Could America have won against the rest of the world?

[Lucky13]

They could have cooperated alot better then you think Glider and in many different fields?

[syscom3]

I was looking at my aircraft carrier list, and it seems that after Pearl Harbor, the construction times for the Essex class carriers were cut to 18 months.

Just imagine if after the ships authorized under naval construction acts in the summer of 1940 were put under an "emergency" build schedule.

By early 1942, the USN was going to get a fleet carrier every month!

By summer 1943, the earliest possible date the EA could conceivablylaunch an offensive or raid..... the USN was going to have 20 plus fleet carriers available, exclusive of the smaller "light" carriers (capable of sailing with the fleet) and smaller escort carriers to hunt down the U-Boats.

[Soren]

LoL, your dreaming again Syscom3 !

[timshatz]

Actually, he isn't. Well, not by much. 20 hulls in the water may be the total number but that is not outfitted and ready to fight. Figure that number would be closer to 12-15. And of those, maybe 10 would be out at sea at any given time. Takes about 9 months to get a ship ready to go to war after it is commisioned. That includes shakedowns, yardwork, run-up, ect. That's doable. There is no need to produce Liberty or Victory ships so all that capacity goes into warships and their fleet train. Actually, Syscom's idea is very doable.

What I find interesting in nobody sees the US as going to war against others, only fighting a defensive war. I agree with the premiss, I do not think the US would win a war that this thread denotes. But I think it could get a stalemate if:

-It can keep Canada Neutral (very difficult).
-It can hold the Panama Canal (if not, it will have to be destroyed).
-It can destroy or seriously damage the Japanese Fleet.

If it can get those three things in it's favor, odds are very good for a stalemate followed by explotation via diplomatic means to fracture what would be a very fragile coalition. If any of the above three things are not possible, the odds slip as each one fails. If all three don't happen (and the Panama Canal is captured in working order), I could see a long and bloody war in which the US has less chance of winning. Something akin to Germany in the First World War would be similar.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by timshatz

.... Takes about 9 months to get a ship ready to go to war after it is commisioned. ....

Actually 4 - 6 months, which could be cut down even more if required in an utter emergency.


What I find interesting in nobody sees the US as going to war against others, only fighting a defensive war. I agree with the premiss, I do not think the US would win a war that this thread denotes. But I think it could get a stalemate if:

-It can keep Canada Neutral (very difficult).

Canada would not join an alliance that included Nazi Germany, Stalins Russia and Tojo's Japan. Canada would have two choices, join with the US or let the US operate with impunity from its territory.

-It can hold the Panama Canal (if not, it will have to be destroyed).

The Panama canal could possibly be damaged by torpedo carrying submarine aircraft, but not knocked out of the war for long.

-It can destroy or seriously damage the Japanese Fleet.

As events finally unfolded in the war in the pacific..... Japanese ships were found to be sub-par when it came to damage control. And their AAA was pathetic.

[timshatz]

I think Canada is a toss up. Most Canadians now are closer to Americans in outlook (IMHO) than they are to Europeans. But back in the 40's? I don't honestly know. Back then, Canada had a Governor General that was appointed by the Queen (last one, I think, left in 1952). So she had a lot of strong ties to the "Old Country". On the other hand, Canada declared war on Japan before the United States did ( on the evening of Dec 7th, the group that ran the country-all Canadians I think- got together and agreed to declare war on Japan, beating the US to the punch by something like 17 hours). So it is tough call which way Canada would go.

The Panama Canal gave a ton of strategic advantages to whomever held it. If the US holds it, she can transfer ships back and forth between Oceans and develop local superiority quickly in strategic terms. If the Brits or the Japanese hold it, same thing in reverse and, it has the advantage of cutting the mainland US off from strategic materials from South America. Otherwise, US reinforcements would have to sail around South America. With no bases and few friends, it is a very bad option. The US really needs to hold the Canal.

The US Fleet has to destroy or damage the Japanese fleet because it has a much better carrier fleet than the British. Only the Japanese, US and British could project power. You need carriers to do that. All the other militaries of the world were designed to fight local wars. The Japanese Carrier Fleet was probably the best in the world in 1940-1942. If the US can destroy or damage the Japanese carrier fleet, it takes the major strike force against the West Coast out of the picture and would force the only other Carrier Force out there (the British) to split off some of it's assets to counter US forces going wherever they wanted to in the Pacific. However, having said that, there is a good chance the Brits would ignore the Pacific and concentrate on the Atlantic front. Out of sight, out of mind.

But only the British (through Sunderland Flying Boats and later 4 engined bombers), the Japanese (through the Zero and Betty Bombers) and US (through the B17 and B24) could bomb effectively at long range. While the Germans had aircraft like the Condor and the Russians the TB-4, they were not major players in a global fight.

It really would've come down to the Carriers, and by direct association, their aircraft.

[timshatz]

Sys, agree with you on the AAA/Damage Control point. Add to that ASW, Supply, Medical, Engineering, Support and pretty much everything else that a military force needs to stay and fight in the face of a determined enemy. Good planes, good ships, good soliders, lousy support.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by timshatz

Sys, agree with you on the AAA/Damage Control point. Add to that ASW, Supply, Medical, Engineering, Support and pretty much everything else that a military force needs to stay and fight in the face of a determined enemy. Good planes, good ships, good soliders, lousy support.

The Germans didnt put a premium on logistics either.

[timshatz]

I read a book some time ago about Operation Barbarossa. In it, the author points out that Hitler and his staff planned specifically with so many guns here, or tanks there. Had his staff work been competently handled, he would've been inundated with memos about oil coagulation in sub zero temperatures and tire wear rates, ect. In short, far too much work on the battle and not enough on what really wins the battle- logistics.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

They could have cooperated alot better then you think Glider and in many different fields?

