RM. This is an excess of at least 3 million troops in the east & is equivalent to ~ 11 billion RM ...which if spent on arms should increase the quantity or quality of arms by 1.7-1.55 times . Again if they are not locked into a war of attrition the armaments spending could increase by 13 BRM, not 11 BRM [1.87-1.65]

In 1944 Germany had 9 million men in arms & spent ~19-24 billion RM in armaments. To support that many troops in battle cost 36 billion RM, so each million troops in service cost them 4 billion RM. This is an excess of at least 3 million troops in the east & is equivalent to ~ 12 billion RM ...which if spent on arms should increase the quantity or quality of arms by 1.5-1.6 times . With no eastern front, that likely increase should be ~15 billion RM , not 12 BRM [1.6 - 1.8].

What does this all mean?

That any assumptions about the fighting through the war -to the end - is not going to apply. It would be a different kind of war based on different decisions.

User avatar
tramonte
Member
Posts: 320
Joined: 13 Oct 2015 10:05
Location: Southern Finland

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

Post by tramonte » 01 Jan 2016 17:21

Some 30% of German munitions were targeting land warfare. 2/3 of it was destroyed in Eastern Front. 58% was targeting air warfare - 90% including destroyed production was wiped out by western allied air power. 12% of munitions were for Kriegsmarine. 95% of it was destroyed by western allied air and sea power.

It's much more realistic to suggest that just about 25-30% German munitions were destroyed by Soviet military forces. The idea of using just body count as best tool to measure how the war was won is not good at all. Most of those death German soldiers in east were just bulk infantry soldiers with no high battle value. Sunk U-boats with well trained seamen and brilliant captains and chiefs or shot down and killed trained pilots were much decisive losses for Germany.
"Military history is nothing but a tissue of fictions and legends, only a form of literary invention; reality counts for very little in such affair."

- Gaston de Pawlowski, Dans les rides du front

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 01 Jan 2016 22:03

tramonte wrote:
Most of those death German soldiers in east were just bulk infantry soldiers with no high battle value.


Sunk U-boats with well trained seamen and brilliant captains and chiefs or shot down and killed trained pilots were much decisive losses for Germany.

Both statements are wrong and also irrelevant .

WWii was decided not by soldiers with high battle value;the LW losses and KM losses were not much decisive for Germany .

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

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

Post by Cult Icon » 01 Jan 2016 23:28

Infantry is the king of battle as only they can hold and take ground. You run out of infantry, you lose. The rest are supplements.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

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

Post by KDF33 » 02 Jan 2016 00:13

Given the USA's eventual development of nuclear weapons, an eventual German defeat is most likely. I do, however, feel that before that occurs, the Germans can hold their own against the Western allies.

First off, they will benefit from a much larger industrial manpower pool. In the OTL, Germany used foreign / slave labor to replace German workers sent to the front. In this ATL, foreign / slave workers are a supplement rather than a replacement. Using this table as a reference, we get this :

31.5.41: 36.2 million workers, 7.2 million soldiers (OTL)
31.5.42: 35.5 million workers, 8.6 million soldiers (OTL) / 37.6 million workers, 7.2 million soldiers (ATL) = 2,043,000 additional workers
31.5.43: 36.5 million workers, 9.6 million soldiers (OTL) / 40.3 million workers, 7.2 million soldiers (ATL) = 3,726,000 additional workers
31.5.44: 36.1 million workers, 10.6 million soldiers (OTL) / 41.6 million workers, 7.2 million soldiers (ATL) = 5,536,000 additional workers

Note that I've assumed that the Wehrmacht maintains it's mid-1941 strength throughout, which might well be wrong, given that Hitler planned to demobilize part of the Heer post-Barbarossa in the OTL.

These millions of freed up workers will have a substantial impact on the German war economy. Take coal, for instance. In the OTL, the Germans struggled to expand coal output because of a. A lack of workers (drafted into the Wehrmacht), b. A decreasing productivity (poor nourishment and use of slave labor instead of Germans). Thus, by late 1944, less than half-a-million Germans worked in the coal mines, compared to roughly 350,000 foreigners.

In this ATL, the Germans can send young German men into the mines. They can also substantially increase the overall manpower allocated to coal mining. This will, in turn, have an impact upon steel production, but also, if the Germans so desire, allow increases in synthetic fuel production.

They can also increase armaments output. Here's data for the number of people employed in armaments production:

31.5.42: 685,000 aircraft / 1,694,000 AFVs, vehicles, trains, ships, various machinery / 513,000 ammunition, weapons, various steel products
31.5.43: 740,000 aircraft / 1,867,000 AFVs, vehicles, trains, ships, various machinery / 637,000 ammunition, weapons, various steel products
31.5.44: 868,000 aircraft / 1,955,000 AFVs, vehicles, trains, ships, various machinery / 676,000 ammunition, weapons, various steel products

Note that the machinery and steel products categories don't just include workers making armaments, so this is but a rough estimate. Yet, the data is stark enough when compared to the previous figures for additional workers, i.e.:

31.5.42: Less than 2,892,000 workers making armaments / 2,043,000 extra workers
31.5.43: Less than 3,244,000 workers making armaments / 3,726,000 extra workers
31.5.44: Less than 3,499,000 workers making armaments / 5,536,000 extra workers

A lot of the historical bottlenecks for Germany (for instance, not enough workers to properly man double-shifts, or coal and transportation issues) will simply no longer be significant problems in this ATL. Even the fuel issue can be alleviated, given the additional coal for hydrogenation / steel from reduced ammunition production for expanded capacity / workers to expand capacity.

