Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[syscom3]

Before some of you jump on the Commonwealth industrial production bandwagon, consider this:

1) Only Canada had the required factories and mills in place. And even then, it was a fraction the size of the UK.

2) Australia and S Africa for all practical purposes did not have the factories and industrial base on hand. Remember that building an aircrfat not only includes the people that put the plane together, but hundred, thousands more building the various sub assemblies. Sure you have the skilled manpower and technical base in order to do it?

3) All the commonwealth countries were feeling the manpower "pinch" in 1942. So what are your priorities going to be? Build the industrial and manufacturing base.... or build up your armies and navies?

4) Even though Canada's contributions were impressive, it was still a FAR DISTANT fraction of the US figures.

5) The war is going to be won or lost withing a reasonable amount of time. No one is going to wait untill you have your production capabilities in place.

Could the Commonwealth eventually meet the industrial needs for the war? Yes. By the time the Russians or Germans win the war? NOPE!

 

[Udet]

Again and again the problem i see here with several opinions issued is that they seem to believe World War Two would have lasted on and on, far beyond the extremely long ~6 years it actually did.

As if the world of the 1930s/40s was like that of the ancient world, when combatant Cty-States and/or Empires would remain in a state-of-war for decades.

Also as i stated before in here, not even the large USSR ruled by the thugs it had in office could go on with a WW2 type of war for any much longer...Tyrants can enjoy nearly unlimited non-contested power within the borders of the territory under their boots...still and no matter how clever -and lucky- the Tyrant might be, they too might meet harsh ends.

I´m in no way claiming to have true insight into the economic, cultural and political consequences of losing ~13% of your entire population in a matter of nearly 4 years, as the Soviets did during the war, not to mention the extra-millions murdered directly or indirectly by Smiley Dzhugashvili´s policies in the 1930s; but you bet it is something that really slams the people of one nation.

No. You do not even want to think of the scenario where the U.S.A. remains neutral for good.

Canada? How much time do you think it would have taken Canada to commence producing huge quantities of fighters, bombers and other weapons, not to mention the critical ~2,700 Liberty Ships (made in the USA) in order to keep Great Britain going? ANSWER: I could not tell the precise time it would take them -provided they could-, but something is 100% very sure: they would never do it in the time the U.S.A. did when it entered the war. Never. Ever.

Big Mouth Churchill´s bully attitude in his so-called "mission" to "save" the world from the "most terrible tyranny ever" kept going on for the very simple reason the USA became an official combatant in December 1941.

If the people of Great Britain had had an origin and history nearly equal -or similar- to that of the people of the USSR, with a Stalin Type of regime in office, then the aid of the U.S.A. is certainly not too necessary, for they would indeed keep fighting with complete disregard of losses "until the end"...such would be the sole scenario where i could see the UK and USSR beating Germany, and it would be just that, a possibility; never certain. The problem being, Great Britain is way different to the Soviet Union.

 

[AL Schlageter]

That is some rant Udet. That is some unhealthy hatred you have for the Soviets and British.

Over 50% of American Lend-lease arrived in the USSR after mid 1944. The first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941)

Early L-L from the USA did not have that much effect on the Soviet's ability to defend their country from the invading barbarous hordes of Nazi Germany. (nice name given, Barbarossa, for the invasion of the USSR)

Interesting is the ranking of military equipment production of the USSR and Nazi Germany.
Military production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the mentally disturbed Tyrant, Adolf Schicklgruber, had met a harsh end the war would most likely have had a different ending.

 

[Glider]

Big Mouth Churchill´s bully attitude in his so-called "mission" to "save" the world from the "most terrible tyranny ever" .

I always thought we were a democracy, must have missed something along the way.

The problem being, Great Britain is way different to the Soviet Union.

A problem I admit, I can live with.

 

[Rich46yo]

Hello to all. My opinion is that somehow, and someway, the worst thing that would have happened on the Eastern front would be that Stalin and Hitler would have negotiated an end to the war had not Stalin the luxury of having America in it.