Could have, certainly, would have, not on the evidence of what happened.

However, had they done so, then the USA would have been in trouble

[Glider]

Originally Posted by timshatz

Sys, agree with you on the AAA/Damage Control point. Add to that ASW, Supply, Medical, Engineering, Support and pretty much everything else that a military force needs to stay and fight in the face of a determined enemy. Good planes, good ships, good soliders, lousy support.

Here we are touching on the co-operation between allies issue. The UK had very good damage control methods and procedures and excellent ASW equipment. Its AA equipment was also as good as the best available in the first half of the war and the german twin 37 took some beating in this period. Plus of course British/German surface and Air Warning radar was also ahead of the rest of the world at the time
If the Japs had learnt these lessons and equipped their carriers with these pieces of kit, then they would be a tough nut to crack.

[timshatz]

A lot of ifs. True, the US and the UK co-operated relatively well in the war. But we have a common language, common culture, similar legal system...the list goes on. The Japanese, Germans and British had less in common. The Japanese and German navies were patterened after the RN (to some extent) but both were institutions of their countries and not adjuncts of the RN.

The Japanese, German and British militaries had advantages over the US. The MG42 was superiour to the M1918, the Bren better than the BAR, the Zero superior to the Wildcat (one on one). But the interchange of information between these three, while it would've existed, would've been primarily information. Can't see the RN picking up the Zero, Val or Kate (Japanese could hardly make enough for themselves) or the Germans giving their Panzer MK4s to either of the other two. The militaries would've fought primarily on their own.

One point not brought up is the unlikelyness of the Europe uniting in an offensive war. It just hasn't happened in the past and is questionable in the future. A defensive war, maybe. But to put together an Army/Navy/Airforce combination to go 3000 miles to fight an agressive war is just beyond any circumstances in European history. The closest you might get are the Crusades or the Crimean War. Otherwise, it was European fighting European for the last 2,000+ years.

If a colalition did form, one of the first acts the US should do on a diplomatic front would be to work to splinter it. In such an event, time is on the US's side. The longer and more pointless the war, the better the chances that some of the players will get tired of it and go home. Given the inherent mistrust stalking Europe in the middle of last century, it will probably work.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by timshatz

A lot of ifs. True, the US and the UK co-operated relatively well in the war. But we have a common language, common culture, similar legal system...the list goes on. The Japanese, Germans and British had less in common. The Japanese and German navies were patterened after the RN (to some extent) but both were institutions of their countries and not adjuncts of the RN.

The Japanese, German and British militaries had advantages over the US. The MG42 was superiour to the M1918, the Bren better than the BAR, the Zero superior to the Wildcat (one on one). But the interchange of information between these three, while it would've existed, would've been primarily information. Can't see the RN picking up the Zero, Val or Kate (Japanese could hardly make enough for themselves) or the Germans giving their Panzer MK4s to either of the other two. The militaries would've fought primarily on their own.

One point not brought up is the unlikelyness of the Europe uniting in an offensive war. It just hasn't happened in the past and is questionable in the future. A defensive war, maybe. But to put together an Army/Navy/Airforce combination to go 3000 miles to fight an agressive war is just beyond any circumstances in European history. The closest you might get are the Crusades or the Crimean War. Otherwise, it was European fighting European for the last 2,000+ years.

If a colalition did form, one of the first acts the US should do on a diplomatic front would be to work to splinter it. In such an event, time is on the US's side. The longer and more pointless the war, the better the chances that some of the players will get tired of it and go home. Given the inherent mistrust stalking Europe in the middle of last century, it will probably work.

I think you will find that nearly all of my postings have been on the basis that whilst they could in theory have co operated they were most unlikely to.

Had to smile at one thing you said. Its hard to imagine the biggest dunderhead in the world turning the Zero down for the Fulmar or the Kate for the Swordfish

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by Glider

I think you will find that nearly all of my postings have been on the basis that whilst they could in theory have co operated they were most unlikely to.

Had to smile at one thing you said. Its hard to imagine the biggest dunderhead in the world turning the Zero down for the Fulmar or the Kate for the Swordfish

Gotcha. I follow you. Do it myself. Just kicking around an idea to see how it sounds in print. Do it myself. Pretty much what this board is all about. What if, how much, how often,... I gotcha. Good points.

The RNAS was in pretty deep doo-doo at the start of WW2. It had nothing that would really hold up with the concurrent Carrier Naval or Land Based Aircraft around the world. The Brits would be fools to turn down the Zero or Kate, very true. I don't think they would've gotten the choice. The Japanese never really got production on those aircraft to levels of something like the 109 or 190. With the losses they took against the US, they came up short in the end. Not ready for a full industrial war, they were more primed for a one or two year war. In that, the Allied powers were very fortunate. If the Japanese had organized their industrial capacity and dedicated resources to support and supply, the Pacific War would've been a longer and bloodier affair. End result would've been the same, but the getting there would've been worse.

[Soren]

I'd say the Ki-84 is amongst the best fighters to emerge from WWII..

A co-operation between Europe & Asia would also eliminate Japanese problems with AAA defence and damage control. Japanese Military doctrine and training could also be dramatically improved with German help, as-well and perhaps most crucially it would also be much better equipped - imagine USSR, Japanese and British troops all equipped with German MG-42's and Stg.44's ? That'd be a nightmare to meet on the battlefield.

As to the US producing 20 carriers by 1943 - I think not if the EA alliance invades in 1941, and since the EA alliance combined has a much higher production capability it'll also be able to launch more carriers than the US.