WWII without US entry.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-10-13 03:35pm

How would WWII have turned out with US entry? Note: This means that there is no lend-lease program either.

For the record, lend-lease to Russia alone amounted to:

In addition to the aircraft deliveries American Lend-lease deliveries to Russia included also more than 400.000 trucks, over 12.000 tanks and other combat vehicles, 32.000 motorcycles, 13.000 locomotives and railway cars, 8.000 anti-aircraft cannons and machine-guns, 135.000 submachine guns, 300.000 tons of explosives, 40.000 field radios, some 400 radar systems, 400.000 metal cutting machine tools, several million tons of foodstuff, steel, other metals, oil and gasoline, chemicals etc. A price tag was naturally attached to all deliveries, with following typical fighter prices:

Taken from:
http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/eng ... veries.htm[/url]

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-10-13 04:06pm

Since American involvement did not have significant impact on the Eastern Front until after Kursk, the Germans still lose. It just takes much longer and many more Russian lives, and leaves the Red Army a bit further west... the Pyrenees are a pretty good place for them to stop, I think.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-10-13 04:56pm

Statements supported by fact are much better then vauge unsupported bullshit.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-10-13 05:09pm

I see you've been rather careless in positioning your posts, however, I shall move this to OT, and through kindness, leave a tag here.

*Snaps his fingers a la Q*

Shortie · Post by **Shortie** » 2003-10-13 05:13pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Statements supported by fact are much better then vauge unsupported bullshit.

Alternatively you could actually say why he's wrong.

Anyway, why is the US staying out? That's not a trivial question, why are they unwilling to sell stuff to the British Empire? Are there still USN ships getting 'unofficially' involved against the U-boats? What's going on the Pacific?

But even if teh US is completely out of it I doubt that the Germans can take out the Red Army entirely, and eventually they're gonna get pushed back. The UK can't invade all on its own, but we can throw the Germans out of North Africa, and we've got a nuke program going on. Eventually it'll get results and Berlin will be no more. That should help the Red Army, which in turn ight draw enough German forces East to allow a Commonwealth invasion in the West.

How much of Europe will be saved from what will be the USSR I don't know, nor am I sure just how long it would take. Probably 1950 or later. Not good.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2003-10-13 06:01pm

How far along was the British nuke program? Because I remember that the German nuke program was nearing completion when the US dropped Little Boy and Fatman. If the Germans completed their nuke program, the V2 would have devastated the Allies.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-10-13 06:54pm

My source is Glantz and House's When Titan's Clashed, 1995 University Press of Kansas.

Page 150
"1942-1943 was also the period when significant amounts of Lend-Lease aid began to reach the Soviet Union."

[the critical engagements of the Ostfront (Moscow, Stalingrad, and to a lesser extent Kursk) were fought in the period before Lend-Lease began to make a significant impact on Russian operational strength]

Page 285
"Lend-Lease did not arrive in significant quantities to make the difference between victory and defeat in 1941-1942 . . ."

"Left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders might have taken 12 to 18 months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers could have waded at France's Atlantic beaches."

[Glantz's assessment, which I agree with, is essentially that Lend-Lease aid allowed the Soviets to concentrate fully on the most vital combat industry, while direct Anglo-American efforts drew off limited levels of German strength. They therefore reduced Soviet casualties and accelerated the end of the war, but did not make or break the effort.]

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2003-10-13 07:00pm

If the US hadn't stepped in, Germany would not have been split. The US was sending supplies for the whole war; without them Britain would have fallen, North Africa would have been conquered, Germany could have concentrated on Russia and defeated them. The Axis powers would rule the world (they would turn on the US and defeat them). End of scenario.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-10-13 07:03pm

Britain would not have fallen in any conceivable WW2 scenario.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2003-10-13 07:04pm

Britain was 1 day away from surrendering when Hitler stopped his flying bombie things. 1 (one) (uno) (i) day.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-13 07:09pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:Britain was 1 day away from surrendering when Hitler stopped his flying bombie things. 1 (one) (uno) (i) day.

*Giggle*

Not a chance. Hitler couldn't even try and mount an invasion; what's he gonna do? Long range bombardment? He-llo, the British were returning the favor...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-13 07:28pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:Britain was 1 day away from surrendering when Hitler stopped his flying bombie things. 1 (one) (uno) (i) day.

You sir, are a fucking moron.

WWII without US entry becomes:

FLASH: "Exhausted German and Russians sign peace treaty in 1946"

"Total casualties on both sides estimated in excess of 36+ million men."

Without the US Strategic bombing program, the Germans keep their panzers
rolling much much longer because they don't have their oil industry being
bombed to shit in 1944.

And of couse, without the much larger US Strategic bombing
program (compared to the British bomber program), you have about
100,000~ 88mm or larger artillery pieces not being used for air
defence in Germany that can be then sent (along with their ammunition)
to the Ostfront.

And of course, luftwaffe units can then be posted to the Ostfront,
instead of being shredded slowly by catastrophic pilot losses attacking
the Fortresses, etc

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-10-13 07:37pm

MKSheppard wrote:And of couse, without the much larger US Strategic bombing program (compared to the British bomber program), you have about 100,000~ 88mm or larger artillery pieces not being used for air
defence in Germany that can be then sent (along with their ammunition)
to the Ostfront.

