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.
DerGiLLster
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: 12 Aug 2015 00:38
Location: Chicago

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

Post by DerGiLLster » 25 Mar 2020 02:59

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 02:24
Also quit with the big words. It genuinely sounds like you're trying to prove yourself as a better debater.
I'll use whichever words come easiest, regardless of how that makes me look.
I like you ignore the part about showing sources, by their page and such. Really shows how you are selective of reality to the point of debating with others.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6318
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

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

Post by Michael Kenny » 25 Mar 2020 03:05

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 02:55

The problem for the Wallies is that they're too racist to import millions of brown/black people for their labor,
Lots of Irish people working in the UK in WW2.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5747
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

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

Post by Terry Duncan » 25 Mar 2020 04:17

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 02:55
Terry Duncan wrote:Curiously enough, not every colonial citizen was an illiterate savage banging the rocks together trying to light a fire.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. To say that Indians and Africans had low literacy and education is an indictment of the British, not of their subjects. It was the British Empire that, in its immense benevolence and assumption of the White Man's Burden, deindustrialized India and sought its reliance on the colonizer.
The British were the ones to industrialise India, and built the railroads that still serve the country now. They also educated the locals, most of the leading figures in the independence movement were educated within the Empire. Almost every civil servant was also educated in the same way, so there are plenty of educated people - obviously India did not have 100% literacy, but it still doesnt have that today.
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 02:55
Terry Duncan wrote:The other objections, such as housing, are no different to those faced by the Germans utilizing slave labour, so it is obviously possible to achieve if you desire to do so.
Hope you're aware that the Germans used horrific camps to house much of the foreign labor force.
The problem for the Wallies is that they're too racist to import millions of brown/black people for their labor, but not racist enough to use the Nazi solution of treating them like expendable garbage.
I am perfectly aware of the conditions in the German camp system, but good housing is not hard to prefabricate as was done in the UK after the war, and remember there was nothing at Los Alamos before the Manhatten Project was sited there. The conditions were ok, and it was built very fast, so why is it going to be a problem in an AH scenario? The assertion that the Allies were too racist is rather silly in many aspects, in the US there was certainly segregation and racism in some areas and not in others, whilst the British were quite used to working with 'foreigners' as it would not have been possible to administer all of it without them, and it was the British that drove the abolition of slavery by blocking off the trade with the RN, a task we only finished paying for in 2012!!! Racism was also rather different in the 1940s, it was not the 'micro-aggression safe space needed' nonsense that 'triggers' people today, words could be exchanged and people would move on swiftly. Look at the 'banter' between the English and Scots or Welsh or Irish! Some of that was just as extreme, if not more so, than anything that would take place in India for example, and the English and Australians have enjoyed at least 100 years of some of the most extreme abusive language that can be imagined by the time of WWII. Too much of the world imagines that the US experience was universal and that the same attitudes prevailed as did in the US even into recent times.

Other than that, my point is that in any AH scenario you need to allow both sides the same ability to change how they act, not just allow one side to do so in order to write 'and so Germany wins the war' for example. There is a thread here somewhere where Britain is constrained to build the Manchester bomber without really fixing it, not move on to develop the Lancaster, not use the Stirling or Halifax, not to build alternatives like the Mosquito, and to still attempt the same strategy (There is another where Soviet mice and German cats are engaged in a battle over armoured vehicle wiring, but I cannot remember what board it is on sadly). To be balanced both sides must be allowed exactly the same flexibility.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 25 Mar 2020 06:07

I must again emphasize that this causeway idea is not the main or sole point about possible German victory in this ATL. I raised it upthread as an aside, while insisting on more detailed discussion of the '42-'45 timeline before digging into details about the war's end state. It remains my position that Germany doesn't need to invade England to force a peace agreement, only that it might have been able to (and under certain conditions, is likely to be able to invade England). To quote the first mention of "causeway" in this thread:
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
14 Feb 2020 22:41

With those resources and others, the Germans could build up for Sealion '44/5, which *******could****** involve building a causeway across the Channel
Folks also seem to have interpreted the causeway as the ONLY method of invasion. Not true in the way I've conceived this, but I haven't done a detailed post about the German invasion yet.

