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

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

Post by KDF33 » 12 Jan 2016 08:21

ljadw wrote:NO : it was impossible for Overlord to start earlier than in june 1944,even without PH : Overlord could only happen during 4 months : may,june, july,august .It was impossible for Overlord to happen in may,june, july,august 1943 ,because

a) there were not enough trained US forces available (most of the Pacific forces were non combat forces for which there was no use in Europe)
Evidence???!
b) because the U Boat danger was still real in that period .for Overlord in june 1943 , there had to be already in april at least considerable US forces in Britain,which was out of the question .
The U-Boats didn't prevent the US buildup in the UK in 1942 and 1943.

Regards,

KDF

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13127
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 12 Jan 2016 10:02

Buildup ?

December 1942 : US forces in Britain : 134000 ,of which 17000 ground forces : totally insufficient for Overlord .

July 1943 : 328000,of which 24000 ground forces : totally insufficient for Overlord .

Number of US divisions in Britain : ( first day of the month )

1942
February : 1

June : 2

September : 3

December : 2

1943 :

March : 1

June : 1

September : 2

December : 7

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

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

Post by KDF33 » 12 Jan 2016 11:01

Yes, buildup.

In 1942, the American arrivals in the UK amounted to 241,839 men and 856,522 tons of material. In 1943, it increased to 676,508 men and 2,411,271 tons of material.

Absent the PTO, American shipments of men and material to the UK can be increased.

Regards,

KDF

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13127
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 12 Jan 2016 12:33

Which is meaningless : whu should the US do this ? It would not speed up Overlord . Besides : you never thought on the possibility that these transports could not be escorted ? Or that the British ports could not handle them ?

Whatever :more men does not make Overlord possible in 1943 . And if Overlord was only possible in june 1944,what's the use of having 800000 men ground forces in Britain in june 1943?

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

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

Post by KDF33 » 12 Jan 2016 13:36

ljadw wrote:Which is meaningless : whu should the US do this ?
To win the war.
It would not speed up Overlord .
Patently absurd.
Besides : you never thought on the possibility that these transports could not be escorted ?
That's ridiculous. There were 245 destroyers and destroyer escorts in the Pacific on 31.12.43. With no war with Japan, a large number of escorts can be provided from the Pacific Fleet.
Or that the British ports could not handle them ?
Do you see any reason why British ports would be unable to handle it in 1943, given that they demonstrably could handle it one year later?
Whatever :more men does not make Overlord possible in 1943 . And if Overlord was only possible in june 1944,what's the use of having 800000 men ground forces in Britain in june 1943?
Circular reasoning at it's finest.

Regards,

KDF

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13127
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 12 Jan 2016 15:02

Do you see any reason why what the British ports could do in 1944, they also could do in 1943 ?

More men and material transported in the FIRST half of 1943 would not make Overlord possible in 1943 : without the British : no Overlord . And,in the first half of 1943 all British and US operational divisions were in NA .

There were how many US divisions in the Pacific prior june 1943 ? 10 ? As the Pacific could not be stripped of all forces, only 5/6 could go to Europe : with 5/6 divisions in Britain in the summer of 1943, Overlord was out of the question .

9 US divisions arrived in Britain between january and june 1944,6 in the summer of 1944 and a lot came to France directly from the US .

To make Overlord possible in the summer of 1943,plans and logistics had to be ready,which they were not, the British had to be ready ,which they were not, and the US follow up divisions had to be ready,which they were not .

US mobilisation started AFTER PH and in less than 2 years,it was impossible to have the needed number of trained divisions and their supplies and to transport them to Britain /the continent .

Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011 18:27
Location: Porto Alegre

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

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 12 Jan 2016 15:06

KDF, but in the scenario of the thread even if the US wasn't fighting Japan, an invasion of Europe would be out of question, isn't? Given that in our timeline Germany doesn't even invade the USSR. On the other hand IOTL Germany cannot acquire the Soviet resources by conquest, and has to acquire them by trade.

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

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

Post by KDF33 » 12 Jan 2016 15:11

Marcelo Jenisch wrote:KDF, but in the scenario of the thread even if the US wasn't fighting Japan, an invasion of Europe would be out of question, isn't? Given that in our timeline Germany doesn't even invade the USSR. On the other hand IOTL Germany cannot acquire the Soviet resources by conquest, and has to acquire them by trade.
Well, obviously in this thread's scenario a cross-Channel invasion is out of the question. This specific back-and-forth with ljadw originates from him asking the following question:
ljadw wrote:And,do you see the possibility for Overlord to start sooner if there was no war with Japan ?
Regards,

KDF

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13127
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 12 Jan 2016 15:15

The figures given for the US military in the Pacific are useless ,because most of them did not belong to the army and because they ignore the tooth to tail ratio

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

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

Post by KDF33 » 12 Jan 2016 16:03

They're not useless. They indicate that the US was able to supply close to 2 million men across the Pacific Ocean at the end of 1943. Whether they were Army or Navy hardly makes a difference - they still had to be supplied. As for the tooth-to-tail ratio, it appears to have been similar to the Atlantic area, i.e.:

Atlantic: 979,310 men / 17 divisions = 57,606
Pacific: 688,711 men / 13 divisions = 52,978

Regards,

KDF

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9866
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

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

Post by Sid Guttridge » 13 Jan 2016 13:52

Hi KDF,

You write, "Absent the PTO....." How is this ahistorical theatrical absence to be arranged?

