Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[renrich]

As to my eating habits, I was typical for an American youth. Couldn't seem to get enough meat. There were no fast food places, I had no money and coming from a family with a modest income we were adequately fed but nothing like the caloric intake today. It was a different world in the 40s and 50s, very unlike today. One saw almost no obesity. The teacher was an English History teacher. I took two semesters of English History and loved it.

 

[renrich]

To say that the US made no significant contribution in the ETO for 12 to 18 months and to ignore the impact of Torch seems ludicrous to me.

 

[pbfoot]

It is true that few people in Britain starved but that was with all the food shipped from the US. Without that food form my country, how would they have fared?

Food from the US wouldn't have made much difference the US is not the only country that can farm .I think machine tools and abrasives and general commodities of war like contruction materials would make the difference . Without machine tools or abrasives you haven't got a militaryhere is aqoute from a machinist in Derby UK
".....These are, or were, complicated mechanical computers for the fuse setting and firing of anti-aircraft munitions using a computed range and height assessment of enemy planes. How efficient they were I don't know but they required many man-hours to make and build and it seemed a long time before output was visible. This was understandable for when I started staff and machines were few in number. As the weeks went by machine tools from America arrived, tools I had never heard of like rotary, centre-less and internal grinders, surface and snow ploughs. In other departments they had lathes, gear cutters, drills of all sizes and lots of milling machines. As manufacturing facilities increased so did the number of people employed, including female operators. To oversee production the hierarchy was seconded from Vickers factory in Crayford, Kent. I believe all the managing staff were Vickers personnel. "

 

[Freebird]

In May of 1942, gasoline rationing began on the east coast of the US. In the fall of 1942 it was instituted nation wide. The figure of 7 billion barrels of oil used by the allies and 6 billion supplied by the US was from a website of George Mason Univ. In Yergin's book on page 379, he states that America increased it's production of crude from 3.7 million barrels a day in 1940 to 4.7 million per day in 1945. He further states that between December 1941 and August 1945 the US and it's allies consumed almost 7 billion barrels of oil, of which 6 billion came from the US.

Yes but as I have said, this is domestic consumption, Russian production, s. American etc. etc. The Allies only had enough sea tansport capacity to supply about 1.8 - 2 billion barrels during the war, of which at least half was used by the USA. So 1 billion barrels is more than enough to supply Commonwealth needs.

Remember also that US production was forced to compensate for the loss of the Borneo/E. Indies wells refineries, after the Japanese went to war against the Dutch because of the sanctions led by the USA, if the USA had not promised to support the Dutch in the Pacific, there is no way they would pick a fight with the Japanese.

That jibes nicely with the George Mason data. Obviously those numbers include the Pacific war but the oil usage in Europe must have been much greater than in the Pacific.

Not necessarily, the over half use of oil was for ships, of which there was as much use in the Pacific as the Atlantic. In the ETO ships would often stay in port waiting for action (ie Scapa, Trondheim, Kiel, Italy etc), while the Pacific was more of a mobile affair.

I don't know if the 7B # includes any domestic usage.

Yes Renrich, it must. The Allies could only transport about 1.8 - 2 Billion barrels (maximum) of oil by ship, and part of this usage was for domestic use in UK, Canada Australia etc. So 5 Billion barrels was produced and used without being shipped over water by oil producing Allied countries in the war. (ie USA, USSR, China, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuala, etc)

On page 383 he states that America produced almost 90 % of the total 100 octane used by the allies by 1944. On page 384 he says that in 1940 the US had a production capacity of 40,000 barrels a day of 100 octane, in 1945 the capacity was 514,000 barrels per day.

I am not sure how he arrives at that # perhaps is including all US owned companies production in that total, including the Esso plants in the Caribbean.

How much AvGas did the British really need? If the British had had
6000 fighter missions/day (2,000 aircraft 3 mission/day) @ 120 gallons per = 720,000 gal.
2,000 flights per day @ 500 gallons per (Beaufighter or Mossie) = 1,000,000 gal
1,000 flights @ 1,000 gallons = 1,000,000.

Total would be 2,720,000 gal or 65,000 barrels per day.

The figures I have are that the Abadan refinery had a pre-war refining capacity of 10 million tons crude per year. Thats gives about 5 million tons of gasoline (2 gal. crude yields 1 gal petrol) , 30 million barrels per year, 2.5 million barrels per month or 84,722 barrels per day. By 1944 90% of that production was high octane fuel.

The History of the British Petroleum ... - Google Book Search

Yergin is one of the world's leading authorities on world affairs and the oil industry. He is president of the Cambridge Energy Research Assoc. and has a BA from Yale and a PHD from Cambridge Univ. where he was a Marshall scholar. I believe that operation Torch took place in November, 1942, less than a year after Pearl Harbor and it was mostly American troops, AC and ships. To say that it took 12 to 18 months for the US to make a significant contribution is just plain wrong.

 

[Freebird]

To say that the US made no significant contribution in the ETO for 12 to 18 months and to ignore the impact of Torch seems ludicrous to me.