Even if the causeway turns out to be an effective/efficient invasion plan, landing craft and fire support would be required as well.
As I've already said, fire support comes from repurposing the causeway construction barges to carry weapons after they've laid the causeway up to a certain level (the rest is completed by truck/rail pushing material over the shallow path laid by the barges, though some barges would retained for the final stages as well). And/or from building giant barges specifically tailored to landing support.

Landing craft production would be a significant expense. As discussed upthread, however, it appears that all U.S. spending on landing craft during '43 and the first months of '44 did not exceed $1bn dollars, which is ~2.5bn RM, which is ~5% of German munitions production in this ATL for '44. Considering that about half of U.S. landing craft were in the Pacific at this time, Germany should be able to have ~twice the Allies OTL D-Day landing power for ~5% of its annual munitions production.

With thousands of landing craft, the causeway would not be the only invasion route. Indeed, it's probably the case that the last bit of causeway would not be completed until after German forces were ashore. The causeway is simply a solution to the logistical problems of supporting an enormous invasion force for the duration of the campaign.

Depending on how the math works out, it might be more efficient to build more landing craft than to build a causeway. Nonetheless, the causeway still seems feasible.

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

It remains the case that the Wallies will have, overall, higher production than Germany/Grossraum in this ATL. I estimate that 1944 German production would be ~75% of Wallies production in total. So how do the Germans win in this scenario?

First, the Wallies are spending ~30% of their resources on their navies while Germany is spending ~10%.

Second, if the Wallies continue to spend ~25% of their resources on strategic bombing, which Germany successfully defeats.

Third, if the U.S. mobilizes an additional ~10mil men to defend England, its industrial production is going to decline by >20%. That mobilization, training, and deployment time-scale is at least a year. Germany, OTOH, doesn't have to mobilize its full army until a month or so before the soldiers go into battle.

Fourth, Japan is still a factor in '44-'45, diverting up to a third of U.S. war effort OTL.

Each of the foregoing factors is sufficient to bring the balance of resources actually deployed for the battle in England to parity. Combined with greater German combat efficiency, that's a bad omen for the Wallies.

If all of the foregoing occur - OTL strategic bombing investment, mobilization of 10mil more U.S. soldiers, war with Japan as in OTL - then the Wallies will be far overmatched for the Battle of England in terms of production resources actually relevant to the invasion. If the US doesn't mobilize millions more men to defend England, the Wallies will be outmatched heavily in personnel terms though not necessarily in deployed production.

---------

EDIT: I can already hear the complaints: "You're assuming the Wallies don't change strategy, not fair!"

No, I'm not. The Wallies are free to end their strategic bombing campaign and to stop trying to invade Japan. If they do so, however, that's basically a global stalemate.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 25 Mar 2020 06:33

Terry Duncan wrote:The assertion that the Allies were too racist is rather silly...
Racism was also rather different in the 1940s, it was not the 'micro-aggression safe space needed' nonsense that 'triggers' people today, words could be exchanged and people would move on swiftly.
Sorry but I don't maintain safe-spaces for patriotically-correct views either. The U.S. was a horrifically racist society even if far better than the Nazis.

Have you heard of the Chinese Exclusion Act? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act It meant what it says: no Chinese allowed in the U.S. During the war we made the magnanimous gesture of repealing the law and allowing ***105*** Chinese entry every year. That was for an ally literally dying on the battlefield with us. 105 people a year. Disgusting.

And it wasn't just the Chinese we hated on. All non-white people (except Africans- the 14th amendment barred that exclusion) were barred from citizenship. In case you're wondering whether that rule applied to Indians, the Supreme Court said exactly so: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/261/204/

Maybe the British were less-racist than the U.S. but it's not immediately apparent this was so.

