Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[syscom3]

Going by boat from San Fran to Sydney is far simpler than having to unload then reload again across a railroad that would be vulnerable to damage and service interruptions. And thats assuming the ports on either end of the rail line can handle the tonnage.

And the US Pacific fleet is going to be supplied through Pearl Harbor which is a couple of thousand miles nearer to the action.

Your trans African railroad makes no sense for the US, in any capacity.

 

[Freebird]

Going by boat from San Fran to Sydney is far simpler than having to unload then reload again across a railroad that would be vulnerable to damage and service interruptions. And thats assuming the ports on either end of the rail line can handle the tonnage.

And the US Pacific fleet is going to be supplied through Pearl Harbor which is a couple of thousand miles nearer to the action.

Your trans African railroad makes no sense for the US, in any capacity.

Suppose the Japanese had destroyed the fuel storage at Pearl the maintainance facilities there too?

And if they had used their submarines to sink US shipping in the Pacific?

 

[comiso90]

Suppose the Japanese had destroyed the fuel storage at Pearl the maintainance facilities there too?

And if they had used their submarines to sink US shipping in the Pacific?

If you are going to hypothesize that, you may as well throw in catching the carriers.

At the most, the war would have been prolonged. Japan never wanted to conquer the US. they wanted to pursue their Asian empire building w/o us butting in.

Industrial might would prevail in the end....
.

 

[AL Schlageter]

If a RR is to built across Africa, why not build a pipe line as well? Then only goods would have to be transported.

 

[pbfoot]

Freebird your maps must be different then mine and one must also consider the fact most of the country's your talking about were not even mapped decently at the time .
The amount of rolling stock required would be massive and who's going to divert production of armour and like things into trains ?
Where is the transport coming from to move the trains to Africa ?
Which port will have the ability to unload the trains ?
Where will the equipment come from to make these ports?
As for Water with steam engines you mention Lake Chad but you'll need other sources how long can a steam engine go on a tank of water?
Electricity will be needed for switching and a sundry of other things where is this coming from?

I'll stick with the canal

 

[Glider]

Deleted as I was an idiot

 

[syscom3]

Suppose the Japanese had destroyed the fuel storage at Pearl the maintainance facilities there too?

And if they had used their submarines to sink US shipping in the Pacific?

The destruction of the fuel tanks at Pearl would have been a great setback. But only for a few months.

Then the US would have needed to expend escorts to protect the convoys.

Which is still easier to do than escorting convoys to Africa, transhipping them across a railroad of dubious load cpacity and reliability. Then transloading them again back to ships, which would then need escorts to the Aussie bases, which would then need to be transhipped to the US bases in the Pacific.

So what you're saying is its easier to ship a product 20000 miles needing multiple loading and unloading times..... as opposed to shipping it 4000 miles and only one cycle time for loading and unloading.

 

[Freebird]

If you are going to hypothesize that, you may as well throw in catching the carriers.

At the most, the war would have been prolonged. Japan never wanted to conquer the US. they wanted to pursue their Asian empire building w/o us butting in.

Industrial might would prevail in the end....
.

Not a bad idea, when analyzing enemy capabilities its always best to consider worst case scenario...

It's true that industrial production would eventually turn the tide, I wonder how much damage would be done before we caught up?

If a RR is to built across Africa, why not build a pipe line as well? Then only goods would have to be transported.

Yes it would indeed be a good idea. If the scenario is "US Isolationist" then oil supply is vital from the Middle east, in the Syscom's "Pacific First" scenario it would be needed for eveything else. In EVERY SCENARIO (including historical) the Allies #1 problem is shipping.

The point of moving supplies by rail is

#1 supply Western Desert armies, needing 500,000 - 750,000 tons/month during 1941 -1942 (*note*)

#2 Send weapons supplies to Russia via Egypt Persia

#3 Load raw materials from the Indian Ocean for transport to Nigeria/Cameroons by rail then load onto ships for transport to USA/Britain (**note 2**)

(*note*) According to Eisenhower's "Crusade in Europe" the average Allied division engaged in combat in the Med needed 600 - 700 tons per day, mainly ammunition. (page 235) The British had an average of 16 divisions in combat during this period (all of 1941-1942 in Egypt, Spring 1941 greece/Crete Winter/Spring 1941 Ethiopia, Spring/Summer 1941 Iraq Syria, 1942 Madagascar, Fall/Winter 1942 Malaya, 1942 Burma)

16 divisions x 700 tons x 30 days is 336,000 tons every month, if you include ammunition supplies for the air, flak, fleet support units you need to deliver at least 550,000 - 650,000 tons every month. 650,000 tons/month delivered to either the Egyptian or Indian ports requires 2.75 million tons of shipping, assuming a 4 month round trip from UK or US, and that 95% arrive safely.

