# Could America have won against the rest of the world?



## rogthedodge (May 26, 2007)

Assuming we'd accepted Hitler's peace offer and he'd honoured it, how long could America have stood alone against the might of the the British Empire / Commonwealth, the Greater Germany, Japan, oh and the Italians French? 







The biter bit?


----------



## Parmigiano (May 26, 2007)

You forget the Russians in the picture...

Anyway, there would have been 4 major powers: USA, UK+BE, Nazi+Fascist in rest of Europe and CCCP. Plus Japan that would have been a lesser power, but likely allied with Germany.

Difficult to believe that there would have been a lasting peace, but also difficult to figure out what would have been the opportunity alliances.

US vs Japan in the Pacific area is the most likely short term war in my view, both were still actively trying to expand there.
But then CCCP may had wanted to take his share...
Maybe the fight would have been about control of China, the last big chunk of territory available for easy invasion (= without a powerful army and modern weapons)


----------



## syscom3 (May 26, 2007)

How many decades would it have taken for the rest of the world to build a navy capable of threatening us?


----------



## pbfoot (May 26, 2007)

Somehow I think my neighbourhood would feel the first strike by the US in this scenario and I'd end up with a P painted on my coat picking fruit in California


----------



## rogthedodge (May 27, 2007)

Guys I'm just playing the 'but for us...' game that seems to be popular among some among this community.

It's pure devilment / payback - while remaining polite.

You're correct, of course, I'd forgotten the Russian forces - let's add them to the alliance.

On Navies I think anyone choosing to do some research would find that the UK/German/Italian/French/Japanese/Russian combined fleet would have dwarfed the US fleet in '39 by a considerable factor. - But I'm willing to be proved wrong


----------



## rogthedodge (May 27, 2007)

@ Parmigiano

Thanks for the considered response - of course it's an unlikely alliance but it's purely a hypothetical discussion.

Thanks BTW for reminding me of the brilliance of Douglas Adams - Hotblack Desiato and Norbert Dentresangle still make me chuckle (saw one of the latter's trucks the other day and it made me think of DA)


----------



## syscom3 (May 27, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Somehow I think my neighbourhood would feel the first strike by the US in this scenario and I'd end up with a P painted on my coat picking fruit in California



You mean a "C"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2007)

These threads are just getting stupid and out of hand.

Good job syscom for starting all this ****.


----------



## Njaco (May 27, 2007)

Rog, good thread. Am I getting this right? Are you asking individually or if those countries were Allies against the US? I getting the feeling I staring the answer in the face and can't see it. 

As far as fleets, UK and USSR would definately have the ships for battle. But if there was a landing on the USA where would it be? I say either east coast, probably NC or SC - objective , Wash DC; or go for the Gulf of Mexico - cut the country in half.

Sys


----------



## rogthedodge (May 27, 2007)

@ Njaco I meant the combined might of all the other powers. My error. 

I'd love to debate where this massive fleet would have landed its many forces (4 simultaneous landings?) but even I think it's far too theoretical for this thread. Maybe we could start a 'how would a UK+Empire/German alliance have tackled America ?' thread when things have calmed down a bit - it IS an interesting question.

@ DerAdlerIstGelandet you're right it is stupid and, possibly getting out of hand - feel free to delete the entire thread if you think it too silly. As far as I can see I can't delete the thread myself.

Just trying to demonstrate the stupidity of the 'but for us' type threads and have probably made my point.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2007)

No I will let it go....


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 28, 2007)

Would Winston really have gone agains't Roosevelt?


----------



## rogthedodge (May 28, 2007)

It might not have been Churchill. 

Before '39 he was seen by many as dangerous warmonger who would only get us into trouble. He was hated by the working classes for his actions in putting down the '26 General Strike

There were elements within the British establishment who advocated a settlement with Hitler (Lord Halifax, foreign secretary (?) for one). 

There were others who were possibly even advocates of an alliance (The Duke of Windsor {Edward Mrs Simpson} admired Hitler, was pictured in nazi uniform, was accused by Churchill of passing info to the Germans, and exiled to Bermuda for the duration - under the guise of being 'Governor'). 

But for the abdication he would have been head of state in '39.

As we're going to go on with this thread an alliance between the UK and Germany was certainly a possibility. Whether this could have expanded to a UK/Germany/Japan alliance is very debateable. Also there's absolutely no guarantee the Empire would have followed the UK on such a crazy path.


----------



## mkloby (May 28, 2007)

Njaco said:


> As far as fleets, UK and USSR would definately have the ships for battle. But if there was a landing on the USA where would it be? I say either east coast, probably NC or SC - objective , Wash DC; or go for the Gulf of Mexico - cut the country in half.



The only fleet that could have posed a threat to the US is the RN. Of course, in the early years, it was larger than the USN. British naval aviation, however, paled in comparison to the USN/USMC throughout the whole war. The Kriegsmarine surface units were lacking terribly. Italy only had a couple new BB and some CA. A small task force could have swatted the soviets.

This is all assuming that all the fleet units survived transition and there werent mass scuttlings. US construction over the subsequent years was amazing, and would require a heck of a fleet to overcome - in numbers as well as quality - notoriously lacking from many soviet, german, and italian units.


----------



## timshatz (May 28, 2007)

Gotta start by giving this a date. In 1945, the USN ruled the waves with the only viable threat being the British/Commonwealth Navy. The USN had the best Carrier Aircraft and Fleet Train. It could go where it wanted and stay there to fight. 

However, in 1939, it is a different story. The US building program had not yet put any major hulls in the water. Only smaller ships (destroyers and such). The Cruisers, Battleships and Aircraft carriers that would make up the Fleets of WW2 were either on the drawing boards or, in some cases, first of classes were being built. Then, the US would've faced a combined fleet that would've overpowered it in a single battle, if the US would fight such a fight. But odds were seriously against the US. 

From the European's perspective, they'll want to keep Canada, reinforce bases in the Carribean and cut the US from South American raw materials (Oil, Tin, ect). US Fleet units would be a priority as they would make an invasion much more difficult. Also, US Subs and Sub Bases would be of great importance as they can attack the lines of communications back to Europe making reinforcing very difficult. 

For the Pacific, the Japanese (as well as ANZAC, Dutch and other Pacific forces) would focus on removing the US presence from the Far East. After that, they would go with reducing US presence in the Pacific to the West Coast. From the Japenese perspective, it might be wise to start the war with a Suprise Attack on the Panama Canal. That would for the US to fight a two ocean war with whatever assets it had in each ocean.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2007)

A British, German and Italian fleet would have been eneogh to deal with a US Fleet atleast in the beginning.

All the British Carriers, BB's combined with the German BB's, BC's and the U-Boots...

Again though I seriously doubt something like this would have ever happened.


----------



## syscom3 (May 28, 2007)

Would this invasion begin in 1939 or1940?


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 28, 2007)

I think after seeing what happened against Russia, we would have seen a stalemate, or possibly no invasion attempt

Besides, it would have been pretty difficult to Invade North America from across the Atlantic

The Japanese had a better chance from the Pacific, and they ultimately would have failed too


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2007)

102first_hussars said:


> Besides, it would have been pretty difficult to Invade North America from across the Atlantic



You are 100 percent correct. I dont necessarily think the US could hvae beaten a UK and Germany alliance but it would have certainly turned into a stalemate because there was no way that they could invade the US and I really dont think that the US could have invaded Europe either across the Atlantic. Sure they had the right kind of boats and landing craft but they could not have bombed them before hand and it would have been a slaughter on the beaches.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 28, 2007)

This is a very odd thread.... It'll be interesting to see where it goes. Beer and popcorn anyone?


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2007)

Like Adler pointed out this is a very unrealistic scenario indeed, however I'll play along.

Th answer to the question is a no-brainer, the US fails miserably.

Here's what the US would be up against:

The largest most advanced U-boat fleet in the world.
The best trained best equipped soldiers in the world.
The best tanks AFV's in the world.
Combined the best airforce in the world.
A larger and atleast as well equipped surface Navy.

The US would be fighting an already lost war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2007)

I'll play too...

In this scenrio who gets the Atomic bomb first - Germany or the US?


----------



## Hunter368 (May 28, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'll play too...
> 
> In this scenrio who gets the Atomic bomb first - Germany or the US?



Whoever is alive last.


----------



## mkloby (May 28, 2007)

Maybe I'm not understanding this fictitious scenario - but why would the RN be fighting against the US? I'm baffled. As far as the KM, USSR, and Regia - the US would crush all three combined EASILY if this scenario took place in the early 40's. US naval aviation had the the Lex, Saratoga, Ranger, Yorktown, and Enterprise all in service before 1940! These ships combined carried far more A/C than the fleet carriers that the RN even had in service prior to 1940. RN aside - the US fleet would pound a combined German, Italian, Soviet, and captured french units into nothing. There's no possible way any invasion could be sustained. The ONLY thing going for that fleet would be it's undersea arm... which a few years of experience with would have made impotent, just as the Germany's U-boat ultimately was (after it's spurts of success).


----------



## Hunter368 (May 28, 2007)

It was a thread made to show how Syscom's other thread is just as dumb and impossable to prove.

It was made in jest towards Syscom.

Seems others then just me get frustrated with Syscom's red,white and blue flag waving, it is made even worse when he asks you to prove him wrong when all the factors are unknown thus it is impossable to prove anything.

But it is in the same breath impossable for him to prove.....funny how he would not comment on my posts on the other thread. B/c he knows I am right.....conveniently he never responded to my post.

He knew when he made the thread it was impossable to prove him wrong.....but at the same time it is impossable for him to prove himself right. Funny how he dodges that issue.


----------



## pbfoot (May 28, 2007)

In my world the first thing the US would have to do is take both the East and West coasts of Canada to prevent the Allies from gaining a greater footprint in North America now after saying this in 1939 this would have been a fairly tough task . The reason being is the vast distances to move men and the lack of equipment the US military had . Allies in 3 years just because I believe the US was behind in the technology curve with their equipment


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'll play too...
> 
> In this scenrio who gets the Atomic bomb first - Germany or the US?



In this scenario Germany/Europe would, and much earlier.

If Germany and the rest of Europa were going to get along with each other then there'd be no prosecution of jews, which means an A-bomb for the Germans.

Don't forget how quickly the USSR got the bomb after WWII..


----------



## renrich (May 28, 2007)

The scenario I would see if England had capitulated to the Nazis in 1940 is that many of the Commonwealth countries would have opted out including Australia, NZ, SA and Canada. The RN would have scuttled most of the major units ( as the High Seas Fleet did in 1918) or more likely would have steamed into US ports. The anti semitism of the Nazis had already started well before 1939 and would not have been curbed so no joy there. No invasion of the western hemisphere would have taken place. A shaky peace between the US and whatever you want to call the Europe thing. Possibly the use of the nuclear option by the US if peace was not maintained.


----------



## syscom3 (May 28, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> In my world the first thing the US would have to do is take both the East and West coasts of Canada to prevent the Allies from gaining a greater footprint in North America now after saying this in 1939 this would have been a fairly tough task . The reason being is the vast distances to move men and the lack of equipment the US military had . Allies in 3 years just because I believe the US was behind in the technology curve with their equipment



I dont think that was necessary. Canada would not have joined a European alliance period. It would be one thing for a Canadian to go and fight against a foe of the UK if it was a traditional enemy. But to back a German and Russian dominated fascist alliance? No way.

In addition, the coastlines of both sides of Canada are hardly conducive to invasion or conversion to staging area's. Poor weather is the norm, and vast forests have to be penetrated before you come up to population and industrial area's.

I would say if a UK/German/Russian alliance was formed in 1940, then nothing could have been done till 1941.

At this time, the USN was in better shape material wise as compared to the 30's. The US army and air corps would have begun a buildup several months sooner than as what actually happened, with the result being the ground forces being in far better shape in summer 1941.

As for the Japanese? They still could run amok throughout the western pacific, but nothing else. They didnt have the shipping to support an invasion of Hawaii, let alone the mainland of North America.

As for the axis alliance staging through the south? Forget it. The US would have preememptively seized the islands and airbases needed.


----------



## syscom3 (May 28, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> It was a thread made to show how Syscom's other thread is just as dumb and impossable to prove.



If you dont like a thread, dont add to it.



> Seems others then just me get frustrated with Syscom's red,white and blue flag waving, it is made even worse when he asks you to prove him wrong when all the factors are unknown thus it is impossable to prove anything.



The actual production figures from WW2 proved that the commonwealth did not have the manpower or industrial capacity to defeat the Germans. I proved my point quite well with facts. You truied to prove your point by emotion.



> But it is in the same breath impossable for him to prove.....funny how he would not comment on my posts on the other thread. B/c he knows I am right.....conveniently he never responded to my post.



When you look at the whole production figures from all the combatants, one thing is plainly noticable.... Canada's material contributions were quite few. Even manpower wise, theres only so many people you can supply from a population of 11 million.



> He knew when he made the thread it was impossable to prove him wrong.....but at the same time it is impossable for him to prove himself right. Funny how he dodges that issue.



I'm still waiting for you to show me where the commonweath would have enough industrial capacity to equip an army large enough to take on the Germans.


----------



## syscom3 (May 28, 2007)

Soren, not so fast....



> The largest most advanced U-boat fleet in the world.


Allied sub hunters when available in quantity took a toll on your U-boats.



> The best trained best equipped soldiers in the world.



The best trained and equiped soldiers sitting 1/2 across the world going to attack an army that could build more trucks and tanks in a month than the combined factories in your alliance?



> The best tanks AFV's in the world.



Agree'd



> Combined the best airforce in the world.



We had the P38's and P47's that were the equals of your AF's. BTW, where will your AF fly from in an invasion? Going to send -109's and Spitfires on 6000 mile missions?



> A larger and at least as well equipped surface Navy.



Our six carriers would smash your battle fleet before you knew it. Plus the cruisers and destroyers already on hand were more than capable of dishing it out back to you. In fact, the naval philosophy of the USN as opposed to the European Naval thinking, was for the ships of the USN to be able to fight long distances from their bases. The moment your fleet sailed from port, you already had a logistics issue.



> The US would be fighting an already lost war.



Thats what Hitler and Tojo said in 1941.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 28, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> If you dont like a thread, dont add to it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





LOL not sure if you even noticed......I never sided with the Commonwealth or USA on the other thread b/c I think it is a waste of time to argue either b/c you are argue/debating about unknown factors.

You just ask these theoretical and hypothetical questions that cannot be proven either false or true and you try and word them to make USA the best or always right....blah blah blah or if it is not made in the USA it must be second best (while you say all this you are sticking out your chest).  

You know if you ever actually debated Syscom without bias people might actually believe you more. 

I never used emotion to prove or disprove anything.....unless rolling my eyes at your posts, from time to time, is emotion.  

You are a great debater and you do yourself a disservice by being so bias.

That was my only two points on this thread and on yours.


----------



## pbfoot (May 28, 2007)

the North half of the continent would be the key to who won for if the "allies " had a foothold in the continent the US would be doomed. i don't believe the US in 1939 had the tools and equipment to neutralize the north quickly . This scenario also is dependent on whether it is a quick buildup to war or not


----------



## renrich (May 28, 2007)

I am wondering where this 1939 date comes from. The Nazis did not invade Poland until Sept. 1939. There was very little fighting that went on between the Nazis and UK and France until Spring 1940. Then the BOB wasn't over until Fall of 1940 so that might have been when a capitulation might have taken place. Personally even if England had been conquered I see the Nazis getting about as much cooperation from them as they did from the Poles.


----------



## pbfoot (May 28, 2007)

renrich said:


> I am wondering where this 1939 date comes from. The Nazis did not invade Poland until Sept. 1939. There was very little fighting that went on between the Nazis and UK and France until Spring 1940. Then the BOB wasn't over until Fall of 1940 so that might have been when a capitulation might have taken place. Personally even if England had been conquered I see the Nazis getting about as much cooperation from them as they did from the Poles.


I just used the date as no other date had been mentioned could be 1919 for all I know


----------



## syscom3 (May 28, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> the North half of the continent would be the key to who won for if the "allies " had a foothold in the continent the US would be doomed. i don't believe the US in 1939 had the tools and equipment to neutralize the north quickly . This scenario also is dependent on whether it is a quick buildup to war or not



The US Army in 1939 was pathetically small, so its possible an axis alliance could invade through the north, but then there's the problem of getting them down to the populated area's through the forests that had few if any paved roads.

I would suspect that an invasion through the north was a logistics burden that couldn't have been solved.


----------



## Soren (May 28, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Allied sub hunters when available in quantity took a toll on your U-boats.



And vice versa Syscom3 - don't forget the British navy and its contribution.





