Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

America goes to war in September 1939

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • America goes to war in September 1939

    For purposes of this scenario, it isn't particularly important to know the political reasons for America going to war against Germany in September 1939. They do. Within days of Germany invading Poland, the US is at war with Germany too.

    Obviously, the US begins to mobilize for war, what are the other differences that would occur?

    Here are a few I worked out.

    The first is the USN begins to work immediately with the RN on the U-boat issue. This causes more problems for the Germans as the US starts throwing in lots of escorts that didn't exist originally. For example, many four-piper DD are converted to ASW use and reactivated. This means upwards of 100 reasonably useful escort ships are added meaning convoys have far more escorts with them.
    The USN also brings to the table a number of PBY squadrons for patrol operations greatly reinforcing the small number of Coastal Command aircraft available in 1939.

    At some point, the British and French decide to occupy northern Norway and Iceland. They did it historically, so it's still likely here. The difference is the US is now involved too.
    So, the US sends a Marine brigade to Norway along with supporting ships, particularly a couple of aircraft carriers with upwards of 150 planes between them. This is an overwhelming number compared to what the British and FAA could put up.
    The result could go one of two ways, both very bad for Germany.

    The first is the Germans decide they can't invade so, they get screwed on iron ore deliveries from Sweden. That's a big problem. That would mean they'd probably still have to invade.

    They invade. The combined USN and RN fleets off Norway pretty much demolish the KM in its entirety. Worse, the Marines brought one of their air groups with them so the Luftwaffe in central and northern Norway are facing many times the aircraft they did historically, and these aren't a few ancient biplanes...
    On the ground the Marines add about 2500 troops that are well trained and equipped for their mission to the British and French contingents.
    The USN carriers make it difficult or even impossible to fly Ju 52 or bomber operations unescorted meaning the Luftwaffe is less effective.
    Bottom line: If northern Norway stays in Allied hands, the Germans end up with a large ground war in Scandinavia they're going to have a hard time supporting.

    By March 1940, the US sends a corps of three infantry divisions with corps troops including say, 6 to 8 battalions of heavy artillery, 2 75mm antiaircraft battalions, 1 or 2 37mm + .50 AA battalions, two light tank battalions (M2 lights), along with engineers, and other support troops to France.
    The French and British not fully trusting, put this corps in the sector the Germans plan to push across the Meuse river at. It's likely that the panzer thrust would fail with these added units.
    Why? The US units are regular US Army troops of long term service (1st, 2nd, 3rd Infantry divisions). These divisions have between them about 240 37mm AT guns, another 36 75mm field pieces to be used as heavy antitank guns (in 1939 the US infantry division included an intrinsic antitank battalion with 3 companies of 12 each 37mm and one company of 12 75mm guns). There are .50 machineguns scattered all through the division for AA purposes.
    The inclusion of several AA battalions at corps level is an addition that didn't exist in that sector as the French army in 1940 was short AA guns in general. Add in that the US corps has just over 100 light tanks with 37mm guns that can penetrate any German tank to that.
    Just the sheer volume of weapons available compared to what was originally there would pretty much finish the German thrust. It'd stall even if the US didn't fight all that well. Air support would be more difficult too. Stukas would come under fire virtually every time they showed up to attack targets where they were operating without opposition historically.

    The USAAC would likely be weak but still add to the air war. I could see several fighter groups with P-35 and P-36 fighters sent. One or more attack / bombardment groups with A-17 or A-33 planes would be likely too. Probably one or two more with A-20's would be available. I could see several bomb groups with the B-18 being sent and possibly one of B-17 being put in Britain.
    While most of these planes are mediocre, the P-36 isn't that bad, and the rest do add to the Allies inventory overall. Also, by comparison, these aren't at bad at the time if you look at planes like the Amiot 143 or Battle.

    I think had the US, even as weak as their military was in 1939, been pulled into the war at that point might have made the difference and resulted in a repeat of WW 1 rather than what historically happened.

  • #2
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    For purposes of this scenario, it isn't particularly important to know the political reasons for America going to war against Germany in September 1939. They do. Within days of Germany invading Poland, the US is at war with Germany too.

    Obviously, the US begins to mobilize for war, what are the other differences that would occur?

    Here are a few I worked out.

    The first is the USN begins to work immediately with the RN on the U-boat issue. This causes more problems for the Germans as the US starts throwing in lots of escorts that didn't exist originally. For example, many four-piper DD are converted to ASW use and reactivated. This means upwards of 100 reasonably useful escort ships are added meaning convoys have far more escorts with them.
    The USN also brings to the table a number of PBY squadrons for patrol operations greatly reinforcing the small number of Coastal Command aircraft available in 1939.