Avalancheon
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 23 Apr 2017 06:01
Location: Canada

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

Post by Avalancheon » 25 Mar 2020 06:37

Terry Duncan wrote:
22 Mar 2020 12:28
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
21 Mar 2020 09:17
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).
Re manpower. The British, US, and French have access to manpower in excess of 750 million, Germany has access to a maximum of at best 175 million given all the nations occupied fully co-operate. Whatever the Germans can produce and field the Allies can manage to double, and that is ignoring the material shortages the Germans had, and the massive US industrial base.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... on_in_1939
In terms of territory and population, the British empire is undeniably huge. It was among the largest in history. But a proper estimate of strategic potential must go beyond that. In terms of fighting the war, the British are not going to get much out of their 'peripheral' colonys. The United Kingdom will depend heavily on itself, along with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. These are not only their most industrialised colonys, but also the most loyal (since they are mainly white, and nominally independent). The combined population of these Commonwealth nations is about 77.5 million.

United Kingdom – 47,760,000
South Africa – 10,160,000
Canada – 10,952,100
Australia – 6,968,000
New Zealand – 1,668,800

Now, for a wider perspective. The British empire at large had a population of about 551.4 million. But not all of these colonys remained under their control during the fighting. When Japan entered the war in December 1941, they eventually managed to conquer Burma, Malaya, New Guinea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. The loss of these colonys reduces the British empires overall population by 24.8 million, a modest amount.

Burma – 16,119,000
Malaya – 5,386,300
New Guinea – 1,292,000
Hong Kong – 1,282,000
Singapore – 767,700
Terry Duncan wrote:
22 Mar 2020 12:28
Nuclear weapons are an interesting area, as the Allies believed Heisenberg was ahead of their research and they were desperate to close the gap as they saw it, even staging special missions to try and grab everything possible at the end of the war. If Germany is still holding much of Europe come mid-1945, you can expect all those nice B-29's to be able to start dropping the Little Boy type bomb that was 'inefficient' but able to be produced easily, and would still make nice glass deposits where needed until Germany gave up.

The way for Germany to win, in both 1914 and 1939 it to not fight, though in 1939 they were pretty much bankrupt unless they took other nations gold reserves.
America relied on two different facilitys for the production of atomic bombs. Oak Ridge had three separate plants (S-50, K-25, Y-12) that produced enriched uranium, which was used in the gun-type Little Boy bomb. Hanford had reactors that churned out plutonium, which was used in the implosion-type Fat Man bombs. Oak Ridge was churning out as much nuclear material as the Hanford reactors, but the problem was, the gun-type bomb had a far larger critical mass than an implosion-type bomb. This meant there would be more plutonium bombs than uranium bombs.

According to the Groves memorandum of July 1945, the Americans were expecting to have three bombs ready in August (one uranium, two plutonium), then another six bombs ready in September and October (all plutonium). Thats a total of nine atomic bombs. They could do alot of damage to Germany, but it wouldn't be enough to single-handedly win the war. Especially not when we take into account the possibility of interception. In this alternate timeline, the Reich would have a formidable fleet of interceptors and anti-aircraft batterys.

Avalancheon
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 23 Apr 2017 06:01
Location: Canada

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

Post by Avalancheon » 25 Mar 2020 07:51

DerGiLLster wrote:
24 Mar 2020 01:49
I usually like to be nice to alt history posters, but I am positive to state that anyone who proposes building a causeway from France to Britain in a time of war is straight up trolling. Not even in my adolescent years would I ever consider that as a serious idea.
Building a causeway across the English channel (in the middle of a war) does seem far-fetched. Especially considering they could build an actual invasion fleet in the same amount of time.
DerGiLLster wrote:
24 Mar 2020 01:49
Also we have already had many US/UK vs Nazi dominated Europe threads already. The consensus is that America, who wasn't even half way with their industry, ramps up production to produce more bombers, fighters and tanks. Eventually America gets nukes and Germany dies a slow death to 1946-47.
That isn't nearly as cut and dry as you make it seem. In order to guarantee victory in an amphibious landing, the Allies need a number of pre-requisite conditions. 1) Overwhelming numerical superiority 2) Overwhelming material superiority 3) Total control of the air 4) Total information supremacy (through Ultra). These are the same things that allowed them to successfully invade France in real life.