(**note 2**) vital materials for the war industry: Rubber from Ceylon Congo, Tin from Nigeria Congo, Bauxite from Guiana, Chromium/Manganese from Rhodisia, India, Gold Coast S. Africa. Most other materials would be available in USA, UK, or Canada.

 

[Freebird]

Freebird your maps must be different then mine and one must also consider the fact most of the country's your talking about were not even mapped decently at the time.

There are towns and caravan tracks across central Chad, its been settled grazed since biblical times

The amount of rolling stock required would be massive and who's going to divert production of armour and like things into trains ?

No diversion, Canada has over 12,500 engines and 150,000 rolling stock already, I would send perhaps 8,000 - 10,000 cars and a 500 - 600 engines to add to the 750 engines 16,500+ cars already on the Egyptian/Persian systems

Where is the transport coming from to move the trains to Africa ?
Which port will have the ability to unload the trains ?

railcars were typically loaded on the top of cargo ships, they could carry up to 25 - 40 cars in addition to the regular cargo. Remember that over 12,000 railcars/engines were shipped this way to Russia

The British already have many railway ports, in Nigeria, Togo, Gabon, Cameroon, Gold Coast, where cargo was unloaded from the railcars and loaded onto ships for the journey to the UK, the capacity would have to increase, as most ports did in wartime.

Where will the equipment come from to make these ports?
As for Water with steam engines you mention Lake Chad but you'll need other sources how long can a steam engine go on a tank of water?
Electricity will be needed for switching and a sundry of other things where is this coming from?

The ports are already in operation. See photo of Port Sudan rail terminal, typical ror British port rail terminals in Africa

The water towers already exist on the railways, they are needed every few hundred miles, so 2 or 3 might have to be built. Water is available from rhe Nile in the east as well.

The Nigerian Sudan railways already have switching facilities equipment, the same system would be used on the link

 

[pbfoot]

All this movement of men and resources ....converting of the differing gauge of track ...converting North American equipment to run on the decided gauge even todat these countries all use differnet gauges . The Nigerian system is not compatable today with any of it's neigbours route if they even have a rail system . Every country you want to build a railway through like Chad, Mali, CAR all have one thing in common no water.
Use google earth and check out your route.
Also check out the Alaska Highway and it was built on the North American continent. In short and in the real world it would be a total waste of valuable resources and men.

 

[Freebird]

The destruction of the fuel tanks at Pearl would have been a great setback. But only for a few months.

More than a few months I think...

Then the US would have needed to expend escorts to protect the convoys.

Escorts that they did not have!!

Anyways King decided that convoys did not make any difference.

Going by boat from San Fran to Sydney is far simpler than having to unload then reload again across a railroad that would be vulnerable to damage and service interruptions. And thats assuming the ports on either end of the rail line can handle the tonnage.

And the US Pacific fleet is going to be supplied through Pearl Harbor which is a couple of thousand miles nearer to the action.
Your trans African railroad makes no sense for the US, in any capacity.

So what you're saying is its easier to ship a product 20000 miles needing multiple loading and unloading times..... as opposed to shipping it 4000 miles and only one cycle time for loading and unloading.

Yes it does make sense Syscom, you are only talking about Hawaii, I'm referring to Java Australia.

1.) if the supply line through Fiji/Samoa to Australia is cut, then the Indian Ocean might be all thats left.

2.) It's the best way to supply Russia, unless you don't plan to send supplies to the Soviets. Would the US still send supplies to the USSR?

3.) It's easier to send Avgas from Abadan by rail to Madras then 2,000 miles to Darwin, rather than 10,000 miles from the USA by ship. (if that's where you plan to base your bombers to hit Japanese oil targets.)

