War doesn't break out for five-six years. Who's in the best shape?

[OldBill]

"No European war means the U.S. Army would field the Light Tank M2A4 and Medium Tank M2 with the Infantry (Tank) regiments and the Combat Car M2 with the Cavalry (Mechanized) regiments. There might be an Infantry Tank Brigade and a Cavalry Mechanized Brigade on a provisional basis, but that is probably all."

Again, I disagree. The US Army was small but by no means unaware of what was going on worldwide. The M2 was also acknowledged as being suboptimal, and work would have proceeded on it's replacement, the M4. Same with the M2A4 light, once significant field experience had taken place the M3 light would have replaced it. Those deficiencies in the M2A4 were spotted pretty quickly, hence the change to the M3.

[T. A. Gardner]

No European war means the U.S. Army would field the Light Tank M2A4 and Medium Tank M2 with the Infantry (Tank) regiments and the Combat Car M2 with the Cavalry (Mechanized) regiments. There might be an Infantry Tank Brigade and a Cavalry Mechanized Brigade on a provisional basis, but that is probably all.

I disagree. The US Army was working towards a 75mm gun armed medium tank well before WW 2 started. I could see something like the M4 being produced in small numbers by 1942 and in testing. No large scale production. I doubt there'd be a Tank Destroyer branch formed with antitank guns being part of the infantry and no separate units being formed. The M3 37mm would likely be in the process of being replaced by a 75mm or 3" antitank gun by 1943.

The cavalry would likely still be based on mostly jeep-like vehicles accompanied by some sort of wheeled or wheel-track "Combat Car." It certainly wouldn't be the M8 armored car that was just adopted from the Tank Destroyer branch when the 37mm was obviously not going to work for killing tanks. Again, it would be a limited production vehicle with cavalry regiments getting a few each most likely.

The M3 light tank would continue to evolve as well.

On other notes:

The M3 Grant wouldn't have been produced at all. At most it might be a handful of experimental interim examples used for testing until a 75mm turreted gun tank was available and only to replace earlier M2 experimental versions.



In the Soviet Union, while tanks like the T34 and KV 1 would get built, I doubt they'd have much influence elsewhere any more than previous Soviet designs did. Nobody particularly copied those either, like the BT series or the T28 heavy tank. I could see the British using the Christie suspension on their cruiser tank designs and not paying much attention elsewise to the T34. The French certainly have no reason to copy them.

The Germans are likely to stick to Teutonic efficiency as they see it and not particularly care what the Soviets are doing.

The Japanese are limited by both weight and doctrine. Their tanks have to be light enough to be shipped to wherever they're being used while their doctrine makes them an infantry support weapon with only limited utility as a separate arm in large numbers. They're likely to keep the main gun sized to that necessary to fire HE in support of the infantry with very limited antitank capability. I could see a derivative of the 70mm battalion gun being used on such a tank with a maximum of 1" (25mm) of armor.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Meanwhile some interesting things have emerged in physics. Who would fund any further research outside academia? The US Navy started a analysis of atom energy in 1939, with a budget of $1,500. The same year the French boosted funds to their Curie institute, and contracted all of Norsk Hydros heavy water production for 1940.

[OpanaPointer]

Does George Catlett Marshall stay active duty, or does he get bored and wander away?

Estimate the state of preparedness for the Philippines. And Singapore. I'm weak on both. Any help appreciated.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Does George Catlett Marshall stay active duty, or does he get bored and wander away?

He does his four years & is retired from CoS in 1943. Maybe later he sits on a War Production Board, or a President uses him in a critical ambassadorship, like Leahey was.

Estimate the state of preparedness for the Philippines. And Singapore. I'm weak on both. Any help appreciated.

I see a lot of variables. Tho Im not seeing the OTL build up of 1941. Just whatever was planned for the future PI Army.

[OpanaPointer]

My recollection, admittedly weak, was Mac needed 4-5 year to get an army whipped into shape. This was a factor in the Japanese deciding to go to war before they, and everybody else, were well away from ready.

[Richard Anderson]

I disagree. The US Army was working towards a 75mm gun armed medium tank well before WW 2 started. I could see something like the M4 being produced in small numbers by 1942 and in testing. No large scale production. I doubt there'd be a Tank Destroyer branch formed with antitank guns being part of the infantry and no separate units being formed. The M3 37mm would likely be in the process of being replaced by a 75mm or 3" antitank gun by 1943.