    At some point, the British and French decide to occupy northern Norway and Iceland. They did it historically, so it's still likely here. The difference is the US is now involved too.
    So, the US sends a Marine brigade to Norway along with supporting ships, particularly a couple of aircraft carriers with upwards of 150 planes between them. This is an overwhelming number compared to what the British and FAA could put up.
    The result could go one of two ways, both very bad for Germany.

    The first is the Germans decide they can't invade so, they get screwed on iron ore deliveries from Sweden. That's a big problem. That would mean they'd probably still have to invade.

    They invade. The combined USN and RN fleets off Norway pretty much demolish the KM in its entirety. Worse, the Marines brought one of their air groups with them so the Luftwaffe in central and northern Norway are facing many times the aircraft they did historically, and these aren't a few ancient biplanes...
    On the ground the Marines add about 2500 troops that are well trained and equipped for their mission to the British and French contingents.
    The USN carriers make it difficult or even impossible to fly Ju 52 or bomber operations unescorted meaning the Luftwaffe is less effective.
    Bottom line: If northern Norway stays in Allied hands, the Germans end up with a large ground war in Scandinavia they're going to have a hard time supporting.

    By March 1940, the US sends a corps of three infantry divisions with corps troops including say, 6 to 8 battalions of heavy artillery, 2 75mm antiaircraft battalions, 1 or 2 37mm + .50 AA battalions, two light tank battalions (M2 lights), along with engineers, and other support troops to France.
    The French and British not fully trusting, put this corps in the sector the Germans plan to push across the Meuse river at. It's likely that the panzer thrust would fail with these added units.
    Why? The US units are regular US Army troops of long term service (1st, 2nd, 3rd Infantry divisions). These divisions have between them about 240 37mm AT guns, another 36 75mm field pieces to be used as heavy antitank guns (in 1939 the US infantry division included an intrinsic antitank battalion with 3 companies of 12 each 37mm and one company of 12 75mm guns). There are .50 machineguns scattered all through the division for AA purposes.
    The inclusion of several AA battalions at corps level is an addition that didn't exist in that sector as the French army in 1940 was short AA guns in general. Add in that the US corps has just over 100 light tanks with 37mm guns that can penetrate any German tank to that.
    Just the sheer volume of weapons available compared to what was originally there would pretty much finish the German thrust. It'd stall even if the US didn't fight all that well. Air support would be more difficult too. Stukas would come under fire virtually every time they showed up to attack targets where they were operating without opposition historically.

    The USAAC would likely be weak but still add to the air war. I could see several fighter groups with P-35 and P-36 fighters sent. One or more attack / bombardment groups with A-17 or A-33 planes would be likely too. Probably one or two more with A-20's would be available. I could see several bomb groups with the B-18 being sent and possibly one of B-17 being put in Britain.
    While most of these planes are mediocre, the P-36 isn't that bad, and the rest do add to the Allies inventory overall. Also, by comparison, these aren't at bad at the time if you look at planes like the Amiot 143 or Battle.

    I think had the US, even as weak as their military was in 1939, been pulled into the war at that point might have made the difference and resulted in a repeat of WW 1 rather than what historically happened.
    The problems I see this scenario creating would be quite far reaching.

    But in general because Germany would be effectively 'nipped in the bud' the world would have the jet age delayed, aviation growth in general delayed, nuclear power delayed, rocketry delayed just to name a few. US industry wouldn't be as big or efficient.

    It would be entirely possible for the European war to conclude before the Japanese war started. The result would two small bumps in US production instead of the giant one we historically experienced. Two bumps would not have the economic effect on the world that the giant one did.

    On the plus side the Soviets system might collapse in on itself without the driving force of the great patriotic war. Millions of people will get to live to old age. Right now would probably be the golden age of muscle cars.

    Technology would take the biggest hit. Without enduring world war 2 and it's massive destruction on property and life I reckon there would still be a lot of festering masses of people eager for the next big war. The US would suffer more casualties due to a greater commitment to a ground war. Doubtful as to whether we'd have visited the moon my now as well.

    TAG I think this scenario would suck. I think it would drastically reduce the size of post war US industry which would greatly reduce the pace of western technology and expansion. Would war two sucked but it sorted out alot of problems and made the west the best bar none.

    Comment


    • #3
      Biggest problem is finding all the troops in such a short time to fulfill all these operations. With all the USN/MC assets being used they have to come from someplace else. Where, the Pacific? Japan would love that.

      The RAF didn't sop Ju 52's from operating over the UK, or attacking shipping in the Med. Why do you think they would stop them now? Your P35/36 against the 109's increases the number of ACEs in the Luftwaffe. 109's out classed both in all category, What armament did the 35/36 have. Laughable.

