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.
Post Reply
User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

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

#61

Post by LWD » 03 Jan 2012, 22:25

phylo_roadking wrote: ...
1/ did the MANHATTAN scientists know about EMP before Trinity? ...
My impressions is that they would not. Indeed they might not be fully aware of it's impact until after the first bomb is dropped on Germany.
All the 1945 discussions are well preserved, and have been discussed on AHF a number of times. The one that REALLY bears on targetting decisions in Germany as well as Japan is that of..."If we don't go big, how do the Nazis interpret it???"

The Allies had already declared the doctrine of unconditional surrender a number of times; and yet the Germans constantly seem to have believed some sort of negotiated settlement was possible, right up to BOTH Göring and Himmler trying again to negotiate with the Allies in April '45 8O...

So - if the Allies DON'T attack Berlin with the first Bomb - what does the Nazi mindset say? IS this a signal that they ARE willing to negotiate? And thus will the Nazis actually hold out and attempt back-channel discussions?
Well they didn't hit Tokyo with the first bomb. Kiel being a major naval base and the terminus of a canal is a reasonable target. I'm sure some of the Ruhr cities would be reasonable as well.
And if they DO do that - are the few bombs the Allies CAN muster enough to convince them otherwise? You have to remember that they'd be constantly measuring the Allies' actions against what THEY would do - the Nazis would have used a German Bomb on London as soon as it was reaady....so does THAT make them think that it's the ONLY Bomb the Allies have, and thus they'll try to absorb the blow and carry on?
I suspect they drop the first one on a major target in Western Europe although if they have retaken Norway that would open up a lot of North German targets as well. The question then is do they follow with the next bomb right away or wait and use two. From what I understand the US wasn't certain how they would use the third bomb available vs Japan. There was debate as to whether to drop it as soon as possible, wait until several were available, or wait and use it tactically to support the invasion. I don't see the latter playing a role here but either of the first two might be chosen.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

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

#62

Post by LWD » 03 Jan 2012, 22:47

wm wrote:Unfortunately the EMP of such a small bomb is negligible, not to mention that the vacuum tube/valve technology of that era was quite resistant to the EMP effects.
I haven't seen a detail predictor but from what I've read it depends a lot on altitude and topography as well as the size of the bomb. A ground burst as I understand it produces relativly little, higher altitude burst significantly more. There was some speculation that for a large high altitude burst the electrical grid for entire regions of the US could be taken down. This would suggest to me that at least the "local" electrical grid around a city hit by an air burst might be vulnerable.

Did a little research. This site:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm states:
The first recorded EMP incident accompanied a high-altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific and resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii. A large device detonated at 400�500 km over Kansas would affect all of CONUS. The signal from such an event extends to the visual horizon as seen from the burst point.
Which suggest that it wouldn't be part of the planning. It then goes on to say:
Source Region Electro-magnetic Pulse [SREMP] is produced by low-altitude nuclear bursts. An effective net vertical electron current is formed by the asymmetric deposition of electrons in the atmosphere and the ground, and the formation and decay of this current emits a pulse of electromagnetic radiation in directions perpendicular to the current. The asymmetry from a low-altitude explosion occurs because some electrons emitted downward are trapped in the upper millimeter of the Earth�s surface while others, moving upward and outward, can travel long distances in the atmosphere, producing ionization and charge separation. A weaker asymmetry can exist for higher altitude explosions due to the density gradient of the atmosphere.

Within the source region, peak electric fields greater than 10 5 V/m and peak magnetic fields greater than 4,000 A/m can exist. These are much larger than those from HEMP and pose a considerable threat to military or civilian systems in the affected region. The ground is also a conductor of electricity and provides a return path for electrons at the outer part of the deposition region toward the burst point. Positive ions, which travel shorter distances than electrons and at lower velocities, remain behind and recombine with the electrons returning through the ground. Thus, strong magnetic fields are produced in the region of ground zero. When the nuclear detonation occurs near to the ground, the SREMP target may not be located in the electromagnetic far field but may instead lie within the electro-magnetic induction region. In this regime the electric and magnetic fields of the radiation are no longer perpendicular to one another, and many of the analytic tools with which we understand EM coupling in the simple plane-wave case no longer apply. The radiated EM field falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the deposition region (near to the currents the EMP does not appear to come from a point source).
As a result, the region where the greatest damage can be produced is from about 3 to 8 km from ground zero. In this same region structures housing electrical equipment are also likely to be severely damaged by blast and shock. According to the third edition of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, by S. Glasstone and P. Dolan, �the threat to electrical and electronic systems from a surface-burst EMP may extend as far as the distance at which the peak overpressure from a 1-megaton burst is 2 pounds per square inch.�

One of the unique features of SREMP is the high late-time voltage which can be produced on long lines in the first 0.1 second. This stress can produce large late-time currents on the exterior shields of systems, and shielding against the stress is very difficult. Components sensitive to magnetic fields may have to be specially hardened. SREMP effects are uniquely nuclear weapons effects.
This site gives some more detail on some of the above:
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets ... ecpuls.htm
High-altitude nuclear detonations and electromagnetic bombs can generate EMP that has the potential to damage or destroy electronic devices over widespread areas. Electric power systems would also be at risk from surges produced by such weapons. However, the EMP from a kiloton-range surface nuclear explosion would not be expected to produce serious damage outside the radius of severe destruction from blast.

A 1.4 Megaton bomb launched about 250 miles above Kansas would destroy most of the electronics that were not protected in the entire Continental United States. During the brief return to atmospheric testing in 1962, a 1.4 megaton nuclear weapon was detonated over Johnston Island at an altitude of about 250 miles. The effects of EMP were observed in Hawaii, 800 miles east of the detonation. Streetlights and fuses failed on Oahu and telephone service was disrupted on the Island of Kauai.
Note that the bombs above are 60-100 times the power of the bombs used on Japan which suggest that the EMP destructive radius would be about 1/8 to 1/10 that mentioned above if used at the same altitude.
It also states:
Telecommunications equipment can be highly vulnerable and receivers of all varieties are particularly sensitive to EMP. Therefore radar and electronic warfare equipment, satellite, microwave, UHF, VHF, HF and low band communications equipment and television equipment are all potentially vulnerable to the EMP effect. Cars with electronic ignition systems/ and ignition chips are also vulnerable.

Some other notable collectors of EMP include railroad tracks, large antennas, pipes, cables, wires in buildings, and metal fencing. Although materials underground are partially shielded by the ground, they are still collectors, and these collectors deliver the EMP energy to some larger facility. This produces surges that can destroy the connected device, such as, power generators or long distance telephone systems.
So I'm not sure I'd rule out EMP effects especially for an air burst. I doubt that the phenomena would be used much for targeting though at least until several bombs had been dropped.


User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

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

#63

Post by wm » 03 Jan 2012, 22:51

phylo_roadking wrote: It would be interesting to know if they've taken the percentage of flammables present in the environment into consideration....
Unfortunately not, they have only estimated dangers of the thermal radiation, and the conclusion is:
We have shown that common estimates of weapon effects that calculate a “radius” for thermal radiation are clearly misleading for surface bursts in urban environments. In many cases only a few unshadowed vertical surfaces, a small fraction of the area within a thermal damage radius, receive the expected heat flux.
phylo_roadking wrote: The other thing is - how do their different colour "zones" map across into the A/B/C/D damage bands that the Americans and British used throughout the Cold War? I'm asking because "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" mentions - as I noted before - that isolated flash fires would occur right out to the 1psi overpressure line - which is right out halfway through Band D for a ground burst (glass smashed and tiles displaced only)
I have a sneaking feeling that this is not the flash radiation in action but Mrs. O'Leary's cow and lantern cases :)

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

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

#64

Post by phylo_roadking » 03 Jan 2012, 22:59

It wouldn't take much to clarify the allied position in the event Berlin is not targeted.
The Germans consistently FAILED to take on board that only unconditional surender was required of them - why would they accept it NOW?
Yes, because the Germans would not know the number of bombs the allies had.
They would know they had one or two less now...and unless more were forthcoming immediately, they're in a position to choose to believe this is all the Allies have.
I believe this was the deciding factor that forced the Japanese to accept the allied terms. Not the actual physical damage/loss of life, but that there was no end in sight.
There were more U.S. influences at work on the Japanese psyche, like the massed flight of B-29s between the Bombs over Tokyo without dropping a thing....something the Germans had been putting up with with ordnance for four years.
Well they didn't hit Tokyo with the first bomb.
This is where Germany differs from the Japanese situation; the Americans had to preserve the Emperor to ensure a Japanese surrender that would be respected by the Japanese Army....but in Germany the problem was the other way round - an Army that would surrender if left to its own devices, with a maniacal government and head of government that was keeping the country at war.
I suspect they drop the first one on a major target in Western Europe although if they have retaken Norway that would open up a lot of North German targets as well.
Flying from Norfolk as Bomber Command did, the majority of important North German targets were in range.
The question then is do they follow with the next bomb right away or wait and use two.


