- Thread starter
-
- #641
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The scenario is for the US and Germany to NOT declare war on each other after the Pearl Harbor attack. It was Germany that declared war first, and if they hadnt, it was quite plausable the US would not have intervened to any high degree, the war in Europe.
and:
1) Japan was going to attack the US one way or another, isolationist or no isolationist president. They had to destroy the Pacific fleet at hawaii and secure the sea lanes in SE Asia by removing the US from the PI. Both had to happen and no scenario can ignore that, unless you go really far off topic.
If the US embargos the oil after Japan attacks China (as historical) then I agree it would lead to war.
2) It doesnt matter how FDR convinced conrgress to pass his rearming programs, just the fact he did. You place too much emphysis on the isolationists after the outbreak of the war. Once the bombs dropped on Pearl, they changed their tune in a hurry. The only change to my scenario if the buildup hadnt occured, would be the USN delaying their Pacific offensives by a year or so.
US Policy is "Cash Carry" but no lend-lease, correct?
Does the US guarantee Dutch possessions in the far east? (ie East Indies, in return for the Dutch refusing to sell oil to Japan)
What would the US policy re U-boats be?
I do think the Allies could have done more in the Pacific, both Britain the US should have been more realistic in the "Germany first" plan, that it would take a 1 1/2 years for the US to get really geared up for war. The whole plan for "Sledgehammer" was totally unrealistic and "Bolero" was not a pressing need as the Pacific defence.
There really want a lot more the allies could have done in the PTO and CBI even without material and men going to the ETO/MTO.
The Pacific was foremost a logistics war, and untill bases and ports could be developed, nothing was going to happen sooner
With all due respect to Mr Kenney: Probably the finest book ever written about the oil industry is by Daniel Yergin, "The Prize." It should be required reading in Washington, if anyone there can read. Regarding the Battle of the Atlantic, " the Battle of the Atlantic became even more dangerous in the second half of 1942." This was well after the US was in the war. " In mid December,(1942) Churchill was told there was only about 2-months supply of fuel oil for ships in Britain." "By the spring of 1943, British oil stocks were at their lowest levels yet." "In March, the U-boats sank 108 ships." These quotes are to point out that these low points were well after the US entered the war. The Battle of the Atlantic could not have been won if the US had not been in the war. "Almost all of the Allies' needs for 100-octane fuel had to be met by American production-almost 90 per cent of the total by 1944." The Allies consumed 7 billion barrels of oil during WW2, 6 billion of those barrels came from the US. Most of the tankers that transported that oil across the seas were built in the US. Aside from weapons, food, raw materials and fighting men, does anyone suppose that the Allies without the US could have won the war with only 1 billion barrels of oil. Malta could not have survived to become the launching pad for AC to sever Rommels supply lines without gasoline from the US. Remember the SS Ohio? Where does one think the fuel came from to power Monty's tanks,(many of them made in the US) at El Alamein. It is unrealistic to believe that the Allies could have won the war in Europe without the US.
I'm not so sure I agree... I think part of the problem was the choice to fight from the East/South East direction, meaning that the US had to take and build up bases in Samoa, Solomons, etc, which also used up the inadequate shipping. If you were to contemplate a "Pacific first" effort I think that approaching from Dutch E Indies/Burma/Australia would be more logical.
I would think that with better effort the Allies could hold on to Java/Sumatra or at least make a much more determined fight, instead of letting the Japanese establish themselves.
If the US had used 6 or 7 carriers in the Pacific + 2 or 3 British ones, in addition to other fleet elements, they would outnumber the Japanese.
With the advantage of defensive land-based aircraft and the "Magic" decoding why could the Allies not have put up a better fight? The US was not in a much better position at "Midway" the new carriers would be another year in coming.
I think that even if the US/UK were to lose a few carriers, as long as they sunk about equal #'s of Japanese then it would be in the Allies favor, as they can out-build Japan.
Syscom, if you were in command (Adm. King! LoL) in the "Pacific First" scenario and were given the directive "stop the Japanese advance, destroy their fleet/army/AF as soon as possible", what would your strategy be?
That looks good on a map, but the reality is they are so far from the US and UK, it was literally "the other side of the world" when it came to a long long long supply line. It was difficult enough to supply the troops in 1944, let alone in 1942 or 1943 building up for an offensive with no aircraft carriers or airbases close to the Japanese.