      If the Germans would have a hard time supporting the allies would have even a harder time. Denmark to Norway is a few miles. The UK to Norway is a couple hundred over open sea.

      United States, with an army of only 190.000 in peacetime and with 343.000 when fully mobilized. US army was smaller than Portugal's.Even though it was well enough trained and equipped, It was inexperienced and its equipment was not entirely updated.
      US tanks force had less then 500 tanks in its service, which were around the same quality as the japanese.
      Its US armed forces had 4900 planes, some of these were modern. Thought over 2000 of them was outdated, several of them was even bi-planes. In 1939 the US Navy had 15 battleships, 5 aircraft carriers, 36 cruisers, 127 Destroyers, 58 submarines. Many of these ships was thought outdated for more then a decade.
      It is still the world 3 strongest navy in 1939.
      Last edited by Half Pint John; 03 Apr 18, 06:16.
      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

      youre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

        The RAF didn't sop Ju 52's from operating over the UK, or attacking shipping in the Med. .
        And when did this happen? Operating over the UK! Attacking shipping! The tante Ju - really?
        Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
        Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

        Comment


        • #5
          If the US joins the war in 1939 then maybe the war ends very quickly. It is possible that the Wehrmacht decides that it is time to take the wins & make peace with the Allies. That could all get very messy & take Germany out of the invading business for long enough for everyone else to catch up.

          Assuming this does not happen & the invasions of Scandinavia, the Low Countries & France go ahead then Germany is in trouble. Extra troops & aircraft can definitely tilt the balance toward the Allies in Scandinavia & France. By May 1940 the US could put enough men & especially aircraft into France to slow down the German advance enough for it to fail. If that initial advance fails to knock France out of the war Germany is cooked. With the resources of the US & with the British Commonwealth fully mobilized Germany can't win.

          Further, if France doesn't collapse will Italy risk war? My bet is no. It might go into the Balkans and try to scoop up some territory while everyone else is distracted, but its hard to imagine Mussolini taking on the US, UK & France all at once.

          Japan is an interesting case. It might still take the opportunity to expand while everyone else is at war. However, the US will still be able to leave most of its fleet in the Pacific, especially the bigger units. Keep in mind that the French fleet is still available in Europe. Additionally, the US will already be on a war footing. If there isn't conscription in 1939 there will be soon enough, and the massive expansion of the US Army & Air Corps will have started ahead of OTL. Japan will face a much better prepared US, though it might still make the mistake of thinking it can win. I wonder if US forces on Hawaii & in the Philippines would allow those Japanese first strikes that were so devastating in OTL under these circumstances?
          Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by MarkV View Post
            And when did this happen? Operating over the UK! Attacking shipping! The tante Ju - really?
            My mistake, I was thinking of the Ju87. tante is Capitalized.
            "Ask not what your country can do for you"

            Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

            youre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
              My mistake, I was thinking of the Ju87. tante is Capitalized.
              Make your Ju 52 or Ju 87 into a He 111 or Ju 88, and your initial comment makes more sense.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Capt AFB View Post
                Make your Ju 52 or Ju 87 into a He 111 or Ju 88, and your initial comment makes more sense.
                You might want to reconsider.

                During the Battle of Crete, the Ju 87s also played a significant role. On 2122 May 1941, the Germans attempted to send in reinforcements to Crete by sea but lost 10 vessels to "Force D" under the command of Rear Admiral Irvine Glennie. The force, consisting of the cruisers HMS Dido, Orion and Ajax, forced the remaining German ships to retreat. The Stukas were called upon to deal with the British naval threat.[134] On 21 May, the destroyer HMS Juno was sunk and the next day the battleship HMS Warspite was damaged and the cruiser HMS Gloucester was sunk, with the loss of 45 officers and 648 ratings. The Ju 87s also crippled the cruiser HMS Fiji that morning, (she was later finished off by Bf 109 fighter bombers) while sinking the destroyer HMS Greyhound with one hit.[135] As the Battle of Crete drew to a close, the Allies began yet another withdrawal. On 23 May, the Royal Navy lost the destroyers HMS Kashmir and Kelly, followed by HMS Hereward on 26 May; Orion and Dido were also severely damaged.[136] Orion had been evacuating 1,100 soldiers to North Africa; 260 of them were killed and another 280 wounded

                This just one battle.
                "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                youre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                  Biggest problem is finding all the troops in such a short time to fulfill all these operations. With all the USN/MC assets being used they have to come from someplace else. Where, the Pacific? Japan would love that.
                  The USMC in 1939 consisted of two fully manned and equipped brigades (regiment + supporting troops), one on the east coast one on the west. Each had a fully equipped air group to support it. These were all long service volunteer troops and specifically intended for overseas deployments when necessary.

