What if US not enter WW2?

[Astrodragon]

Number of myths floating around here...

The UK was NOT dependant on the US or L-L to defeat the U-boats. The U-boat campaign was basically won in 1941 (the heavy losses in 42 were mainly due to the US not learning the lessons). Ther US involvement during this period was pretty much zero - 50 pretty useless destroyers (which had to be pretty much rebuilt), some short range MPA, thats about it. US merchant ship production was well under that of the Empire at this point.

So Britain can only be starved out if Hitler puts back Barbarossa (and maybe not even then), which will make Stalin very happy.

Basically Hitler cannot force the UK out of the war (even if he devotes all his sffort to it) before 42-3 at the EARLIEST. Meanwhile Russia is just sitting there getting stronger and stronger....

There is also the issue of L-L. Nothing much reached the UK until the 1942 (by which point the US was in the war...). Now a neutral/isolationism President might well not pass L-L. However not allowing cash & carry is much more difficult to believe - the USA was still in recession, C&C started/helped pull it out. Explaining why US voters are sitting there without jobs because of high moral principles isnt exactly going to go down well.

The biggest advantage Hitler gets from a not-interested USA is the greater chance of Britain negotiating a settlement (would would also mean he'd have to settle one with other countries like France as well....). At which point even Stalin realises hes the next target. And given the circumstances, Britain can sit there and hold out for a white peace, they know they are actually in a powerful position. The Channel is such a useful piece of geography....

 

[informationfan]

Well, actually supplying two divisions in Africa took many more trucks that supplying two divisions in USSR (or so i heard), so...

but then again, using trucks to supply eastern front armies, no (that's supply, not operational movement speed). Not enough roads, not enough trucks, not enough oil, far too long distances. I mean, it broke the allied offensive in France.

Hi,

i think comparing the need of american and german troops is very dangerous (a german army compared to a american battallion )

the important input of the africa-corps troops and vehicles are
a.) much more fuel and supply is not shifted to itally and africa - so the germans have more supply to ship to russia
b.) germany lacked a lot transport capacity... cause they sended so many trucks to africa (half got sunk!)
with them in russia you could fill the gap in the logistic centres behind the frontlines... so the germans can supply longer and more - i do not say they could fuel a whole tank army under all circumstances, just that not lacking thousends of trucks they could supply BETTER. If you have 20 trucks you can do more as with 15 trucks, right? If you spread the trucks and transport capacities to the whole front, each division get a few trucks more, but maybe these are very important? the difference between "waiting for another day untill go ahead" and "waiting 3 days untill go ahead" is important...

also, don´t forget the fighters, bombers, airforce ground logistics... the flak - esp. the 88mm-guns rommel so urgently needed. this all is not needed... this improve the situation of german supply management...

 

[modelcitizen]

America without WW2 means America without OTL's civil rights movement.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be a civil rights movement, I'm saying it would be different.

 

[Maur]

Hi,

i think comparing the need of american and german troops is very dangerous (a german army compared to a american battallion )

the important input of the africa-corps troops and vehicles are
a.) much more fuel and supply is not shifted to itally and africa - so the germans have more supply to ship to russia
b.) germany lacked a lot transport capacity... cause they sended so many trucks to africa (half got sunk!)
with them in russia you could fill the gap in the logistic centres behind the frontlines... so the germans can supply longer and more - i do not say they could fuel a whole tank army under all circumstances, just that not lacking thousends of trucks they could supply BETTER. If you have 20 trucks you can do more as with 15 trucks, right? If you spread the trucks and transport capacities to the whole front, each division get a few trucks more, but maybe these are very important? the difference between "waiting for another day untill go ahead" and "waiting 3 days untill go ahead" is important...

also, don´t forget the fighters, bombers, airforce ground logistics... the flak - esp. the 88mm-guns rommel so urgently needed. this all is not needed... this improve the situation of german supply management...

Well, actually allied, not American

But yes, it'd be useful. How much, i have no idea, actually.