> The best trained and equiped soldiers sitting 1/2 across the world going to attack an army that could build more trucks and tanks in a month than the combined factories in your alliance?



Syscomy you must be dreaming or something if you think the US alone could produce more tanks and trucks than Germany, Britain, USSR and Japan !




> We had the P38's and P47's that were the equals of your AF's.



Both are heavy and unmaneuverable Syscom, and on equal numerical terms inferior compared to the Yak-3-9, Bf-109, Spitfire, Ki-84, FW-190 Ta-152. 

The F4U-4 is the only a/c which will prove a match when mixing it up with the a/c above.



> BTW, where will your AF fly from in an invasion? Going to send -109's and Spitfires on 6000 mile missions?



Carrier's is the word Syscom - besides we would have plenty of long range fighters available.



> Our six carriers would smash your battle fleet before you knew it.



Dream on - The US's little fleet of carriers would be decimated by our subs and surface navy including carriers.



> Plus the cruisers and destroyers already on hand were more than capable of dishing it out back to you. In fact, the naval philosophy of the USN as opposed to the European Naval thinking, was for the ships of the USN to be able to fight long distances from their bases. The moment your fleet sailed from port, you already had a logistics issue.



I would really like to see you back up that claim - esp. just considering the operational area of the German U-boats - some sailing right along side the US coast.



> Thats what Hitler and Tojo said in 1941.



And don't forget how close it got with just these two countries against the entire world ! The USSR, the country which boasted the largest army on earth was nearly defeated by Germany who was simultanously fighting Britain, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand etc etc etc...


Face it, against the rest of the world the US is without chance.


----------



## syscom3 (May 28, 2007)

Soren said:


> And vice versa Syscom3 - don't forget the British navy and its contribution.



They needed our destroyers in 1941, which we gave them in the first lend Lease deal.



> Syscomy you must be dreaming or something if you think the US alone could produce more tanks and trucks than Germany, Britain, USSR and Japan !



Military Trucks
1. United States = 2,382,311
2. Canada = 815,729
3. United Kingdom = 480,943
4. Germany = 345,914
5. Soviet Union = 197,100
6. Japan = 165,945
7. Italy = 83,000

Tanks and self propelled guns 
1. Soviet Union = 105,251 (92,595) 
2. United States = 88,410 (71,067) 
3. Germany = 46,857 (37,794) 
4. United Kingdom = 27,896 
5. Canada = 5678 

Canadian figures would be included in this scenario. But also note that these figures dont take into account the US wasnt producing a lot of stuff untill 1942.

The production rates for 1944 and 1945 were staggering.



> Both are heavy and unmaneuverable Syscom, and on equal numerical terms inferior compared to the Yak-3-9, Bf-109, Spitfire, Ki-84, FW-190 Ta-152.



Is that why in the real life aerial battles of the war, they more than held their own against the best the axis had to offer?



> The F4U-4 is the only a/c which will prove a match when mixing it up with the a/c above.



More than a few P38, P47, P51 and F6F pilots would like to debate you on that.



> Carrier's is the word Syscom - besides we would have plenty of long range fighters available.



1) What carrier capable fighters did you have?
2) What long range fighters did you have?
3) How many carriers did you even have?



> Dream on - The US's little fleet of carriers would be decimated by our subs and surface navy including carriers.



huh?



> I would really like to see you back up that claim - esp. just considering the operational area of the German U-boats - some sailing right along side the US coast.



You are reffering to operation "Drumbeat", a highly successfull offensive right when the USN was unprepared for it. 



> And don't forget how close it got with just these two countries against the entire world ! The USSR, the country which boasted the largest army on earth was nearly defeated by Germany who was simultanously fighting Britain, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand etc etc etc...



And once the US was in the war, Germany's fate was sealed.



> Face it, against the rest of the world the US is without chance.



Face what? An invasion force that would have to land hundreds of divisons against the preeminate industrial power house in the world? And then supply them?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2007)

Just another thought...

Say "you folks" manage an invasion of the US of A, 1942 or 43, say through Canada. How are you going to face the street fighting when not only you have a defending army, but you have a country where there is a firearm for every man woman and child? (Remember some of our other debuts over gun control?) Even in the 1940s many households had firearms. I'd like to see (even in that era) and invading army march through Harlem or Watts, the "locals" will have a field day!!!!! 

BTW I once read a paper written by a former Soviet General who stated that he feared any talk, even hypethical, of Soviet Invasion of the US just because of the the firearms possessed by the common US citizen....


----------



## Hunter368 (May 28, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Just another thought...
> 
> Say "you folks" manage an invasion of the US of A, 1942 or 43, say through Canada. How are you going to face the street fighting when not only you have a defending army, but you have a country where there is a firearm for every man woman and child? (Remember some of our other debuts over gun control?) Even in the 1940s many households had firearms. I'd like to see (even in that era) and invading army march through Harlem or Watts, the "locals" will have a field day!!!!!
> 
> BTW I once read a paper written by a former Soviet General who stated that he feared any talk, even hypethical, of Soviet Invasion of the US just because of the the firearms possessed by the common US citizen....



LOL


----------



## pbfoot (May 28, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Just another thought...
> 
> Say "you folks" manage an invasion of the US of A, 1942 or 43, say through Canada. How are you going to face the street fighting when not only you have a defending army, but you have a country where there is a firearm for every man woman and child? (Remember some of our other debuts over gun control?) Even in the 1940s many households had firearms. I'd like to see (even in that era) and invading army march through Harlem or Watts, the "locals" will have a field day!!!!!
> 
> BTW I once read a paper written by a former Soviet General who stated that he feared any talk, even hypethical, of Soviet Invasion of the US just because of the the firearms possessed by the common US citizen....


good point


----------



## mkloby (May 28, 2007)

Soren said:


> Dream on - The US's little fleet of carriers would be decimated by our subs and surface navy including carriers.



In terms of naval assets - 

You always have very good points soren... but come on. The RN would hardly be seized intact in port. The output of US DDs, SC, DE would soon enough counter the "uboat threat." What carriers, then, would this supposed fleet have? The not close to completed Aquila and Graf Zep - both of which were utter crap.

In terms of heavy surface units - the USN BBs are more than sufficient to dispatch the combined USSR, German, and Italian heavies. Not to mention, their BB's wouldn't get close until sent to the bottom by SBDs. CA's - same fate. Those same fleets all had the absolute worst AA armaments for countering A/C.

Are you counting Japanese assets??? Maybe the whole british fleet takes down their ensign and puts up the KM? Other than that - your fleet of dinghies doesn't have an icicles chance in hell.


----------



## rogthedodge (May 28, 2007)

renrich said:


> I am wondering where this 1939 date comes from. The Nazis did not invade Poland until Sept. 1939. There was very little fighting that went on between the Nazis and UK and France until Spring 1940. Then the BOB wasn't over until Fall of 1940 so that might have been when a capitulation might have taken place. Personally even if England had been conquered I see the Nazis getting about as much cooperation from them as they did from the Poles.



Me too!

I started this in jest and (offered to have it pulled) and thus put no date on it but as it's going somewhere debate-wise let's say;

Since '39 the UK has had a non-aggression pact with the Germans, Germany overwhelms France in '40, UK sees its chance joins in a full alliance against France. The alliance seizes most of France's air and naval asssets intact, Vichy France happens so we have a UK/Germany/France alliance by Jan 1 '41.

renrich UK is not 'conquered' but joins gradually an alliance - 3+ years of 'fellow anglo-saxons' / 'remember Waterloo' etc propaganda has encouraged much co-operation 

This alliance has Russia under control via the German-Russian non-aggression treaty and decides, bizarely, to attack the US in early '41. Leaving the Russians as suppliers / non-aggressors - but in need of money so possibly offering production resources 

The Empire splits; Canada sides with the US (little choice), ANZAC stays out of it - (ignores 'call to arms' no jap threat), India makes some contribution but is mostly diverted by the internal independence, 'white' Africa makes the contribution it did in WW2 in terms of pilots, materials, and training facilities.

The US by '41 has had two years to see this massive alliance developing and so has been building / training like crazy for 2 years (01.01.39-01.01.41)

Japan, having had its oil raw material supplies secured via this alliance, still decides to take on the US in early '41 anyway.

We then have the UK/Germany/France alliance (Italians have joined as minor partners) and Japan as co-belligerents


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

On the nuke aspect, Tube Alloys plus the German effort (with no interuption to heavy water production) makes it a very close-run thing. Although the empire scenario above makes uranium sourcing very tricky

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

Syscom3 the 50xWW1 4 stacker destroyer deal was not lend-lease - it was a swap in return for 99 year leases on UK bases such as Ascension. 

In this scenario it wouldn't have happened as the RN would have been securing resources from non-US sources and not having to protect them from U-boat attacks. The RN + alliance may have been defending convoys from Africa / S America against USN sub attack but as their numbers and tactics weren't upto German standards I doubt the shortage would have been so acute

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

As we're taking this much more seriously than I ever imagined this alliance needs a name - 'The European Union' (TEU)????


----------



## renrich (May 28, 2007)

Somehow I don't see the British lining up with Germany voluntarily. The memories of WW1 are too fresh. Remember the Somme? I believe there was a general distrust and dislike of Germany at that time in Europe that precuded any detente.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2007)

And I don't see this alliance restraining Hitler from going after the USSR...


----------



## Soren (May 29, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> They needed our destroyers in 1941, which we gave them in the first lend Lease deal.



So ?



> Military Trucks
> 1. United States = 2,382,311
> 2. Canada = 815,729
> 3. United Kingdom = 480,943
> ...



Err, Syscom3 you just disproved yourself - the USSR alone produced more tanks than the US. Only in trucks is the US producing more, something I doubt would be the case if Europe and Asia united.





> Is that why in the real life aerial battles of the war, they more than held their own against the best the axis had to offer?



Sorry Syscom3 but they didn't, the Allies won the day because of superior numbers, pure and simple. 



> More than a few P38, P47, P51 and F6F pilots would like to debate you on that.



Ofcourse they would, cause each of their rides were ofourse the best in their mind.



> 1) What carrier capable fighters did you have?
> 2) What long range fighters did you have?
> 3) How many carriers did you even have?



1) Early in the war toward 1943 lots of the very best in the world (A6M Zero) - later on the Yak-3-9, Bf-109, Fw-190, Spitfire, Ta-152H could probably be used as carrier fighters. (The Spitfire did for example)
2) Early in the war and toward 1943 the A6M Zero - later on the Ta-152H if it was made carrier capable.
3) With Europe Asia combined - lots.



> huh?



Yep. What are your six carriers going to do against plenty more U-boats ??



> You are reffering to operation "Drumbeat", a highly successfull offensive right when the USN was unprepared for it.



I wasn't referring to anything actually.




> And once the US was in the war, Germany's fate was sealed.



Agreed, you can only fight so many..



> Face what? An invasion force that would have to land hundreds of divisons against the preeminate industrial power house in the world? And then supply them?



The US wasn't going to be the preeminate industrial power house in the world when faced with the entire world mate, and guess what lies close to Alaska - Russia. 

You might as-well face it Syscom3, the US alone couldn't hope to stand against Europe and Asia combined, to think so is ludacris. 

Also in an alliance you've got to factor in that technology is shared, which means lots and lots of German, British, Japanese and Russian high tech equipment being produced in numbers. What for example was the US going to do against Jets, assault rifles, superior tanks, superior U-boats etc etc ?? Sure the US made high tech designs during WWII as-well, but Germany alone made far more and combined with Britain, Japan and Russia and their industry it leads to a massive lead in technology for Europe Asia.


----------



## syscom3 (May 29, 2007)

Soren said:


> So ? Err, Syscom3 you just disproved yourself - the USSR alone produced more tanks than the US. Only in trucks is the US producing more, something I doubt would be the case if Europe and Asia united.



1) Asia didnt have any large manufacturing capability untill the 1960's, so forget about it. Their contributions would be next to nothing.
2) The USSR produced more tanks than the US because they had a 4 year head start building them in volume. 
3) The US didnt need to build as many tanks as the shipping available to get them to Europe dictated the production rates.
4) Look at the US production totals and then add up everyone else. We not only built more, but MANY more.



> Sorry Syscom3 but they didn't, the Allies won the day because of superior numbers, pure and simple.



The allies had plenty of weapons that were superior to the Germans, so forget about trying to say that they won battles solely by numbers. 



> Of course they would, cause each of their rides were ofourse the best in their mind.



Youre right. Those P38, P47, P51 and Spitfire pilots shot down the LW aircraft with deadly efficiency.



> 1) Early in the war toward 1943 lots of the very best in the world (A6M Zero) - later on the Yak-3-9, Bf-109, Fw-190, Spitfire, Ta-152H could probably be used as carrier fighters. (The Spitfire did for example)



The Zero was the only true carrier fighter out there. The Spitfire variant was not a successful design and wasn't used after the Hellcats and Corsairs became available. The others? Hehehehehe, you do have a sense of humor don't you.  



> 2) Early in the war and toward 1943 the A6M Zero - later on the Ta-152H if it was made carrier capable.



The Zero was outclassed by the end of 1942. Ta-152 carrier fighter? hehehehehehhehe



> 3) With Europe Asia combined - lots.



And as events unfolded in the real world, the UK was the only one to add carriers to the fleet in any appreciable numbers (and only a few at that). Sorry, your hypothetical alliance will need years to build a carrier force, equip it with aircraft with trained pilots.



> Yep. What are your six carriers going to do against plenty more U-boats ??



The destroyer and aircraft screens will keep your u-boats down and out of the way. Just like what happened in 1943 with the "jeep" carriers. 



> The US wasn't going to be the preeminate industrial power house in the world when faced with the entire world mate, and guess what lies close to Alaska - Russia.



The US industrial potential was so huge, the rest of the world combined couldn't quite match it. And what about Russia being next to Alaska? I don't see any railroads or highways leading up to the Bering straight, or from Alaska down to the lower 48 (and Canada).



> You might as-well face it Syscom3, the US alone couldn't hope to stand against Europe and Asia combined, to think so is ludacris.



I dont see anything from Asia adding to the equation. Look at actual production statistics from Japan and not your foolish "wishes". As for Europe and Russia, they sure didnt build as much as what was necessary.



> Also in an alliance you've got to factor in that technology is shared, which means lots and lots of German, British, Japanese and Russian high tech equipment being produced in numbers.



Japanese high tech? Russian hi tech? Name some of them that was available in 1939-1942

US also had scientific, industrial and manufacturing technolgies that would not have been available for your alliance to use. 



> What for example was the US going to do against Jets, assault rifles, superior tanks, superior U-boats etc etc ??



Jets? we were behind the curve, but had the resources to catch up in a hurry! Assault rifles? Copy the concept of course. Superior tanks? How about the Pershing tank. Superior U-Boats? Sink them with superior anti sub tactics and eqmt.



> Sure the US made high tech designs during WWII as-well, but Germany alone made far more and combined with Britain, Japan and Russia and their industry it leads to a massive lead in technology for Europe Asia.



Germany had the lead in the technologies in some area's and was far short in others. The US had a vast lead over everyone else for what really mattered.... mass production of nearly everything with the ability to change production mid stream without disrupting the lines.


----------



## k9kiwi (May 29, 2007)

By Syscom



> If you dont like a thread, dont add to it.



Rodger, out.


----------



## renrich (May 29, 2007)

Ah, the TA152H, the answer to everything.LOL


----------



## syscom3 (May 29, 2007)

renrich said:


> Ah, the TA152H, the answer to everything.LOL



8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> We had the P38's and P47's that were the equals of your AF's. BTW, where will your AF fly from in an invasion? Going to send -109's and Spitfires on 6000 mile missions?



Dont take me wrong, I agree with you fully that a European Alliance would not have been able to invade the US. However I also dont believe that a US force would be able to invade with a staging point in England which in this scenerio is not happening.

Going to send P38s and P47s on 6000 mile missions?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 29, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Dont take me wrong, I agree with you fully that a European Alliance would not have been able to invade the US. However I also dont believe that a US force would be able to invade with a staging point in England which in this scenerio is not happening.



Agree, that's why I think this whole silly scenerio will wind up in a stalemate.

1. I don't see Hitler restraining himself from the Russians. That would be like putting a vampire in a blood bank.

2. I don't see this European alliance crossing the Atlantic for an invasion. Even if sided with the Japanese, it would be a logistical nightmare to bring their forces into the Pacific.

3. I believe the US would of still developed an atomic bomb before Germany. Who ever gets the bomb first takes it all....

4. With all comparisons with tanks and aircraft, I'd still like to see someone address an invading army walking through a major US city with some of our "unsavory" armed citizens....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2007)

Agreed FBJ.