You note that the USA had about 1,800,000 in both Pacific and European Theatres at the end of 1943.

However, the USA mobilized nearly four times as many men (12,500,000) during the war.

The great majority of the Army combat element of these were the follow-up divisions to be sent straight from the USA to continental Europe to exploit the lodgement made by the British-based divisions in Normandy June 1944. They may not have been in the European Theatre in December 1943, but they were mostly allocated to it. Without these US-based divisions, continental-scale warfare in Europe in 1944 was not possible.

Cheers,

Sid.

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 » 28 Jan 2016 04:36

KDF33 wrote:I'm not sure I follow. What are the 1.1 million tons of steel for? And where are those couple million tons of additional crude oil coming from?

Regards,

KDF
drilling for oil & construction of synthetic fuel plants.

OXFORD COMPANION TO WW-II
TOTALS ARE MILLIONS TONS
YEAR IMPORTS..... NATURAL &.... SYNTHEIC ....USSR ....ROMANIA .... WAR BOOTY "ACCUMULATED TOTAL"
1939.. 5.1...........1.46.............2.2..............0.005 ....O.85............0.75................10.4
1940.. 2.0...........1.46.............3.34............0.617.....1.177............0.112..............8.8
1941.. 2.8...........1.56.............4.11............0.248.....2.96............. NA.................11.7
1942.. 2.36..........1.68............4.92............0...........2.19............. 0.14...............11.3
1943.. 2.76..........1.88............5.75............0...........2.4.............. 0...................12.8
1944.. 0.96..........1.68............3.8..............0...........1.0..............0...................7.5

"ACCUMULATED TOTAL" is my sum of the figures.

Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011 18:27
Location: Porto Alegre

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

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 31 Jan 2016 17:44

By 1943 the US Navy was deploying an air force against Japan that
was comparable in size to the entire Luftwaffe.
https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/econ ... rrison.pdf

This is from a review of the book How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II, which I didn't read yet and don't know how it's scolarship was received. Anyway, if that's correct, apparentely it's something to think about. However as ljawd commented here, historically the Americans would have to have planes in the Pacific regardless of a war with Japan (just as the Soviets had planes in the Far East). The problem of course, is which contingent would be necessary in such a situation for a proper defensive role in the Pacific.

Marcelo Jenisch
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 22 May 2011 18:27
Location: Porto Alegre

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

Post by Marcelo Jenisch » 31 Jan 2016 17:47

Another thing I would like to ask for members here: historically the United States never considerated to make peace with Japan after Pearl Harbor? There was no thinking about this documented for a scenario were the USSR was defeated for instance, and the Japanese already had their defeat in Midway?

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 02:35
Location: USA

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

Post by Guaporense » 17 Jul 2016 01:55

I should congratulate KDF33's logical analysis. His are the best set of posts I have read in this forum. :thumbsup:
KDF33 wrote:Well, let's not exaggerate: to triple the amount of arms and ammunition produced, the Germans would need something like 5 million extra workers and 35 million extra tons of steel, to say nothing of the added factory floor, machine tools and, especially, coal production and transport capacity. I'm not doubting that the Germans could have achieved a much higher output absent the bleeding wound of the Eastern Front, but they wouldn't have transformed into the U.S.

To reiterate an important point: funding wasn't the only constraint on production.

Regards,

KDF
Well, in terms of installed capacity, German factories had plenty to spare and that's not considering the rest of occupied Europe, whose installed capacity was very underutilized in the war. About 92% of German plants in 1942 were running on a single shift and the ratio of worker to machine tools in the machine tool using industries in 1943 was 2.3 in Germany compared to 5.6 in the UK. The German stock was the same as the US's, and that's not considering the industrial capital stock in occupied Europe. So technically, they were utilizing their metal working capital stock at ca. 40-50% of the US or UK.

The same applies for the steel industry, installed capacity in continental Western Europe was 47 million tons, plus 3 million tons in Italy plus ca. 9-10 million tons in the occupied parts of the USSR's, production in Germany and occupied countries was ca. 32-35 million tons or 55%-60% of installed capacity. While military steel consumption was ca. 1.5-1.6 million tons a month, and about 30-40% of it was allocated just to ammunition production in 43-44.

Overall, given the installed capacity an increase in labor supply would enable a vast increase in war related production. And by may 1944, the Wehrmacht had lost 3,285 thousand men of which 180 thousand were before the invasion of the USSR and had 2,510 thousand in the Ersatzheer training and recovering from wounds. Without the Eastern front to worry about the Ersatzheer would have ca. 1.2 million men like in 1941, so without the Eastern front losses of ca. 3.1 million and manpower training and recovering from wounds, that's an extra 4.3 million men in the labor force.

