U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

#196

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 20 Mar 2020, 03:01

See also this U.S. Army study from 1980, finding:
a strong statistical association between the combat effectiveness of
armies during the past 40 years and national characteristics of male literacy,
household size (negative), birth rate (negative), and temperature of the capital
city in the hottest month (negative)
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a096203.pdf
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

#197

Post by T. A. Gardner » 20 Mar 2020, 04:01

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 02:07

T.A. Gardner wrote:They can substitute mechanization for manpower in most industries.
This is another example of posters believing that U.S. resources were functionally unlimited. To state the obvious, mechanization isn't free. Production of machines for X means fewer machines for Y. Please read "How the War Was Won," the U.S. Army's "Global Logistics," or really any other history of the war for discussion of the tradeoffs that the U.S. actually had to make. https://history.army.mil/html/books/001 ... ub_1-6.pdf
This is actually untrue. The US expanded production immensely during WW 2 nearly continuously. One way they did that was through increasing efficiency of production. That is making more with less effort. For all intents, compared to German resources, American ones were virtually unlimited.

The US also found ways to improve efficiency like building a pipeline from Texas to Pennsylvania to move oil to refineries and ports rather than use tankers.

Image

The "Big inch" pipeline did two things:

It reduced the need for tankers and all that goes with that

It made it impossible for a U-boat to disrupt oil shipments along the East Coast. You can't torpedo a pipeline inland in America...

Here's an example of how Chrysler Corp. improved the efficiency of manufacturing 40mm Bofors guns.



We also know that the Germans re-manufactured a lot of their gear and counted the output as new production.

Image

That's a photo of FW 190's being remanufactured. The Smithsonian held FW 190F-8 is a remanufactured plane. It started life as an FW 190A-3, crashed in Italy and was returned to the factory to be remade into a F series fighter-bomber and given a new Werk number.


Orwell1984
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 19:42

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

#198

Post by Orwell1984 » 20 Mar 2020, 04:07

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 03:01


See also this U.S. Army study from 1980, finding:
a strong statistical association between the combat effectiveness of
armies during the past 40 years and national characteristics of male literacy,
household size (negative), birth rate (negative), and temperature of the capital
city in the hottest month (negative)
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a096203.pdf
Further on in the same section was this:
It is important to under-stand, however, that the findings so far do not give any reason to believe that increasing literacy in a given amy will significantly increase combat effectiveness.
(p 9

As to this reference:
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 02:32
The education of troops doesnt matter greatly beyond the ability to understand commands and military training.
There is an immense literature finding the exact opposite of this statement. Just for example: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... ode=vsoc20
Do you have access to the whole article? I ask because the first part of thearticle talks about education being important for non combat soldiers which makes sense when you think of the technical trades. Nowhere does the excerpt posted talk about education and combat soldiers.

In fact the excerpt available ends with this tantalizing snippet:
One might assume that factors predictive of non combat military effectiveness would be similar to factors predictive of combat effectivness, at least to some extent
However the article ends without clarifying this assumption so without the whole article no firm connection on combat effectiveness and education can be drawn. I would note that the Indian Army with proper military training performed very well in Asia, Italy and North Africa.

Neither source provided backs up the assertion that a lack of formal education/illiteracy would have resulted in Indian troops being unable to function. And as Indian troops were used on mainland Europe in Italy, there seems to be no reason why they wouldn't be used in France if need be.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

#199

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 20 Mar 2020, 04:25

T.A. Gardner wrote:For all intents, compared to German resources, American ones were virtually unlimited.
With respect, I don't find further discussion fruitful and will be placing you on ignore. Nothing personal, it's just a matter of time management. Hope you're safe and well.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Aber
Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: 05 Jan 2010, 22:43