Well perhaps I should have said it more correctly, it took 11 months for the US to put troops into action in the ETO, 10 - 18 months to begin deploying air other forces in a major way. Torch was important yes, but it was only 5 US divisions 1 British. The US was not able to supply significant amounts of shipping until mid '43, it they needed to build up, replace '42 losses send troops to the Pacific. The 8th air force also did not have a major impact until after spring '43.

 

[syscom3]

Freebird, the USAAF 12th AF was quite active in North Africa in Nov and Dec 1942. Just read my WW2 65th anniversery threads and you would have known that. The only reason the AAF wasnt active untill then was the obvious need to secure airbases first.

In regards to the shipping for the pacific.... obviously you didnt know that the "Germany First" strategy meant that theater had priority on all navy, air force and army assetts.

True the 8th AF didnt have much impact untill summer 1943. But you ignore the efforts of the 12th and 15th AF's in the med. The AAF had quite a large sized operation going in that theater.

 

[Freebird]

Freebird, the USAAF 12th AF was quite active in North Africa in Nov and Dec 1942. Just read my WW2 65th anniversery threads and you would have known that.

Oh I have read them, very good by the way!

The only reason the AAF wasnt active untill then was the obvious need to secure airbases first.

Yes I did know about the US actions Dec '42 - May '43 in N. Africa

In regards to the shipping for the pacific.... obviously you didnt know that the "Germany First" strategy meant that theater had priority on all navy, air force and army assetts.

That was the plan, but apparently King lost his copy of the "Germany first" memo... LoL! I think the US shipping was probably about equal in PTO ETO, simply because the huge distances travelled in the PTO meant that 3 or 4 (or more) times as much shipping was used to get a US brigade to Guadalcanal from L.A., as compared to a brigade from N.Y. to London or Casablanca. I was actually referring mainly to warships, more than half were employed in the PTO, and they used more fuel on average than the sometimes static Naval situations in ETO.

True the 8th AF didnt have much impact untill summer 1943. But you ignore the efforts of the 12th and 15th AF's in the med. The AAF had quite a large sized operation going in that theater.

True, I certainly don't discount it, the US AAF did quite well in N. Africa in late'42 - '43. I think what I was trying to say was that from Nov 1942 - June 1943 the US went from a small impact in the ETO to a significant one. By the time the US has a big impact is the summer of 1943, by which time it's too late for the Germans to pull out a victory.

 

[plan_D]

The statement refering to U.S impact for a good 12 - 18 months seems reasonable to me, especially when other people refer to British contributions in other theatres as meaningless.

The 9th Air Force [as it became known] made a good contribution to the 8th Armys air assets, but they didn't make or break the campaign. I will gladly say they made it easier for the Commonwealth in North Africa - those Liberators ... really did do their names justice.

 

[renrich]

I don't believe that this forum should be about tit for tat. I don't believe UK contributions in the theaters they operated in were meaningless but I think conclusion should be based on reality. To regard Torch in the first days of the operation as insignificant is, I say, ludicrous. If the German High Command was not immediately alarmed by Torch and did not frantically begin to alter previous planning to counter the Allies' next moves playing off Torch then that High Command would have had to be asleep. Just the psychological effect must have been substantial. No country in the history of warfare had ever managed to mount such a successful amphibious invasion from that distance, on that scale and in such a short period of time. I expect that many German commanders realised at that moment that the war was lost.

 

[renrich]

By the end of 1943, Big Inch was carrying one-half of all the crude oil moving to the east coast. By the end of 1944 Big Inch and Little Inch were carrying 42 % of all oil which included refined product. This obviously has an impact on the amount of oil carried by sea borne transport.

 

[Freebird]

I don't believe that this forum should be about tit for tat. I don't believe UK contributions in the theaters they operated in were meaningless but I think conclusion should be based on reality. To regard Torch in the first days of the operation as insignificant is, I say, ludicrous. If the German High Command was not immediately alarmed by Torch and did not frantically begin to alter previous planning to counter the Allies' next moves playing off Torch then that High Command would have had to be asleep. Just the psychological effect must have been substantial. No country in the history of warfare had ever managed to mount such a successful amphibious invasion from that distance, on that scale and in such a short period of time. I expect that many German commanders realised at that moment that the war was lost.

Nobody is trying to say that Torch was insignificant! What I meant originally was that the USA took about a year to year&half to ramp up for war. Or more exactly 11 - 18 months. In Jan 42 the USA only had about 2 divisions available. By the end (Nov) they could put about a half dozen into Torch, although some of the new divisions were inexperienced. The industrial capacity was really felt after mid 43, although they were still in the process of raising training more troops.

 

[renrich]

Was Dorsetshire sunk in the Indian Ocean by Japanese air along with Cornwall? I always liked the looks of the County class cruisers.