I think both of these threads are just plain stupid, because I dont really see anything being proven except these points:

1. German could not defeat the combined powers of the allies.

2. The allies could not defeat Germany without the US.

3. The allies could not defeat Germany without Russia.

4. The US could not defeat Germany without England, Russia, Canada, New Zealand, Australia (and everyone else that I am not going to name because the list would be too long).


----------



## Hunter368 (May 29, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed FBJ.
> 
> I think both of these threads are just plain stupid, because I dont really see anything being proven except these points:
> 
> ...



Hmmmmm that is just what I have been telling our proud American friend, who I will not name.

Cough

Cough

Cough


SYSCOM


----------



## Lucky13 (May 29, 2007)

Royal Navy in September 1939:

Battleships 15 
Carriers 7 
Cruisers 66
Destroyers 184
Submarines 60

Total: 332

Royal Navy August 1945:

Battleships 20
Carriers 65
Cruisers 101
Destroyers 461
Submarines 238

Total: 885

Also Syscom3, remember that Royal Navy had ARMORED aircraft carrier decks, something that USN did NOT have...

Another thing fellow forum travellers, WHY would the "axis" invade the US??

This is a great place to learn!


----------



## syscom3 (May 29, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Going to send P38s and P47s on 6000 mile missions?



I was pointing out to him that the ranges were so great, his (axis alliance) AF would need fighters with that range. Impossible to do then, and probably just as impossible now.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> I was pointing out to him that the ranges were so great, his (axis alliance) AF would need fighters with that range. Impossible to do then, and probably just as impossible now.



I know what you were implying. I am telling you that neither side could do that...


----------



## syscom3 (May 29, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Hmmmmm that is just what I have been telling our proud American friend, who I will not name.
> 
> Cough
> 
> ...



Obviously you dont read my posts because I never claimed the US could defeat Hitler on its own.

Point for me, loss for you because you misread it all.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 29, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Obviously you dont read my posts because I never claimed the US could defeat Hitler on its own.
> 
> Point for me, loss for you because you misread it all.



No you cleverly dance around saying it actually, kinda like a lawyer or a politian.

What you do say is that Europe owes US graditude for saving it in WW2. Plus you are argueing in this thread which, by using just this title alone shows what you believe (I know you never made it), you believe the USA could of won vs the world, if you didn't believe that you would not be argueing on this thread.

Don't be shy Syscom, admit it....stop walking the fence. You worried you might be proven wrong?


----------



## Hunter368 (May 29, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Royal Navy in September 1939:
> 
> Battleships 15
> Carriers 7
> ...




Syscom lets hear US navy in 1939? and in 1945?

I am sure you have it hand.


----------



## syscom3 (May 29, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Syscom lets hear US navy in 1939? and in 1945?
> 
> I am sure you have it hand.



Its on my computer at home. You will have to wait untill tonight to see the information.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 29, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Its on my computer at home. You will have to wait untill tonight to see the information.



I will watch for it.


----------



## renrich (May 29, 2007)

I have here in my grimy hands my handy dandy "US Warships of WW2" which gives the Distribution of the fleet on Dec 7 1941. Pacific-9 BBs, 3CVs, 13 CAs, 11CLs Atlantic-8 BBs, 4CVs, 1CVE, 5CAs, 8 CLs.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 29, 2007)

I think that before any attacks or invations on the US mainland, the allied would have sided with the Germans to fight the Russians. Or am I wrong??


----------



## timshatz (May 29, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> I think that before any attacks or invations on the US mainland, the allied would have sided with the Germans to fight the Russians. Or am I wrong??



I think (and this is definitely an IMHO line here) that you can get a good line on how the Western Euro would handle such a situation by looking at how things were going before WW1. While Communism was (and still is, ideologically) a threat to the West, it was a distant threat. Hitler was closer and the Western Euro did nothing about him until he was too powerful to stop. Not that the US jumped out there and took the lead either. Everybody dropped the ball there. 

But going to war with Hitler against Stalin would probably not have happened. A situation much like the US pre-December 7th would've occured. Involved by making weapons for Germany but not physically sending any troops. It would've been hairy for the Western Euro (definitely creating an animal that will probably attack you later in Nazi Germany) but from the perspective of the Westerners, the more those two regimes went at it, the better.


----------



## mkloby (May 29, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Royal Navy in September 1939:
> 
> Battleships 15
> Carriers 7
> ...



1939
BB - The RN had 13 BB and 2 BC (Hood had the same armor percentage as their BB, but Renown and Repulse were in no way shape or form BB.

Out of the RN's 7 carriers, Argus, Eagle, Hermes, and Furious combined carried the air complement of a single USN carrier. Courageous and Glorious had semi-decent AC of 48, with only the Ark Royal operating a large complement of 72. None of these had the armored box - which seriously cut down the ability to carry a large air complement, although it did enabe the Illustrious class to absorb horrific punishment. You can judge what is more successful - US carriers operating over 90 A/C, or carrying more armor and operating a group slightly more than half that on the same displacement... The carriers the US put into service carried more combined air power than the RN throughout the entire war - not to mention MUCH more effective aircraft.

The Royal Navy had an excellent cruiser force - large numbers, and although not generally as large as foreign designs, very capable.


----------



## timshatz (May 30, 2007)

mkloby said:


> The carriers the US put into service carried more combined air power than the RN throughout the entire war - not to mention MUCH more effective aircraft.



Agree with that last part. What the RNAS went to war with in terms of aircraft was a travesty. The RAF sucked up all the funds and left them as a poor relation.


----------



## renrich (May 30, 2007)

The RN had a large cruiser force and well manned but her cruisers had not the range of US cruisers, not by half, because of outmoded boiler design and their AA fire control was ineffective. On average her cruisers were not as well armed or armored as their US counterparts. As I recall one of the Leander class was sunk by a German armed merchant cruiser. Was it Sydney?


----------



## Soren (May 30, 2007)

LoL Syscom3, your pride blinds you so terribly ! 



Hunter368 said:


> No you cleverly dance around saying it actually, kinda like a lawyer or a politian.
> 
> What you do say is that Europe owes US graditude for saving it in WW2. Plus you are argueing in this thread which, by using just this title alone shows what you believe (I know you never made it), you believe the USA could of won vs the world, if you didn't believe that you would not be argueing on this thread.
> 
> Don't be shy Syscom, admit it....stop walking the fence. You worried you might be proven wrong?



Exactly Hunter.


Now as to why I think the world will force the US to eventually capitulate;

1. Combined Europe Asia would be ALOT stronger in every military sense than the US could ever be.
2. Who do you think has access to the most best raw materials and recources ??  
3. With no persecution of the jews the Atom bomb would be in the hands of the country which came upon the Idea first - Germany. 

Over time this would inevitably force the US to capitulate, large scale invasion or not - an all out war starting in the gap between eastern Europe and America would eventually drain the US of all war resources.


----------



## syscom3 (May 30, 2007)

Soren said:


> 1. Combined Europe Asia would be ALOT stronger in every military sense than the US could ever be.



The US had the largest industrial and manufacturing base in the world. magnitudes above that of Europe and Russia.

The fact you include Asia in your calculations is either a lame attempt at humor, or you are so grossly misinformed about actual economic strengths of the combatants in the 30's and 40's, you should not be posting such absurdities and embarressing yourself.



> 2. Who do you think has access to the most best raw materials and recources ??



You all so clever man, who never has opened a book on the subject..... The US and Canada were nearly completely self sufficent in natural resources.



> 3. With no persecution of the jews the Atom bomb would be in the hands of the country which came upon the Idea first - Germany.



Yes, the Nazi's are no longer going to persecute the Jews, in fact, they will invite all of them back to the homeland with a hug and a tear on the cheek.

A more likely scenario is all of the Jewish scientists will get out of Europe and get to the US.

And where do you get this idea that germany had the idea for an atomic bomb first? Same guy who told you the Ta-152 was carrier capable? The simple fact is nuclear weapons (a controlled fission device) had been discussed in academia for a couple of decades and every physisist of the day knew of the concept.

But only the US had the scientific, technical and industrial capacity to make it work. 



> Over time this would inevitably force the US to capitulate, large scale invasion or not - an all out war starting in the gap between eastern Europe and America would eventually drain the US of all war resources.



We are on the defensive and you have to come to us. You simply didnt have the resources to invade with the required margins to win.


----------



## Soren (May 31, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The US had the largest industrial and manufacturing base in the world. magnitudes above that of Europe and Russia.
> 
> The fact you include Asia in your calculations is either a lame attempt at humor, or you are so grossly misinformed about actual economic strengths of the combatants in the 30's and 40's, you should not be posting such absurdities and embarressing yourself.



LoL, you're the one who's embarrasing yourself here Syscom3 ! You grossly underestimate the combined industrial power of Europe and Asia ! 

If you seriously believe that the US could out-produce the rest of the world then you must have licked some kind poisoness frog or something... Europe and Asia combined could produce twice as much - just look at what the USSR did alone.

With Germany, Britain, Japan, USSR, Poland, France, Italy, Czechoslovakia, China, Korea etc etc etc, the US doesn't stand a chance alone. 

Sure the US helped alot during WW2 but without the USSR, Britain and the rest of Europe there's no way the US could ever have hoped to wage a successful against Germany.



> You all so clever man, who never has opened a book on the subject..... The US and Canada were nearly completely self sufficent in natural resources.



Oh sure they were, but how about when in a war with the rest of the world ? 

You certainly think ahead  



> Yes, the Nazi's are no longer going to persecute the Jews, in fact, they will invite all of them back to the homeland with a hug and a tear on the cheek.
> 
> A more likely scenario is all of the Jewish scientists will get out of Europe and get to the US.
> 
> ...




Rubbish ! 

If an alliance between the Soviet Union (Of which a very large part is Jewish) and Germany was ever going to happen then there'd be no persecution of the Jews, and that means there's no reason for them to leave = A-bomb for the Germans, who nonetheless could've build the first A-bomb years before the US ever did if Hitler had just financed the project. 

Poland is also part of the world you know, and if Poland is to ally with Germany then again - NO PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS !

The only reason Hitler went for the jews was as an excuse to start a war anyways...



> We are on the defensive and you have to come to us.
> You simply didnt have the resources to invade with the required margins to win.



LoL, Russia alone mustered millions upon millions more men than the US, and with the combined technology of the rest of Europe and Asia it would be just a matter of time before the US would have to capitulate.

Another entry point into the US would be South America - resistance in that region would be minimal and Europe and Asia would have plenty of men at their disposal.


----------



## mkloby (May 31, 2007)

renrich said:


> The RN had a large cruiser force and well manned but her cruisers had not the range of US cruisers, not by half, because of outmoded boiler design and their AA fire control was ineffective. On average her cruisers were not as well armed or armored as their US counterparts. As I recall one of the Leander class was sunk by a German armed merchant cruiser. Was it Sydney?



Ahhh - Kormoran and Sydney duked it out and both were wrecked.



Soren said:


> The only reason Hitler went for the jews was as an excuse to start a war anyways...



Are you seriously saying that???


----------



## renrich (May 31, 2007)

No persecution of the Jews? Hmmmm, what world do you live in?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2007)

This *is *a very a very hypothetical thread.... 

I still want to know how an invading army is going to disarm the US civilian population?!?!? And I'd like to see a guess on how many casualties this fairy tale invasion force would take while doing it....


----------



## Hunter368 (May 31, 2007)

Wolverines!!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Wolverines!!!!


----------



## Lucky13 (May 31, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> This *is *a very a very hypothetical thread....



Like Hitler being Churchills long lost brother....seperated at birth.


----------



## renrich (May 31, 2007)

Flyboy, your point about the people in this country with guns is a good one. I can't think of any country in the world where the citizenry is as well armed as in the US. A would be conquerer would have his work cut out for him trying to subdue this country, especially in the 1940s.


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 31, 2007)

renrich said:


> Flyboy, your point about the people in this country with guns is a good one. I can't think of any country in the world where the citizenry is as well armed as in the US. A would be conquerer would have his work cut out for him trying to subdue this country, especially in the 1940s.



Thats a problem in the middleast an East Asia too, *everybody* owns an AK or an SKS and thats one of the many problems were facing right now


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2007)

102first_hussars said:


> Thats a problem in the middleast an East Asia too, *everybody* owns an AK or an SKS and thats one of the many problems were facing right now



Yep!!!!!


----------



## renrich (May 31, 2007)

I fail to see any connection between the US and the middle east and east asia.


----------



## timshatz (May 31, 2007)

renrich said:


> I fail to see any connection between the US and the middle east and east asia.



There isn't one ever since Pangea broke up 180 million years ago. 

Ok, bad joke but I couldn't help it.


----------



## syscom3 (May 31, 2007)

timshatz said:


> There isn't one ever since Pangea broke up 180 million years ago.
> 
> Ok, bad joke but I couldn't help it.



I didnt know you knew your paleogeology.

8)


----------



## Hunter368 (May 31, 2007)

Syscom where is that list of US navy from 1939 and 1945?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 1, 2007)

Naval Ships
Carriers
1. United States = 22 (141)
2. Japan = 16
3. United Kingdom = 14

Battleships
1. United States = 8
2. United Kingdom = 5
3. Italy = 3
4. Japan = 2
5. Germany = 2

Cruisers
1. United States = 48
2. United Kingdom = 32
3. Japan = 9
4. Italy = 6
5. Soviet Union = 2

Destroyers
1. United States = 349
2. United Kingdom = 240
3. Japan = 63
4. Soviet Union = 25

Escorts
1. United States = 498
2. United Kingdom = 413
3. Canada = 191

Subs
1. Germany = 1,337
2. US = 422
3. Japan = 167
4. United Kingdom = 167
5. Soviet Union = 52
6. Italy = 28

Merchant Tonnage
1. United States = 33,993,230
2. United Kingdom = 6,378,899
3. Japan = 4,152,361
4. Commonwealth = 2,702,943
5. Italy = 469,606


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 1, 2007)

renrich said:


> Flyboy, your point about the people in this country with guns is a good one. I can't think of any country in the world where the citizenry is as well armed as in the US. A would be conquerer would have his work cut out for him trying to subdue this country, especially in the 1940s.



You should see Sweden when the hunting season is for moose/elk? Even the (censored) trees is running around with rifles.....


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 1, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Naval Ships
> Carriers
> 1. United States = 22 (141)
> 2. Japan = 16
> ...



The Russians didn't have much of a navy it looks like....was that all they had?


----------



## timshatz (Jun 1, 2007)

Just looking at the numbers, the numbers look like they are for the total time of 1939-1945. The number of US subs looks a tad high. Would've guessed it was more in the 2-300 range. 

But even 200 is more than enough to devestate a merchant fleet of 13 million metric tons (adding the larger, non-US fleets together). Figure you have 100 subs that are operational at any given time and the average hull is 4000 tons. If each sub sinks 2 ships (on average) per patrol and each patrol is (on average) 30 days (given the US is protecting it's shores and the subs operational areas would be close to shore) you are looking at roughly 800,000 tons per month lost (or 9.6 million tons per year).

Granted, there are a lot of problems with the above idea, but it gives some idea of what a I see as the greatest problem with an attack against the US in the 40s. The supply lines are very long, open to attack and the US knows it. As all supplies to the forces attaking the US would have to come from overseas, it is a main weakness with an attack on the US. 

To add to the above analysis, while 60-65% of Japanese shipping was sunk by US Subs, a good 25-30% were sunk by Aircraft. Approaching the US Coastline would allow aircraft as diverse as the B17 to the Catalina to the SBD to the P47 to attack. The closer any ship gets to the US the greater it's chances of attack get.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jun 1, 2007)

What year are those numbers for or from Syscom?


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 1, 2007)

Did the USN have better luck with the torpedoes for the subs than those used by their torpedobombers? The type 13 wasn't very good was it? Another thing maybe worth looking into is the technological advantage...
Just stirring things up lads....


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2007)

Listen guys, an invasion of the US wouldn't be easy at all, never said that, and the actual conflict which would evolve if an invasion took place would also last longer than the war with the US army - simply because of the amount of guns available to the average citizen, no doubt. The US army would capitulate after not too long in this hypothetical scenario of an invasion, which in effect would turn the US into one large rebel state, one which opposes the occupying European army. Now this will be a problem for the invading force, but no'where near in the same scale as it does these days, simply because in the 1940's there wouldn't be the same human rights restrictions and media coverage restraining any action taken by the occupying army - it would be an old fashion sweep of any resistance - and you as a citizen can't do a whole lot against a well equipped army with tanks and aircraft... 


As to Syscom3,

His numbers are very very suspect and he's obviously cherry picking, esp. considering he left out all German pocket battleships battleship cruisers plus the many destroyers build by Germany.