You can disagree all you want, but you're still wrong. From my draft:

"The last pilot vehicle developed from the T5 Medium Tank was at the behest of the Chief of Infantry, Major General George A. Lynch. Based on intelligence reports that indicated foreign governments were mounting guns up to 75mm on tanks, Lynch requested Ordnance modify the Medium Tank T5 Phase III to mount a 75mm instead of the 37mm. On 27 January 1939, the Ordnance Department submitted a sketch of a Medium Tank T5 modified to mount a 75mm Howitzer M1A1 in the right sponson. Designated the T5E2, the modified vehicle was tested at Aberdeen from 20 April 1939 to 8 February 1940 and was found effective against both point and area targets."
...
"Immediately before the momentous conference in Washington, D.C., on 5 June [1940], the Chief of Infantry, Major General Lynch (then still responsible for the nascent tank forces of the Army) sent Ordnance an analysis of future tank requirements based upon initial reports received of tank fighting in the French Campaign. It noted the Germans had made use of tanks with a turreted 75mm gun. General Lynch recommended development of a similar tank for U.S. forces. Ordnance realized the 37mm gun and light armor protection of the Medium Tank M2A1 was completely inadequate versus the tanks reportedly employed by the Germans. In lieu of a design with heavier armor and a 75mm gun mounted in a turret, which was then beyond the capabilities of the U.S. armaments industry, development of a stopgap vehicle mounting a 75mm gun in a limited traverse mounting in the hull was recommended. The proposed characteristics of the new tank were outlined in OCM 15889 issued on 13 June."

The problem is that it required the Germans stirring the pot in Norway, Denmark, the Low Countries, and France in April-May 1940 for things to have gotten to the stage where Congress would fund the War Department to produce any significant numbers of tanks. Lynch got initial procurement funding for the Medium Tank M2 and M2A1 and the Light Tank M2A3 in the 1939 budget. If there was no war breaking out it would have been peacetime as usual. The more likely scenario is:

"In 1937, the War Department hoped to procure 235 light tanks, but in the end, Congress funded barely a third, just 104 tanks. The situation with medium tanks was worse, the Army expected to have no more than 36 completed by 1940. By 1938, with war clouds developing over Europe and the Japanese rampaging through China, the War Department decided to equip the 66th Infantry (Light Tanks), the 67th Infantry (Medium Tanks), and the 18 National Guard tank companies fully. However, it proved impossible to procure all 306 light and 162 medium tanks required."

Without the collapse of France there is little reason for anything other than business as usual. Lynch is unlikely to get his 75mm-armed Medium Tank, no matter how much he asks for it, when the funding stream is for producing 162 Medium Tanks M2A1, which is what was authorized prior to the events of spring and summer 1940. They had all the M2A1, M2A2, and M2A3 Light Tanks they required, but at least they had decided to produced the M2A4 with a 37mm gun to replace it.

The cavalry would likely still be based on mostly jeep-like vehicles accompanied by some sort of wheeled or wheel-track "Combat Car." It certainly wouldn't be the M8 armored car that was just adopted from the Tank Destroyer branch when the 37mm was obviously not going to work for killing tanks. Again, it would be a limited production vehicle with cavalry regiments getting a few each most likely.

The "some sort of wheel-track" vehicle were:

"The 113 production [M1 and M1A1] combat cars available by the end of 1938 were just sufficient to equip the two regiments of the 7th Cavalry Brigade. However, they were not enough to expand the brigade into a division or create a combat car squadron for the Cavalry School at Fort Riley, Kansas, which were General Herr’s major objectives in developing mechanization in the cavalry."

The worse problem is that without an impetus to create the Armored Force, the Chiefs of Infantry and Cavalry remain at loggerheads over mechanization and armored development.

The M3 light tank would continue to evolve as well.

It did not "evolve" until 6 June 1940, but yes, it is likely to evolve...if Congress authorizes the funds. That is unlikely given Roosevelt was concentrating on expanding the Army Air Corps procurement for defense of the Z/I...and he was fighting damned hard to get that.

[paulrward]

Hello All :

Mr Anderson posted:

You can disagree all you want, but you're still wrong. From my draft:

Keep working on that draft. It needs polishing.....

The fact is, Mr. Gardner is completely correct, and Mr. Anderson has made a critical mistake in
logic. The basis of this ' What If ' is that the European War does NOT start in 1939, but rather in
1944-45.

This means that, in June of 1940, There has been no Blitzkrieg of Poland or France, and that the
German tanks, aside from driving into Austria and Czechoslovakia, and having PzKw I s and II s
operating in Spain, have NOT revealed themselves to the world.

This means there is NO REPORT stating

initial reports received of tank fighting in the French Campaign. It noted the
Germans had made use of tanks with a turreted 75mm gun.

It also means NO Tank Destroyer Formations. It means NO USAAC close support doctrine ( The
Bomber Barons remain in the saddle ) and it means no increase in anti-aircraft protection for the
U.S. Army.

Mr. Anderson stated that :

It did not "evolve" until 6 June 1940, but yes, it is likely to evolve...