In a scenario where Germany has defeated the Soviet Union and shifted a significant number of its forces to Western Europe, those pre-requisite conditions are thrown into disarray. Since the Wehrmacht has more divisions stationed in France, the Allies will need more divisions to overrun them. That means they need more ships to transport the men and equipment, to say nothing of their supplys (ammunition, fuel, food, medicine, etc). The logistical burden can quickly skyrocket into the realm of impracticality. Operation Overlord was the largest amphibious invasion in history, and you are casually talking about adding even more forces into the TOE. This is not a trivial task at all.

BTW. If the Luftwaffe has a significantly larger presence in France, this would challenge the Allies ability to take control of the air. More sorties would be spent on CAP than CAS. German divisions would arrive into action at the front more quickly, since they aren't being attacked as frequently, and since the roads and railways are not bombed as heavily. They would be better supplied once they go into battle, and able to put up a stiffer fight. They would also be able to move around more freely during the day, without the omnipresent danger of air attack. These are just a few of the things you need to take into consideration.
DerGiLLster wrote:
24 Mar 2020 01:49
Even then, Nazi Germany had a horribly inefficient bureaucracy. Thanks to the idiots of Goering and Canaris.

Maybe we should make a rule that anyone who makes such threads should provide actual sources to show why Germany would be in a good case to defend against the US. The Germany that never made a proximity fuze, never even knew that making nukes was possible, never even cracked the Enigma to begin with.
The Germans actually were working on developing a proximity fuse. They had several different projects that were nearing completion by the time the war ended. The most promising approach was an electrostatic fuse that was cancelled in 1940, then restarted in 1944.

Despite your claims to the contrary, they were well aware of the possibility of atomic bombs. Germany was actually the first country to begin research on them: The Uranverein was formed on September 1939. They initially had a lead over Britain and America, but soon fell behind in 1942. Due to a lack of funding and manpower, their work was mainly confined to the laboratory. The Germans never built a self-sustaining reactor, and thus could not transmute uranium into plutonium. Although they did manage to build a centrifuge cascade for the enrichment of uranium, it was too little, too late.
DerGiLLster wrote:
24 Mar 2020 01:49
Oh and by the way, Britain will have the stomach to fight the Germans. They did in World War One. And why wouldn't the Americans want the blood to fight? They spent eight years in Vietnam before thinking it was pointless.

Once they get nukes, its game over. Germany dies, end of thread.
Britain will quickly lose its appetite for war when they begin losing crown colonys, as they did after Japans entry into the war. The loss of Hong Kong, Malaya, and Singapore was devastating for public morale. The British were in almost as much panic as they were after their humiliating retreat from France in May 1940. Likewise, the American thirst for war will quickly diminish when they suffer twice as many losses in 1943 and 1944 as they historically did. They already encountered manpower problems after the relatively tame losses they sustained during the Ardennes offensives.

As much as you would like to believe so, atomic bombs are not some 'instant win' button. The 1st generation fission bombs had a relatively low yield, and were often less destructive than a large conventional bomb raid. And thats ignoring the fact that Germany had far better air defenses than Japan could ever boast of. Their anti-aircraft gun park was far superior in both quantity and quality, and had the benefit of radar gun directors. They also had larger numbers of high performance interceptors, which could deal with B-29 bombers.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 25 Mar 2020 09:39

Avalancheon wrote:Building a causeway across the English channel (in the middle of a war) does seem far-fetched. Especially considering they could build an actual invasion fleet in the same amount of time.
Like I said, the causeway is only an option to consider. The invasion fleet is at least as interesting.

In this circumstance, the ability to provide fire support to get on the beaches is more critical than in OTL Normandy. Why? Because we would expect much denser manning of the beaches - either French or English - than in OTL. Each side will be focusing all its forces on repelling an invasion; neither side will be fighting the biggest-ever land war as a "distraction."

So to effect a landing against defenses several times denser than Normandy, you're going to need enough ship-born (or causeway-born) firepower to make the beaches a "dead zone." Probably you'll want to do a couple rounds of preliminary bombardment against prepared beach defenses to soften them up. That probably implies you have to "soften up" more than one landing zone so as not to telegraph the actual landing site and keep the defender spread out.

What to execute that bombardment with?

It seems clear that either side would have had to build a dedicated "Channel Fleet" of gunboats/monitors to provide the required support.