----------



## mkloby (Jun 1, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> The Russians didn't have much of a navy it looks like....was that all they had?



The Soviet navy in 1939 had 3 WWI BB in service (very outdated and outclassed), 2 old pre-WWI cruisers, 2 CL, and 2 CA(with puny 7.1" guns - one of which having only 4). They had 6 old pre-WWI DD, 17 WWI era DD (many completed in the 20's due to disruptions by war and revolution), and a handful of more modern DD.




Lucky13 said:


> Did the USN have better luck with the torpedoes for the subs than those used by their torpedobombers? The type 13 wasn't very good was it? Another thing maybe worth looking into is the technological advantage...
> Just stirring things up lads....



Early US Mark 13 and 14 torps had serious problems. Mk 14s would strike targets and fail to detonate. Flaws had been worked out finally by 1943. mark 13s transitioned to British torpex by 1943, and with modifications to the arming mechanisms became powerful weapons. They never outgrew their poor reputations.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 1, 2007)

Good point on the Torps, Lucky. They were pathetically bad for the first two years of the Pacific war. More of a case of incompetence, turf protecting and general bull headedness from the US Navy's torpedo design people. Hopefully that would not've happened in this scenario but my guess is that it would. 

On another post, Soren asserted that the US Army would capitulate quickly. Why? The US is close to 5000 kilometers wide. Why would the US Army have to capitulate? To put it another way, the distance the Soviet and Germany armies fought over between Moscow and Berlin is roughly the same distance between New York City (on the East Coast of the US) and St. Louis (on the Mississippi River). After you get to St. Louis, there's still another 2/3rds of the country to cover. 

The US Army wouldn't have to capitulate, it could do essentially the same thing the Soviet Army did and fall back into the interior. And every mile an enemy advances in the US is another mile of commuincations it has to protect. The British found that out in 1770s (and that was with half the population on their side). Back then, there were only 2-3 million people in the US. By 1940, there were close to 130 million. And most of them are armed in some way, shape or form. In short, a logistical nightmare of the first order for any army.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 1, 2007)

Here's a good link for the German Kriegsmarine... German Naval History plenty of good profiles. I think that the forces attacking and fighting the US armed forces would face almost the same problems as in fierce resistance, as if the invasion of Japan had taken place. Just look at the amount of mountains in the US, the alps in Europe isn't bad, but I think that the "Rockies", "Sierra Nevadas", "Cascades" and the "Bitter Roots" are far worse, they would put up one hell of fight there.


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2007)

> In short, a logistical nightmare of the first order for any army



Not as nightmarish as you would think considering that the European/Asian alliance would be controlling the sea and that not too long within the conflict the European/Asia alliance would establish a complete control of the air - which means the place where logistics is going to be the hardest to manage is within the center of North America. 

With control of the air and sea the logistics part for the European/Asian Alliance wouldn't pose nearly as big a problem as it did the Germans later on on the eastern front. 

You can't compare 1770 with 1940 Timsatz, logistic-problems were of an entirely different magnitude back then - and lets not forget that the British were fighting the French at that time as-well as others whilst in our hypothetical scenario the US would be facing Europe and Asia alone.

Consider what the US alone would have to face;
A larger and better equipped Army, a larger and better equipped Airforce and finally a larger and better equipped Navy.


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Just look at the amount of mountains in the US, the alps in Europe isn't bad, but I think that the "Rockies", "Sierra Nevadas", "Cascades" and the "Bitter Roots" are far worse, they would put up one hell of fight there.



No doubt, the mountains will be a real nightmare as tanks and other heavy material can't go there - it'll be a the European/Asian alliance advancing on foot against entrenched defenders - the advantage however will be that the European/Asian force will have air-cover and can therefore rain down bombs on the defenders. Nonetheless it would be a bitter fight in those places.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2007)

I'm on the side of standstill depending on whether or not we develop nucs first. First, Britain and France capitulating probably doesn't mean whole hearted 'co-operation' from the Empire or even England. Second USSR won't be joining Hitler - it will be VERY busy trying to build up for the other shoe to drop. Even if Hitler attacked USSR to take them out I'm not convinced that the new Alliance could defeat them

The combined fleets are interesting but don't believe there is any possiblity -logistics wise of getting and keeping a toe hold in the Americas. The bad guys have to take (not destroy) the Panama Canal to achieve relative mobility of sea power. We can build subs at an alarming rate to neutralize off shore combined navies - alnding in SA and proceeding North gets pretty grisly when you reach Central America - looking a lot like New Guinea.

US manufacturing capability higher than all the ones you mentioned combined and pretty self sufficent in raw materials.

There is no place close enough to base airpower that is out of reach from US airpower.

Can't defeat US w/o invading and occupying - can't occupy w/o overwhelming air and seapower advantage, and can't get that w/o airpower close enough to destroy industry (West Coast and Central US) that in turn is close enough for US to destroy that.

And have to gear up for that invasion within say 12 months of the Grand Alliance.

Just opinion on a really wierd thread..


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 1, 2007)

Soren said:


> Not as nightmarish as you would think considering that the European/Asian alliance would be controlling the sea and that not too long within the conflict the European/Asia alliance would establish a complete control of the air - which means the place where logistics is going to be the hardest to manage is within the center of North America.
> 
> With control of the air and sea the logistics part for the European/Asian Alliance wouldn't pose nearly as big a problem as it did the Germans later on on the eastern front.



Why do you keep this silly planning model on the supposition that you will gain control of the from shore to shore. You couldnt build carriers fast enough or in quatity to gain control over a contiental airspace. Land based airpower will defeat sea based air power every single time. 



> Consider what the US alone would have to face;
> A larger and better equipped Army, a larger and better equipped Airforce and finally a larger and better equipped Navy.



Your AF would be 3000 miles away, so drop it out of the equation.
Your Navy would be subject to attack from thousands of land based medium and heavy bombers, before it even gets into range of the single engine types

The US economy was the largest in the world with the best manufacturing and production methods. There is no evidence your combined alliance could match the US in any field once the US mobilizes its industry.

As for the US Army? It only needed a year to mobilize into getting several dozen divisions equiped and ready. Not needing a vast number of soldiers in the supply corps would free up even more for combat duty. A couple of years would give the US a huge manpower advantage when looked at in way that takes into account the firepower/interior logistics/air supremecy aspects.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 1, 2007)

Another thing gentlemen, how many militias was it around in the US in the 40's compared to today? I'm sure that they'd be a force to reckon with. If Canada was with the brits, the AF wouldn't be 3000 miles away more likely next door, and Soviet Union isn't even 100 miles from Alaska.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 1, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Another thing gentlemen, how many militias was it around in the US in the 40's compared to today? I'm sure that they'd be a force to reckon with. If Canada was with the brits, the AF wouldn't be 3000 miles away more likely next door, and Soviet Union isn't even 100 miles from Alaska.



Canada would be with the US, or occupied by the US.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 1, 2007)

I think they would side with the Brits, commonwealth and all that.... So the US would probably have to move in... 

Anyhoo, I'm off to the local pick up joint, beer anyone?


----------



## Hunter368 (Jun 1, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Canada would be with the US, or occupied by the US.



I don't like the sound of that!!  

During the 40's the average Canadian also owned many firearms.....I would love to see those Yanks trying to deal with Canadian gorilla fighters. I lived in the north......all those Yankie fisher men that came up there to catch their jackfish.....I know their measure......they would not survive long. My Dad and I acted as guides to them during fishing trips.

In urban areas it would be the same as any country, snipers, bombs etc. But in any rural area.......those yanks better keep their heads down or a Canadian sniper/farmer is going blow his head off.  

I have have to agree with drgdog, whoever had the nuke first and able to deliver it to the target would win.


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I'm on the side of standstill depending on whether or not we develop nucs first. First, Britain and France capitulating probably doesn't mean whole hearted 'co-operation' from the Empire or even England. Second USSR won't be joining Hitler - it will be VERY busy trying to build up for the other shoe to drop. Even if Hitler attacked USSR to take them out I'm not convinced that the new Alliance could defeat them



I think we all agree that this total European/Asian Alliance is very very unrealistic, but this is the scenario which we are discussing so lets stick to it.



> The combined fleets are interesting but don't believe there is any possiblity -logistics wise of getting and keeping a toe hold in the Americas. The bad guys have to take (not destroy) the Panama Canal to achieve relative mobility of sea power. We can build subs at an alarming rate to neutralize off shore combined navies - alnding in SA and proceeding North gets pretty grisly when you reach Central America - looking a lot like New Guinea.



The US can build subs fast yes, but so can Europe and better ones at that - the German subs would prove an absolute nightmare for the US navy, esp. the later Type XXI's. 

Taking the Panama Canal is very plausible when you consider that the EA alliance will have complete command of the sea, and with plenty of carriers to atleast equal the concentration of the US airforce - the EA subs would help protect the logistic connection across the Atlantic. This would enable the EA to carry out a naval bombardment of the US coasts and have have a/c to clear the surrounding airspace. The landbased invasion could be initiated in the northern part of South America, that would give plenty of time to fully assemble a large enough force to pose a threat from that side. Meanwhile a huge invasion force crossing the Bering Sea would open up a front in Canada using Alaska as a base. 



> US manufacturing capability higher than all the ones you mentioned combined and pretty self sufficent in raw materials.



In an Alliance between Europe and Asia, no. Look at what force the USSR could assemble alone - they built more tanks than the US alone.



> There is no place close enough to base airpower that is out of reach from US airpower.



Correct, there will be a confrontation between the EA and US airforce - the EA however can muster more and better a/c - in 1940 - 1942 the E/A will have the A6M Zero with its extreme range, something which will help any invasion force alot - later on when the EA has gained ground there will be bases from which landbased fighters can operate, and that will act as a real boost to the invasion of North America, esp. when the Me-262 can be delivered in numbers - it would sweep away any resistance in the air.



> Can't defeat US w/o invading and occupying - can't occupy w/o overwhelming air and seapower advantage, and can't get that w/o airpower close enough to destroy industry (West Coast and Central US) that in turn is close enough for US to destroy that.



The US can't destroy the E/A Navy however, as trying to do so would end with a direct confrontation - one which the E/A alliance will most surely win. Early in the war the range of the A6M Zero will prove decisive, as it will allow the EA alliance to establish a foothold on North America from which landbased a/c can be launched as-well as troops.



> And have to gear up for that invasion within say 12 months of the Grand Alliance.



Again the sheer manpower and resources of Europa and Asia united combined with most namely the German advances in technology would be enough to ensure the completion of the most modern and largest military force on the planet within 12 months.

No doubt this hypothetical war would be a giant bloodbath however, the losses on both sides would be enormous.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 1, 2007)

Soren said:


> The US can build subs fast yes, but so can Europe and better ones at that - the German subs would prove an absolute nightmare for the US navy, esp. the later Type XXI's.



As shown in actual conditions in the war, radar, sufficent escorts and air patrol can radically blunt the sub's perfromance. The type XXI's would not appear untill 1945, so they would not even be a factor at all.



> Taking the Panama Canal is very plausible when you consider that the EA alliance will have complete command of the sea, and with plenty of carriers to atleast equal the concentration of the US airforce - the EA subs would help protect the logistic connection across the Atlantic.



And how many hundreds of carriers are you going to build to offset the land based aircraft of the US? And how will you protect your forces that would have to travel through the choke points of the Gulf to get there? A Panama invasion is completely implausable situation.



> This would enable the EA to carry out a naval bombardment of the US coasts and have have a/c to clear the surrounding airspace. The landbased invasion could be initiated in the northern part of South America, that would give plenty of time to fully assemble a large enough force to pose a threat from that side.



Youre joking right?



> Meanwhile a huge invasion force crossing the Bering Sea would open up a front in Canada using Alaska as a base.



Another joke?

Do you actually look at a map to see if there is even any infastructure availble to perform these grandiose plans of yours?



> In an Alliance between Europe and Asia, no. Look at what force the USSR could assemble alone - they built more tanks than the US alone.



In a 1944 and 1945 monthly basis, the US was producing equal to, or in some cases more than the USSR.



> Correct, there will be a confrontation between the EA and US airforce - the EA however can muster more and better a/c - in 1940 - 1942 the E/A will have the A6M Zero with its extreme range, something which will help any invasion force alot - later on when the EA has gained ground there will be bases from which landbased fighters can operate, and that will act as a real boost to the invasion of North America, esp. when the Me-262 can be delivered in numbers - it would sweep away any resistance in the air.



heheheheheheh.



> The US can't destroy the E/A Navy however, as trying to do so would end with a direct confrontation - one which the E/A alliance will most surely win. Early in the war the range of the A6M Zero will prove decisive, as it will allow the EA alliance to establish a foothold on North America from which landbased a/c can be launched as-well as troops.



And why cant the US destroy the EA navy? Why cant the US destroy any toehold you get on north america? Why do you have this bizarre obsession with the Zero? 



> Again the sheer manpower and resources of Europa and Asia united combined with most namely the German advances in technology would be enough to ensure the completion of the most modern and largest military force on the planet within 12 months.



heheheheheh


----------



## Hunter368 (Jun 1, 2007)

I say we put Soren and Syscom in the cage, bare knuckle fight. Five, three minute rounds.

Last man standing wins.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 1, 2007)

Who's taking the bets?


----------



## Hunter368 (Jun 1, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Who's taking the bets?



I wonder do they both have pics under the member profiles or Dan's mugshot thread?


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 1, 2007)

Maybe it's the Police front and profile shots.....


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2007)

Syscom3 you're having trouble answering back I see.

I'll ask you this though;

What effective methods díd the Allies have against subs in 1941 ?? Thats right, none really - the German Uboats were having a field day. 

What fighter did the US have which could effectively oppose the A6M Zero in 1941 ? Thats right, none. 

What fighter did the US ever have which could oppose the Me-262 ? Thats right, none.

What destroyer can ever hope to be effective against the Type XXI U-boat which boasted 17.5 - 18 knots submerged and was dead silent on approach with its top modern stealth engine, being nearly undetectable ? Thats right, none.

What tank did the US have which could prove effective against German USSR tanks of the similar period ? Thats right, none, the German USSR tanks would have themselves a turkey shoot.

What smallarms did the US have which could match the Stg.44 MG-42 ? Again, none.

Don't get me wrong, besides these advantages for the EA alliance the fight would still be bitter for both parties but in the end the US will capitulate, the united forces which opposes the US are simply too great.

Btw, with the financial and industrial help of the rest of Europe Asia you can expect Type XXI subs, Me-262's V-2's being around much earlier. 

And as to production - you'd be astounded to know how much Germany would've built alone if it wasn't for Allied bombing. And since no European or Asian country needs to fear bombing in this scenario the combined production rate of the EA alliance would skyrocket.


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2007)

How can anyone think that the US could stand against the entire world ?! Its ridiculous - no country could.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 1, 2007)

The only thing America would have going for it in this situation would be numbers, and even that would be negated by the sheer number of troops against them.
Their navy would be taken out by the sheer numbers of the combined "allied" force


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 1, 2007)

No matter what gents.....it would be a slaughterhouse.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 1, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> No matter what gents.....it would be a slaughterhouse.



That would be for certain. I suspect it would of descended into a nuclear war of some size. However developed the bomb first would of used it on one of the opposites major cities with then the others trying to develop one to retaliate and so on - a very messy outcome.


----------



## k9kiwi (Jun 1, 2007)

Short answer to that is....

*NO*


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 1, 2007)

Soren said:


> What effective methods díd the Allies have against subs in 1941 ?? Thats right, none really - the German Uboats were having a field day.



None, not untill 1943 when plenty of radar equipped escorts and plentifull air cover decimated the U-Boats.



> What fighter did the US have which could effectively oppose the A6M Zero in 1941 ? Thats right, none.



The P38, P40 and F4F at the start of the war more than held their own. Then the F4U and F6F piled in on the fight.

Any more questions?



> What fighter did the US ever have which could oppose the Me-262 ? Thats right, none.



And they wouldnt be in quantity untll 1945. But then again, the short range of the -262 precluded it from any meaningfull offensive roles.



> What destroyer can ever hope to be effective against the Type XXI U-boat which boasted 17.5 - 18 knots submerged and was dead silent on approach with its top modern stealth engine, being nearly undetectable ? Thats right, none.



They first were deployed in April of 1945? 



> What tank did the US have which could prove effective against German USSR tanks of the similar period ? Thats right, none, the German USSR tanks would have themselves a turkey shoot.



The US could out produce the EA in tank production, so we would always end up winning the fight. The M4 was easy to build and maintain. Plus the Pershing was the best MBT at the end of the war, so the US was more than capable f designing and building a great tank(s)



> What smallarms did the US have which could match the Stg.44 MG-42 ? Again, none.