With NO Blitzkrieg, there is NO evolution in the U.S. Army. The bulk of the officers in the U.S. Army
were just hitting 20 years of service, and were hoping to keep their heads down for the next ten years
and get their 30 year retirement cheques. Guys like Patton were being squeezed out, and all this
nonsense about tanks replacing infantry as the queen of the battle were being ignored.

So, what happens ? Well, Mr. Anderson is correct in that the development of the M2 Light continues
into the M3 Light, and stalls there. The M2 Medium might get developed into a tank carrying a 75 mm
gun ( probably a M1897 with the wheels removed and the axles inserted into pillow blocks ), in other
words, A T5E2 Medium with a French 75 instead of a pack howitzer. Buit it would be considerred
as an SP Gun instead of a Tank. The Artillery would be responsible for them.

Air Force ? Nawwww -- it's the Air Corps. A few P38s, P39s, P40s, and P43s replace the P35s and P36s.
No P51, No P47. No B29. There just wouldn't have been the money.

The Navy ? No Two Ocean Navy Bill. That means the Battleships are replaced slowly, there is no
mass building program of Essex and Independence class carriers, no F6F or F4U, ( or only very small
numbers of each ) and no mass destroyer, cruiser, and submarine building programs. And NO Escort
Carriers !

No Poland in 1939 means NO Selective Service in the U.S. That's right - NO DRAFT ! The Army remains
small, isolated, insular and backwards. Career Officers continue to use their butt cheeks to polish their
leather swivel chairs, waiting for their 30 year retirement......

Oh, yeah.... All those refugee Jewish Physicists with their ' Pie in the Sky ' plans for Atomic Power ?
Look, if the U.S. Government wanted to invest in Science Fiction, they would hire American Scientists
to do the work. And besides, as one Admiral with over 30 years experience in Ordnance put it, " This
is the biggest damn-fool thing I ever heard of ! An Atomic Bomb will never go off, and I speak as an
expert in explosives......."


I have found that the problems with most historians is that, while they are capable of looking backwards
at history, they seem incapable of putting themselves into a given period, with only the knowledge,
information, and resources of that period, and looking forward. Thus, they tend to come to erroneous
conclusions about the decisions, actions, and processes that led to historic events.

In many ways they are like the tail gunners of a B-17 Bomber. Some of them have a fair idea of where
they have been, a few can even tell you where they are. but none have any clue as to where they are
going, and that makes them a very poor choice if you need someone to pilot the bomber.....


Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

[Carl Schwamberger]

...
This means that, in June of 1940, There has been no Blitzkrieg of Poland or France, and that the
German tanks, aside from driving into Austria and Czechoslovakia, and having PzKw I s and II s
operating in Spain, have NOT revealed themselves to the world.

This means there is NO REPORT stating

initial reports received of tank fighting in the French Campaign. It noted the
Germans had made use of tanks with a turreted 75mm gun.

...

I'm recalling descriptions from British Army officers witnessing German army training circa 1936-38 referring to tanks with larger guns for fire support. I also recall there were US Army officers attached to the Wehrmacht in the same era. So its likely there was more than one 'intelligence' report. The US Army was also well aware of French tank development & the proposals and construction of AFV with larger caliber cannon. The Char 2 C with its 75mm turret mounted cannon was no secret.

Beyond that is that larger caliber cannon for fire support on tracked and armored AFV, including turreted tanks, were proposed and experimented with previous to 1939. Theres a lot of ways that can go & mounted in a turret is on rather obvious direction.

[Carl Schwamberger]

The Navy ? No Two Ocean Navy Bill. That means the Battleships are replaced slowly, there is no
mass building program of Essex and Independence class carriers, no F6F or F4U, ( or only very small
numbers of each ) and no mass destroyer, cruiser, and submarine building programs. And NO Escort
Carriers !

No Poland in 1939 means NO Selective Service in the U.S. That's right - NO DRAFT ! The Army remains
small, isolated, insular and backwards. Career Officers continue to use their butt cheeks to polish their
leather swivel chairs, waiting for their 30 year retirement......

There was already a upward trajectory in funds for the War & Navy Departments. The budget bill of 1938 had provided significant increases for the 1939-1940 fiscal years.

Oh, yeah.... All those refugee Jewish Physicists with their ' Pie in the Sky ' plans for Atomic Power ?
Look, if the U.S. Government wanted to invest in Science Fiction, they would hire American Scientists
to do the work. And besides, as one Admiral with over 30 years experience in Ordnance put it, " This
is the biggest damn-fool thing I ever heard of ! An Atomic Bomb will never go off, and I speak as an
expert in explosives......."

Still, the USN did start a atomic power research project in 1939. & France was increasing funds to the Curie Institute. Since the advent of the Nurenberg Laws and the increase in active anti Semiticism France had become a significant collector of refugee physicists. Why?