To enter the Channel with a bluewater navy in this kind of density would simply be too expensive in this ATL: the skies are at least contested, meaning you'll lose high-value thoroughbred warships in narrow waters to cheap bombers and light craft.

The good news is that cheaper self-powered "barges" could do the trick at much lower cost. If trying quickly to scale up for a '44/'45 invasion, the Germans would want to use concrete-hulled ships to avoid too much steel consumption. This provides the advantage of quicker, poured construction as well as some measure of "armor" inherent in the hulls of massive concrete barges (at least enough thickness to render them immune to bomb fragments).

A 10,000 DWT concrete barge could carry dozens of 120mm mortars, for instance, which could be used to pulverize beach minefields and to render the beaches deadzones for uncovered defenders - and therefore for infantry counterattacks - for the first few miles inland.

Such a barge could also mount a dozen or so 12.8cm heavy Flak guns to provide both AA cover and be available for longer-range shore bombardment.

And/or mount army weapons such as the 21cm Morser, of which the Heer had hundreds. After the invasion you can dismount and put them back in the field, meaning the fire support expense is functionally only the cheap barges.

All the barges would mount lighter Flak (3.7cm) for self defense and collective defense. With thousands of barrels pointed skyward in a dense area, bomber runs would be at least as costly as attacks on the USN's Pacific Fleet which inflicted ~30% casualties.

You could also build "Channel battleships," concrete behemoths of 40k tons or so mounting fortification-destroying guns like the 60cm Karl Gerat.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5747
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

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

Post by Terry Duncan » 25 Mar 2020 11:05

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 09:39
You could also build "Channel battleships," concrete behemoths of 40k tons or so mounting fortification-destroying guns like the 60cm Karl Gerat.
Really? It has a range of 5 NM and as such is going to be under fire for a very long time before it even gets to fire, and then you have a need to actually fix it in a position to use. Why not use the Gustav guns? They might actually scare people.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5747
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

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

Post by Terry Duncan » 25 Mar 2020 11:12

Avalancheon wrote:
25 Mar 2020 06:37
Terry Duncan wrote:
22 Mar 2020 12:28
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
21 Mar 2020 09:17
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).
Re manpower. The British, US, and French have access to manpower in excess of 750 million, Germany has access to a maximum of at best 175 million given all the nations occupied fully co-operate. Whatever the Germans can produce and field the Allies can manage to double, and that is ignoring the material shortages the Germans had, and the massive US industrial base.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... on_in_1939
In terms of territory and population, the British empire is undeniably huge. It was among the largest in history. But a proper estimate of strategic potential must go beyond that. In terms of fighting the war, the British are not going to get much out of their 'peripheral' colonys. The United Kingdom will depend heavily on itself, along with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. These are not only their most industrialised colonys, but also the most loyal (since they are mainly white, and nominally independent). The combined population of these Commonwealth nations is about 77.5 million.

United Kingdom – 47,760,000
South Africa – 10,160,000
Canada – 10,952,100
Australia – 6,968,000
New Zealand – 1,668,800

Now, for a wider perspective. The British empire at large had a population of about 551.4 million. But not all of these colonys remained under their control during the fighting. When Japan entered the war in December 1941, they eventually managed to conquer Burma, Malaya, New Guinea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. The loss of these colonys reduces the British empires overall population by 24.8 million, a modest amount.

Burma – 16,119,000
Malaya – 5,386,300
New Guinea – 1,292,000
Hong Kong – 1,282,000
Singapore – 767,700
Terry Duncan wrote:
22 Mar 2020 12:28
Nuclear weapons are an interesting area, as the Allies believed Heisenberg was ahead of their research and they were desperate to close the gap as they saw it, even staging special missions to try and grab everything possible at the end of the war. If Germany is still holding much of Europe come mid-1945, you can expect all those nice B-29's to be able to start dropping the Little Boy type bomb that was 'inefficient' but able to be produced easily, and would still make nice glass deposits where needed until Germany gave up.