So the war is going to be decided by small arms?



> Btw, with the financial and industrial help of the rest of Europe Asia you can expect Type XXI subs, Me-262's V-2's being around much earlier.



You dont look at economic stats from the period do you. By any chance, do you understand what the "GNP is?



> And as to production - you'd be astounded to know how much Germany would've built alone if it wasn't for Allied bombing. And since no European or Asian country needs to fear bombing in this scenario the combined production rate of the EA alliance would skyrocket.



The scarey thing about the US industrial strengths during the war was the US economy didn't slow down one bit. In fact, economic figures show that there was still plenty of reserve capacity in the economy to grow even bigger!

Even better for the US military/industrial machine was not much would need to be shared or wasted on Russian or GB.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 1, 2007)

mosquitoman said:


> The only thing America would have going for it in this situation would be numbers, and even that would be negated by the sheer number of troops against them.
> Their navy would be taken out by the sheer numbers of the combined "allied" force



What makes you assume you could build and supply a navy that would need to invade a country of 130 million, that was the largest and most productive industrial base in the world, backed up by huge cadres of technical, managerial and scientific personel.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 1, 2007)

I would say an invasion year would be unlikely untill mid 1943.

I figure the EA would not come together until spring 1940. It would take at least 3 years to build enough carriers to at least provide escort for the grand fleets. Whether enough carriers could be thrown together to provide offensive operations is remote, and unlikely.

In the mean time, the US begins its armourment programs in earnest in summer 1940 instead of in multiple stages as what happened in 1940 and 1941. By not having to worry about lend Lease, the US military can rearm at a far faster rate than what actually happened.

My estimates would be the US to have a solid army defensive foundation by mid 1941, with the AF beginning to get exponentialy stronger by late 1941, early 1942. The navy would begin receiving its warships from the 1940 shipbuilding program by fall 1942.


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> None, not untill 1943 when plenty of radar equipped escorts and plentifull air cover decimated the U-Boats.



Decimated ? Syscom3 don't you forget how many took part in fighting the U-boats besides the US ! Don't forget how huge and crucial a part Britain played in the war of the Atlantic ! Without that help the US navy would've needed alot of life-rafts ! 



> The P38, P40 and F4F at the start of the war more than held their own.



Sure 

Wake up man ! In 1941 the A6M Zero swepped all opposition and forced the US fighters to rely on dangerous hit and run tactics.



> Then the F4U and F6F piled in on the fight.



By which time Germany Britain produced equal or superior fighters. The FW-190 and Bf-109 could easily be made carrier capable, just as the Spitfire was.



> Any more questions?



Plenty ! For example why not cut the lies and actually think for a while ?



> And they wouldnt be in quantity untll 1945.



Very ignorant of you again Syscom3 - By help of German funding alone the Me-262 could've been ready as early as 1943, Hitler however again slowed down the process by not wanting to finance the project, which I will again point out would not have been the case in this EA alliance where funds are plentiful.



> But then again, the short range of the -262 precluded it from any meaningfull offensive roles.



Short range ??? Do you even know how far the Me-262A-1 could go on internal fuel alone ?? Put a few drop tanks on a *voila !* one long range Jet at your disposal ! The US a/c would have no alternate other than stay on the ground or get shot down.



> They first were deployed in April of 1945?



Again you don't read very well so I'll repeat it for you in bold letters this time: *With the financial and industrial help of the rest of Europe Asia you can expect Type XXI subs, Me-262's V-2's being around much earlier. 
* - as early as 1943 for sure !



> The US could out produce the EA in tank production,



Stop lying Syscom3, the US could not and did not even out-produce the Soviets in tanks, and thats a fact.



> so we would always end up winning the fight.



Hahaha !  why don't you just cover up your eyes and ears and yell *tralalalalala!* when'ever you've seen our posts and then respond ? The result would be the same anyways.

The truth is that the US wouldn't stand the slightest chance. 



> The M4 was easy to build and maintain.



The M4 was easy getting blown to itty bitty pieces as-well - real good infact ! 



> Plus the Pershing was the best MBT at the end of the war, so the US was more than capable f designing and building a great tank(s)



Again you're lying your pants off Syscom3... The Pershing was nowhere near the best MBT by wars end, thats just another one of your lies.. Even the Tiger Ausf.E was superior in every sense but armor protection !

At the Aberdeen proving grounds in the US the Pershing's gun was found inferior compared to the 75mm Kwk42, 8.8cm Kwk36 L/56 88mm Kwk43 in terms of accuracy and penetrative performance (Below). And the Pershing itself was plagued with serious reliability issues throughout its service life, breaking down even more frequently than the Tiger Ausf.B - and that alone says quite abit.


*Range table in meters:*






*8.8cm Kwk43 L/71 APCBC penetration result at Aberdeen proving grounds USA against 240 BHN RHA armor plate:*




*7.5cm Kwk42 L/70 APCBC penetration result at Aberdeen proving grounds USA against 240 BHN RHA armor plate:*




*8.8cm Kwk36 L/56 APCBC penetration result at Aberdeen proving grounds USA against 240 BHN RHA armor plate:*




*9.0cm M3 L/52 APCBC penetration result at Aberdeen proving grounds USA against 240 BHN RHA armor plate:*





- From Lorrin Rexford Bird and Robert D. Livingston's, "World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery".



> So the war is going to be decided by small arms?





Go ask the coalition forces currently in Iraq how much the smallarm matters please! By doing so you'll only get alot wiser.



> You dont look at economic stats from the period do you. By any chance, do you understand what the "GNP is?



I do, you don't.



> The scarey thing about the US industrial strengths during the war was the US economy didn't slow down one bit. In fact, economic figures show that there was still plenty of reserve capacity in the economy to grow even bigger!
> 
> Even better for the US military/industrial machine was not much would need to be shared or wasted on Russian or GB.



You're clueless.


----------



## Soren (Jun 1, 2007)

No lone country could stand against the entire world!


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 1, 2007)

Soren said:


> Decimated ? Syscom3 don't you forget how many took part in fighting the U-boats besides the US ! Don't forget how huge and crucial a part Britain played in the war of the Atlantic ! Without that help the US navy would've needed alot of life-rafts !



Good point. Without convoys going to Europe, we wouldn't need to worry about the U Boats outside of land based patrol bomber coverage. All we need to do is keep the convoys going between US ports close to shore where our aircraft and escorts can concentrate, and then sink you en mass.



> Wake up man ! In 1941 the A6M Zero swepped all opposition and forced the US fighters to rely on dangerous hit and run tactics.



As Flyboy and others have provided evidence, the Zero was not as dominating as you suspect and in fact, obsolescent by the end of 1942.



> By which time Germany Britain produced equal or superior fighters. The FW-190 and Bf-109 could easily be made carrier capable, just as the Spitfire was.



And of course you knew that the landing gear design for the Spit and the -109 made them highly prone to landing mishaps on the carriers, not to mention their short range hurt them in operations. And then you must be the only one in the world to think the -190 was carrier capable.

Still, what fighters do you intend to build that had the 3000 mile radius needed to fight over N America from European bases?



> Very ignorant of you again Syscom3 - By help of German funding alone the Me-262 could've been ready as early as 1943, Hitler however again slowed down the process by not wanting to finance the project, which I will again point out would not have been the case in this EA alliance where funds are plentiful.



You cant rush technology and the -262 would not have been reliable enough for operations until well into 1944. 



> Short range ??? Do you even know how far the Me-262A-1 could go on internal fuel alone ?? Put a few drop tanks on a *voila !* one long range Jet at your disposal ! The US a/c would have no alternate other than stay on the ground or get shot down.



So now your jet is flying at 300 mile radius? But then by the time you figure out the inevitable bugs in your 262, we will have the P80 to tangle with you.



> Again you don't read very well so I'll repeat it for you in bold letters this time: *With the financial and industrial help of the rest of Europe Asia you can expect Type XXI subs, Me-262's V-2's being around much earlier.*


*

So you're now conveniently pushing your technological breakthroughs up a year or tow? Well I counter yours with US proximity fuses available in 1942, US jet engines in 1944 and US developed "TV" guided bombs as early as 1943. 

And what part of economics 101 class did you sleep in where they said Asia's economy was small untill the 60's?




Stop lying Syscom3, the US could not and did not even out-produce the Soviets in tanks, and thats a fact.

Click to expand...


Monthly tank production figures were pretty much equal. In fact, without having to build so much stuff for the UK and Russia, we could convert more of our factories to other weapons. I'm even verifying some figures showing that the US had a monthly production advantage over the Russians, with a good number of those tanks being sent to the Russians (and UK)




The M4 was easy getting blown to itty bitty pieces as-well - real good infact !

Click to expand...


It took three Shermans to defeat a single Tiger tank. And we were building 4 or 5 of them compared to one Tiger.




Again you're lying your pants off Syscom3... The Pershing was nowhere near the best MBT by wars end, thats just another one of your lies.. Even the Tiger Ausf.E was superior in every sense but armor protection !

Click to expand...


Yet the M26 more than proved itself in the few tank encounters it had. The 90mm gun made all the difference in the world.




Go ask the coalition forces currently in Iraq how much the smallarm matters please! By doing so you'll only get alot wiser.

Click to expand...


No modern war was ever won or lost because the "other" side had a slight advantage over the other in side arms.




You're clueless.

Click to expand...


More than a few comments of yours belong in the world of make believe.*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> Wake up man ! In 1941 the A6M Zero swepped all opposition and forced the US fighters to rely on dangerous hit and run tactics.


Those hit and run tactics were starting to decimate Zeros while the lowly 5th AF was still flying P-39s and P-40s. When the P-38 came on the scene in Dec. 1942 most Zeros just became cannon fodder for them...


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 2, 2007)

Eeerrrmmmm.....what is that the US have that you can't find anywhere else in the world, that is so important that it makes worth to invade??


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 2, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Eeerrrmmmm.....what is that the US have that you can't find anywhere else in the world, that is so important that it makes worth to invade??



We have the finest looking woman and our whiskeys are superior!


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 2, 2007)

I hate this with internet but....I wouldn't compare your whiskey with the proper Scottish or Irish ones. As for women, I don't think that birds back in my "old country" are that bad.....said with tongue in cheek...


----------



## Soren (Jun 2, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Good point. Without convoys going to Europe, we wouldn't need to worry about the U Boats outside of land based patrol bomber coverage. All we need to do is keep the convoys going between US ports close to shore where our aircraft and escorts can concentrate, and then sink you en mass.



The US aircraft will be shot down if they try to combat the U-abots Syscom3, the massive advantage in a/c enjoyed by the EA alliance would've more than made sure of that.




> As Flyboy and others have provided evidence, the Zero was not as dominating as you suspect and in fact, obsolescent by the end of 1942.



Another clear example of that you don't read other's posts... I wrote 1941 Syscom3, not late 1942, and besides in 1942 the EA would have the 670 km/h Bf-109 F-4 at their disposal.




> And of course you knew that the landing gear design for the Spit and the -109 made them highly prone to landing mishaps on the carriers, not to mention their short range hurt them in operations.



The range of the 109 wasn't short with drop-tanks, and the extremely low ladning speed of the Bf-109 and Spitfire helps significantly at reducing the force on impact during carrier landings.

PS: AFAIK the Spitfire did pretty well in the pacific 




> And then you must be the only one in the world to think the -190 was carrier capable.



No, the Germans did as-well. And it really puzzles me if anyone doesn't, esp. considering that the much heavier and clumsy P-47 could operate from a carrier.



> Still, what fighters do you intend to build that had the 3000 mile radius needed to fight over N America from European bases?



Again you haven't been reading squat Syscom3. You don't strike the center to begin with in an invasion Syscom3, you first secure a foothold on the enemy continent, a place from which you can sent landbased fighters and recieve supplies. As the war progresses and the EA alliance gets further inland the airbases are moved forward and new supply check points are established.



> You cant rush technology and the -262 would not have been reliable enough for operations until well into 1944.



What the heck are you talking about ?! The Me-262 could've been mass produced in 1943 by help of German funding alone, Hitler prevented it, thats a fact. 

The Me-262 was ready and flying long before 1944 buddy ! In early 1943 the Me-262A-1 was flown in demonstration infront of Hitler.



> So now your jet is flying at 300 mile radius?



 

300 miles ?? Syscom3 the Me-262 had a 320 mile combat radius on internal fuel alone ! 



> But then by the time you figure out the inevitable bugs in your 262, we will have the P80 to tangle with you.



The P-80 ?! Ha ! With the problems facing you that a/c wouldn't be ready before much longer, and even then it suffered some even more serious problems than the Me-262 - hence why it wasn't used during WW2 when it easily could've.

And as to the problems suffered by the Me-262 with its engine fan-blades having to rely on poor metals, well that problem is eliminated in a EA alliance where the necessary raw materials to build the heat resistant blades would be easy to get hold of - problem solved.



> So you're now conveniently pushing your technological breakthroughs up a year or tow? Well I counter yours with US proximity fuses available in 1942, US jet engines in 1944 and US developed "TV" guided bombs as early as 1943.



No I'm not pushing technology, I'm pushing funding as would happen in an EA alliance. And all of the above was available to the Germans even earlier. (Even the proximity fuzes believe it or not)

The Germans were producing Jet engine as early as 1940, and guided missiles bombs not much after 1940.



> And what part of economics 101 class did you sleep in where they said Asia's economy was small untill the 60's?



I wasn't sleeping cause I actually listened when the explanation of why was given - modern production methods, facilities etc etc wasn't available to many Asian countries, an Alliance with Europa would completely eliminate this problem.



> Monthly tank production figures were pretty much equal. In fact, without having to build so much stuff for the UK and Russia, we could convert more of our factories to other weapons. I'm even verifying some figures showing that the US had a monthly production advantage over the Russians, with a good number of those tanks being sent to the Russians (and UK)



Sent to the Russians or not the US produced the tanks and they didn't achieve to produce the same amount as the USSR alone. Is that simple little fact really so hard for you to understand ?? 



> It took three Shermans to defeat a single Tiger tank. And we were building 4 or 5 of them compared to one Tiger.



What the heck does this matter when you'll be facing far more tanks than you yourself can produce ?? In an EA alliance you can also expect ALOT more Tiger and Panthers knocking at your door ! And on top of this you've got a force of T-34's in larger numbers than your force of Shermans.






> Yet the M26 more than proved itself in the few tank encounters it had. The 90mm gun made all the difference in the world.



Against a confused and routing army mainly made up of children and old men, yeah sure it really proved itself - Esp. when two were knocked out by German AFV's belonging to the Hitler Jugend!



> No modern war was ever won or lost because the "other" side had a slight advantage over the other in side arms.



Side arms ??? Its smallarms were talking about here buddy, not sidearms.

StG.44: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBOkZv-WcXs_


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 2, 2007)

Soren is iggy.


----------



## k9kiwi (Jun 2, 2007)

And don't forget New Zealand.

Oh the damage we could do invading with our home produced Semple and Schofield tanks......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2007)




----------



## timshatz (Jun 3, 2007)

You gotta be brave to even get into those things. What's the armor on that first one made from? It looks like corregated tin.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 3, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Soren is iggy.



Give up man, you're talking to yourself.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 3, 2007)

They're almost as bad as the Standard Beaverette!
Standard Beaverette Feature Page


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 3, 2007)

WHAT is that??


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 3, 2007)

*Fritz X*

Fritz X was the most common name for a German air-launched anti-ship missile, used during World War II. Fritz X was an allied code-name; alternate names include Ruhrstahl SD 1400 X, X-1, PC 1400 X or FX 1400. The latter is also the origin for the name "Fritz X". It is one of the precursors of today's anti-ship missiles and precision-guided weapons.

*History*
The Fritz X was a further development of the high-explosive bomb SD 1400 (Splitterbombe, dickwandig, 1400 kg; German for "fragmention bomb, thick-walled, 1400 kg"). It was given a more aerodynamic nose, four wing stubs with a span of 1.40 m and a box shaped tail unit. The missile was steered by radio from the aircraft (a Heinkel He 111, He 177 or Dornier Do 217 bomber). The crewman who guided the bomb always had to see the target. Thus the bomb had a flare attached that so that it could be seen from the aircraft. The disadvantage with this - in comparison to glide bombs like the Henschel Hs 293 - was that the aircraft had to be flown over the target. Unlike the Hs 293 the Fritz X was intended to be used against armoured ship. The minimum release height was 4,000 meters.