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

#200

Post by Aber » 20 Mar 2020, 09:55

Terry Duncan wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 18:29

There is a funny cartoon from the war, with two Tommy's on a cliff looking over the channel,
Image

saving a 1000 words. :D

Aber
Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: 05 Jan 2010, 22:43

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

#201

Post by Aber » 20 Mar 2020, 10:06

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 02:07
In any event, the problem of tidal flows is obvious and would be addressed by the following:
  • At the base of the causeway, immediately off Cap Gris, would a channel for German ships and for some of the tidal flow. Over that channel would be multiple emplacements for bridges or the Germans would build a "cut and cover" tunnel during causeway construction.
  • Interspersed throughout the causeway would be culverts to allow for tidal flows.
With these measures in place, there would be no "dam" effect to the causeway.
Oh, it's now a bridge not a causeway. :D

The British response will include

Image

or

Image

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

#202

Post by Terry Duncan » 20 Mar 2020, 11:39

Aber wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 10:06
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 02:07
In any event, the problem of tidal flows is obvious and would be addressed by the following:
  • At the base of the causeway, immediately off Cap Gris, would a channel for German ships and for some of the tidal flow. Over that channel would be multiple emplacements for bridges or the Germans would build a "cut and cover" tunnel during causeway construction.
  • Interspersed throughout the causeway would be culverts to allow for tidal flows.
With these measures in place, there would be no "dam" effect to the causeway.
Oh, it's now a bridge not a causeway. :D

The British response will include

Image

or

Image
I would just love to know where Germany got the magic manpower stick from, as they can constantly achieve wonders that others are prevented from. Then again, they also seem to have the magic weather stick too.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

#203

Post by T. A. Gardner » 20 Mar 2020, 17:48

I can't find any engineering proposals or support for building a causeway across the Channel. There are proposals to build a bridge, which at least is possible, but even those note that the tidal flows would be a brutal issue.

Given that the Germans couldn't even manage to keep the road system in Russia up to snuff-- not to mention the rail system...

If we look at something like the Panama Canal the Culbera cut whose material was used to create Gatun dam, amounts to about 76 million cubic yards removed. A workforce of about 7500 men was involved along with hundreds of large steam shovels and excavators not to mention pneumatic hammers, etc., and dozens of spoil trains carrying the removed soil and rock away. They only had to move it 14 km and about 160 trainloads a day were operated. The cut took almost 10 years to complete.

Yet, the Germans could build an earthen causeway across the Channel in under two...

Yea, sure. I doubt the Germans had the capacity to build the Burma Road or ALCAN highway at the time.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

#204

Post by Takao » 20 Mar 2020, 18:43

T. A. Gardner wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 17:48
I can't find any engineering proposals or support for building a causeway across the Channel. There are proposals to build a bridge, which at least is possible, but even those note that the tidal flows would be a brutal issue.

Given that the Germans couldn't even manage to keep the road system in Russia up to snuff-- not to mention the rail system...

If we look at something like the Panama Canal the Culbera cut whose material was used to create Gatun dam, amounts to about 76 million cubic yards removed. A workforce of about 7500 men was involved along with hundreds of large steam shovels and excavators not to mention pneumatic hammers, etc., and dozens of spoil trains carrying the removed soil and rock away. They only had to move it 14 km and about 160 trainloads a day were operated. The cut took almost 10 years to complete.

Yet, the Germans could build an earthen causeway across the Channel in under two...

Yea, sure. I doubt the Germans had the capacity to build the Burma Road or ALCAN highway at the time.
Not engineering proposals but proposals in general...Nature Magazine in 1968 ran a competition for damming the English channel. The article can be found on the internet.

72 meters tall and 82 meters wide at the crest would require 280,000,000 cubic meters of fill.

TMP is arguing if it is possible...Why? Because, of course it is possible...That is an argument he can win. He should be arguing if it is practicable, which, of course, he won't, because that is an argument he will lose.

This seems to be the outcome of all of his arguments...With a win over the Soviet Union, Germany will simply through enough money at any problem and it will go away.

Hardly intellectual or ground breaking on any level. He should draw some lessons from the modern US & past USSR...Money does not solve all problems.

Aber
Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: 05 Jan 2010, 22:43

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

#205

Post by Aber » 20 Mar 2020, 19:42

Takao wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 18:43
TMP is arguing if it is possible...Why? Because, of course it is possible...That is an argument he can win.
Of course it is technically possible; trying to do it while under fire from a peer opponent is not.