Thye use two - it proves the Allies have the capacity to produce more than one, and in European terms it's part of a weapons system. Thus they can expect more...
From what I understand the US wasn't certain how they would use the third bomb available vs Japan.
IIRC It was probably Kokura; after all, it had been the secondary target for the uranium bomb....and the initially the primary target for the plutonium bomb, but on the day haad been obscured by smoke from another raid nearby. The next Bomb was to have been ready for use on the 17th or 18th (Leslie Grove)....but yes, there was already discussion about holding it and others back for DOWNFALL.

Interestingly - one of the other suggestions was that when more bombs were ready - they should ALL be used within a few short days, in a concentrated bombardment.
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: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

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

#65

Post by phylo_roadking » 03 Jan 2012, 23:03

Unfortunately not, they have only estimated dangers of the thermal radiation, and the conclusion is:
We have shown that common estimates of weapon effects that calculate a “radius” for thermal radiation are clearly misleading for surface bursts in urban environments. In many cases only a few unshadowed vertical surfaces, a small fraction of the area within a thermal damage radius, receive the expected heat flux.
That's an odd statement for them to make - that their computer models are better than the hard experiments carried out by the U.S Army etc. during the 1940s and 1950s that demonstrated otherwise :wink: Tho' I suppose they're hardly likely to say their computer models aren't as accurate as real-life experimentation :lol: I used to have some very detailed material around on the testing prodecures, the design and lay out of air samplers, the constructed urban areas etc., and a url for a full pdf of "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" but god knows where it is now.
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
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

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

#66

Post by wm » 03 Jan 2012, 23:33

But, how many of them were surface bursts? It seems they were only testing sub-surface and air bursts...
phylo_roadking wrote: a url for a full pdf of "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" but god knows where it is now.
it is still there, on the first page of Google search results :)

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

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

#67

Post by phylo_roadking » 03 Jan 2012, 23:51

But, how many of them were surface bursts? It seems they were only testing sub-surface and air bursts...
By no means. There were seven of the land test series that contained suface tests - RANGER, BUSTER-JANGLE, TUMBLER-SNAPPER, UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE, TEAPOT, PLUMBOB, and HARDTACK II.

In total, also counting tower shots, there were....55 surface or as-near-as-makes-no-difference shots.

Some of the test series mentioned above did contain specific air-burst tests, and "balloon" tests - the bombs lofted by balloon to the altitude required....but I haven't counted them into that total.
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: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

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

#68

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Jan 2012, 00:12

As an aside....

It's not suprising Lawrence Livermore claim such great things for their computer modelling compared to real life nuclear tests; looking through the details of the various test series - they were remarkably bad at getting something to go bang for many years :lol: They seem to have designed more than their fair share of fizzles and outright failures!
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
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

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

#69

Post by Kingfish » 04 Jan 2012, 01:58

phylo_roadking wrote:The Germans consistently FAILED to take on board that only unconditional surender was required of them - why would they accept it NOW?
The 'failure' stemmed from their refusal to accept the surrender terms, not from misunderstanding them.

As to why they would accept it, the psychological effect of such a weapon would undermine any resolve they held on to.
They would know they had one or two less now...and unless more were forthcoming immediately, they're in a position to choose to believe this is all the Allies have.
But their belief and continued resistance means little because the allies aren't held to any deadline. So what if there is a span of 6 months between the second and third bombs. What matters is ...
it proves the Allies have the capacity to produce more than one, and in European terms it's part of a weapons system. Thus they can expect more...
I love it when you make my points for me :P

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

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

#70

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Jan 2012, 02:17

The 'failure' stemmed from their refusal to accept the surrender terms, not from misunderstanding them.
...but various parties attempts to negotiate showed that they didn't accept/understand that the Allied position WAS clear and final. In this case - not accepting is the same as misunderstanding; misunderstanding that the Allies REALLY meant what they said.
As to why they would accept it, the psychological effect of such a weapon would undermine any resolve they held on to.
Hitler's resolve held on through quite a lot of major hammerblows! :(
But their belief and continued resistance means little because the allies aren't held to any deadline. So what if there is a span of 6 months between the second and third bombs. What matters is ...
....don't forget WHY they Atomic Bomb was eventually used on the Home Islands - to prevent the otherwise great loss of life in OLYMPIC/CORONET. Even if the Allies haven't managed to force an expensive break-in onto the Continent by the time the Bomb was ready - they'll still be heam.....heamhor....bleeding trained aircrew and aircraft day by day. Another six full months of USAAF bombing by day, Bomber Command by night...at full 1943-44 loss rates?