Dipl. engineer Max Kramer who worked at the DVL had been experimenting since *1938 with remote-controlled free-falling 250 kg bombs. In 1940, Ruhrstahl was invited to join the development, since they already had experience in the development and production of unguided bombs.*

*Combat service*
The Fritz X was deployed on 29 August 1943. On 9 September 1943 the Luftwaffe achieved their greatest success with the weapon. After the Italian armistice with the Allies, the Italian fleet had steamed out from La Spezia and headed to Malta. To prevent the ships from falling into Allied hands, 12 Dornier Do 217s from the III. Gruppe of KG100 took off; each carrying a single Fritz X. The Italian battleship Roma, the flagship of the Italian fleet, received several hits and sank after her ammunition magazines exploded. 1,455 men, among them Admiral Carlo Bergamini died. Her sister ship Italia was also damaged.

One week later, the Germans scored another three hits with Fritz X on the British battleship Warspite at Salerno. One bomb penetrated six decks before exploding against the bottom of the ship, blowing a large hole in her. The ship took on a total of 5,000 tonnes of water, lost steam (and thus all power, both to the ship herself and to all her systems) but casualties were few. She had to be taken in tow to Malta and then returned to Britain via Gibraltar and was out of action for near 9 months; she was never completely repaired, but returned to action to bombard Normandy for the invasion of Europe.

The control system used for the Fritz-X, known as the Kehl (and also used by the Hs 293 missle), was susceptible to electronic countermeasures - either straightforward jamming, which blocked the control signals from the bomber, or spoofing, in which the missile was given a signal that sent the control surfaces to an extreme position, eg hard left or full down, sending it out of control into a stall or spiralling dive. By the time of the Normandy landings the combination of allied fighters that kept bombers at bay and ship-mounted jammers meant the missiles had no significant effect on the invasion fleet. Some accounts say that the Norwegian destroyer HNoMS Svenner was hit by a Fritz X at dawn, D-Day.

When working properly, the missile was able to pierce more than 20 inches of steel armor plate.

Other ships, which were damaged by the Fritz X included:

the American cruiser USS Philadelphia 
the American cruiser USS Savannah 
the British cruiser HMS Uganda 
the British anti-aircraft cruiser HMS Spartan (sunk) 
the British destroyer HMS Janus (sunk) 
the military hospital ship HMHS Newfoundland (sunk) 


*Henschel Hs 293*
The Henschel Hs 293 was a World War II German anti-shipping guided missile: a radio-controlled glide bomb with a rocket engine slung underneath it.

*History*
*The Hs 293 project was started in 1940, based on the "Gustav Schwartz Propellerwerke" pure glide bomb that was designed in 1939.* The Schwartz design did not have a terminal guidance system - it used an autopilot to maintain a straight course. The intention was that it could be launched from a bomber at sufficient distance to be out of range of anti-aircraft fire. Henschel developed it the following year by adding a rocket motor underneath it to allow it to be used from lower altitude and to increase the range.

*Over 1000 were built, from 1942 onwards.*

*Combat performance*
The Hs 293 was intended to destroy unarmoured ships unlike the Fritz X, that was intended for use against armoured ships. The operator controlled the radio-guided missile with a joystick. Five colored flares were attached to the rear of the weapon to make it visible at a distance to the operator. During nighttime operations flashing lights instead of flares were used.

One drawback of the Hs 293 was that, after the missile was launched, the bomber had to fly in a straight and level path, and thus could not manoeuvre to evade attacking fighters.

On August 27, 1943, an Hs 293 was used in the first successful attack by a guided missile, sinking the British sloop HMS Egret. On November 26, 1943 an Hs 293 caused the sinking of the troop transport HMT Rohna killing over 1,000 people.

Although designed for use against ships, it was also used in Normandy in early August 1944 to attack bridges over the River See and River Selume. Only one bridge was slightly damaged but six aircraft were lost.

The Hs 293 was carried on Heinkel He 111, Heinkel He 177, Focke-Wulf Fw 200, Dornier Do 217 planes.

*Variants*
*Hs 293A* (later Hs 293A-1), the original version. 
*Hs 293B* was wire-guided to prevent jamming; it was never put into production, because jamming was never serious enough to prevent the radio-guided version from being effective. 
*Hs 293C* (production version designated Hs 293A-2) had a detachable warhead. 
*Hs 293D* was television-guided. Twenty were built and tested, but it was never used operationally as the television equipment was unreliable. 
*Hs 293E* an experimental model to test spoiler controls as a replacement to ailerons; never put into series production. This modification was put into the final version of the Hs 293A-2 but by then the Luftwaffe had no aircraft available for anti-shipping operations and it was never deployed. 
*Hs 293F* a tailless variant; never got further than the design phase. 
*Hs 293H* an experimental variant designed to be launched from one aircraft and controlled from another. Abandoned because allied air superiority had reached the point where it was felt that the second aircraft would be unable to remain in the vicinity of the ship for long enough. 
*Hs 293V6* designed for launching from the Arado Ar 234 jet bomber at 720 km/h. The main change was reducing the wing span of the missile to allow it to be carried within the aircraft. The missile did not proceed past the design stage.

On the side.... Although often viewed as a last ditch super-weapon, the Me 262 was already being developed as project P.1065 before the start of World War II. Plans were first drawn up in April 1939, and the original design was very similar indeed to the plane that would eventually enter service. The progression of the original design into service was delayed by a lack of funds, as always, as many high-ranking officials thought that the war could easily be won with conventional aircraft, nothing new here, and therefore most of the available government funds were used for the production of other aircraft.

As for the Arado 234, the Arado company stepped up to the plate when In the autumn of 1940 the RLM offered a tender for a jet powered high-speed reconnaissance aircraft with a range of 2,156 km (1,340 miles). Arado was the only company to respond, offering their E.370 project, lead by Professor Walter Blume. The first two prototypes were largely complete before the end of 1941.

As for submarines, didn't the development start on type XXI in 1942?


----------



## timshatz (Jun 3, 2007)

mosquitoman said:


> They're almost as bad as the Standard Beaverette!
> Standard Beaverette Feature Page



Whoa, that is scary. Another "Purple Heart Special".


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jun 4, 2007)

mosquitoman said:


> They're almost as bad as the Standard Beaverette!
> Standard Beaverette Feature Page



It looks like it was made of cardboard with heavy latex paint..............oh god it probably was


----------



## Glider (Jun 4, 2007)

I have been away and missed the major part of this debate but I think its worth mentioning one fact, that being that the USA were lacking in one major area compared to the British and Germans and that is radar. Without radar the USA would have been at a significant disadvantage in a number of key fields.

Also the USA were far behind in Jet development again putting them at a disadvantage.

One area where the USA did have an advantage was they were one unified country. The EA would have needed a huge amount of co operation to succeed which I do not see happening.

For instance Japanese Naval aircraft were as good as the USA but they would have needed to give these to the RN to make the best use of their carriers.

Germany and the UK would have had to share Radar and Jet technologies and give these freely to the other allies.

German U Boat developments would again have had to be shared with other countries and British Heavy bombers also given to the other allies.

If they did share all this information then the USA would be in trouble but as I said before, this I don't see it happening.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 5, 2007)

> Originally Posted by mosquitoman
> They're almost as bad as the Standard Beaverette!
> Standard Beaverette Feature Page



I think that pic should go on the "provide a caption"... thread. 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 5, 2007)

I'll put it up in a couple of weeks


----------



## bigZ (Jun 5, 2007)

Who said the British didn't design decent tanks?

Anyone remmember this one?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jun 5, 2007)

it looks like a bathtub turned upside down


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 6, 2007)

ermmm....
it was.
Classic Dad's Army screenshot there


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2007)

> The EA would have needed a huge amount of co operation to succeed which I do not see happening.



I do not thnk this would have been a problem - the Allies co-operated well so why not an EA alliance ? If the USSR and Western Allies could co-operate I don't see how Europe and Asia couldn't, the interpreters were there.


----------



## Glider (Jun 6, 2007)

The British and USA did co operate to a large degree but we didn't with Russia in key technological areas and neither did the Germans, Italians and Japanese. There was some co operation but nothing significant.


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2007)

The Germans, Italians and Japanesea amongst others did co-operate quite successfully in sharing technology in the situation they faced - the Japs experimented with many German designs handed over to them - the copy of the Me-262 being one of them. (The Japs unwisely decided to alter the design however) 

But a total alliance to invade another country would also make sure that co-operation in every sense would be taken much more seriously - hence the Western Allied co-operation. The case for the USSR wasn't complicated and needed no advice from the Western Allies really, it was all about driving out the Germans from the Soviet Union.

The reason the USSR and Western Allies didn't fully co-operate also has a little to do with the fact that Stalin was paranoid about the Allies even then and that Germany stood in the way of any major co-operation.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 6, 2007)

This is kind of a long document I found, but it gives a running total of the USN carriers in the inventory. Note the totals beginning in fall of 1940, where the keels were being laid down for the Essex class carriers, and then they begin to be commissioned in middle 1943 at a rate of nearly one per month.

This document lists US Navy carrier force levels throughout WWII, and a timeline of carrier construction. The following specific dates and events are listed:
1. The date the keel of a carrier was laid down
2. The date the classification of a ship was changed to an aircraft carrier
3. The date the name of a ship was changed
4. The date a carrier was commissioned
5. The date a carrier was sunk

1 Sep 39: Status of US Aircraft Carriers
Warships
In Commission: USS Enterprise (CV-6); USS Lexington (CV-2); USS Ranger (CV-4); USS Saratoga (CV-3); USS Yorktown (CV-5)
Building: Wasp (CV-7).
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	5	1

25 Sep 39: Keel of Hornet (CV-8) laid down.
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	5	2

25 Apr 40: Wasp (CV-7) commissioned.
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	6	1

6 Mar 41: SS Mormacmail (MC Hull 47) acquired for conversion to Long Island
(AVG-1)
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	6	1
AVG	0	1

28 Apr 41: Keel of Essex (CV-9) laid down.
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	6	2
AVG	0	1

2 Jun 41: Long Island (AVG-1) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	6 2
AVG	1 0

18 Jun 41: Keel of Copahee (AVG-12, MC Hull 169) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	6 2
AVG	1 1

15 Jul 41: Keel of Cabot (CV-16) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	6 3
AVG	1 1

15 Sep 41: Keel of Bunker Hill (CV-17) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	6 4
AVG	1 1

1 Oct 41: Keel of Bogue (AVG-9, MC Hull 170) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	6 4
AVG	1 2

4 Oct 41: HMS Charger (BAVG-4) returned to USN
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	6 4
AVG	1 3

20 Oct 41: Hornet (CV-8) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7 3
AVG	1 3

27 Oct 41: Keel of Card (AVG-11, MC Hull 178) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7 3
AVG	1 4

27 Nov 41: Keel of Nassau (AVG-16, MC Hull 234) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7 3
AVG	1 5

1 Dec 41: Keel of Bon Homme Richard (CV-10) laid down
Keel of Intrepid (CV-11) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7 5
AVG	1 5

19 Dec 41: Keel of Altamaha (AVG-18, MC Hull 235) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7 5
AVG	1 6


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 6, 2007)

1 Jan 42: Status
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7 5
AVG	1 6

2 Jan 42: Keel of Core (AVG-13, MC Hull 179) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7 5
AVG	1 7

9 Jan 42: Santee (AO-29) reclassified AVG-29 and begins conversion
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7 5
AVG	1 8

10 Jan 42: Amsterdam (CL-59) redesignated Independence (CV-22) while building
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7 5
AVG	1 9

19 Jan 42: Keels of Barnes (AVG-20, MC Hull 236) and Block Island (AVG-21,
MC Hull 237) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7 5
AVG	1	11

24 Jan 42: HMS Charger (BAVG-4) reclassified Charger (AVG-30)

1 Feb 42: Keel of Core (AVG-13) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7 5
AVG	1	12

14 Feb 42: Sangamon (AO-28) reclassified AVG-26 and Suwanee (AO-33)
reclassified AVG-27 and begin conversion
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7 5
AVG	1	14

16 Feb 42: New Haven (CL-76) redesignated Belleau Wood (CV-24) and Princeton (CL-61) redesignated Princeton (CV-23) while building
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7 7
AVG	1	14

25 Feb 42: Keel of Breton (AVG-23, MC Hull 239) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7 7
AVG	1	15

3 Mar 42: Charger (AVG-30) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7 7
AVG	2	14

16 Mar 42: Chenango (AO-31) reclassified AVG-28 and begins conversion
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7 7
AVG	2	15

18 Mar 42: Keel of Oriskany (CV-18) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7 8
AVG	2	15

27 Mar 42: Following CL's redesignated CV's while building:
Huntington (CL-77) to Cowpens (CV-25)
Dayton (CL-78) to Monterey (CV-26)
Fargo (CL-85) to Crown Point (CV-27)
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7	11
AVG	2	15

15 Apr 42: Keel of Croatan (AVG-25, MC Hull 241) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7	11
AVG	2	16

8 May 42: USS Lexington (CV-2) sunk by aerial torpedoes in Battle of Coral Sea
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	6	11
AVG	2	16

18 May 42: Keel of Prince William (AVG-31, MC Hull 242) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	6	11
AVG	2	17

2 Jun 42: Following CL's redesignated CV's while building:
Wilmington (CL-79) to Cabot (CV-28)
Buffalo (CL-99) to Bataan (CV-29)
Newark (CL-100) to Reprisal (CV-30)
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	6	14
AVG	2	17

7 Jun 42: USS Yorktown (CV-5), damaged by aircraft on 4 Jun during Battle of Midway, torpedoed and sunk by Japanese submarine I-168.
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	5	14
AVG	2	17

15 Jun 42: Copahee (AVG-12) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	5	14
AVG	3	16

16 Jun 42: Cabot (CV-16) renamed Lexington while building

3 Aug 42: Keel of Kearsarge (CV-12) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	5	15
AVG	3	16

20 Aug 42: All AVGs reclassified ACVs
Nassau (ACV-16) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	5	15
ACV	4	15

24 Aug 42: Santee (ACV-29) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	5	15
ACV	5	14

25 Aug 42: Sangamon (ACV-26) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	5	15
ACV	6	13

15 Sep 42: USS Wasp (CV-7) torpedoed and sunk by Japanese submarine I-19 south of Guadalcanal. Altamaha (ACV-18) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	4	15
ACV	7	12

19 Sep 42: Chenango (ACV-28) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	4	15
ACV	8	11

24 Sep 42: Suwanee (ACV-27) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	4	15
ACV	9	10

26 Sep 42: Bogue (ACV-9) commissioned; Bon Homme Richard (CV-10) renamed Yorktown while building; Oriskany (CV-18) renamed Wasp while building
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	4	15
ACV	10 9

26 Oct 42: USS Hornet (CV-8) sunk after being damaged by aircraft torpedoes
during Battle of Santa Cruz
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	3	15
ACV	10 9

3 Nov 42: Keel of Ameer (ACV-55, MC Hull 1092) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	3	15
ACV	10	10

8 Nov 42: Card (ACV-11) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	3	15
ACV	11 9

13 Nov 42: Crown Point (CV-27) renamed Langley while building

17 Nov 42: Keel of Anguilla Bay (ACV-58, MC Hull 1095) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	3	15
ACV	11	10

7 Dec 42: Keel of Franklin (CV-13) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	3	16
ACV	11	10

9 Dec 42: Keel of Liscome Bay (ACV-56, MC Hull 1093) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	3	16
ACV	11	11

10 Dec 42: Core (ACV-13) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	3	16
ACV	12	10

12 Dec 42: Keel of Alikula Bay (ACV-57, MC Hull 1094) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	3	16
ACV	12	11

15 Dec 42: Keel of Bennington (CV-20) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	3	17
ACV	12	11

28 Dec 42: Keel of Atheling (ACV-59, MC Hull 1096) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	3	17
ACV	12	12

31 Dec 42: Essex (CV-9) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	4	16
ACV	12	12


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 6, 2007)

1 Jan 43: Status
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	4	16
ACV	12	12

5 Jan 43: Keel of Astrolabe Bay (ACV-60, MC Hull 1097) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	4	16
ACV	12	13

6 Jan 43: Reprisal (CV-30) renamed San Jacinto while building

14 Jan 43: Independence (CV-22) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	5	15
ACV	12	13

15 Jan 43: Keels of Bucareli Bay (ACV-61, MC Hull 1098) and Shangri La
(CV-38) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	5	16
ACV	12	14

17 Jan 43: Keel of HMS Begum (ACV-62, MC Hull 1099) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	5	16
ACV	12	15

22 Jan 43: Kearsarge (CV-12) renamed Hornet while building; HMS Begum (ACV-62) transferred to USN and renamed Natoma Bay

23 Jan 43: Ameer (ACV-55) renamed Alazon Bay on ways; keel of Chapin Bay (ACV-63, MC Hull 1100) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	5	16
ACV	12	16