The way for Germany to win, in both 1914 and 1939 it to not fight, though in 1939 they were pretty much bankrupt unless they took other nations gold reserves.
America relied on two different facilitys for the production of atomic bombs. Oak Ridge had three separate plants (S-50, K-25, Y-12) that produced enriched uranium, which was used in the gun-type Little Boy bomb. Hanford had reactors that churned out plutonium, which was used in the implosion-type Fat Man bombs. Oak Ridge was churning out as much nuclear material as the Hanford reactors, but the problem was, the gun-type bomb had a far larger critical mass than an implosion-type bomb. This meant there would be more plutonium bombs than uranium bombs.

According to the Groves memorandum of July 1945, the Americans were expecting to have three bombs ready in August (one uranium, two plutonium), then another six bombs ready in September and October (all plutonium). Thats a total of nine atomic bombs. They could do alot of damage to Germany, but it wouldn't be enough to single-handedly win the war. Especially not when we take into account the possibility of interception. In this alternate timeline, the Reich would have a formidable fleet of interceptors and anti-aircraft batterys.
I am not sure why you left out India, the place that created the largest volunteer army in history all in order to help the Empire? That is an extra 4 million men without even starting to use coercion. Then again I do not need to include anyone in the manpower pool other than to prove that if the same measures are allowed for both sides, even disqualifying half again of the Allied manpower reserves still leaves them with a 2 - 1 advantage.

With the nuclear option, you do not need to kill everyone in Germany with them, just drop enough to collapse the system. That would be less than ten at a guess, as with the likely 1 million casualties from such attacks there would be no method to cope.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

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

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 25 Mar 2020 11:55

Terry Duncan wrote:if the same measures are allowed for both sides
You have yet to explain why the Wallies would use the same measures - importation of racially disfavored groups - other than to claim that these groups would go along with '40's racial attitudes and mistreatment in good humor. And to claim that political reaction to millions of black/brown workers suddenly appearing would be manageable and would not undermine a war effort that promised millions of deaths if continued.

Politician01
Member
Posts: 343
Joined: 02 Sep 2011 06:56

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

Post by Politician01 » 25 Mar 2020 12:19

Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 11:12
I am not sure why you left out India, the place that created the largest volunteer army in history all in order to help the Empire?
1. Most Indians volunteered to help India or themselves, not their Colonial Overlords

2. A small fraction of this volunteer army served overseas - mostly in Southeast Asia to protect India from the Japanese - an even smaller fraction was used in Europe/NA. Because Indians did not want to die for their Colonial Overlords.

3. Even if for some reason Millions of Indians would have glady died for their Colonial Overlords, the country lacked the Industry to train and equip these troops. So did Great Britain.
Avalancheon wrote:
25 Mar 2020 07:51
As much as you would like to believe so, atomic bombs are not some 'instant win' button. The 1st generation fission bombs had a relatively low yield, and were often less destructive than a large conventional bomb raid. And thats ignoring the fact that Germany had far better air defenses than Japan could ever boast
What is mindboggling is that there is a BIG gap between autumn of 1942 and autumn of 1945 that is left with a big question mark. Three years are just handwaved away:

- By autumn of 1942 the USSR is collapsing and the weakling "Great" Britain is overchallanged by fighting a tiny 2-3% of the German Army.

- Less than 0.01% of WAllied population knows about the Nuke - also these people dont know IF it will work or WHEN it will work, yet it is claimed that the WAllies would continue the war for many years based of the hope that someday some wonderweapon will be ready.

- The problem of manpower shortages - especially for Britain - is ignored

- So is realpolitics. The Allies will chicken out from an invasion of Europe because they know that they cant stomach the losses, bombing on the other hand is not a war winner. Allied populations are denied a strategy that shows them a path to victory, yet it is expected that they will nevertheless continue to support the war. Especially the Americans that want to concentrate on the Japanese and not the Germans.

- Even IF the Allies remain in the war based on some vague promise of a wonderweapon, even IF Roosevelt wins the election of 1944, even IF Truman would want to Nuke the Germans, it is ignored how strong German AA and Fighter defences would be by autumn 1945, almost impossible for a Bomber to get through.