[T. A. Gardner]

Hello All :
This means that, in June of 1940, There has been no Blitzkrieg of Poland or France, and that the
German tanks, aside from driving into Austria and Czechoslovakia, and having PzKw I s and II s
operating in Spain, have NOT revealed themselves to the world.

They'd still be known. It'd be hard to miss diplomats and intelligence officers seeing them in mass parades and such in Germany. What wouldn't be as obvious is how they were to be employed and their potential effectiveness.

This means there is NO REPORT stating

initial reports received of tank fighting in the French Campaign. It noted the
Germans had made use of tanks with a turreted 75mm gun.

It also means NO Tank Destroyer Formations. It means NO USAAC close support doctrine ( The
Bomber Barons remain in the saddle ) and it means no increase in anti-aircraft protection for the
U.S. Army.[/quote]

While the USAAC would want four engine bombers like the B-17, there would also be continued interest in an intercontinental bomber like the XB-15 or 19 would still be in the pipeline. The US Army would still develop the 90mm AA gun. Development of that weapon started in 1938 so I can't see a change there. They were even looking at a 120mm (4.7") variant at the time.
While no tank destroyer branch would be created, the US Army would still pursue a 75mm AT gun, and no not just use the old M1897 75mm. There were several 75mm AT gun designs tried out experimentally as early as the mid 1920's like the M1925T1 and E1. So, it is highly likely they will will still have small numbers of such designs in testing or possibly in service.

Mr. Anderson stated that :

It did not "evolve" until 6 June 1940, but yes, it is likely to evolve...

With NO Blitzkrieg, there is NO evolution in the U.S. Army. The bulk of the officers in the U.S. Army
were just hitting 20 years of service, and were hoping to keep their heads down for the next ten years
and get their 30 year retirement cheques. Guys like Patton were being squeezed out, and all this
nonsense about tanks replacing infantry as the queen of the battle were being ignored.

So, what happens ? Well, Mr. Anderson is correct in that the development of the M2 Light continues
into the M3 Light, and stalls there. The M2 Medium might get developed into a tank carrying a 75 mm
gun ( probably a M1897 with the wheels removed and the axles inserted into pillow blocks ), in other
words, A T5E2 Medium with a French 75 instead of a pack howitzer. Buit it would be considerred
as an SP Gun instead of a Tank. The Artillery would be responsible for them.

The US was moving towards a 75mm turreted gun in a tank and the infantry and armor branches would be the ones developing it. The M3 medium would never go beyond a few test vehicles and prototypes as it wasn't what the Army wanted. What would result could be quite different from the M4 Sherman though. Much would depend on the engine(s) selected for use. The Ford GAA might still be selected for use depending on various circumstances as it was available. That would potentially lower the profile of the vehicle and save weight. Who knows for sure?
But a 75mm gun in a proper turret on a tank would almost certainly occur, even if only say 20 or 30 were built.

Air Force ? Nawwww -- it's the Air Corps. A few P38s, P39s, P40s, and P43s replace the P35s and P36s.
No P51, No P47. No B29. There just wouldn't have been the money.

The USAAC wouldn't have stood still. The P-47 would get built because the P-43 was seen as interim at best. The P-40 might get replaced by the P-60, Curtiss developing a replacement for it. Bell's P-39 might not go beyond prototype. Bell wasn't favored by the USAAC as a manufacturer and the P-39 definitely had drawbacks in their eyes. Air power, be it Navy or Army, wouldn't have stood still. Both would have continued development of newer designs albeit at a much slower pace with far smaller numbers built.

The Navy ? No Two Ocean Navy Bill. That means the Battleships are replaced slowly, there is no
mass building program of Essex and Independence class carriers, no F6F or F4U, ( or only very small
numbers of each ) and no mass destroyer, cruiser, and submarine building programs. And NO Escort
Carriers !

The massive war programs wouldn't have occurred, but something like the Essex class would get built, probably two per year with two battleships as this was typically what Congress was authorizing in the 20's and 30's. Without treaty limitations, these ships would likely look much like their historical WW 2 counterparts.
The Fletcher class would still be built, but in smaller numbers. That design was already in the pipeline to supersede the 1500 tonners. What you wouldn't see is a Gearing / Sumner class being built. Same thing with cruisers. The Baltimore and Cleveland were already pretty much going to be the next heavy and light cruiser classes built.
The F4U and an F4F replacement (the F6F) would have occurred as these were already in the pipeline to occur. Again, the Navy like the USAAC, wasn't going to stand still. It is possible the F4U is accepted instead of the F6F and any bugs worked out simply because it's being done at a peacetime pace and the Navy can only afford one of the two.

No Poland in 1939 means NO Selective Service in the U.S. That's right - NO DRAFT ! The Army remains
small, isolated, insular and backwards. Career Officers continue to use their butt cheeks to polish their
leather swivel chairs, waiting for their 30 year retirement......