Orwell1984
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 19:42

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

#206

Post by Orwell1984 » 20 Mar 2020, 20:39

Aber wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 19:42
Takao wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 18:43
TMP is arguing if it is possible...Why? Because, of course it is possible...That is an argument he can win.
Of course it is technically possible; trying to do it while under fire from a peer opponent is not.
I guess we're to conclude that any attempt at an element of surprise is overrated in an invasion attempt. 8-)

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

#207

Post by T. A. Gardner » 20 Mar 2020, 21:28

Takao wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 18:43
T. A. Gardner wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 17:48
I can't find any engineering proposals or support for building a causeway across the Channel. There are proposals to build a bridge, which at least is possible, but even those note that the tidal flows would be a brutal issue.

Given that the Germans couldn't even manage to keep the road system in Russia up to snuff-- not to mention the rail system...

If we look at something like the Panama Canal the Culbera cut whose material was used to create Gatun dam, amounts to about 76 million cubic yards removed. A workforce of about 7500 men was involved along with hundreds of large steam shovels and excavators not to mention pneumatic hammers, etc., and dozens of spoil trains carrying the removed soil and rock away. They only had to move it 14 km and about 160 trainloads a day were operated. The cut took almost 10 years to complete.

Yet, the Germans could build an earthen causeway across the Channel in under two...

Yea, sure. I doubt the Germans had the capacity to build the Burma Road or ALCAN highway at the time.
Not engineering proposals but proposals in general...Nature Magazine in 1968 ran a competition for damming the English channel. The article can be found on the internet.

72 meters tall and 82 meters wide at the crest would require 280,000,000 cubic meters of fill.

TMP is arguing if it is possible...Why? Because, of course it is possible...That is an argument he can win. He should be arguing if it is practicable, which, of course, he won't, because that is an argument he will lose.

This seems to be the outcome of all of his arguments...With a win over the Soviet Union, Germany will simply through enough money at any problem and it will go away.

Hardly intellectual or ground breaking on any level. He should draw some lessons from the modern US & past USSR...Money does not solve all problems.
What?! Money doesn't solve all problems?


Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6348
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

#208

Post by Richard Anderson » 21 Mar 2020, 05:32

T. A. Gardner wrote:
18 Mar 2020, 23:25
Actually, it's about as accurate as your statement about S-boote, R-boote, etc.
Well, yeah, but look at the source...we're building a causeway to England now FFS. :lol:
But, historically, the Germans built two types of landing craft:

The Siebel Ferry of which a couple hundred were assembled
The Marinefahrpahram (MFP) of which about 700 were manufactured.
Actually, 384 Siebel and 804 MFP, mostly after 1940.

There were also the PiLF and the PiLB.
How many are necessary to land the invasion force? How many are necessary to support this force in the event that supplies have to arrive over the beach. I'd also be interested to read what you propose to support the initial landings with as far as naval fire support. Or, will that be more handwavium about how the Luftwaffe will suddenly have the capacity to be on call, near real time for close air support, something they never actually managed to achieve?
Hey, the dude handwaved a causeway across the Channel as a springboard for invasion...cut him some * slack, he's a master-debater. :lol:
Since you don't give the size of the landing force per wave, or details about the landings, I can't respond to what would be potentially necessary in terms of shipping to support it.
Bigger than you can imagine, less than you think, obviously.
I'd also expect by 1943 - 44 that the British and US could easily assign 100 destroyers and more destroyer escorts to anti-invasion work. The RN assigned 40 destroyers in 1940 to that purpose and both the RN and USN have grown significantly since. That doesn't even begin to include all the smaller craft they could assemble for countering an invasion without even changing historical levels of construction.
Against what you suggest the Germans would use to invade, the Allies need not assign anything larger than a destroyer really.
The RN never really "assigned" anything to "anti-invasion work", butthey typically had much more than "40 destroyers" available for the purpose if required.

* Needless almost-profanity removed by this moderator.