And its possible Germany or Russia would have eventually won. Neither of which would be to good a thing for Europeans.

Im afraid as far as a stable Democratic Europe is concerned America was the linchpin.

I dont even think the Brits could have held out without American re-supply from sea.

Just study the amounts of Industrial output by American Industry during the war. The numbers are staggering.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

the world from the "most terrible tyranny ever" kept

Do you believe that it was not one of the "most terrible tyranny ever"?

 

[syscom3]

A problem I admit, I can live with.

 

[Freebird]

I am inclined to believe that Britain a.) could not have increased shipping tonnage at expense of anti-sub, or b.) could not have sustained Britain in context of fuel and food through 1943 - absent some amazingly efficient breakthroughs in detection and sub sinking technologies.

Remember that Sonar, Centimetric Radar, Hedgehog, Leigh Light, Huff-Duff {High frequency direction finding} A/S measures were all developed by the British and later given to the USA

I don't know how important the 50 Lend Lease destroyers were to Britain, but I do know how important our ship building and steady stream of supplies were to marginally overcome the Atlantic threat in 1943 - after 18 months of our own dedication. I still do not know how Britain would have kept supply chain going from Canada or Africa/Middle East

Yes, if they take measures suggested by Glider I, (and initially rejected by Adm. King Air Marshal Harris) namely using protected convoys long range aircraft. Also the reduction of the # of convoy miles would also play a huge part.

Does US abstinance from U-Boat campaign significantly weaken Britain's ability to keep sea lanes open I know we made no significant difference in 1940-1942 except for replacement of hulls and crews and war material, and introduction of long range patrols and Finally USN support beyond Greenland and Iceland. Canada and GB doing heavy lifting on escort in that time..

The UK and Canada had enough aircraft to protect the sea lanes, the problem was that Bomber command refused to release them.

What about US based training of commonwealth pilots free of interference from Germany, provision of replacement vessels (and cargo) of U-boat sinkings, capacity of British based shipyards and labor force dedication to rebuilding fleet attrition, etc.

The Commonwealth had a large pilot training based in Canada.

The US was not able to supply vessels in a significant amount until mid 1943, they first had to replace their own losses from 1942, and to increase their shipping required for moving troops supplies, especially to the seaborne operations in the Pacific.

I just remain unconvinced that Britain had the manufacturing capacity to replace enough sunk cargo vessels to carry the supplies.
Read below...
But I have been wrong before.

About shipping the U-boat problem.
First, Bill your figure of 1 million tons a day for British imports is not correct, it is a bare minimum of a half million tons per month, or a normal 1 million tons per month for the British population. The average man needs 400 pounds per year of food. Britain needed to import 75% of its food in WWII, and had a total population of about 46 million.
46,000,000 x 300 lb = 13,800,000,000 lb or 6,900,000 tons, or 0.575 million tons per month of food. (the other 0.425 millon tons/month would mostly be gasoline for private use etc.)

The total tonnage of British controlled shipping in 1939 was 17.7 million tons, in Dec 1941 was 20.8 million tons. It takes 8 - 10 days for a freighter to make the 2,600 mile trip from Liverpool to Montreal. In the 1940's Canada exported an average of 14 million tons of grain per year, plus lesser amounts of meat, fish, vegetables etc, easily more than enough to supply the UK. Prior to the was a large % of our exports went to (now occupied) Europe. In fact oversupply was a huge problem for the Commonwealth in WWII, as cargo ships were diverted to carry war supplies, food stockpiles in Canada Australia overflowed beyond storehouse capacity.