For comparison, the machine tool using sector had 5,250 thousand employees in june 1944 plus ca. 600 thousand in steel, iron and aluminum production and all other metals, that's 5.85 million in basic metals plus metal working+non-metal working machine tool using sectors. According to Tooze (2005), out of the 2.2 billion RM of monthly expenditures on military equipment (of which 1.8 billion were in the official "armaments index") by the Wehrmacht in the 3rd quarter of 1943, 2.1 billion or 95% of these expenditures were from the metal working sector.

Also, in terms of expenditures in 1945 dollars, in 1944 the US spend 28 billion dollars on ships and aircraft while total government expenditures were 93 billion dollars in the 1943-44 fiscal year, so 30% was spent on aircraft and ships only and I am using 45 prices which were lower than 44. German metal working sector sales of aircraft and shipbuilding in 3rd quarter 1943 was 825 million RM (720 aircraft, 105 shipbuilding) while total government expenditures were 12 billion RM monthly from September 1st 1943 to August 31 44, that's 7% of government expenditures. I should also note that expenditures figures here are in (current) 1943 prices.

As a result employment in aircraft (780) + shipbuilding (150) in Germany in 4th quarter 1943 was 930,000 while in the US by the 4th quarter of 1943 had 2.1 million in aircraft and 1.7 million in shipbuilding, or 3.8 million in both sectors, about 4 times larger.

Overall, without reducing the size of the field army and just allocating manpower from the Erzatzheer and loses from the Eastern front would increase basic metals plus metal working labor from 5.75 million to 10 million, an increase of 75%. Total sales of metal working sector historically were 4 billion RM with 4.8 million workers, with 8.8 million workers total sales would almost double to 7.3 billion RM while Wehrmacht related sales would increase from 3.05 billion to 6.25 billion RM (including intermediate goods, military output was 75% of 100%, now increasing total output to 180% means military output would more than double to 155%), increasing total armament output by 105% from historical levels and increasing final military equipment sales to 4.5 billion RM from historical 2.2 billion RM. If the fraction of armament sales of ships and aircraft increases from 38% to 55%, that's 2.5 billion RM or 3 times the historical levels of 3rd quarter 1943, while other armament sales would increase from 1.4 billion to 2.0 billion, a 40% increase in tanks, ammunition, guns and motor vehicles. Manpower in aircraft and shipbuilding industry would be ca. 2.7 million, or nearly to 3/4 of US's manpower.

While steel production could be increased by 13 million tons just from utilization of installed capacity in occupied Western Europe, that's 1.1 million tons a month extra for the military, increasing military steel supply by two thirds from historical levels.

Most of this 4.3 million men manpower would be directed to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. Increasing the proportion of government expenditures in these sectors. If they increased to similar level in proportion to the US's that would be ca. 30% or 3.6 billion RM monthly, requiring an increase the labor force in those sectors by 3 million workers to ca. 3.9 million workers, however just from Eastern front losses and Erzatzheer manpower Germany could get that labor force. The other 1.3 million men would work in production of raw materials, electronics and other supporting industries such as synthetic aircraft fuel plants, although a few hundred extra thousands would be probably needed for the intermediate level industries. Overall Wehrmacht purchases from German metal working sector would need to increase massively from 2.1 billion RM to ca. 5.8 billion RM, that's it if 30% of all government expenditures were just aircraft and ships without increasing expenditures on other items (quite absurd indeed, but civilian related sales of the metal working were only 1 billion RM, so keeping civilian output constant would mean that ca. 6.5 billion RM in sales of the metal working sector would go directly or indirectly to supply the Wehrmacht in intermediate sectors). If just 1/3 of direct Wehrmacht expenditures were aircraft and ships, that would be 2.7 billion RM a month, requiring an workforce of 3 million in these sectors (perhaps a more realistic figure). Still that appears to be quite too much, so an increase of 3 fold for aircraft and ships appears more sensible.

In 2nd quarter of 44, when industrial employment peaked, there was only 1 million workers in aircraft production and shipbuilding. Without the Eastern front there would be about 2.8 to 3.9 million workers in those two sectors and output would be perhaps 2.5 to 3.5 times it's historical level. Aircraft output could be 1,700 to 2,200 million RM or 6,000 to 7,500 aircraft monthly or 70,000 to 90,000 aircraft per year and shipbuilding would be 900 - 1,400 million RM or around over 10 times historical levels.

By the way, a price of a 2 engine bomber was ca. 250,000 RM in Germany 1943 and ca. 150,000 dollars in the US 1943, while total government expenditures were 149 billion RM in 09.43-08.44 in Germany and 93 billion dollars in the US 07.43-06.44. I don't know from where Germany took that much money from (tax revenues in Germany were ca. 46 billion RM in 1943, while tax revenues from occupied western Europe was 24 billion RM).

Without the Eastern front I don't see labor, capital or financial barriers to massive increase outputs in these sectors. Maybe raw materials and specially oil for aircraft and ships would be the fundamental limiting barrier. But overall, something like doubling aircraft output from historical levels would be expected.

Sources for figures:
USSBS Report German War Economy
No Room for Miracles (2005), Tooze
Germany and the Second World War vol. 5
The World Economic Survey 1942-1944
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

Return to “What if”