But the US Army would still get rid of the square division, motorize (cheaper than horses), and get some new gear like the M1 rifle. The lack of a draft and nationalizing the National Guard really makes little difference here.

Oh, yeah.... All those refugee Jewish Physicists with their ' Pie in the Sky ' plans for Atomic Power ?
Look, if the U.S. Government wanted to invest in Science Fiction, they would hire American Scientists
to do the work. And besides, as one Admiral with over 30 years experience in Ordnance put it, " This
is the biggest damn-fool thing I ever heard of ! An Atomic Bomb will never go off, and I speak as an
expert in explosives......."

Nothing here precludes that Nazi Germany still makes them leave the country and that persecution and execution of Jews and other undesirables still occurs. War or no war, the Nazis could do that, and almost certainly would. So, it is still likely they end up in the US. The difference is there is no Manhattan project and they remain in academic obscurity. One interesting difference would be that Seaborg et al., get to publish their discovery of plutonium in 1940 rather than it being made a military secret so everybody knows about it. That makes building a bomb in many ways much easier than using enriched uranium.
Germany would not pursue such a weapon, and neither would Japan on any serious level. Both would, as the US mostly did, see it as some crazy idea by mad scientists.
Of course, in rocketry and such the German program gets poorly funded like everywhere else and there is no A4 rocket or anything close to it constructed. Such programs would still exist as they did in peacetime, as small fringe operations with little funding.

[Richard Anderson]

They'd still be known. It'd be hard to miss diplomats and intelligence officers seeing them in mass parades and such in Germany. What wouldn't be as obvious is how they were to be employed and their potential effectiveness.

You do realize there is no good reason to respond to trolling Terry?

initial reports received of tank fighting in the French Campaign. It noted the
Germans had made use of tanks with a turreted 75mm gun.

Yeah, PRW might have noticed that Lynch's initial request, generated by reports from his German military attaches like Percy Black and others, was prior to 27 January 1939.

While the USAAC would want four engine bombers like the B-17, there would also be continued interest in an intercontinental bomber like the XB-15 or 19 would still be in the pipeline. The US Army would still develop the 90mm AA gun. Development of that weapon started in 1938 so I can't see a change there. They were even looking at a 120mm (4.7") variant at the time.

Indeed, the development of the 90mm AA was initiated 9 June 1938 and the 120mm on 1 June 1939.

While no tank destroyer branch would be created, the US Army would still pursue a 75mm AT gun, and no not just use the old M1897 75mm. There were several 75mm AT gun designs tried out experimentally as early as the mid 1920's like the M1925T1 and E1. So, it is highly likely they will will still have small numbers of such designs in testing or possibly in service.

Those were actually the 75mm Gun M1 (M1923E1) on Carriage T2 and T3, which were designed by a Major Galdeon M. Barnes as a new "divisional gun (ALL Purpose)" to replace the M1987, not as an AT gun. It was never produced in quantity and the T3 Carriage was rejected, whereupon the T2 Carriage was modified as the T2E1, but the 75mm T2E1 Gun and Carriage (All Purpose) failed testing in 1933-1934. The latter was intended as a field/AA/AT gun. That line of development then continued as the T3/T4/T5 and eventually T6 Guns, along with various variations of the T2 Carriage, in the end optimized as an AA Gun and eventually became the basis of the 75mm Gun M2, which was used in the Medium Tank M3/M4 along with its successor the 75mm Gun M3.

The other 75mm gun was of course the M1897. It differed from the M1923E1 and its successors in that it used a screw breechblock rather than a falling wedge breechblock. When it became obvious the "All Purpose" gun and carriage wasn't practicable after its test failure in 1933-1934, luckily the Army had a fallback. One of the options designed for the 75mm Gun M1 (M1923E1) was the Carriage T1, which was a redesign of the split-trail M1916 Carriage, the "Crime of 1916". That carriage was standardized as the M2 and all of four 75mm Guns and Carriages M1 were manufactured before the Great Depression basically nixed most further development. So in 1934, the Army dusted off the design, updated it again with pneumatic tires and brakes suitable for motorized towing, and mounted it with the M1897 Gun, as the Carriage M2A1. However, it is unclear how many exactly of the modified carriages were produced, but probably not many more than a dozen. In 1939-1940, the carriages were again modified as the 75mm "Antitank" Carriage M2A2 and M2A3, which simply moved both elevation and traverse controls to the Gunner, rather than making them separate for Gunner and Layer. A total of 918 such guns and carriages were produced July 1940-November 1941. As many as 82 M2A1 and M2A2 may have been completed from 1934 to June 1940, since it appears the entire project produced 1,000 guns and carriages. It appears most of the M2A2 and M2A3 "Antitank Carriages" were then utilized in the 75mm Gun Motor Carriage, but you will still find a few as gate guards and museum pieces.