 

[pbfoot]

I still want to know how the the Brits and others are going to compete with the Germans without US machine tools

 

[Freebird]

Pb I'm having a hard time finding information about machinery tools etc. Not as exciting as tanks planes so not much info given! LOL! Do you have any data on that? From my understanding the US couldn't spare much until mid '43 because of the enormous industrial build up in the USA, tools, machinery all kinds of things are in short supply in the US, not surprising when you consider that tank aircraft production went up about 8 or 10 times and shipbuilding went up 20 times!

There is no question that the productivity of the UK Commonwealth would go down without US supplies, etc. The question is how much less, and how would they have to adjust.

For example, about aircraft engines, in Canada there were only two engine manufacturers, Pratt Witney Canada made various makes of "Wasp's", in Montreal, another plant was located in Hamilton/St. Catherine. P&W Canada assembled Wasps from kits made in the USA, in '42 they started producing Wasp 1340's entirely. This plant others would have to start making engines for the war effort (yes, I know it would take some time to get up to speed!!) with some technical assistance from UK advisors. If there is a shortage of Merlins (without Packard's production) it would mean that Spitfires, Mosquito's, Hurricanes would get the priority for Merlins, the Lancasters would have to be built as BII versions with radial engines if a shortage of in line's develops. (Perhaps later versions could use a Double Wasp?)


Renrich - Yes Dorsetshire went down with the Cornwall. The Dorsetshire Hermes had left Ceylon to avoid the Japanese strike, but Dorsetshire was sent back with Cornwall for repairs in drydock, then turned around again on the 4th. the 2 ships then set out again for Maldives before being spotted 200 miles from Ceylon, sunk by Japanese bombers. Hermes was sent back to recover her aircraft, but before she could pick them up she was also sunk

 

[pbfoot]

PW in St Kitts or Hamilton thats news to me . I'm positive no aircraft engines were made in St Catharines or the Niagara region, now in Niagara New York you had Allison , Bell and Curtiss

 

[Freebird]

No P&W were only in Montreal, from 1928, they had a fairly established operation, they must have been, because the Wasps were also sent to US customers.

I found the information about aircraft engine parts made in Hamilton, St Catherine Toronto. Do you know if Avro made engines before the war? (for the Tiger Moth etc) or was it only later that they made Orenda engines?

The point I guess is that because of the huge US production, and existing facilities, it was just easiest to produce there. If the US "Neutrality" laws came back into effect, more facilities would have to be made in Canada.
Since the US was still recovering from slow economic times, many US companies were short of work. (eg. Kindelburger approching the British to sell his aircraft) I'm sure that some of the companies workers that made aircraft in the US would be happy to get the business, even if it meant manufacturing in Canada. (as opposed to laying off your workers) Kind of a brain/skilled worker drain going to Canada. (the opposite of the drain to the US from the Avro Arrow program after cancellation!) You haven't seen the lost "Arrow" floating down from lake Erie have you? LOL

 

[pbfoot]

You don't just open a precision shop you need furnaces for tempering and heat treating lathes of all types and large sizes , milling machines , grinders etc casting metal is a skill plus all the associated trades and I'm quite sure the Brits had none to spare and the Germans weren't selling the US was by far the largest manufacturer of these critical types of machines .

 

[renrich]

Freebird, I am enjoying your photos of Dorsetshire. The County class were a little old fashioned looking and their main batteries were rather insignificant appearing but they were pretty successful cruisers. I am not sure but the 8 inchers in 4 twin mounts might have been more useful than the standard US arrangement of 9- 8 inchers in 3 triple mounts. The high freeboard of the County class stood them in good stead in the Atlantic. One of my uncles was in Chicago at Savo Island when Canberra, a County class was one of the cruisers sunk. The story was(may not have been accurate) that Chicago did not go to the aid of Canberra so when Chicago docked in Brisbane he said that the Aussies shunned them.

 

[Derfman]

Did the U.S. Save Western Europe from Nazi or Soviet domination?

yes.

Did the U.S. do it alone?

no.

Is there a conflict, or even suggested conflict between the two above statements?

no.

Its a cold hard fact that without the U.S., it either would have been a surviving, perhaps even victorious Nazi Germany, or Soviet Europe or some mix of the two. You CANNOT get around this fact.

That in no way suggests, or even hints that the U.S. has been claiming we did it alone, but there sure as hell have many suggestions that we are incompetent civilain butchering thugs that somehow accident ourselves into undeserved victories (have not seen such crap here, but its around, and I know you've all seen it. Ward Churchill is only the tip of an ugly iceburg.) (if you detect some resentment, there is a reason....)

God help me, there are days I yearn for isolationism.

 

[Marcel]

Derfman, I think all of the dutch people with any historical sense are very grateful to your country for the role it played in WWII. I totally agree with your two statements. We also owe a lot of gratatude to the Commonwealth (with a special mention of the Canadians in our case) and other allied soldiers who fought for our freedom. Still it was only half a victory as only half of europe was liberated, the rest suffered under another dictatorship, being the USSR. We must not forget that. I think most people here have problems about the way the question was asked in this thread is it suggest that US did it alone. Syscom didn't really mean that, but it provoked a lot of people nonetheless.
Must say it did develope in quite an interesting discusion in the end.