The British had alredy "gained the upper hand" in the Battle of the Atlantic by the end of 1941, "shipping losses were high, but manegable" In 1941 the British lost 2.2 million tons and built 1.2 million, but were still had 3 million tons more than when they started the war. {quote from "Battle Fleet"} Battle of Atlantic 1940 1941 WW2

The problems came in 1942, mainly as the result of the policies of Adm. King, refusing to organize convoys or blackouts. In all of 1942 the British lost 4 million tons, the US 2.1 million tons, compromising 1,150 ships. In the first 6 months of 1942 "Almost 500 ships were lost in US waters to just a handful of U-boats" and this was mostly within sight of the US or Caribbean coast!!!
BBC - History - The Battle of the Atlantic
{Quote from BBC.co.uk}
This area was under the control of the USA, British ships were loading supplies at the Atlantic ports, and the US was responsible for protection from U-boats.

Of all the 1942 British shipping losses, more than 65% were lost on the US seaboard, or the Murmansk convoys, which I would eliminate.

(read earlier posts about the Nigeria-Egypt-Russia rail route)

So in conclusion, in 1942 the UK/Commonwealth built 1.8 million tons of shipping in their yards, without counting a single Liberty ship. At the same time, even with over 240 U-boats operational, {because of the increasing effect of British A/S technology} the Germans were only able to sink less than 1.3 million tons of UK/Commonwealth shipping in British controlled waters or on British convoy routes {other than in US controlled waters, or on Murmansk convoys}

The Battle of the Atlantic was won by the Allies by the Allies by the summer of 1943, in the space of about two months, but there was no single reason for this, it was a combination of technology tactics. The disastrous convoy battles of October 1940 forced a change in British tactics. The most important of these was the introduction of permanent escort groups to improve the co-ordination and effectiveness of ships and men in battle. British efforts were helped by a gradual increase in the number of escort vessels available as the old ex-American destroyers and the new British- and Canadian-built Flower class corvettes were now coming into service in numbers. Many of these ships became part of the huge expansion of the Royal Canadian Navy.

British Canadian built corvettes formed the bulk of the escorting warships that fought the battle of the atlantic.
{Quote from Uboat.net} uboat.net - Allied Warships - Flower class Corvettes

The mid-Atlantic gap that had been unreachable by aircraft was closed by long-range aircraft. By spring 1943 the British had developed an effective sea-scanning centimetric radar small enough to be carried on patrol aircraft armed with airborne depth charges. Centimetric radar greatly improved detection and nullified the German Metox radar warning equipment. Further protection was provided by the introduction of escort aircraft carriers, they provided the much needed air cover and patrols all the way across the Atlantic.

The British introduced the first escort Carrier "HMS Audacity" in June of 1941, and proved to be very effective, leading to the building of 100's more.

The continual breaking of the German naval Enigma enabled the Allied convoys to evade the wolf packs while Naval support groups were able to hunt U-boats that approached the convoys or whose positions were revealed by Enigma decrypts.

The British introduced of the Leigh Light in June 1942 which enabled accurate attacks on U-boats re-charging their batteries on the surface at night. Previously U-boats were quite safe from aircraft at night, since the deployment of an illuminating flare gave adequate warning of an attack. The Leigh Light was a powerful searchlight that was automatically aligned with the airborne radar to illuminate targets suddenly while in the final stages of an attack run. This let British aircraft attack U-boats recharging batteries on the surface at night, forcing German submarine skippers to switch to daytime recharges.The U-Boat commanders who survived reported a particular fear of this weapon system since the hum of an aircraft was inaudible at night above the noise of the boat. A drop in Allied shipping losses from 600,000 to 200,000 tonnes per month was partly attributed to this ingenious device.

By late 1942, the British had developed a another new weapon, and warships were being fitted with the ''Hedgehog'' anti-submarine mortar which fired twenty-four contact-fused bombs directly 'ahead' of the attacking ship. Unlike depth charges, which exploded at certain set depths 'behind' the attacking warship disturbing the water and making it hard to keep track of the target, Hedgehog charges only exploded if they hit a U-boat. This meant that a U-boat could be continuously tracked and attacked until it was sunk. The Hedgehog was a particularly effective weapon, raising the percentage of kills from 7% of attacks to nearer 25%. When one of the Hedgehog charges exploded, it set off the others which increased the weapon's effectiveness.