The US was moving towards a 75mm turreted gun in a tank and the infantry and armor branches would be the ones developing it.

Possibly, but just as likely Congress would not approve such a redesign and development after approving the Medium Tank M2. On 14 July 1938, the OCM recommended and Congress approved the procurement of 18 Medium Tanks M2 in FY 1939 and 54 in FY 1940. On 25 May 1939, the OCM recommended and Congress approved the procurement of 126 "improved" M2A1 for FY 1940.

The M3 medium would never go beyond a few test vehicles and prototypes as it wasn't what the Army wanted.

What the Army wanted wasn't the problem, it is what Congress would approve.

The USAAC wouldn't have stood still.

Quite.

The massive war programs wouldn't have occurred, but something like the Essex class would get built, probably two per year with two battleships as this was typically what Congress was authorizing in the 20's and 30's. Without treaty limitations, these ships would likely look much like their historical WW 2 counterparts.

Indeed, while the Vincent-Walsh Act may not have made it into law in 1940 in the form it was, a logical follow-on to the Vincent-Trammell Act of 1934 and the 1938 Navy Act would probably have followed, but perhaps not until 1942, since these enabling acts were following four-year cycles. I suspect two more Yorktowns would have been approved.

But the US Army would still get rid of the square division, motorize (cheaper than horses), and get some new gear like the M1 rifle. The lack of a draft and nationalizing the National Guard really makes little difference here.

True.

Nothing here precludes that Nazi Germany still makes them leave the country and that persecution and execution of Jews and other undesirables still occurs.

Um, the Einstein–Szilárd letter was delivered to FDR on 2 August 1939. Fermi arrived in New York on 2 January 1939. Wigner was hired by Princeton to teach in 1930 and remained in the U.S., becoming a citizen 8 January 1937.

[Carl Schwamberger]

... Nothing here precludes that Nazi Germany still makes them leave the country and that persecution and execution of Jews and other undesirables still occurs. War or no war, the Nazis could do that, and almost certainly would. So, it is still likely they end up in the US. The difference is there is no Manhattan project and they remain in academic obscurity. ...

Um, the Einstein–Szilárd letter was delivered to FDR on 2 August 1939. Fermi arrived in New York on 2 January 1939. Wigner was hired by Princeton to teach in 1930 and remained in the U.S., becoming a citizen 8 January 1937.

The immigration of German & other anti Semitic nations was well under way before 1939. Nothing about delaying war waives that away. For some reason France appear to be the largest collector of these prewar emigres.

The specific starting date of the US Navy atom power research program was 27 March 1939.

[paulrward]

Hello All :

Some very intelligent people and Mr. Anderson responded to my posting, so I shall handle their
comments in order....

Mr. Schwamberger stated:

I'm recalling descriptions from British Army officers witnessing German army
training circa 1936-38 referring to tanks with larger guns

I agree. A lot of people were watching Germany, including people like Edward Rickenbacker, Charles Lindbergh,
Jimmie Doolittle, and others. They came back, reported what they saw, and the Government and the People
of the United States rolled over in their sleep, and then went back to snoring.

If there is NO WAR, there is no need for the United States, protected as it is by two oceans, to begin a frantic
re-armament program. ( From the Speech in the Senate by Senator Foster ( Foghorn ) Leghorn, senior senator
from the great state of South Georgia: " Now, Ah'm as patriotic as the next man, and we surely need an army
to defend us, but, with this depression still gripping my constituents down in the Great State of South Georgia,
we need to make a few choices here .... Do we really need a bunch of Tanks and Guns, when the mothers in
my state can barely afford shoes for their children ? " )

As Mr. Schwamberger further wrote:

There was already a upward trajectory in funds for the War & Navy Departments.
The budget bill of 1938......

But, while the amount might have been increasing slightly, it wasn't the geometric expansion that occurred
after September, 1939 in OTL. With NO WAR, Europe would sink back into the uneasy peace of the 1920s
and 30s, with scattered riots, a few revolutions, perhaps an occasional skirmish like the Carpatho- Ruthenian War
but nothing to get excited about. With Hitler being quiet, Mussolini finishing off Ethiopia, and Spain quieting
down under Franco, there would be no over-riding need, and thus no Congressional Appropriations, for an
increased military.

Mr. Gardner is correct, the U.S. Army would get rid of the square division, re-equip with M1 Garands, but would
there be any need for Anti Aircraft Guns ? After all, the nearest enemy bombers are 3000 miles across the
Atantic, and unless the Graf Zeppelin comes lumbering across, the U.S.A. is safe from enemy bombers - this
is why Fighter Tactics were de emphasized at the Air War College, and Major Chenault was shown the door...