 

[informationfan]

Well, actually allied, not American

But yes, it'd be useful. How much, i have no idea, actually.

well, it is an open secret that no army like the american army need so much supply

about the impact of "no northern africa"... the need to supply the africa corps was serious and had serious consequences for russia in 1941 and 1942.

also, don´t forget all the subs, instead of sinking all the nice british ships in the atlantic the germans (hitler) send them to the mediteran... they alone will cost the brits 1-2 million tons of ships they cannot spare

about the truck - say 1000 trucks could move the supply for ONE german unit for 100miles... if you have 2000 trucks, you could support TWO units the same distance, or - 150miles for one unit...
these 50miles could be the difference between "reaching your target in time, so russian counterattacks are less effective, more russians are captured (and are missing in such counterattack), more spareparts could be brought to the frontline, so the german panzerdivision has 50 ready tanks instead of 7 and repulse with much lighter losses the russian attack, etc...
sure, 2 panzerdivisions and around 300 planes, esp. tranport planes (the germans really lacked in russia) are a huge impact. put 3 other divisions to this and you have another tank corps... say in the south? causing a lot more trouble and force the russians to remove faster, or the germans take the crimea in a rush - so no sewastopol and no need for a lot german troops staying around? Crushing the russian counter attacks in the desertlike area north of the crimea? moving on, taking rostow 4 weeks earlier and push farer east?

or use this corps in the north, supported by all the trucks they can move faster, the 1 week waiting 57tank corps can move on without delay? you know what can happen with another tank corps in the north? leningrad can be taken (with luck)

 

[Grimm Reaper]

informationfan, and the way the u-boats will be so much more effective in the Med than OTL, starting with convincing the British to deploy a much larger percentage of their merchant marine to the Med in the first place would be...?

 

[ObssesedNuker]

For this same reason the Axis is going to maintain at worst air parity (more likely air superiority) for the rest of the war.

The Soviets had grown used to operating in such situations over the course of 1941-1942. In 1943, the Soviets actually would purposefully cede even air parity until an operation began, at which point the Red Airforce would 'surge-out' and establish operational air superiority.

The Soviet Union in OTL simply did not have the logistical capability to extend an offensive into Central Europe without American trucks and other supplies. Those not existing in this scenario, Soviet blitzkrieg-esque tactics simply aren't going to achieve the kind of breakthroughs they want.

They will exist, its just the Soviets will have to build those trucks themselves. This will take longer and does mean fewer light armored vehicles for reconnassiance and other light formations though.

Also, in OTL 1945, the Soviet Union was scraping the very bottom of the manpower barrel. I know it sounds unbelievable but the Soviets were not truly capable of extending the war into 1946 or beyond, especially with the Germans offering heavy resistance every step to Berlin.

This is untrue. In May of 1945, the Soviet Armed Forces had 11 million men... of which only 6 million had taken part in fighting Germany. And while they had pretty much run through men of military service below the age of twenty, there were still plenty of 30-50 year olds they could have conscripted too fill those ranks, along with having too put more woman in the factories[1].

I agree that Barbarossa might not go off though because Hitler might not achieve the kind of strategic surprise that made it work so well, but on the other hand this depends on when/if the UK capitulates, and if Stalin is still thrown off by the Balkan expedition.

If the Stalin has readied for war when the Germans invade, then the Germans would be lucky to take Smolensk. Not only would German casualties be heavier, but Soviet losses would also be lighter[2] (since many soldiers would not be wind-up becoming casualties in the initial confusion of the first week or two) and the Red Army's recovery would subsequently be faster[3].

[1]The Soviet Union was the only WW2 nation who had a workforce exceed 50% females in any sector and that was only in mining... so they still have more woman to throw in there.
[2]Particularly in the Red Airforce, which would be able too implement dispersion and camouflage plans which would invalidate previous German reconnassiance efforts and lead to much fewer planes destroyed on the ground.
[3]In skill that is. The Soviet troops lost in June and July, for all of their faults, were much better trained and equipped then the troops fighting in September and October. Fewer initial losses means a greater number of trained (and now experienced) troops assisting in the Red Army's rennassiance.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Hi,

i think comparing the need of american and german troops is very dangerous (a german army compared to a american battallion )

the important input of the africa-corps troops and vehicles are
a.) much more fuel and supply is not shifted to itally and africa - so the germans have more supply to ship to russia
b.) germany lacked a lot transport capacity... cause they sended so many trucks to africa (half got sunk!)
with them in russia you could fill the gap in the logistic centres behind the frontlines... so the germans can supply longer and more - i do not say they could fuel a whole tank army under all circumstances, just that not lacking thousends of trucks they could supply BETTER. If you have 20 trucks you can do more as with 15 trucks, right? If you spread the trucks and transport capacities to the whole front, each division get a few trucks more, but maybe these are very important? the difference between "waiting for another day untill go ahead" and "waiting 3 days untill go ahead" is important...

also, don´t forget the fighters, bombers, airforce ground logistics... the flak - esp. the 88mm-guns rommel so urgently needed. this all is not needed... this improve the situation of german supply management...