 

[Udet]

Glider try reading this:

WorldNetDaily: Was World War II worth it?

 

[Freebird]

Continued...

The U.S., having no direct experience of modern naval war on its own shores, did not employ convoys or coastal black-outs. The U.S. Commander-in-Chief of the Atlantic Fleet, Admiral Ernest King, who hated the British, initially rejected these when suggested by the Royal Navy. King has been criticized for this decision, but his defenders argue that the United States destroyer fleet was limited, and King claimed that it was far more important that the destroyers protect Allied troop transports than shipping. This does not explain the refusal to require coastal black-outs, or to respond to any advice the Royal Navy provided. Merchant ships sailing in U.S. waters were left exposed and suffered greatly. Britain eventually had to build coastal escorts and provide them for free to the U.S. in a "reverse Lend Lease", since King was unwilling (or unable) to make any provision himself.

In May, Admiral King finally scraped together enough ships to institute a convoy system. This quickly led to the loss of seven U-boats. But the U.S. did not have enough ships to cover all the holes, and the U-boats continued to operate freely during the Battle of the Caribbean and throughout the Gulf of Mexico where they effectively closed several U.S. ports until July, when the British-loaned escorts began arriving. The institution of an interlocking convoy system on the American coast and in the Caribbean Sea in mid-1942 resulted in an immediate drop in attacks in those areas.

During wartime the British needed about 3 million tons (oil) tanker capacity going to Britain to keep the war effort going. (this assumes that oil is brought from the Persian gulf, Venezuela or Mexico) The ships would take an average of 2 months per trip, meaning that the British would use 1.25 million tons per month or 15 million tons/year
War usage tons per month:
15 Battleships/6 aircraft Carriers 70,000
15 Heavy/50 light Cruisers 120,000
140 destroyers 175,000
500 FF, CVE, aux. craft etc 200,000
1,400 subs, Corvettes, sml craft 220,000
Aircraft 240,000
Vehicles 25,000
Other (includes domestic) 200,000

For example, A "Kent" heavy cruiser would use 2,200 tons/month, a destroyer 1,250 tons, "Dido" class light cruiser would use about 1,700 tons/month, each of them cruising about 8,000 miles/month at avr. 14 knots
***note: revised on 12/15, includes only ships based in UK/Iceland***

Cruiser list "bunkerage" from Cruiser Operations
World War 2 Cruisers

 

[Glider]

Glider try reading this:

WorldNetDaily: Was World War II worth it?

Try imagining what would have happened if Churchill hadn't been around.

Large numbers of senior members of Parliment and business were for an agreement with Germany. Its by no means certain that war would have been declared and Germany could have concentrated on Russia and life would be very different.

 

[AL Schlageter]

Bill, those 50 destroyers from the USA were floating pieces of junk.

They were uncomfortable and wet, working badly in a seaway. Their hull lines were rather narrow and 'herring-gutted' which gave them a vicious roll. The officers didn't like the way they handled either, since they had been built with propellors that turned the same way (2-screw ships normally have the shafts turning in opposite directions as the direction of rotation has effects on the rudder and the whole ship when manoeuvring, especially when coming alongside), so these were as awkward to handle as single-screw ships. Their turning circle was enormous, as big as most Royal Navy battleships, making them difficult to use in a submarine hunt which demanded tight maneouvers, compounded by unreliable "chain and cog" steering gear laid across the main deck. They also had fully-enclosed bridges which caused problems with reflections in the glass at night.

 

[drgondog]

Bill, those 50 destroyers from the USA were floating pieces of junk.

They were uncomfortable and wet, working badly in a seaway. Their hull lines were rather narrow and 'herring-gutted' which gave them a vicious roll. The officers didn't like the way they handled either, since they had been built with propellors that turned the same way (2-screw ships normally have the shafts turning in opposite directions as the direction of rotation has effects on the rudder and the whole ship when manoeuvring, especially when coming alongside), so these were as awkward to handle as single-screw ships. Their turning circle was enormous, as big as most Royal Navy battleships, making them difficult to use in a submarine hunt which demanded tight maneouvers, compounded by unreliable "chain and cog" steering gear laid across the main deck. They also had fully-enclosed bridges which caused problems with reflections in the glass at night.