- Also OTL it was estimated that in order to defeat the USSR one would need some 200 to 300 nuclear weapons - the plan was therefore abandoned. The same would apply to Germany. Also Britain would be against the Nuking of Germany because it would fear the retaliation by biological and chemical weapons.

There are so many obstacles between the collapse of the USSR in autumn of 1942 and a German defeated by 1946/47 through nukes that it is mindboggling. Among other things a really big factor are the Japanese. OTL it was the Nukes + their loss of Manchuria and fear of a Soviet Invasion that pushed them to capitulate. With their Western flank secured, they are far less inclined to capitulation than OTL. So an Invasion/blockade/nuking - or a combination of all three would go on well into 1946. No sane President would then restart the war in Europe that for the past 2-3 years would have transformed into another phoney war.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5747
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

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

Post by Terry Duncan » 25 Mar 2020 14:24

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 11:55
Terry Duncan wrote:if the same measures are allowed for both sides
You have yet to explain why the Wallies would use the same measures - importation of racially disfavored groups - other than to claim that these groups would go along with '40's racial attitudes and mistreatment in good humor. And to claim that political reaction to millions of black/brown workers suddenly appearing would be manageable and would not undermine a war effort that promised millions of deaths if continued.
They wish to win the war and not lose it. Simples. Britain did import large numbers of such labour in the 1940s post-war with no riots, those came much later, and whilst there were tensions people did manage.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5747
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

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

Post by Terry Duncan » 25 Mar 2020 14:46

Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
1. Most Indians volunteered to help India or themselves, not their Colonial Overlords
Nice to know you interviewed them in order to obtain their reasons. You would be surprised at the number of pro-British Indians there were, many went to Africa to run the civil service there even after WWII.
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
2. A small fraction of this volunteer army served overseas - mostly in Southeast Asia to protect India from the Japanese - an even smaller fraction was used in Europe/NA. Because Indians did not want to die for their Colonial Overlords.
If you join an army you cannot dictate where you fight. Just because A happened in reality does not mean this has to be so in AH scenarios, especially one where drastic changes are posited.
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
3. Even if for some reason Millions of Indians would have glady died for their Colonial Overlords, the country lacked the Industry to train and equip these troops. So did Great Britain.
Odd that they managed to train the troops then isnt it. Germany has just the same problems, so they are clearly surmountable.
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
What is mindboggling is that there is a BIG gap between autumn of 1942 and autumn of 1945 that is left with a big question mark. Three years are just handwaved away:
Just as the are for the Germans who will do XYZ with no problems.
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
- By autumn of 1942 the USSR is collapsing and the weakling "Great" Britain is overchallanged by fighting a tiny 2-3% of the German Army.
Yet the British won at El Alamein, and the 'weakling' Germans with their entire force were unable to win in 1940-41.
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
- Less than 0.01% of WAllied population knows about the Nuke - also these people dont know IF it will work or WHEN it will work, yet it is claimed that the WAllies would continue the war for many years based of the hope that someday some wonderweapon will be ready.
In reality, Germany fought on for at least two years after the war was completely lost, so once again you are using special pleading.
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
- The problem of manpower shortages - especially for Britain - is ignored
Just as the Germans raised extra men, the British can do likewise. Same rules for both sides.
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
- So is realpolitics. The Allies will chicken out from an invasion of Europe because they know that they cant stomach the losses, bombing on the other hand is not a war winner. Allied populations are denied a strategy that shows them a path to victory, yet it is expected that they will nevertheless continue to support the war. Especially the Americans that want to concentrate on the Japanese and not the Germans.
Rather like the Germans chickened out of the war RL, and that in WWI it would be impossible to introduce conscription and then rationing in Britain as it wouldnt be accepted. The US will focus on the nation capable of presenting the greatest threat, and that will never be Japan.
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
- Even IF the Allies remain in the war based on some vague promise of a wonderweapon, even IF Roosevelt wins the election of 1944, even IF Truman would want to Nuke the Germans, it is ignored how strong German AA and Fighter defences would be by autumn 1945, almost impossible for a Bomber to get through.
Of course, the Germans will not be reduced to inexperienced pilots or suffer any fuel shortages, and any bombing of German assets must involve going into the heart of Germany and not bombing areas of German troop concentrations or coastal defences where massive Allied air power can cover them given changed circumstances.
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
- Also OTL it was estimated that in order to defeat the USSR one would need some 200 to 300 nuclear weapons - the plan was therefore abandoned. The same would apply to Germany. Also Britain would be against the Nuking of Germany because it would fear the retaliation by biological and chemical weapons.
Silly estimates where the plan was to leave no two bricks standing differ greatly from simply dropping nukes and overwhelming the German system to a point it cannot vaguely cope. Have a look at the estimates for how many nukes it would take to overwhelm the US ability to cope - its about ten on major population centers even with todays medicine.
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
There are so many obstacles between the collapse of the USSR in autumn of 1942 and a German defeated by 1946/47 through nukes that it is mindboggling. Among other things a really big factor are the Japanese. OTL it was the Nukes + their loss of Manchuria and fear of a Soviet Invasion that pushed them to capitulate. With their Western flank secured, they are far less inclined to capitulation than OTL. So an Invasion/blockade/nuking - or a combination of all three would go on well into 1946. No sane President would then restart the war in Europe that for the past 2-3 years would have transformed into another phoney war.
The US can safely ignore Japan, and in defeating Russia the Germans will suffer large losses as they did historically, including large numbers of the more experienced men, leaving a large number of raw recruits just as the Allied armies compose of. The idea only Germany can do something as other nations will not have the stomach for it has been proven wrong twice in the last century RL. In Ah it is likely to prove no different.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2081
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