Indeed. US Armies had better armor, real logistics, better mobility, better leadership, more well-balanced distributions of firepower and actually sane political and military leadership.....why insult the US Army by comparing it to the Wehrmacht?

 

[informationfan]

informationfan, and the way the u-boats will be so much more effective in the Med than OTL, starting with convincing the British to deploy a much larger percentage of their merchant marine to the Med in the first place would be...?

sorry, i do not understand what you want to say?

historically hitler forced raeder and doenitz to send subs to the mediteran, an area that limited the capability of the subs

so - with no war in africa the germans will not send subs in this area but to the atlantic battle... in a time these subs cause havoc to the british shiplanes...

so, why should the german subs be more effective in the mediteran? i never said this - or maybe my bad english is guilty?

so - shortly said:
no war in africa means no german subs in the med but more in the atlantic

i hope i could make my pov clear?

 

[informationfan]

Indeed. US Armies had better armor, real logistics, better mobility, better leadership, more well-balanced distributions of firepower and actually sane political and military leadership.....why insult the US Army by comparing it to the Wehrmacht?

well, just ask the boys at kasserine... but anyway

the point was about logistics, not combat efficency

better armor? a good joke, better leadership, hihi, yes - great

sane politicals? you really think any politicals are mentally sane? really? i urgently need the stuff you smoke, really

 

[Snake Featherston]

well, just ask the boys at kasserine... but anyway

the point was about logistics, not combat efficency

better armor? a good joke, better leadership, hihi, yes - great

sane politicals? you really think any politicals are mentally sane? really? i urgently need the stuff you smoke, really

Why not ask the Germans about the Soviets given that they kept repeatedly being suckered by people on plains, as opposed to anything that might actually justify it? It really, really annoys me that people wank the Wehrmacht which was run by bloodthirsty opportunistic dicks who murdered people to get the approval of the Fuhrer and whose strategic concepts can be defined as not existing at all.

Meanwhile all those fancy German tanks that were focused on and proved to be overengineered and with insufficient focus on a sufficient quantity as opposed to a lesser quality were made mincemeat of on both sides of the war, not that this deters fanboys of Hitler's overcompensation weapons.

 

[BlairWitch749]

well, just ask the boys at kasserine... but anyway

the point was about logistics, not combat efficency

better armor? a good joke, better leadership, hihi, yes - great

sane politicals? you really think any politicals are mentally sane? really? i urgently need the stuff you smoke, really

Kasserine was a green army against troops with 36 months of combat experience... that same army whipped the fuck out of 40 German divisions in 3 months from June 44 to Sept 44

competitive armor is a fine enough label (especially given production abilities)

american leadership was hit and miss but by 1944 so was the heer

 

[informationfan]

Why not ask the Germans about the Soviets given that they kept repeatedly being suckered by people on plains, as opposed to anything that might actually justify it? It really, really annoys me that people wank the Wehrmacht which was run by bloodthirsty opportunistic dicks who murdered people to get the approval of the Fuhrer and whose strategic concepts can be defined as not existing at all.

Meanwhile all those fancy German tanks that were focused on and proved to be overengineered and with insufficient focus on a sufficient quantity as opposed to a lesser quality were made mincemeat of on both sides of the war, not that this deters fanboys of Hitler's overcompensation weapons.

Hi,

if you see a wank you see a wank - but this is your problem
i just answered the question about the input if the africa corps is not in africa but in russia

about the insane politicans... please name one politican that is not a ruthless a..hole and selfish criminal?
only one - you choose time, nation, century

that has nothing to do with a single nation

about russia - again - if you belive so strong that you, only you have an opinion and nobody is allowed to think different it is quite difficulty to be in a forum about alternate history, right? do we talk about moral questions? No - if we do, we need to see the evil nazis and the evil sowjets... both are not nice, both are ruthless mass murderer, killing without mercy or sane thinking.

if we look to different nations in different times we allways find blood, torture, killing, mass murderer... if you dislike the idea of alternate histories you shouldn´t hang around, right?

here the point was "influence in logistics and firepower for the germans in russia 1941/42"...
if you like, we discuss the evilness of mass murderers and mass murderer systems... you are welcome to do so - but be sure you can live with some realism and reality.

how would it be if any theme about american history would start a discussion how serious people could like the usa because of the iraq-war lies of one president of the US? esp. if this has nil to do with the iraq-war or this certain presidents lies about wmd´s in iraq? yeah - i bet you understand.

i just answered the possible consequences of "no africa corps" for barbarossa...