You're forgetting that without the possibility of a landing in France, the Brits will probably abandon all pretension at land campaigning and concentrated solely on strategic bombing, drastically increasing their output in this arena.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-13 07:42pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:And of couse, without the much larger US Strategic bombing program (compared to the British bomber program), you have about 100,000~ 88mm or larger artillery pieces not being used for air
defence in Germany that can be then sent (along with their ammunition)
to the Ostfront.
You're forgetting that without the possibility of a landing in France, the Brits will probably abandon all pretension at land campaigning and concentrated solely on strategic bombing, drastically increasing their output in this arena.

This doesn't stop the fact that they were pretty much out of high explosive and therefore just melting shit. Brutal on humans, not too useful against infrastructure.

RadiO · Post by **RadiO** » 2003-10-13 07:45pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:Britain was 1 day away from surrendering when Hitler stopped his flying bombie things. 1 (one) (uno) (i) day.

Interesting, given that massed AA fire and specialised fighter patrols were doing a fair job of knocking them down by that point, plus the launch and development sites were being frequently bombed.
And while the V-2 couldn't be intercepted, was mobile and a awesome terror weapon, it actually wasn't as destructive as the V-1.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-13 07:57pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote: You're forgetting that without the possibility of a landing in France, the Brits will probably abandon all pretension at land campaigning and concentrated solely on strategic bombing, drastically increasing their output in this arena.

Problem is, they actually had to stop their strategic bombing campaign because
the German nightfighter program, which was being run on a shoestring
budget, compared with the massive daylight defence program, was inflicting
catastrophic losses on Lancasters, etc.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-10-13 08:20pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:Britain was 1 day away from surrendering when Hitler stopped his flying bombie things. 1 (one) (uno) (i) day.

Based on what, exactly?

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2003-10-13 08:23pm

MKSheppard wrote:Problem is, they actually had to stop their strategic bombing campaign because
the German nightfighter program, which was being run on a shoestring
budget, compared with the massive daylight defence program, was inflicting
catastrophic losses on Lancasters, etc.

At what point did it begin to have that effect, Shep? Give me a year.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-10-13 08:26pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:Problem is, they actually had to stop their strategic bombing campaign because
the German nightfighter program, which was being run on a shoestring
budget, compared with the massive daylight defence program, was inflicting
catastrophic losses on Lancasters, etc.
At what point did it begin to have that effect, Shep? Give me a year.

Gotta admit that I'm pretty curious on this, too.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-13 08:33pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote: At what point did it begin to have that effect, Shep? Give me a year.

http://www.nightbomber.com/T4T-Mission-Campaign.htm

March-July 1943 - 872 bombers, 4.7% of the sorties dispatched, were lost to
the Luftwaffe.

The German nightfighters inflicted huge losses. The culmination of these was on the night of the 29th/30th March 1944, when the Nachtjagd destroyed 96 bombers, or 11.9% of the force dispatched. Bomber Command was ordered to cease operations against Germany and assist in attacking sites in France to prepare for D-Day.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2003-10-13 09:04pm

Question: What makes Hirohito & Co. stop the planned attack on America, and change international Policy so drastically?

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2003-10-13 09:10pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:If the US hadn't stepped in, Germany would not have been split. The US was sending supplies for the whole war; without them Britain would have fallen, North Africa would have been conquered, Germany could have concentrated on Russia and defeated them. The Axis powers would rule the world (they would turn on the US and defeat them). End of scenario.

Let's see where you're wrong.

A. Britain would Never Fall, the Navy keeps out any possible attack by Germany what-so-ever, and the Germans didn't have the infrastructure to fight two large full-scale fronts at anytime.

B. Germany has no possible concieveable way to beat Russia, ever. Russia has more men, more resources, a driven ruler, and un-touchable infrastructure in the east. Plus they can use all that extra land to just eat up German troops, wait for the winter, and roll right over them every year until Germany just can't fight any more.
PLus if your scenario from refuted point A. is right Germany would have concentrated on Britain, and not on Russia (for you guys who always want a source see John Keegan's WWII history book) and Barbarossa wouldn't have taken place for quite a few years, allowing for the effects of the Purge to be somewhat reduced and for Russia to fight back effectivley in the early days in case of attack.

Next time, talk about what you know, and not about what you are completley ignorant about.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-10-13 09:12pm

Straha wrote:Question: What makes Hirohito & Co. stop the planned attack on America, and change international Policy so drastically?

Maybe they decide to just keep pushing into Asia?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-10-13 09:13pm

Straha wrote:Question: What makes Hirohito & Co. stop the planned attack on America, and change international Policy so drastically?

The only possible thing would have to be a way to keep the U.S. from imposing the trade embargo that made the Japanese choose their course of action.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2003-10-13 09:14pm

Gandalf wrote:
Straha wrote:Question: What makes Hirohito & Co. stop the planned attack on America, and change international Policy so drastically?
Maybe they decide to just keep pushing into Asia?

They couldn't with the U.S. Trade Embargo though, they needed Oil badly...