And, as for anti tank weapons, with no Blitzkrieg, and no war in Europe, the officers of the U.S. Army would
not be infected with THE FEAR that they suffered after the fall of France, and so the need for AT guns might
be seen as a luxury - even if a few prototypes were built, that does NOT mean that any would go into
production.

And the XLRH Bomber program which led to the B-15 and B-19 was seen as a colossal failure on the scale of
Billy MItchell's ' Barling Bomber'. If the U.S. is at peace, the B-17 and B-24 would be good enough, there
would be no need for a B-29 or B-32.

The U.S. might have been moving towards a 75mm gunned tank, but with NO WAR, that means NO MONEY !
All you would have would be a few prototypes rumbling around Fort Knox. And George Patton would be
sailing his yacht around Southern California....

As for the Navy, Two battleships and two carriers per year ? In your dreams ! The Washingtons would come
into service in 41, two South Dakotas in 42, two more in 43, and so on. Two Essexes in 43, and two more in
44. So, since the new battleships have to replace old tonnage, the Arkansas, Texas, and Nevadas are out of
service, and by the beginning of 1945, the USN has six new battleships, ten old ones, nine CVAs and two CVLS.

Provided, of course, that the Congress doesn't mothball the two Saratogas and the Ranger/Wasp for budgetary
reasons...... As for the F6F and F4U, you might get them - but the F4U might be cancelled because it cannot
operate from carriers, and the F6F development might be spread out, with it replacing the F4F and F2A only
during 1944-45.


A lot of blather was made about all the development of Artillery that was made during the 1920s and 1930s -
and it is true, a lot of prototypes were built. And never went into production.

But one really brilliant diamond came forth from the muck of discussion:

What the Army wanted wasn't the problem, it is what Congress would approve.

This is the perfect example of looking forward from the past, in this case, a theoretical past
with NO WAR. In the 1920s and 1930s, the Congress was brutally parsimonious when it came to
military appropriations. The 1930s were NOT like the 1950s-1960s, when, if the Air Force wanted
to build an Atomic Powered Bomber, Congress gave them the money. And if the Army wanted to
build an Atomic Bazooka, the Congress gave them the money. And if the Navy wanted a huge
Atomic Powered Radar Picket Submarine with two reactors, the Congress gave them the money......

And if some useless dingbat wanted to set up a half-assed Think Tank to push his half baked military
theories, in the 1950s and 1960s, there was even enough money to finance that. At least for
a while......


The 1920s and 1930s had the U.S. Military living on Poverty Row. Officers went years without
promotions, and even got their pay CUT ! Aircraft that were hopelessly obsolete were rebuilt
again and again, and staggered on. Navy warships worn out from service in WW1 were held
together with string and bubble gum. And, when the tanks of the U.S. Army needed parts, and
none were available, officers dipped into their own pockets and ordered substitutes from the
Sears Roebuck Catalog to keep the M1917s running .

The increased military budgets that occurred AFTER September, 1939, initially were used to partially
redress the neglect of nearly 20 years of under funding. With NO WAR, that means much smaller
increases, and a resultant decrease in the build up of U.S. Forces in the 1940-1944 period.

It's Just Numbers.

Oh, yeah. It was the VINSON-Walsh Act, and the VINSON-Trammel Act of 1934. Carl VINSON. Which was why
the CVN that I took a tour on back in the early 90s was named the USS Carl VINSON..... ( The Golden
Eagle )


And, with that segue into Nuclear Power, it must be remembered that, in 1935, a distinguished Nobel Prize
winning physicist proclaimed that the imminent harnessing of Nuclear Power was ' Moonshine ', and that
it would be at least 200 years before atomic power was achieved.

So, Szillard, Wigner, Teller, and The Hip Einie might have sent their letter to Freewheelin' Franklin
in August of 1939, but with NO WAR, there would be no huge appropriations from the Congress to spend
an unheard of sum of money on a pie in the sky project. And, as we all know, " NO BUCKS, NO BUCK
ROGERS !!"

Does ANYONE on this forum seriously think that the United States would have spent the billions of 1940s dollars
to build a Manhattan Project WITHOUT A WAR ?


Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward

[T. A. Gardner]

Hello All :
Mr. Gardner is correct, the U.S. Army would get rid of the square division, re-equip with M1 Garands, but would
there be any need for Anti Aircraft Guns ? After all, the nearest enemy bombers are 3000 miles across the
Atantic, and unless the Graf Zeppelin comes lumbering across, the U.S.A. is safe from enemy bombers - this
is why Fighter Tactics were de emphasized at the Air War College, and Major Chenault was shown the door...