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

Post by T. A. Gardner » 25 Mar 2020 17:06

Avalancheon wrote:
25 Mar 2020 06:37
America relied on two different facilitys for the production of atomic bombs. Oak Ridge had three separate plants (S-50, K-25, Y-12) that produced enriched uranium, which was used in the gun-type Little Boy bomb. Hanford had reactors that churned out plutonium, which was used in the implosion-type Fat Man bombs. Oak Ridge was churning out as much nuclear material as the Hanford reactors, but the problem was, the gun-type bomb had a far larger critical mass than an implosion-type bomb. This meant there would be more plutonium bombs than uranium bombs.
In this AH scenario, the US would have continued to construct additional reactors at Hanford. The original plan was to build 6 there. 3 were completed with 3 more in various stages of construction. Eventually, Hanford had 9 reactors built, exceeding the original plan, but that was post war. So, if the war continued, the likelihood is the US would more than double its plutonium. If you add in earlier construction at Rocky Flats and Savannah River, you get that production greatly expanded.
According to the Groves memorandum of July 1945, the Americans were expecting to have three bombs ready in August (one uranium, two plutonium), then another six bombs ready in September and October (all plutonium). Thats a total of nine atomic bombs. They could do alot of damage to Germany, but it wouldn't be enough to single-handedly win the war. Especially not when we take into account the possibility of interception. In this alternate timeline, the Reich would have a formidable fleet of interceptors and anti-aircraft batterys.
But, on the converse of this, the Germans have a much greater area to defend and the US, in particular, would increasingly have the ability to strike from virtually any direction rather than just from England. This makes the air defense equation much more difficult for the Germans. They'd need vastly more radar and other control and communications equipment to cover the now thousands of miles of additional border the Allies are striking through. This would also dilute the defenses.

Then, as has be pointed out, the Allies can change tactics and technology for these attacks. For example, they could develop a cruise missile like the V-1. This could be rocket, turbojet, pulse jet, etc., propelled and fly at high subsonic speed. It only need be accurate enough to ensure it hits the city targeted. Then the launch aircraft only has to penetrate to whatever the launch range is and leave. This would negate most of Germany's extant defense systems.

Or, the US starts sending a few of these with each raid...

Image

That's a Cadillac II B-17 Airborne Early Warning aircraft. It could pick up the defending Luftwaffe interceptors at long (20 to 50 miles) from the bomber formation and vector escorts to intercept. This means the defending fighters lose their advantage of not being engaged until very close to the formation. The Allied advantage is that now the interceptors are forced into a running dogfight with the defending escorts rather than intercepting the bombers.

Return to “What if”