Al, I know.

IIRC it took RN more than a year to refit them and make some semblance of a fighting ships.. but used they were.

I'm not really hung up on the value one way or another, just an illustration of an IMPORTANT political commitment leading to entire Lend Lease future which was important.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Marcel]

Try imagining what would have happened if Churchill hadn't been around.

Large numbers of senior members of Parliment and business were for an agreement with Germany. Its by no means certain that war would have been declared and Germany could have concentrated on Russia and life would be very different.

Yep, we would all be saying "Heil Hitler" right now

 

[syscom3]

Bill, those 50 destroyers from the USA were floating pieces of junk.

They were uncomfortable and wet, working badly in a seaway. Their hull lines were rather narrow and 'herring-gutted' which gave them a vicious roll. The officers didn't like the way they handled either, since they had been built with propellors that turned the same way (2-screw ships normally have the shafts turning in opposite directions as the direction of rotation has effects on the rudder and the whole ship when manoeuvring, especially when coming alongside), so these were as awkward to handle as single-screw ships. Their turning circle was enormous, as big as most Royal Navy battleships, making them difficult to use in a submarine hunt which demanded tight maneouvers, compounded by unreliable "chain and cog" steering gear laid across the main deck. They also had fully-enclosed bridges which caused problems with reflections in the glass at night.

But the U-Boat skippers didnt know that. All they knew was some destroyer was near by with depth charges ready to drop on them.

Keeping a u-boat submerged and unable to attack is almost as good as damaging it.

 

[drgondog]

But the U-Boat skippers didnt know that. All they knew was some destroyer was near by with depth charges erady to drop on them.

Keeping a u-boat submerged and unable to attack is almost as good as damaging it.

Agreed. They weren't worthless or RN would not have bothered refitting them.

I am still doubtful that RN could a.) keep shipping lanes open (enough to sustain war effort) to/from Britain or b.) defeated Japanese Navy in Indian Ocean given strict neutrality by US

 

[plan_D]

Excellent posts, Freebird. You've just thrown the idea of Britain being unable to fight the U-boats on its own out of the window. I'm sorry but anyone elses argument against Freebirds postings on the British anti-submarine war have to be abandoned...they really do.

 

[syscom3]

Excellent posts, Freebird. You've just thrown the idea of Britain being unable to fight the U-boats on its own out of the window. I'm sorry but anyone elses argument against Freebirds postings on the British anti-submarine war have to be abandoned...they really do.

No one doubts the technical and scientific ability of the RN to combat the U-Boat threat. The question is if the RN had enough assetts to protect all of the convoys.

 

[drgondog]

No one doubts the technical and scientific ability of the RN to combat the U-Boat threat. The question is if the RN had enough assetts to protect all of the convoys.

I agree Syscom. It is one thing to assert that RN MIGHT be able to prevail, quite a different thing to prove it. Particularly if RN has to contend with combined fleets of Japan (however limited in Atlantic) plus Italy plus Germany.

Having said that it is silly to say anyone has to Prove anything - this has been logic based speculation at best.

 

[Hunter368]

I agree Syscom. It is one thing to assert that RN MIGHT be able to prevail, quite a different thing to prove it. Particularly if RN has to contend with combined fleets of Japan (however limited in Atlantic) plus Italy plus Germany.

Having said that it is silly to say anyone has to Prove anything - this has been logic based speculation at best.

75% of what we talk about here is pure speculation at best. Syscom perhaps 85% speculation. This whole thread idea is pure speculation at best. Syscom (or you) cannot prove that USA saved Europe and PlanD cannot prove that Commonwealth with Russia could of won by themselves.

It's all speculation at best.