26 Jan 43: Keel of Ticonderoga (CV-19) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	5	17
ACV	12	16

1 Feb 43: Keels of Bon Homme Richard (CV-31), Didrickson Bay (ACV-64, MC Hull 1101) and Hancock (CV-14) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	5	19
ACV	12	17

6 Feb 43: Keel of Dolomi Bay (ACV-65, MC Hull 1102) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	5	19
ACV	12	18

11 Feb 43: Keel of Elbour Bay (ACV-66, MC Hull 1103) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	5	19
ACV	12	19

17 Feb 43: Lexington (CV-16) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	6	18
ACV	12	19

20 Feb 43: Barnes (ACV-20) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	6	18
ACV	13	18

25 Feb 43: Princeton (CV-23) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7	17
ACV	13	18

8 Mar 43: Block Island (ACV-21) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7	17
ACV	14	17

15 Mar 43: Keels of Antietam (CV-36) and Lake Champlain (CV-39) laid
down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7	19
ACV	14	17

31 Mar 43: Belleau Wood (CV-24) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	18
ACV	14	17

3 Apr 43: Following ACV's renamed on ways:
Alazon Bay (ACV-55) to Casablanca
Alikula Bay (ACV-57) to Coral Sea
Anguilla Bay (ACV-58) to Corregidor
Astrolabe Bay (ACV-60) to Guadalcanal
Atheling (ACV-59) to Mission Bay
Bucareli Bay (ACV-61) to Manila Bay
Chapin Bay (ACV-63) to Midway
Didrickson Bay (ACV-64) to Tripoli
Dolomi Bay (ACV-65) to Wake Island
Elbour Bay (ACV-66) to White Plains
9 Apr 43: Prince William (ACV-31) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	18
ACV	15	16

12 Apr 43: Breton (ACV-23) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	18
ACV	16	15

15 Apr 43: Yorktown (CV-10) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	9	17
ACV	16	15

19 Apr 43: Keel of Solomons (ACV-67, MC Hull 1104) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	9	17
ACV	16	16

26 Apr 43: Keel of Kalanin Bay (ACV-68, MC Hull 1105) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	9	17
ACV	16	17

28 Apr 43: Croatan (ACV-25) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	9	17
ACV	17	16

1 May 43: Hancock (CV-14) renamed Ticonderoga and Ticonderoga (CV-19) renamed Hancock while building
10 May 43: Keel of Randolph (CV-15) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	9	18
ACV	17	16

11 May 43: Keel of Kasaan Bay (ACV-69, MC Hull 1106) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	9	18
ACV	17	17

18 May 43: Keel of Fanshaw Bay (ACV-70, MC Hull 1107) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	9	18
ACV	17	18

25 May 43: Bunker Hill (CV-17) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	10	17
ACV	17	18

28 May 43: Cowpens (CV-25) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	11	16
ACV	17	18

31 May 43: Keel of Kitkun Bay (ACV-71, MC Hull 1108) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	11	16
ACV	17	19

7 Jun 43: Keel of Fortezela Bay (ACV-72, MC Hull 1109) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	11	16
ACV	17	20

17 Jun 43: Monterey (CV-26) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	12	15
ACV	17	20

8 Jul 43: Casablanca (ACV-55) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	12	15
ACV	18	19

10 Jul 43: Keel of Gambier Bay (ACV-73, MC Hull 1110) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	12	15
ACV	18	20

15 Jul 43: All ACV's reclassified CVE
Following CV's reclassified CVL's:
USS Independence (CV-22) to CVL-22
USS Princeton (CV-23) to CVL-23
USS Belleau Wood (CV-24) to CVL-24
USS Cowpens (CV-25) to CVL-25
USS Monterey (CV-26) to CVL-26
Langley (CV-27) to CVL-27
Cabot (CV-28) to CVL-28
Bataan (CV-29) to CVL-29
San Jacinto (CV-30) to CVL-30
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7	11
CVL	5 4
CVE	18	20

20 Jul 43: Keel of Nehenta Bay (CVE-74, MC Hull 1111) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7	11
CVL	5 4
CVE	18	21

24 Jul 43: Cabot (CVL-28) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7	11
CVL	6 3
CVE	18	21

7 Aug 43: Liscome Bay (CVE-56) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	7	11
CVL	6 3
CVE	19	20

16 Aug 43: Intrepid (CV-11) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	10
CVL	6 3
CVE	19	20

17 Aug 43: Keel of Hoggatt Bay (CVE-75, MC Hull 1112) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	10
CVL	6 3
CVE	19	21

27 Aug 43: Coral Sea (CVE-57) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	10
CVL	6 3
CVE	20	20

31 Aug 43: Corregidor (CVE-58) and Langley (CVL-27) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	10
CVL	7 2
CVE	21	19

2 Sep 43: Keel of Kadashan Bay (CVE-76, MC Hull 1113) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	10
CVL	7 2
CVE	21	20

13 Sep 43: Keel of Boxer (CV-21) laid down; Mission Bay (CVE-59)
commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	11
CVL	7 2
CVE	22	19

14 Sep 43: Keel of Valley Forge (CV-37) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	22	19

15 Sep 43: Keel of Kanalku Bay (CVE-77, MC Hull 1114) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	22	20

23 Sep 43: Keel of St Joseph Bay (CVE-105) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	22	21

25 Sep 43: Guadalcanal (CVE-60) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	23	20

27 Sep 43: Keel of Kaita Bay, CVE-78, MC Hull 1115) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	23	21

5 Oct 43: Manila Bay (CVE-61) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	24	20

6 Oct 43: Keel of Ommaney Bay (CVE-79, MC Hull 1116) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	24	21

14 Oct 43: Natoma Bay (CVE-62) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	25	20

15 Oct 43: Keel of Petrof Bay (CVE-80, MC Hull 1117) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	25	21

23 Oct 43: Midway (CVE-63) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	26	20

24 Oct 43: Keel of Rudyerd Bay (CVE-81, MC Hull 1118) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	26	21

25 Oct 43: Keel of Sunset Bay (CVE-106) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	26	22

27 Oct 43: Keel of Midway (CVB-41) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 1
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	26	22

31 Oct 43: Tripoli (CVE-64) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 1
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	27	21

1 Nov 43: Keel of Saginaw Bay (CVE-82, MC Hull 1119) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 1
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	27	22

7 Nov 43: Wake Island (CVE-65) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 1
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	28	21

8 Nov 43: Keel of Sargent Bay (CVE-83, MC Hull 1120) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 1
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	28	22

15 Nov 43: Keel of Shamrock Bay (CVE-84, MC Hull 1121) laid down;
White Plains (CVE-66) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 1
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	29	22

17 Nov 43: Bataan (CVL-29) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 1
CV	8	12
CVL	8 1
CVE	30	21

21 Nov 43: Solomons (CVE-67) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 1
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	31	20

22 Nov 43: Keel of Shipley Bay (CVE-85, MC Hull 1122) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 1
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	31	21

21 Nov 43: Solomons (CVE-67) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 1
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	32	20

24 Nov 43: USS Liscome Bay (CVE-56) torpedoed and sunk by I-175 off Gilbert
Islands; Wasp (CV-18, ex Oriskany) commissioned.
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 1
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	31	20

27 Nov 43: Kalanin Bay (CVE-68) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 1
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	32	19

28 Nov 43: Keel of Sitkoh Bay (CVE-86, MC Hull 1123) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 1
CV	8	12
CVL	7 2
CVE	32	20

29 Nov 43: Hornet (CV-12) commissioned; keel of St Andrews Bay (CVE-107) laid
down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 1
CV	9	11
CVL	7 2
CVE	32	21

1 Dec 43: Keel of Coral Sea (CVB-42) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 2
CV	9	11
CVL	7 2
CVE	32	21

4 Dec 43: Kasaan Bay (CVE-69) commissioned; keel of Steamer Bay (CVE-87, MC
Hull 1124) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 2
CV	9	11
CVL	7 2
CVE	33	21

9 Dec 43: Fanshaw Bay (CVE-70) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 2
CV	9	11
CVL	7 2
CVE	34	20

11 Dec 43: Keel of Cape Esperance (CVE-88, MC Hull 1125) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 2
CV	9	11
CVL	7 2
CVE	34	21

15 Dec 43: Kitkun Bay (CVE-71) and San Jacinto (CVL-30) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 2
CV	9	11
CVL	9 0
CVE	35	20

16 Dec 43: Keels of Takansis Bay (CVE-89, MC Hull 1126) and Vermillion Bay
(CVE-108) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 2
CV	9	11
CVL	8 1
CVE	35	22

21 Dec 43: Tulagi (CVE-72) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 2
CV	9	11
CVL	8 1
CVE	36	21

22 Dec 43: Keel of Thetis Bay (CVE-90, MC Hull 1127) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 2
CV	9	11
CVL	8 1
CVE	36	22

28 Dec 43: Gambier Bay (CVE-73) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 2
CV	9	11
CVL	8 1
CVE	37	21

29 Dec 43: Keel of Makassar Strait (CVE-91, MC Hull 1128) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB	0 2
CV	9	11
CVL	8 1
CVE	37	22


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 6, 2007)

1 Jan 44: Status
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9	11
CVL 9 0
CVE 37	22

3 Jan 44: Nehenta Bay (CVE-74) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9	11
CVL 9 0
CVE 38	21

5 Jan 44: Keel of Windham Bay (CVE-92, MC Hull 1129) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9	11
CVL 9 0
CVE 38	22

10 Jan 44: Keel of Willapa Bay (CVE-109) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9	11
CVL 9 0
CVE 38	23

11 Jan 44: Hoggatt Bay (CVE-75) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9	11
CVL 9 0
CVE 39	22

12 Jan 44: Keel of Makin Island (CVE-93, MC Hull 1130) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9	11
CVL 9 0
CVE 39	23

18 Jan 44: Kadashan Bay (CVE-76) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9	11
CVL 9 0
CVE 40	22

19 Jan 44: Keel of Lunga Point (CVE-94, MC Hull 1131) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9	11
CVL 9 0
CVE 40	23

26 Jan 44: Marcus Island (CVE-77) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9	11
CVL 9 0
CVE 41	22

31 Jan 44: Franklin (CV-13) commissioned; keel of Alikula Bay (CVE-95, MC Hull 1132) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	10
CVL 9 0
CVE 41	23

3 Feb 44: Savo Island (CVE-78) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	10
CVL 9 0
CVE 42	22

4 Feb 44: Keel of Salamaua (CVE-96, MC Hull 1133) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	10
CVL 9 0
CVE 42	23

7 Feb 44: Keel of Salerno Bay (CVE-110) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	10
CVL 9 0
CVE 42	24

11 Feb 44: Ommaney Bay (CVE-79) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	10
CVL 9 0
CVE 43	23

12 Feb 44: Keel of Astrolabe Bay (CVE-97, MC Hull 1134) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	10
CVL 9 0
CVE 43	24

18 Feb 44: Petrof Bay (CVE-80) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	10
CVL 9 0
CVE 44	23

19 Feb 44: Keel of Bucareli Bay (CVE-98, MC Hull 1135) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	10
CVL 9 0
CVE 44	24

21 Feb 44: Keel of Crown Point (CV-32) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	11
CVL 9 0
CVE 44	24

25 Feb 44: Rudyerd Bay (CVE-81) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	11
CVL 9 0
CVE 45	23

26 Feb 44: Keel of Chapin Bay (CVE-99, MC Hull 1136) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	11
CVL 9 0
CVE 45	24

1 Mar 44: Keels of Kearsarge (CV-33) and Tarawa (CV-40) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 45	24

2 Mar 44: Saginaw Bay (CVE-82) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 46	23

3 Mar 44: Keel of Didrickson Bay (CVE-100, MC Hull 1137) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 46	24

7 Mar 44: Keel of Totem Bay (CVE-111) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 46	25

9 Mar 44: Sargent Bay (CVE-83) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 47	24

10 Mar 44: Keel of Dolomi Bay (CVE-101, MC Hull 1138) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 47	25

15 Mar 44: Shamrock Bay (CVE-84) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 48	24

16 Mar 44: Keel of Attu (CVE-102, MC Hull 1139) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 48	25

21 Mar 44: Shipley Bay (CVE-85) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 49	24

22 Mar 44: Keel of Alava Bay (CVE-103, MC Hull 1140) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 49	25

28 Mar 44: Sitkoh Bay (CVE-86) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 50	24

29 Mar 44: Keel of Munda (CVE-104, MC Hull 1141) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 50	25

1 Apr 44: Keel of Frosty Bay (CVE-112) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 50	26

4 Apr 44: Steamer Bay (CVE-87) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 51	25

9 Apr 44: Cape Esperance (CVE-88) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 52	24

15 Apr 44: Hancock (CV-19) and Takansis Bay (CVE-89) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 11	12
CVL 9 0
CVE 53	23

21 Apr 44: Thetis Bay (CVE-90) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 11	12
CVL 9 0
CVE 54	22

27 Apr 44: Makassar Strait (CVE-91) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 11	12
CVL 9 0
CVE 55	21

1 May 44: Keel of Oriskany (CV-34) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 11	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 55	21

3 May 44: Windham Bay (CVE-92) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 11	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 56	20

8 May 44: Ticondroga (CV-14) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12	12
CVL 9 0
CVE 56	20

9 May 44: Makin Island (CVE-93) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12	12
CVL 9 0
CVE 57	19

12 May 44: Keel of Hobart Bay (CVE-113) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12	12
CVL 9 0
CVE 57	20

14 May 44: Lunga Point (CVE-94) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12	12
CVL 9 0
CVE 58	19

20 May 44: Bismarck Sea (CVE-95) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12	12
CVL 9 0
CVE 59	18

26 May 44: Salamaua (CVE-96) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12	12
CVL 9 0
CVE 60	17

29 May 44: USS Block Island (CVE-21) torpedoed and sunk by U-549 northwest of Canary Islands
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12	12
CVL 9 0
CVE 59	17

30 May 44: Astrolabe Bay (CVE-97) renamed Hollandia before commissioning

1 Jun 44: Hollandia (CVE-97) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12	12
CVL 9 0
CVE 60	16

7 Jun 44: Kwajalein (CVE-98) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12	12
CVL 9 0
CVE 61	15

13 Jun 44: Admiralty Islands (CVE-99) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12	12
CVL 9 0
CVE 62	14

15 Jun 44: Keel of Rendova (CVE-114) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12	12
CVL 9 0
CVE 62	15

18 Jun 44: Bougainville (CVE-100) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12	12
CVL 9 0
CVE 63	14

24 Jun 44: Matanikau (CVE-101) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12	12
CVL 9 0
CVE 64	13

30 Jun 44: Attu (CVE-102) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12	12
CVL 9 0
CVE 65	12

1 Jul 44: Keel of Reprisal (CV-35) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 65	12

5 Jul 44: Sunset Bay (CVE-106) renamed Block Island while on ways

6 Jul 44: Roi (CVE-103) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 66	11

8 Jul 44: Munda (CVE-104) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12	13
CVL 9 0
CVE 67	10

10 Jul 44: Keels of Coral Sea (CVB-43) and Saipan (CVL-48) laid down; St Joseph Bay (CVE-105) renamed Commencement Bay while on ways
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 12	13
CVL 9 1
CVE 67	10

25 Jul 44: Keel of Bairoko (CVE-115) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 12	13
CVL 9 1
CVE 67	11

6 Aug 44: Bennington (CV-20) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 13	12
CVL 9 1
CVE 67	11

18 Aug 44: Keel of Badoeng Strait (CVE-116) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 13	12
CVL 9 1
CVE 67	12

19 Aug 44: Keel of Wright (CV-47) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 13	13
CVL 9 1
CVE 67	12

21 Aug 44: Keel of Wright (CVL-49) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 13	13
CVL 9 2
CVE 67	12

7 Sep 44: Keel of Valley Forge (CV-45) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 13	14
CVL 9 2
CVE 67	12

15 Sep 44: USS Coral Sea (CVE-57) renamed Anzio; Shangri La (CV-38) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 14	13
CVL 9 2
CVE 67	12

20 Sep 44: Keel of Saidor (CVE-117) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 14	13
CVL 9 2
CVE 67	13

9 Oct 44: Randolph (CV-15) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 15	12
CVL 9 2
CVE 67	13

10 Oct 44: USS Midway (CVE-63) renamed St Lo

23 Oct 44: Keel of Sicily (CVE-118) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 15	12
CVL 9 2
CVE 67	14

24 Oct 44: USS Princeton (CVL-23) sunk after being damaged by aircraft bombs east of Luzon during the Battle of Leyte Gulf
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 15	12
CVL 8 2
CVE 67	14