Could they really keep that up through 1945? :wink:
So what if there is a span of 6 months between the second and third bombs.
Six months? That's a long time for the Germans to study the side-effects of the first bomb - and plan accordingly...

A/ stockpile civil defence equipment just outside city centres, so it's not destroyed in the blast;
B/ have heavy moving equipment to hand to clear debris blocked streets...dozer blades on obsolete tanks?;
C/ prepare for thousands of burn casualties;
D/ establish a people-heavy monitoring network to monitor fallout drift and spread and disseminate information
E/ embark on a morale-boosting campaign minimising the potential effects of a Bomb - what's German for "Duck and Cover"? :D
...in fact, time to embark on all the things the Americans and British did when the Atomic Age began!

They're already long through the process of moving vital war factories and installations underground, and building huge civilian shelters in urban areas...

Then there's the other little issue...you've just proven to the Germans that an Atomic Bomb CAN work, it is NOT a huge hundred ton-plus airdropped reactor allowed to go critcal and then somehow airdropped - as Heisenberg thought it was initially! Remember how short a time it took him to work out what the Bomb REALLY was when imprisoned at Farm Hall after the war - once he knew it COULD be carried in a plane??? :wink: And that was the ONLY datum he needed....

Remember too that these were the same Germans who had quite a lot of laboratory-enriched uranium to hand by the end of the war....!

Think giving them six months would be a good idea? 8O
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
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

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

#71

Post by Kingfish » 04 Jan 2012, 12:46

phylo_roadking wrote:...but various parties attempts to negotiate showed that they didn't accept/understand that the Allied position WAS clear and final. In this case - not accepting is the same as misunderstanding; misunderstanding that the Allies REALLY meant what they said.
And in each case the allies reiterated the terms. Again, if the Germans misunderstood the allied terms following the destruction of a city other than Berlin, then the misunderstanding can be clarified quickly and easily.
Hitler's resolve held on through quite a lot of major hammerblows! :(
The beauty of a nuclear campaign (as weird as that may sound) is that it does not supplant the conventional hammer blows, it instead increases them. Since each nuclear attack requires a few aircraft at most, the vast majority of the allied bomber fleet is left to continue their tour of Germany. Start off with a small stockpile of nucs and then begin a one-two punch campaign against the German cities. Hamburg can be leveled by a thousand-bomber raid one night while Dusseldorf gets to wear the mushroom hat the next day. Then on to Frankfurt/Bremen, Hannover/Stuttgart and so on.

Also, regarding Hitler's resolve, one of the motivating factors was his hatred for Bolshevism, and his fear that an unconditional surrender would leave the German people to the tender mercies of the Russian horde. You will note that in several instances the Germans attempted to negotiate an agreement that would have them unconditionally surrender to the Western powers but not the Russians. In this ATL the Russian threat is non-existent, which thus the German resolve might not be so firm.
....don't forget WHY they Atomic Bomb was eventually used on the Home Islands - to prevent the otherwise great loss of life in OLYMPIC/CORONET. Even if the Allies haven't managed to force an expensive break-in onto the Continent by the time the Bomb was ready - they'll still be heam.....heamhor....bleeding trained aircrew and aircraft day by day. Another six full months of USAAF bombing by day, Bomber Command by night...at full 1943-44 loss rates?

Could they really keep that up through 1945? :wink:
But the air and ground campaigns were not mutually supportive, so in this ATL the allies were to suffer plane/crew losses anyway. It wasn't until the armies started to overrun the air defense network that they could begin to support the air campaign, and in a scenario that has Germany free from the Russian meatgrinder that is not going to happen anytime before '45.
Six months? That's a long time for the Germans to study the side-effects of the first bomb - and plan accordingly...

A/ stockpile civil defence equipment just outside city centres, so it's not destroyed in the blast;
B/ have heavy moving equipment to hand to clear debris blocked streets...dozer blades on obsolete tanks?;
C/ prepare for thousands of burn casualties;
D/ establish a people-heavy monitoring network to monitor fallout drift and spread and disseminate information
E/ embark on a morale-boosting campaign minimising the potential effects of a Bomb - what's German for "Duck and Cover"? :D
...in fact, time to embark on all the things the Americans and British did when the Atomic Age began!