Terry Duncan
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

#209

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 21 Mar 2020, 08:59

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
16 Mar 2020, 06:36
Outline of German Economic Resources by ATL 1944
  • A larger German labor force due to:
    • Demobilization of Heer below OTL levels
    • Fewer permanent casualties
    • Greater use of foreign labor
Germany's ATL 1944 seems a good place to start with a more-detailed economic analysis of this ATL.

First step is to discuss the field of comparison. I will be using Germany's OTL June '44 non-agricultural, non-military labor force as the baseline for establishing the magnitude of the ATL delta. In June 1944, Germany's total (foreign and domestic) non-ag, non-military labor force was 25mil.

Labor force delta attributable to demobilization from OTL level:

We're measuring a point in June '44 when there is no large-scale land combat in the ETO. Russia is supine; the Wallies can't dream of landing in Europe yet.

As a result, Germany will have a much-lower active Wehrmacht strength. As estimated upthread, the Heer would be reduced to ~130 divisions total.
Note, however, that Germany would maintain the ability rapidly to mobilize a far-larger army within weeks of an Allied landing in Europe. [Equipment depots in Western Europe within a quick march of any landings]

OTL Wehrmacht was ~9.5mil in mid-44.

ATL Wehrmacht will be 5.5mil in mid-44: ~3.5mi Heer/WSS, ~1.5mil LW, ~.5mil KM.

LABOR FORCE DELTA: 4mil


Labor force delta attributable to fewer permanent casualties:

Casualties during '41-'42:
For the OTL baseline of German casualties up to June 1944, there's obviously some dispute about the figures. Wiki has a decent summary of different views, with cites, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ca ... rld_War_II

Per the Staatliches Jahrbuch:
OTL German Casualties during June 41-42 were ~730,000 KIA and ~120,000 MIA/POW.

Per Overmans:
897,000 dead.

Casualties from '43 to June '44:

Per Jarhbuch:
OTL German permanent casualties during this period were ~1,150,000: 660,000 KIA and 480,000 POW.

Per Overmans:
1.45mil dead.


Overmans study seems statistically sound, but to be safe I'm going to go with a compromise for the baseline OTL calculation and say 750k KIA in '41-42 plus 120,000 MIA/POW. For '43 through June '44, I'll go with Overman's statistic for total dead (including POW who died in captivity).

That gives us 2.3mil German dead and captured/missing up to June '44.

-------------------------------

As described upthread, ATL casualties in SU are lower due to (1) greater encirclements, (2) a significantly weaker SU (numerically) by '42 at the latest, (3) a significant decline in Soviet combat effectiveness during '42, converging earlier to OTL '43 levels due to earlier destruction of pre-war cohort and worse training. And of course earlier end to the war.

ATL German MIA/POW for this calculation will be set at 10% of OTL '41-'42, as the first Russian winter offensive is stopped in its tracks, as Stalingrad never happens, and as prisoner exchange upon armistice is assumed (also assumes death in Russian POW camps - thus 10% of OTL not 0%).

ATL German KIA (and died of wounds) is set at 60% of OTL '41-42 level: 450,000 KIA.

Not all German casualties were on the Eastern Front during this period but for our purposes these rough figures are close enough, once we add back in some German casualties against the Wallies prior to June '44.

So we get out ATL casualty delta (pre-Wallies infliction during '43-'44) by backing out all of '43-June44 plus the '41-'42 delta:

TOTAL SAVED: 1.858mil.

Casualties against Wallies added back: Let's say 58,000 for now (Middle East and North Africa campaigns mostly). In terms of estimating a labor force 50k here or there isn't going to ruin the picture and using 58k gives us the round figure of 1.8mil fewer German KIA/POW/MIA so far.

Then there's the issue of Germans crippled in combat and not available to the economy or armed forces. OTL WIA was ~3x killed and ~2/3 of these returned to their units eventually. Presumably some portion of the remaining 1/3 of "permanently wounded" found employment and some were crippled. What was the fraction? Given that we're talking a number about as high as killed/died, the total delta would be similar: ~1.5mil.

Rather than spend more hours on this question, I'll be conservative and say the overwhelming majority found some employment in the economy and only 200k didn't. That gives as a nice round number:

TOTAL DELTA TO GERMAN WORKFORCE FROM FEWER CASUALTIES: 2 million.