4.) It also makes more sense to supply fuel for ABDA units from India than it does from the longer Pacific route.

How do you see the US participation in ABDA?

 

[Freebird]

.

All this movement of men and resources ....

War is all about moving men and resources!

converting of the differing gauge of track ...converting North American equipment to run on the decided gauge even todat these countries all use differnet gauges.

None of the N. American equiptment would be converted, only the Nigerian Sudan rails would be re-guaged

Pb it's not that difficult to re-guage railway lines, the Germans averaged 1,500 track-miles re-guaged per month of Soviet lines in 1941-1942. The Nigerian Sudan system would need about 850 miles re-guaged in each country, over 3 months that's only 600 miles per month. At the same time the Germans also built or re-built over 650 track-miles of each month in the USSR, the difference is that the Soviets also destroyed almost all of the bridges, water tower, coal stations, railway infastructure etc. For the British all of that would still be in place on the Nigerian Sudan systems.

The Nigerian system is not compatable today with any of it's neigbours route if they even have a rail system . Every country you want to build a railway through like Chad, Mali, CAR all have one thing in common no water.

?? Check my map, the route would only go through Nigeria, Chad Sudan, nowhere near Mali or C.A.R. All railways transport water in tanks to fill the water towers, in 1942-1943 the US UK expanded the Persian system's capacity by over 3000% from Basra - Tabriz, and there is no water there either.

Use google earth and check out your route.

I did, its all mainly flat, hot, semi-arid, savannah not much difference from the northern part of Nevada (Union Pacific route from Reno-salt Lake) except its hotter. I've posted the terrain map below.

Also check out the Alaska Highway and it was built on the North American continent.

I've driven on the Alaska Highway, thanks, through Rocky Mountains of nothern B.C., it is about as different from the "Chad rail-link" as possible. Unlike the African grasslands, the Alaska highway was forested the whole way, needing tree cutting almost every mile. The Alaska route was very rugged, meaning it had to cross ridges, vallys and many rivers. In addition the winter freeze destroys bridges roadbeds. It was also far away from populated areas transport meaning that men supplies would often have to be flown in. The African route does not have these problems.

In short and in the real world it would be a total waste of valuable resources and men.

The men and resources are already in place suppling the Desert Army, remember that after the long "round the Cape" voyage the supplies would have to be unloaded at over-crowded Red Sea or Palestine ports, and then re-loaded onto railway cars for transport to the front. This was because after the disasterous Greek expedition the Desert Army had lost most of its truck transport.

If the Axis had heavily attacked Allied shipping in the Indian Ocean in 1941 the rail link would allow the Allies to keep fighting, otherwise they would have to abandon Africa, Arabia India as they would not have any ships left supply them. In the "Real World" the Allies were barely able to survive anyways, and with a very limited (Indian Ocean) Axis submarine offensive. If the Japanese had sent their subs against Allied ports the British would be unable to supply their Empire and would probably lose all of the colonies on the Indian Ocean.

 

[pbfoot]

I admire your perserverance in your plan with railways but think its nuts too many variables you can't answer to my satisfaction . I think we are reading different maps ,something that was almost non existant of the areas your talking about in those years . Changing narrow gauge to wide gauge . Why all the bother when they were capable of popping out ships in less then a week that can go almost everywhere . Your not even considering defending the access to the ports and resources that would once again have to be pulled away to protect them . I've read a great deal about ferrying aircraft across the same route you talk about using your railway and it was tough unforgiving terrain .And the killer fact of it all they still use ships to this day of getting the most there the fastest

 

[Freebird]

Why all the bother when they were capable of popping out ships in less then a week that can go almost everywhere . Your not even considering defending the access to the ports and resources that would once again have to be pulled away to protect them .

pB I'm going to answer this other questions, I've started a new thread "Could the Kriegsmarine IJN neutralize the US with a comboned attack". The main reason for using rail instead of ships is that even with the massive US shipbuilding program the Allies STILL ran short of shipping, it became so severe in 1943 that the British considered shutting down the Far East theater to use the ships to supply the UK in the "1943 British Import Crisis"

 

[Monk]

May have to agree with Tom, but the one thing that still gets me is whether or not Hitler wanted to pull the US into the fray.... I think he was gobbled up in his power and thought himself/Germany undefeatable....