Antiaircraft artillery, weirdly, prewar was part of the Coast Defense branch of the US Army. This branch was relatively well funded and it is clear that the Army was developing new guns to replace the 3" in service even before WW 2 really started. So, those guns would get developed and it is likely that they would start to replace the 3" in service. How many get made is nothing but a guess, but it isn't unreasonable to argue that by 1945 the 3" is no longer in frontline service and has been relegated to reserve status replaced by the 90mm M1 gun and that there are at least a few 120mm AA guns in service as well.
The 37mm M1A2 would also be in service in at least small numbers as well.

And, as for anti tank weapons, with no Blitzkrieg, and no war in Europe, the officers of the U.S. Army would
not be infected with THE FEAR that they suffered after the fall of France, and so the need for AT guns might
be seen as a luxury - even if a few prototypes were built, that does NOT mean that any would go into
production.

That only argues that the Tank Destroyer branch and the mania of putting huge numbers of antitank guns in field units wouldn't occur. It doesn't mean the Army wouldn't develop a 75mm antitank gun. It's pretty obvious they would and it would replace the 37mm in service by 1945.

And the XLRH Bomber program which led to the B-15 and B-19 was seen as a colossal failure on the scale of
Billy MItchell's ' Barling Bomber'. If the U.S. is at peace, the B-17 and B-24 would be good enough, there
would be no need for a B-29 or B-32.

The USAAC has a deep interest in a long-range bomber. While the B-24 might not get accepted into service, Consolidated, Boeing, Douglas, etc., would still be competing for a contract to build something that is bigger, faster, and longer ranged than a B-17 or 24. Bombing Europe from the US or bombing Japan from some island in the Pacific would still figure into the USAAC's planning. It might not go beyond some prototypes, but the impetus was there to continue development of such aircraft.

The U.S. might have been moving towards a 75mm gunned tank, but with NO WAR, that means NO MONEY !
All you would have would be a few prototypes rumbling around Fort Knox. And George Patton would be
sailing his yacht around Southern California....

That's all the US would really need, a solid design with a 75mm gun in the turret. They could turn that design over to industry to make thousands PDQ and they wouldn't be starting from scratch.

As for the Navy, Two battleships and two carriers per year ? In your dreams ! The Washingtons would come
into service in 41, two South Dakotas in 42, two more in 43, and so on. Two Essexes in 43, and two more in
44. So, since the new battleships have to replace old tonnage, the Arkansas, Texas, and Nevadas are out of
service, and by the beginning of 1945, the USN has six new battleships, ten old ones, nine CVAs and two CVLS.

More like 8 to 10 new ones and 10 old ones with 8 to 10 carriers, with nearly half being essentially Essex class. The US was laying down two battleships per year and a carrier per year until the WNT and LNT ran out. Once those treaties are gone, the US would continue to build 2 battleships and 2 carriers per year against an expanding German and Japanese fleet.
That's against a Japanese fleet of 10 old, and less capable battleships, and 3 or 4 new ones like the Yamato class. The old US ones would all be modernized to one degree or another far better than anything the Japanese did as well. Or, do you think the Japanese won't continue to build as much as they can?

Provided, of course, that the Congress doesn't mothball the two Saratogas and the Ranger/Wasp for budgetary
reasons...... As for the F6F and F4U, you might get them - but the F4U might be cancelled because it cannot
operate from carriers, and the F6F development might be spread out, with it replacing the F4F and F2A only
during 1944-45.

Show a source where that was ever discussed. Both the F6F and F4U were started prior to WW 2 as designs. Voight was ahead of Grumman on that simply because Grumman was already producing the F4F. The TBU Seawolf would likely be the torpedo bomber as the TBD Devastator was recognized in 1939 as obsolescent at best and needing replacement. The SBD likewise is likely to be starting to be replaced by something else too. But only the F4U or F6F is likely to go into production, not both.

A lot of blather was made about all the development of Artillery that was made during the 1920s and 1930s -
and it is true, a lot of prototypes were built. And never went into production.

The 105mm and 155mm howitzer would still go into production to replace the 75mm and older 155's in service. That won't change. Sure, the rate of production will be much lower but it will happen.

Does ANYONE on this forum seriously think that the United States would have spent the billions of 1940s dollars
to build a Manhattan Project WITHOUT A WAR ?

No, the military won't spend cubic dollars on a nuclear weapon but the research on things nuclear will continue regardless. The same is true of rocket research. Groups like the "Suicide Squad" at Cal Tech will continue because they aren't funded by the military or government. Goddard's rocketry will continue for the same reason. The USN has a small program going on this technology and even invited Goddard to join their program before the war. I could see something like Project Gorgon still occurring on a limited basis within the Navy simply because there were people high enough in rank in the service with enough pull to get some limited funding for it. It doesn't mean they have an operational missile, but rather are conducting research on a limited scale that will provide the means to rapidly expand such a program in wartime.