Labor force delta attributable to greater foreign workers:

OTL Germany employed a maximum of ~7mil foreign workers in mid-'44. See my post here for further discussion: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=243557&start=45#p2216965

As discussed in that post and cited works, German recruitment of foreign labor didn't become systematic until after the appointment of Fritz Sauckel as labor plenipotentiary in early '42. By the time German recruitment efforts really stepped up, her war fortunes had turned and conditions in Germany were becoming truly unbearable.

By contrast, ATL Germany in mid-'44 will have largely stopped the Allied bomber offensive, will have revived agriculture across Europe, and will have a commanding position in the war (occupying all of Europe, most of North Africa and Middle East). Foreign labor recruitment and retention will, therefore, be easier than OTL (even if still requiring unconventional tactics).

In addition to better conditions in Germany, there will be a larger pool of labor to draw from than OTL: German conquest of European Russia and integration of Iberia and Turkey into the Axis sphere will basically double the occupied population.

Finally, ATL conditions envision at least 3mil additional Soviet POW's during '41-'42.

For these reasons, Germany should have been able to recruit and retain at least twice as many foreign laborers in ATL '44 as in OTL, with ~1/3 of these being additional Soviet POW.

LABOR DELTA ATTRIBUTABLE TO MORE FOREIGN LABOR: 7 million.


Total domestic labor force delta:

Demobilization: 4mil
Fewer casualties: 2mil
More foreign labor: 7mil

Total labor force delta: +13mil

Total German domestic non-agricultural labor force in '44 was ~25mil.

Accordingly, German productive capacity in ATL mid-'44 should be at least 50% greater than OTL.

Of course this assumes several non-labor production factors (capital, raw materials) that will be discussed in other posts.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

#210

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 21 Mar 2020, 10:17

Terry Duncan wrote:I would just love to know where Germany got the magic manpower stick from, as they can constantly achieve wonders that others are prevented from
No doubt the Wallies could have built a causeway too. The British might have objected to that alteration to the Channel, however. And it would have cost a lot more than the landing craft for Overlord.

Actually, I might post a counter-ATL in which there's no A-bomb and the Wallies have to invade Europe to beat Germany. In that ATL, the causeway is probably the best tactic, with an invasion in '47 after beating Japan '46 (no A-bomb in this ATL).

Absent a causeway, a landing against the full Heer would require something on the order of 5-10 times the OTL Overlord force.

----------------------------------------

None of this is to say that such an Allied invasion would work. Just as I don't think the German invasion is certain to work. I haven't got that far in the ATL yet.

Whether each side could invade the other would depend largely on political factors. I.e. whether the US/UK would be willing to suffer millions of dead in either scenario - invading Europe or defending Britain to the last on land. Given my ATL up to the point of a German invasion of England, I find it likely they'd agree a peace leaving Britain her Empire, Germany dominant in Europe, and the US/UK alliance dominant across the rest of the globe (soon to be joined by Japan).

Alternatively, if the U.S. decides to raise and ship 200 divisions to England then the Wallies might be able to push Germany back over the causeway and, if willing to eat millions of deaths, might end in Berlin even absent the A-bomb.

OTOH if we add the Type XXI to this ATL a year or so earlier, then I think Germany can sink enough shipping to ensure success of her cross-Channel invasion causeway or no. Absent absolute control of the Atlantic, the U.S. wouldn't be able to move a sufficiently large army to England either to defend her or to invade Europe.

But that T21+Ostheersieg ATL is for another time, perhaps. Can't wait for all the constructive commentary on it.

But here's the meta-point: Any scenario in which the U.S. deploys hundreds of army divisions is one that diverges entirely from the Victory Plan in particular and from general American attitudes/expectations about the European war. The U.S. never seriously considered deploying armies on the scale discussed above; any conjecture about their willingness to do so is merely conjecture. What's more, it answers the question of the Victory Plan's feasibility in the negative (the topic of the thread, btw).
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Locked

Return to “What if”