25 Oct 44: Following ships lost off Samar, Philippine Is during the Battle of Leyte Gulf:
USS Gambier Bay (CVE-73) by gunfire
USS St Lo (CVE-63) by aircraft
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 15	12
CVL 8 2
CVE 65	14

21 Nov 44: Valley Forge (CV-37) renamed Princeton while building

26 Nov 44: Bon Homme Richard (CV-31) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 16	11
CVL 8 2
CVE 65	14

27 Nov 44: Commencement Bay (CVE-105) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 16	11
CVL 8 2
CVE 66	13

4 Dec 44: Keel of Point Cruz (CVE-119) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 16	11
CVL 8 2
CVE 66	14

30 Dec 44: Block Island (CVE-106) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 16	11
CVL 8 2
CVE 67	13


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 6, 2007)

1 Jan 45: Status
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 16	11
CVL 8 2
CVE 67	13

2 Jan 45: Keel of Mindoro (CVE-120) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 16	11
CVL 8 2
CVE 67	14

4 Jan 45: USS Ommaney Bay (CVE-79) sunk by kamikaze south of Mindoro, Philippine Islands
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 16	11
CVL 8 2
CVE 66	14

28 Jan 45: Antietam (CV-36) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 17	10
CVL 8 2
CVE 66	14

29 Jan 45: Keels of Iwo Jima (CV-46) and Rabaul (CVE-121) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 17	11
CVL 8 2
CVE 66	15

5 Feb 45: Gilbert Islands (CVE-107) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 17	11
CVL 8 2
CVE 67	14

12 Feb 45: Wright (CV-47) renamed Philippine Sea while building

19 Feb 45: Keel of Palau (CVE-122) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 17	11
CVL 8 2
CVE 67	15

21 Feb 45: USS Bismarck Sea (CVE-95) sunk by kamikaze off Iwo Jima
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 17	11
CVL 8 2
CVE 66	15

5 Mar 45: Cape Gloucester (CVE-109) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 17	11
CVL 8 2
CVE 67	14

20 Mar 45: Keel of Tinian (CVE-123) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 17	11
CVL 8 2
CVE 67	15

2 Apr 45: Keel of Bastogne (CVE-124) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 17	11
CVL 8 2
CVE 67	16

9 Apr 45: Vella Gulf (CVE-111) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 17	11
CVL 8 2
CVE 68	15

16 Apr 45: Boxer (CV-21) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 18	10
CVL 8 2
CVE 68	15

20 Apr 45: Keel of Eniwetok (CVE-125) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 18	10
CVL 8 2
CVE 68	16

1 May 45: Keel of Lingayen (CVE-126) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 18	10
CVL 8 2
CVE 68	17

8 May 45: Coral Sea (CVB-42) renamed Franklin D Roosevelt and Crown Point (CV-32) renamed Leyte while building

12 May 45: Kula Gulf (CVE-108) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 18	10
CVL 8 2
CVE 69	16

14 May 45: Siboney (CVE-112) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 18	10
CVL 8 2
CVE 70	15

19 May 45: Salerno Bay (CVE-110) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 18	10
CVL 8 2
CVE 71	14

22 May 45: Keel of Okinawa (CVE-127) laid down
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 18	10
CVL 8 2
CVE 71	15

3 Jun 45: Lake Champlain (CV-39) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 19 9
CVL 8 2
CVE 71	15

18 Jun 45: Puget Sound (CVE-113) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 19 9
CVL 8 2
CVE 72	14

16 Jul 45: Bairoko (CVE-115) commissioned
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 19 9
CVL 8 2
CVE 73	13

12 Aug 45: Construction of following ships canceled:
Bastogne (CVE-124)
Eniwetok (CVE-125)
Iwo Jima (CV-46)
Lingayen (CVE-126)
Okinawa (CVE-127)
Reprisal (CV-35)
CLASS	COMM	BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 19 7
CVL 8 2
CVE 73 9


----------



## Glider (Jun 6, 2007)

Soren said:


> The Germans, Italians and Japanesea amongst others did co-operate quite successfully in sharing technology in the situation they faced - the Japs experimented with many German designs handed over to them - the copy of the Me-262 being one of them. (The Japs unwisely decided to alter the design however)
> 
> But a total alliance to invade another country would also make sure that co-operation in every sense would be taken much more seriously - hence the Western Allied co-operation. The case for the USSR wasn't complicated and needed no advice from the Western Allies really, it was all about driving out the Germans from the Soviet Union.
> 
> The reason the USSR and Western Allies didn't fully co-operate also has a little to do with the fact that Stalin was paranoid about the Allies even then and that Germany stood in the way of any major co-operation.



I must disagree in your statement that the Germans, Japenese and Italians co operated to a large degree on technical issues.
Japans and Italy desperately needed night fighters and the only ones given were some Do217 nightfighters to the Italians the Japanese didn't get any or any airborne radars.
The Italians and Japanese didn't get any modern radars or designs for radars from the Germans.

Germany didn't get any naval fighter/torpedo bomber designs from the Japanese when they had an urgent requirement, neither did the Italians for the Aquilla.

No details of modern submarine design were passed from the Germans to the Japanese whose subs were obsolesant compared to the Germans, neither did the Japanese get any anti submarine sonar from the Germans, another deserate need of theirs.

The Japanese jet looked like the Me262 but was fundamentally different in a number of ways and the engines were much less powerful. 

If I say tanks will you agree that the Japanese and Italians could have learnt a lot from the Germans? An obsolete German Mk III with the 50L60 would be a war winner for the Japanese let alone the design of the panzerfaust in the jungle where it was comparatively easy to get close to an attacking tank.

No co operation was minimal at best and far less than both sides needed.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 7, 2007)

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


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 7, 2007)

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 (Jun 7, 2007)

LoL, your dreaming again Syscom3 !


----------



## timshatz (Jun 7, 2007)

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 (Jun 7, 2007)

timshatz said:


> .... 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 (Jun 7, 2007)

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 (Jun 7, 2007)

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 (Jun 7, 2007)

timshatz said:


> 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 (Jun 7, 2007)

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 (Jun 7, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> 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 (Jun 7, 2007)

timshatz said:


> 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 (Jun 8, 2007)

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 (Jun 8, 2007)

timshatz said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jun 8, 2007)

Glider said:


> 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 (Jun 8, 2007)

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.


----------



## Soren (Jun 8, 2007)

Oh and about fighting in the mountains of North America, well the EA alliance would have the advantage of having available an Elite special prupose mountain corps, the GebirgsJäger.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 8, 2007)

Improved nightfighter equipment for the Russian and Japanese as well I guess.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 8, 2007)

If this scenario would have taken place with a invasion of continental US, where would it take place? east coast? west coast or maybe east and west coast at the same time? 

Also, didn't or don't US have dedicated mountain troops?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 8, 2007)

The EA would have a monumental problem producing enough carriers.

1) No standard design 

2) Nothing in the works thats comparable to the Essex class carriers already under designed and about to be produced

3) A lack of infastructure to build large numbers of carriers and all the doo dad that go with it.

4) The RN having its documented problems with aircraft and doctrine

5) The IJN having good planes and doctrine, but not having the capacity to build the next generation of aircraft

6) The KM never having operated a carrier period.

7) Lack of the huge shipbuilding capacity needed, in Japan, Germany and Russia.

8 ) Poor "at sea" logistics capabilities

9) In the event of hostilities, all French and English possessions in the Gulf of Mexico area will become US bases. That means no ports to put into for resupply or repair.

10) The IJN/RN/KM all must share their information and capabilities seemlessly and integrate them into new construction. Its obvious that it wouldn't be untill late 1943, early 1944 that the first of their carriers would be ready. In the meantime, the US add's carriers to the fleet at a fast rate beginning in 1943.

Couple that into the requirement that they must close in on the shores to launch their aircraft, and that means they will be exposed to land based aircraft attacks (heavy and medium bombers) for a couple of days before they can even do anything.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 8, 2007)

Don't you think that Russia could have pressed ships into action the way they did with tanks and fighters? I don't know what kind of shipbuilding industry they had back then....


----------



## timshatz (Jun 8, 2007)

One point of cooperation that probably would've happened (popped into my head a short while ago). The Brits would've given the Rolls Royce Merlin to the Japanese (same as the Germans did with the DB600s). That would've spelt very bad news for the USA. Very bad.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 8, 2007)

Think the East Coast is the best scenario for an attack on the US. But, as with everywhere else, there are a lot of options. 

First, think the Europeans need to take down Puerto Rico and the US possessions in the Carribean. Can't have bases operating on your flanks, attacking your lines of communications. 

After that, they're going to need a port. Not a huge one, like NYC. Too big and tough to take. More along the lines of Boston, Charleston or Jacksonville. And the port can't be easily isolated (like Miami or any place in New Foundland). It will have to give options for a strategic drive out from the holdings of the port. 

The amphib landings are going to have to happen within range of short ranged fighter aircraft. That reduces the number of spots. Now (if Canada is out of it-and I think Canada is going to have to be on one side or the other, too much riding on it- but for now, they are neutral), you are looking at the Bahamas. 

The more I think about it, the harder it becomes. Without Canada and with a airfields in range of the beaches, working from an island base, you are stuck with an attack from the Bahamas. That puts you in Florida. However, once you hold a chunk of Florida, you can launch amphib ops in a leap frog fashion heading north and west into the Gulf. 

One thing is for sure, you will need to destroy the US Atlantic Fleet (to remove the naval threat) and destroy or capture the Panama Canal (to remove the active threat of the US Pacific Fleet reinforcing or attacking you invasion forces).

On a side note, trying to get all the European Militaries on the same page with signals, operational procedures, doctrinal applications, logistical needs (to put them all under one roof), a unified command structure (who's in charge, probably the Brits, they have the most experience but will the French, Germans and Russians go along with that), differnt operational needs (some ships have a 5000 mile range, others can go for 20000 miles), armament needs (how many different types of rifle caliber ammunition, pistol, cannon, naval cannon and artillery rounds will be needed)is gonna be pure murder. A nervous breakdown waiting to happen for some lucky sole. 

The guy who is in charge of the logistics for this thing oughta get the Victoria Cross, Pour le Merit, Order of Lennin and Croix De Guierre before the first shot is even fired!


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 8, 2007)

timshatz said:


> One point of cooperation that probably would've happened (popped into my head a short while ago). The Brits would've given the Rolls Royce Merlin to the Japanese (same as the Germans did with the DB600s). That would've spelt very bad news for the USA. Very bad.



Why would that be bad?

The US had its R2800's, and eventually the Allison engine worked OK.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 8, 2007)

Tim, remember the US had an excellent rail network in order to shuffle troops around. 

Figure an invasion in 1943 or 1944, then the US not only would have enough "local" troops in which to contain an invasion, but then could use the railroads to move the forces around faster than the EA could land reinforcements.

The east cooast also has numerous geographical barriers that would help the defenders. Large rivers and hilly grounds would slow down the attackers. Regardless of what Soren believes, the EA would need to supply ever increasing numbers of engineering troops and supplies to move out of a beachhead, at the cost of firepower and maneuvering brigades.

Dont count on an EA invasion through the Gulf. Their ships would be under air attack from dozens of airbases and would suffer huge losses. Imagine what would happen to the EA fleets under attack from several B25/A20 skip bomber groups.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jun 8, 2007)

timshatz said:


> One point of cooperation that probably would've happened (popped into my head a short while ago). The Brits would've given the Rolls Royce Merlin to the Japanese (same as the Germans did with the DB600s). That would've spelt very bad news for the USA. Very bad.




Pratt and Whitney made really good Engines too you know

Not enough credit is given to them


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2007)

The IL-2 with a Merlin etc....?


----------



## mkloby (Jun 9, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Regardless of what Soren believes, the EA would need to supply ever increasing numbers of engineering troops and supplies to move out of a beachhead, at the cost of firepower and maneuvering brigades.



What are firepower and maneuver brigades?


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 9, 2007)

Soren said:


> Oh and about fighting in the mountains of North America, well the EA alliance would have the advantage of having available an Elite special prupose mountain corps, the GebirgsJäger.


Be the same thing as the Hessians in 1776 guys who live and work in the woods would eat them for dinner.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 9, 2007)

The US has the advantages of interior lines of communication, common operational equipment (US has three standard calibers of ammunition for it's aircraft .30,.50 and 20mm, EA are all over the place), ect. No doubt about it. And with the center of the country untouched and no need to produce thousands of merchant ships to project power, the production of aircraft, tanks, trucks, ect would go through the roof. On top of that, as Sys points out, those aircraft would be pounding the beaches on a routine basis. 

It would really come down to how far the equipment has to come and how fast you can produce it. I think the US would definitely have a big edge based on the location of the factories and pre-war automobile experience. The EA will have to get their equipment across the Atlantic, the US only has to fly it from Wichita or Dallas over to the depots in Ga or Alabama. That's about a tank of gas for your average fighter or bomber. The EA has to get across the Atlantic. There are bound to be US Subs out there. Even if they don't sink ships, their mere existence requires the EA to move in convoys. This is actually a fairly inefficient way of moving supplies (safe, but only effective in that usually works). Ships load and wait for enough ships to gather for a convoy to sail. That takes time. Battles are lost on such time. 

I'm less certain the civilian populace would've been a big threat to the EA. Considering how the Soviets and Nazis handled partisans, I think a few massacres would've kept the locals in line. Much as we don't like to think of it, the threat of reprisals usually works. An active resistance is going to be tough against such people. A passive resistance (intelligence gathering, misdirections and subtle sabotage) is more likely. In fact, it would be probable. There would be very few places the EA could go without a lot of eyes watching them. In this, it would be similar to France in 1944. Want to know where the Germans are, ask the local French. Either they knew or they could call ahead and ask somebody. 

P&W was a very good engine. The R-2800 is my favorite (right after the O-360 but that is an old friend). And the Allison is a good engine. But the RR Merlin, coupled with the Spitfire and Mustang was a war winner. The Japanese made some very good airplanes. Match those airframes with an engine as good and reliable as the Merlin and it's trouble for the other side. The allies were lucky the Japanese were a step behind in powerplant development and production (and several steps behind in operation organization). Imagine the KI-84 that Soren alludes to with a Merlin.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2007)

Soren said:


> Oh and about fighting in the mountains of North America, well the EA alliance would have the advantage of having available an Elite special prupose mountain corps, the GebirgsJäger.


I hope they have an elite corp when they meet folks like this...







In the scenerios describe here, it WOULD OF been the only time the criminal element of many US cities would actually made a contribution....


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2007)

Was folks like that around in 40's? On the other hand, we still have the always pleasant people in the mob....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Was folks like that around in 40's? On the other hand, we still have the always pleasant people in the mob....


There were, especially in NYC, LA and Chicago and yes the actual mob wouldn't of appreciated an invading army...


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 9, 2007)

mkloby said:


> What are firepower and maneuver brigades?



What I meant to say is the cost of landing heavy engineering eqmt (like bridging eqmt), comes at the cost of trnasporting more tnaks, howitzers, ammunition, etc.

And the heavy engineering folks are not your front line infantry that does the bulk of the fighting.

The allies had this issue to deal with during the Normandy invasion. The issue of how many engineering and support units that had to be landed vs the number of divisions that were needed to fight inland was discussed and argued about for weeks prior to the invasion.

The armies that listen to the logisticians usually end up winning the fight.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 9, 2007)

Had an interesting thought about the Japanese in this scenario. I know the thread is about the world against the US, but what do the Japanese have to gain going against the US? The quick answer might be they would get the Western Pacific, but given the US needs on her homeland, they would probably end up the defacto power in charge out there anyway.

The Japanese attacked the US in 1941 because we embargoed them. We embargoed them because they occupied French Indochina. We cut off supplies of, and most importantly, oil. If Europe goes to war against the US, then Japanese actions in the West of the Pacific to secure strategic supplies will help the US. An attack by the Japanese against Indochina (France), Malaysia and Singapore (England) and Java/Borneo (Dutch) helps the US against the Atlantic Force. The US might even strip the Phillipines, give the Phillipines their independence a couple years earlier (we were shooting for 1946 back in 1941) and head back to Hawaii as our main base in the Pacific. The Western Pacific, if the US is in a war for it's survival, might be a useless draw on our forces. 

If the US does pull back (or even if it does nothing), it still allows the Japanese a free hand against countries that are engaged in a major war in the Atlantic. The Japanese attacking the US gains them nothing (the Phillipines, Guam, Wake, maybe Midway and Hawaii) in terms of strategic materials and more ground to cover. Attacking the European possessions allows the needed materials. 

In short, probably a good chance the Japanese end up on the side of the US in this thing. That is where they gain the most.


----------