Yes I don't disagree that they fought courageously, but I'm thinking more could be done with "ABDA", it should have had an American commander, not Wavell.And just what do you think the allied forces do during those horrible 6 months at the start of the war. The allies fought with courage and determination but were steamrollered by superior Japanese strategy and tactics.
The US had three in the Pacific with two called in from the Atlantic, leaving only one carrier (the Wasp) available. Plus factor in at least two carriers in port at any given time due to battle damage or refit/supply. The Brits had nothing available in the real war, and would have nothing to offer in this scenario.
I was talking about the first 5 months of the war.You call Midway and Guadalcanal a less than decisive fight?
The time spent to build this railway you said would take a couple of months , just imagine the volume of shipping req'd to move the rolling stock , track , coal , turntables , maintainence spares personally I think it's a fools fantasy and it would require an effort the equal of the manhattan project . Its easy to draw lines on a map but laying track is a whole new game the Japanese had trouble putting a short track 400km in Burma yet you have plans to cross the second biggest continent in a few monthsThat is why I wrote earlier that the British must use the African/Arabian rail systems to move petroleum (and troops, supplies other raw materials) between the Persian Gulf, India S. Africa to the West African ports, (Lagos, Accra, Port Harcourt, Calabar, Douala, Libreville), thus cutting a 13,000 mile ship's journey to 4,500 miles, which would use only about 1/3 of the shipping on this critical route. It would also save about 2 or 3 months transit time.
The time spent to build this railway you said would take a couple of months , just imagine the volume of shipping req'd to move the rolling stock , track , coal , turntables , maintainence spares personally I think it's a fools fantasy and it would require an effort the equal of the manhattan project . Its easy to draw lines on a map but laying track is a whole new game the Japanese had trouble putting a short track 400km in Burma yet you have plans to cross the second biggest continent in a few months
I don't really think you understand the complexity of a railroad .So now we have to bring coal in from South Africa and India this requires ships , where the hell is the water for the steam engine coming from in the savanah it's very arid , next you'll require electricity for the signals and switching followed closely by people to run it not 1 or 2 but thousands of skilled trades that will require accomadations rations etc . I'm quite sure every port in West Africa would have to expanded to accomodate influx of shipping. I think it would be easier to build a canal
trained manpower would be at a premium . Thats pretty brutal terrain . I studied the National Geographic atlas I have and its not that easy. The northern route he proposes across Chad would be brutal there are elevations up to 4000 feet and to avoid them its crossing long stetches of desert , laying track in the desert would very tough as you would have to bring in the ballast for the sleepers let alone digging it out so you have a good base.Some fair comments but I think its worth remembering that although a large number of people would be needed to make a Railroad the technology is petty easy. Plus the UK did have a lot of experience in building railroads across the empire as it was then, and would have known how to cover the issues.
A canal is a much bigger undertaking
I don't really think you understand the complexity of a railroad .So now we have to bring coal in from South Africa and India this requires ships , where the hell is the water for the steam engine coming from in the savanah it's very arid , next you'll require electricity for the signals and switching followed closely by people to run it not 1 or 2 but thousands of skilled trades that will require accomadations rations etc . I'm quite sure every port in West Africa would have to expanded to accomodate influx of shipping. I think it would be easier to build a canal
renrich said:" the Battle of the Atlantic became even more dangerous in the second half of 1942." This was well after the US was in the war. " In mid December,(1942) Churchill was told there was only about 2-months supply of fuel oil for ships in Britain." "By the spring of 1943, British oil stocks were at their lowest levels yet." "In March, the U-boats sank 108 ships." These quotes are to point out that these low points were well after the US entered the war."
...Remember, in this scenario the US brings back the neutrality laws in Jan 1941....
Some fair comments but I think its worth remembering that although a large number of people would be needed to make a Railroad the technology is petty easy. Plus the UK did have a lot of experience in building railroads across the empire as it was then, and would have known how to cover the issues.
A canal is a much bigger undertaking
trained manpower would be at a premium . Thats pretty brutal terrain . I studied the National Geographic atlas I have and its not that easy. The northern route he proposes across Chad would be brutal there are elevations up to 4000 feet and to avoid them its crossing long stetches of desert , laying track in the desert would very tough as you would have to bring in the ballast for the sleepers let alone digging it out so you have a good base.
The railway ties would alone require a huge investment of men and equipment>
To move the track further south in Africa and your making multiple (lost count at 50) river crossings. I believe the canal would almost be as easy
I never said there was going to be any neutrality laws
Only that the US and Germany did not declare war on each other in Dec 1941.