Regards,

KDF

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 02 Jan 2016 11:06

Cult Icon wrote:Infantry is the king of battle as only they can hold and take ground. You run out of infantry, you lose. The rest are supplements.
:thumbsup:

User avatar
tramonte
Member
Posts: 320
Joined: 13 Oct 2015 10:05
Location: Southern Finland

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

Post by tramonte » 02 Jan 2016 19:57

American and British policy makers made important decision (run by both Churchill and especially Roosevelt) to cut budgets planned earlier for land armies and give more resources for sea and especially air power. That foresightly decision meant than instead of 250 divisions, US Army went on war with some 90 divisions and British remembering the lessons of The Great War of 1914-18 follow that path. They had less division but much more fire power and mobility. Germans sent much more mechanized forces to Normandy than to Eastern Front. However without air cover those divisions with their tanks and assault guns had not so much battle value left. The result for western allied was not just victory but victory with not near as heavy casualties as in 1914-1918. Indeed Churchill got a point in late 1940 when he was suggesting that the era of huge land armies is over. Stalin and Hitler were men on the past and they never really realized the value of air and sea warfare with higher technology in so called super battlefield. Instead both dictators had very limited perspective of war fare with searching "decisive land battles" and clearly focusing to repeat 1914-18 with only modern weapons. Even their idea of aircraft was painfully narrow minded, tactical force. The result was of course evident: they never were able to destroy war production of enemy with long range deep air power. That's why human military losses of Soviet Union and Germany were terrible high which underlines the fact that land warfare in Eastern Front was relatively primitive, bloody chain of meaningless battles hardly decisive at all.

In Eastern Front material losses of armies were not actually heavy at all compared to their war production because land warfare was relatively cheap. Lost tanks, artillery, mortars, vehicles and half-trucks were easily and fast replaced. There was not much developing costs on armour compared to much more advanced technology in air and sea warfare. E.g German lost equipment during Operation Citadel (2 weeks) was only 0.5% of their production during same year, or less than 1% even including aircraft losses. If taking all material losses in Eastern Front July-August 1943 those losses were still just about 4% of German war production of that year. Interestingly in just one big hit in Regensburg allied air power destroyed more German aircraft in production than Luftwaffe lost in whole Eastern Front during summer of 1943.

This is another lesson of WW2: losses of even the biggest battles including lost aircraft were not so devastating as common wisdom is suggesting. Much more German aircraft were lost because RAF/USAAF bombing than in both Eastern Front and Mediterranean. Even quite conservative estimates of USSBS are giving figure of 18 500 destroyed German aircraft in production because strategic air war of RAF and USAAF. The death spiral of Luftwaffe had many features including poor training because lack of fuel and other negative results of strategic air war. Poor training increased heavily non-operational losses. 10 000 well trained new pilots with 400 flying hours could have meant as much as 1 200 000 tons of aviation fuel for that training. However especially after mid point of 1943 they never were able to give that share of aviation fuel. General Galland and several pilots admitted that pale fact.

Sad to say the truth for tank enthusiasts and apostles of armies but land warfare didn't play main role in WW2. Tanks were not war winners, men of Panzer Lehr and Leibstandarte division in Normandy surely realized it. It also explained why Americans were not in trouble with there "poor Sherman tanks". First - they were not so poor at all. And second - they had no reasons so very worry at all. Those who worried about were mostly Germans without no air cover at all losing mobility, the real strength of panzer units compared to infantry divisions.

In Eastern Front the picture is similar. Though Soviet VVS was relatively poor compared to RAF and USAAF, thanks to sharply cut numbers of German fighters in east, Soviet forces facing mostly horse pulling German infantry divisions had quite easy task to wipe them out in 1944 (but taking heavy losses as always). Interesting but very few people are thinking why Germany left their divisions in east without air cover. The story where Soviet Union is "Germany's main enemy" might be another myth. Because after all the story of abandoned Army Group Center in Belo Russia is underlining the fact the main priority for Germany in 1944 (and even in 1943) was not their armies in east and south but their war production dangerously bombed by western allied air power.

Just like UK and USA, Germany too gave pretty low priority for land warfare. Production and ammunitions for aircraft, U-boats, V-weapons, concrete shelter construction and AA-weapons were in top. Less than 20% of German war production was targeting Eastern Front land warfare.
"Military history is nothing but a tissue of fictions and legends, only a form of literary invention; reality counts for very little in such affair."

- Gaston de Pawlowski, Dans les rides du front

HetzersGonnaHetz
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 26 Aug 2015 18:30
Location: Derby

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

Post by HetzersGonnaHetz » 02 Jan 2016 22:05

Without Britain:

Without Britain, an invasion of conquered Europe would not have been possible, nor would the USAAF have been able to launch attacks on most of the Nazi ''Empire''. A war on two fronts would not have occurred, less deaths and thus the home front would have been able to fuel the Nazi war machine more effectively. The Luftwaffe would have regained strength after the losses caused by the RAF once Operation Sea Lion had occurred.More victories would have meant Hitler may have put more trust in his Generals, and Operation Valkyrie would not increase Hitler's paranoia as it would not have occurred. America may have still won in Africa (Maybe), but without Britain and it's Empire, losses would have been terrible.

Without America:

Even with their empire, Britain would be stretched to be able to provide troops in all theaters of War. The lack of American help in industry would lower the amount of Weapons and Armour being supplied to the Allies to fight. After Sea Lion had been prevented, operations in Africa could have been successful due to troops from the Empire however, an invasion on Italy would have been difficult due to the lack of volume in Manpower and the fact Germany could send in multiple divisions to slow the Advance, and D-Day would have not gone ahead as Britain would be risking a lot by landing 150,000 troops on Normandy beaches and dropping in 23,000 paras.

Return to “What if”