 

[informationfan]

Kasserine was a green army against troops with 36 months of combat experience... that same army whipped the fuck out of 40 German divisions in 3 months from June 44 to Sept 44

competitive armor is a fine enough label (especially given production abilities)

american leadership was hit and miss but by 1944 so was the heer

hi, i have no problem with "defects" in leadership of german army... i just answered the comments of the snake

about american leadership, well, more miss, i think, but you know, we all could have our opinions, right?

the whipping, no - they do not whip... not alone and not in the way you mentioned. only if you had seen to much american made "war movies"...

the same is true for germany beating brits and french senseless in 1940... it is fun to tease "national pride"-people,but reallity look different very often

 

[Snake Featherston]

Hi,

if you see a wank you see a wank - but this is your problem
i just answered the question about the input if the africa corps is not in africa but in russia

Yes, the mighty Wehrmacht needs two more divisions and that will totally and completely overwhelm the savage subhuman Judaeo-Bolsheviks and lead to Hitler's Manifest Destiny and extermination of the Slavs, two divisions, that's all it would take.

about the insane politicans... please name one politican that is not a ruthless a..hole and selfish criminal?
only one - you choose time, nation, century

Abraham Lincoln. Next question?

about russia - again - if you belive so strong that you, only you have an opinion and nobody is allowed to think different it is quite difficulty to be in a forum about alternate history, right? do we talk about moral questions? No - if we do, we need to see the evil nazis and the evil sowjets... both are not nice, both are ruthless mass murderer, killing without mercy or sane thinking.

The difference is the Nazis were amateur barbarians and the Soviets were the professionals.

if we look to different nations in different times we allways find blood, torture, killing, mass murderer... if you dislike the idea of alternate histories you shouldn´t hang around, right?

What does this have to do with anything? This is a forum that regularly tries to de-Nazi the Nazis so they can have their swastikas ruling a Europe that is a coarser, darker EU auf Deutsch.

here the point was "influence in logistics and firepower for the germans in russia 1941/42"...
if you like, we discuss the evilness of mass murderers and mass murderer systems... you are welcome to do so - but be sure you can live with some realism and reality.

I'd rather discuss the reality that the Soviets were too efficient at the murderous evil dictatorship business for the savage and incompetent Nazi amateurs to take them over but you seem as usual to drag in completely unrelated points stated in manners that make no sense.

i just answered the possible consequences of "no africa corps" for barbarossa...

Yes, we all know that only two divisions would have ensured Hitler could have slaughtered 30 million Slavs and all of Europe's Jews unimpeded.

 

[BlairWitch749]

hi, i have no problem with "defects" in leadership of german army... i just answered the comments of the snake

about american leadership, well, more miss, i think, but you know, we all could have our opinions, right?

the whipping, no - they do not whip... not alone and not in the way you mentioned. only if you had seen to much american made "war movies"...

the same is true for germany beating brits and french senseless in 1940... it is fun to tease "national pride"-people,but reallity look different very often

the army level commanders where middling, but american divisional and corps leadership was for the most part effective.

whip yes... of the 2000 armored vehicles sent to fight allies between dday and the falaise pocket only 120 survived to reach the far bank of the seine, divisional casualties averaged 75 percent for those engaged; even elite divisions like the leibstandarte and panzer lehr had to be completely reformed; over 200k men where lost; it was a disaster of even greater scale and effect than stalingrad or tunis given the amount of equipment lost

 

[Ancien Regime]

The Soviets had grown used to operating in such situations over the course of 1941-1942. In 1943, the Soviets actually would purposefully cede even air parity until an operation began, at which point the Red Airforce would 'surge-out' and establish operational air superiority.

Was this before or after the USAF decisively defeated the Luftwaffe by crippling their aircraft production and subjecting their pilots to unsustainable attrition?

In this scenario, the Red Airforce will be facing the full might of the Luftwaffe, with experienced pilots and ample aircraft. In OTL much of the Luftwaffe was defending the German homefront.

They will exist, its just the Soviets will have to build those trucks themselves. This will take longer and does mean fewer light armored vehicles for reconnassiance and other light formations though.

They also likely won't be as high in quality, and they'll still have to make up agricultural deficits, deficits in various chemicals that the USSR didn't have, etc. Producing this stuff will suck up MORE Soviet manpower.