They're already long through the process of moving vital war factories and installations underground, and building huge civilian shelters in urban areas...
Doesn't matter, the cumulative effect of the air/nuc campaign would over time undermine every effort, however resourceful they are. Consider the Vietnamese, who despite their resolve (which I would argue far surpassed the Germans) were forced to the negotiating table following a short but concentrated conventional bombing campaign in '72.
Then there's the other little issue...you've just proven to the Germans that an Atomic Bomb CAN work, it is NOT a huge hundred ton-plus airdropped reactor allowed to go critcal and then somehow airdropped - as Heisenberg thought it was initially! Remember how short a time it took him to work out what the Bomb REALLY was when imprisoned at Farm Hall after the war - once he knew it COULD be carried in a plane??? :wink: And that was the ONLY datum he needed....

Remember too that these were the same Germans who had quite a lot of laboratory-enriched uranium to hand by the end of the war....!

Think giving them six months would be a good idea? 8O
Six months is a number I pulled out of thin air. Whatever time it takes the allies to construct more bombs. I would think that the rate of production would increase following a successful detonation or two.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10055
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

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

#72

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 04 Jan 2012, 14:33

phylo_roadking wrote:As an aside....

It's not suprising Lawrence Livermore claim such great things for their computer modelling compared to real life nuclear tests; looking through the details of the various test series - they were remarkably bad at getting something to go bang for many years :lol: They seem to have designed more than their fair share of fizzles and outright failures!
To perhaps redirect this back on track, "Flash" was not responsible for the fire storms that enveloped Hiroshima & Nagasaki. The overpressure wave damaged gas pipes in buildings, and overturned & broke open stoves using charcoal, wood, oil, and coal. Germany did not have cities of as flamable construction as Japan, but unless severe rationing of heating fuel is in effect there would have been more gas pipes, and coal or wood in kitchen stoves or water heaters, If the bombs were used in the wither then furnaces of coal, oil, or gas will be operating in most buildings. Damage from conventional bombing caused flimsey emergency tsoves to be used in many buidings where gas & goal were no longer available for proper use in the furnaces or stoves.

Changing the subject, the Plutonium bombs were too complex and fragile to risk hitting the surface. Their detonation depend on the precise function of the sphere of shaped charges that compressed the Plutonium. Severe shocks would misalign the explosives or possibly disconnect one or more detonators resulting in a convention explosion and plutonium fragments scattered over several thousand square meters. The safety margin dictated by the timing devices meant the detonation had to occur a few hundred meters above the ground surface.

Teske
Banned
Posts: 41
Joined: 02 Jan 2012, 15:01

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

#73

Post by Teske » 04 Jan 2012, 14:54

phylo_roadking wrote:
A much stronger german groundforce would be able to push anything that landed back into the sea.Reserves would be much stronger in this scenario and the situation in the air would be more favorable for Germany.
You are aware that the Allies managed to land many divisions on part of the entire European coastline where the Germans did NOT have their maximum strength? That they sucessfully decoyed them elsewhere? That they inhibited the Germans' ability to move them to the front in the days immediately after D-Day?
A Germany that has not to fight the USSR has a qualitatively and quantitively stronger landforce which means denser defenses and more mobile reserves. In the air the situation will also be more favorable.
And,in the first place, Brittain has to be able to hold out long enough which is not obvious.

Teske
Banned
Posts: 41
Joined: 02 Jan 2012, 15:01

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

#74

Post by Teske » 04 Jan 2012, 14:57

Kingfish wrote:
phylo_roadking wrote:The Germans consistently FAILED to take on board that only unconditional surender was required of them - why would they accept it NOW?
The 'failure' stemmed from their refusal to accept the surrender terms, not from misunderstanding them.

As to why they would accept it, the psychological effect of such a weapon would undermine any resolve they held on to.
They would know they had one or two less now...and unless more were forthcoming immediately, they're in a position to choose to believe this is all the Allies have.
But their belief and continued resistance means little because the allies aren't held to any deadline. So what if there is a span of 6 months between the second and third bombs. What matters is ...
it proves the Allies have the capacity to produce more than one, and in European terms it's part of a weapons system. Thus they can expect more...
I love it when you make my points for me :P
You are seriously underestimating Germany here. It would not be so easy.

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

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

#75

Post by Kingfish » 04 Jan 2012, 15:10

I never suggested it would be easy.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”