Why else would he have attacked Russia???

As for the whole "No USA would Germany beat USSR?" gimmick, they probably stood a better chance of it without US involvement of any sort... With some better advice to Hitler and letting Guderian do what he always wanted to do, it probably would have happened....

Im pretty sure that Stalingrad would have fallen... Thats alot of extra machines and men that the Germans could have utilized instead of sitting on some farmland in France... If there werent hundreds and hundred and thousands of British and American bombers flying over the Ruhr and Berlin, where would the large portion of those Luftwaffe aircraft go to....

Mother Russia, supporting the Panzers...

I just cannot resist!

Hitler attacked Russian because he had no choice! It is a well known fact that Stalin intended to attack Germany in 1942 or maybe 1943, as soon as Russia's industrial capacity had been moved safely west of the Ural's. Hitler's was well aware of this, he had spies in Russia of course. Hitler knew that if he waited until the Soviets were ready to attack Germany that he'd have no chance at all.

As for Germany declaring war on the USA, they did so because Hitler felt the Japanese were the "Aryan's" of Asia, and he had a treaty with them to go to war with the USA should the USA declare war on Japan. But this was hardly relevant, the USA would have entered the war in Europe regardless.

As for the fundamental question in this thread, the answer is obvious - Europe would have been conquered by Germany had the US stayed completely out of the war (except for supply of Britain) or by the Soviets had the US also chosen to supply Russia. In the first case Britain would probably have given in to peace terms with Germany but Germany would have ruled the continent.

Remember, the USA made up over 2/3rds of the world's industrial capacity in 1942, more as they got into the war.

So the USA did "save Europe" in WWII, anyone who cannot see this is a fool.

Swing your hammer m8 and leave history to those who actually study it!

 

[syscom3]

......
Remember, the USA made up over 2/3rds of the world's industrial capacity in 1942, more as they got into the war.
....

Agreed. The US industrial capacity is what made the difference for an allied victory.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Swing your hammer m8 and leave history to those who actually study it!

That was uncalled for.

You might not like the hammer once it starts swinging.

 

[Freebird]

The US entry into the war in Europe guarenteed that the allies would win. Therefore America gets credit for saving the butt's of the European people.

Nothing in war is guaranteed.

Again, no-one has proven me wrong.....

The UK did not have the resources to win by themselves. Thus whomever wins between Russia and Germany will be the victor.

Unless, as Plan D states, they bleed each other down so much first that neither can contest an Allied landing into Western Europe

With the US in the fight, the allies will eventually win.

Anyone with half a brain knows that.

Could the US have had a ground victory in Europe without Russia?

Could the US have landed in Europe without British help or bases? And could the Russians have held out without British help the Commonwealth keeping a big chunk of Axis forces occupied instead of fighting in the East?

That is the thing that you fail to realize. Not one single force could win the war by themselves. Without the Eastern Front the Germans would have been to powerful in the west. Without the Western Front, vice versa.

You let pride cloud your judgement.
.

Your analysis is absolutely correct Adler.

I just cannot resist!

So the USA did "save Europe" in WWII, anyone who cannot see this is a fool.

Swing your hammer m8 and leave history to those who actually study it!

Nothing like throwing down the gauntlet in your first post to get noticed is there?

 

[syscom3]

Unless, as Plan D states, they bleed each other down so much first that neither can contest an Allied landing into Western Europe

The commonwealth didnt have the resources to invade France without the US men and material. BTW, how are you going to win air superiority without the long range P38's and P51's?

Could the US have had a ground victory in Europe without Russia?

If the US isnt even in the war, that statement is irrelevant.

Could the US have landed in Europe without British help or bases? And could the Russians have held out without British help the Commonwealth keeping a big chunk of Axis forces occupied instead of fighting in the East?

This thread is about whether the Commonwealth and/or Russia had the power to defeat Germany without US aid.

 

[Monk]

That was uncalled for.

You might not like the hammer once it starts swinging.

I beg to differ.

And Chris, you may find you do not like where the hammer finally lands when it has traveled its full measure! Look up, what is that spinning shadow?

LOL