This is untrue. In May of 1945, the Soviet Armed Forces had 11 million men... of which only 6 million had taken part in fighting Germany. And while they had pretty much run through men of military service below the age of twenty, there were still plenty of 30-50 year olds they could have conscripted too fill those ranks, along with having too put more woman in the factories[1].

And if you take men from the factories and the fields to fight, then who is going to grow the food to supply and feed these men...? At some point mobilizing that many people for the war effort is going to have negative effects on your society.

And keep in mind, Germany is much better able to resist a counter-invasion because it still has a functioning war economy as opposed to the clusterfuck it became in the last half of 1944. So the Soviets will take far greater losses than they did OTL.

And again, the Soviets have to produce a lot of stuff that they were getting FOR FREE in OTL.

You seem to think that the USSR was this limitless pool of manpower. Yes they had a lot of guys they could throw into the war effort, but eventually the well will run dry, and the well was running dry in 1945 OTL (when you can't mobilize fresh troops without taking men from your factories and field, then the well is running dry, sorry, Nazi Germany found this out between 1941 and 1943), and it will run dry that much faster in TTL.

If the Stalin has readied for war when the Germans invade, then the Germans would be lucky to take Smolensk.

The USSR *was* ready for war...in May. They took they eye off the ball because Stalin thought the Germans wouldn't be nuts enough to invade with about 2 months before the Rasputista. This isn't impossible in this scenario, just less likely.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

informationfan, claiming poor English is no longer a valid excuse for your pattern of denying that you posted something which everyone can see clearly for themselves in your posts.

Ignore list.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Was this before or after the USAF decisively defeated the Luftwaffe by crippling their aircraft production and subjecting their pilots to unsustainable attrition?

Before.

They also likely won't be as high in quality, and they'll still have to make up agricultural deficits, deficits in various chemicals that the USSR didn't have, etc. Producing this stuff will suck up MORE Soviet manpower.

And if you take men from the factories and the fields to fight, then who is going to grow the food to supply and feed these men...? At some point mobilizing that many people for the war effort is going to have negative effects on your society.

And keep in mind, Germany is much better able to resist a counter-invasion because it still has a functioning war economy as opposed to the clusterfuck it became in the last half of 1944. So the Soviets will take far greater losses than they did OTL.

And again, the Soviets have to produce a lot of stuff that they were getting FOR FREE in OTL.

I concede to you on these issues, particularly given my lack of knowledge on the more minute details of Soviet production (like the chemicals you cite as being needed for vehicle production). It does blow the 'Soviets on the Rhine' arguement out of the water... so yeah.

You seem to think that the USSR was this limitless pool of manpower. Yes they had a lot of guys they could throw into the war effort, but eventually the well will run dry, and the well was running dry in 1945 OTL (when you can't mobilize fresh troops without taking men from your factories and field, then the well is running dry, sorry, Nazi Germany found this out between 1941 and 1943), and it will run dry that much faster in TTL.

The Soviets were having to take men off the factory for fresh troops from the beginning of the war (hell, the mobilization of units for the Winter War caused minor disurptions in Soviet industrial production). OTL, the Soviets could take between another 5-10 million losses before they really started hurting. The fuck-up that will cause too their post-war economy though...

The USSR *was* ready for war...in May. They took they eye off the ball because Stalin thought the Germans wouldn't be nuts enough to invade with about 2 months before the Rasputista. This isn't impossible in this scenario, just less likely.

If Britain is still fighting in '41, Stalin would probably 'take his eye off the ball' just as in OTL. If Britain sues for peace, the chances of Stalin believing that Hitler will hit him in '41 goes significantly up, although it isn't gauranteed. IF Stalin does believe, the Soviets will be able too beat the Germans into the ground and all the way over the Rhine, with or without Lend-Lease.

 

[Ancien Regime]

Even if Hitler attacks a prepared USSR, I don't see the USSR getting to the Rhine - their doctrine still is a year away from being ready, their gear is outdated, and well, in the absence of the Germans really tearing up Russian territory, I don't think Stalin isn't going to think that occupying Germany proper is worth the cost.

Most likely what happens is that the Wehrmacht gets halted around about 100 miles into Russia proper, doesn't complete any major troop encirclements, and is back to the old Polish border by 1942. Hitler tries to continue bashing the Ostheer against a brick wall and he eats lead when the generals finally get tired of him. Germany eventually agrees to a fairly punitive peace where the Soviets bite off chunks of the German side of Poland (probably back to 1914 borders), and get hegemony over everything east of Konigsberg.

At worst you have something like the OTL West/East split, except it's less likely that West Germany will be democratic.