                  The US Army had 3 standing infantry divisions that were at or near full strength. The Coast Artillery branch, controlling most heavy artillery, was the largest manpower-wise component of the Army. They would be providing the corps heavy and antiaircraft artillery which existed in more than the strengths given.
                  There were over 200 M2 light tanks in existence and two battalions take just over 100 vehicles.
                  Basically, the corps I propose could have been raised and prepared for overseas deployment in under six months. March 1940 is 7 months. That leaves about 60 days to get the corps into the line and settled into it's positions. Putting it on an expected "quiet" front isn't unreasonable given the short time (compared to the BEF and French units) its been available.

                  The RAF didn't sop Ju 52's from operating over the UK, or attacking shipping in the Med. Why do you think they would stop them now? Your P35/36 against the 109's increases the number of ACEs in the Luftwaffe. 109's out classed both in all category, What armament did the 35/36 have. Laughable.
                  The Ju 52 is this:



                  It never operated over England and in the Med and elsewhere it was shot down in considerable numbers when opposed. The P-36 in French hands performed well in 1940 and was one of their top scoring fighter planes. Why wouldn't it do likewise in the hands of mostly high hour USAAC pilots who were flying pre-war in the US often for years. The P-35 is obsolescent, but it's no worse and often better than some of the French and British types flying like the MS 406, Caldron 714, or Glouster Gladiator.
                  The A-17 / A-33 are better attack aircraft than a Battle.
                  Both the P-35 and 36 are more than a match for a Stuka in any case. Certainly they could take on any German bomber with a good chance of success given how lightly armed they are at the time. Most carry 3 to 5 7.9mm single machineguns for defense.

                  If the Germans would have a hard time supporting the allies would have even a harder time. Denmark to Norway is a few miles. The UK to Norway is a couple hundred over open sea.
                  The USN in particular is very good at projecting power overseas. There is no difference for them in conducting an amphibious operation 1000 miles from the US than there is doing one 10 miles from the US. They could have easily hauled a Marine brigade to Norway and successfully landed it, particularly with no initial opposition (the British and French had none initially either). Bringing their air group is simply a matter of putting the planes on a carrier or two and flying them off once the brigade is ashore and has an airfield.

                  It's the Germans that have the problem. US carriers have full air groups in 1939. Yes, the planes aren't as good as in 1941 (mostly F3F, some F2A Buffalo, SB2U and SBC dive bombers, and TBD torpedo planes) but they have 70+ on each carrier. That compares to the FAA at the time with a handful of Skua dive bomber / fighters and Swordfish, along with some Sea Gladiators usually 12 to 30 planes per carrier.
                  Just two US carriers would dominate a radius of about 200 + miles of sea around them. Any German KM ship caught by one would be facing air strikes by dozens of aircraft both dive bombers and torpedo planes. It'd be like nothing they ever faced fighting the RN.

                  United States, with an army of only 190.000 in peacetime and with 343.000 when fully mobilized. US army was smaller than Portugal's.Even though it was well enough trained and equipped, It was inexperienced and its equipment was not entirely updated.
                  They still have three regular infantry divisions in existence. Reduced by one regiment to triangular, they could have been sent to France in under six months and still provided the original cadre they did for three more divisions to be raised. So, that changes nothing in US mobilization and is doable with the troops available.

                  US tanks force had less then 500 tanks in its service, which were around the same quality as the japanese.
                  In 1939, the M2 light tank is the equal of a Pz 38t, Pz III, and much better than a Pz II, not to mention totally outclassing the Pz I. Numerically, it represents the most common US tank at the time with about 240 in service. Since a corps would have been given two light tank battalions for general service at the time, the 100+ necessary are available.

                  Its US armed forces had 4900 planes, some of these were modern. Thought over 2000 of them was outdated, several of them was even bi-planes. In 1939 the US Navy had 15 battleships, 5 aircraft carriers, 36 cruisers, 127 Destroyers, 58 submarines. Many of these ships was thought outdated for more then a decade.
                  It is still the world 3 strongest navy in 1939.
                  The British and French aren't much better in this respect, and in many ways worse off. The British are still heavily dependent on the Gladiator in 1939. The most common French fighter is the MS 406. The US wouldn't be sending anything as vulnerable as say the Amiot 143:



                  Or the Bloch 210:



                  The US B-18 Bolo is not bad by comparison to what the French are using. Even the Martin B-10 could have gone and been competitive.

                  The A-17 / A-33 was certainly no worse than a Battle as an attack aircraft.

                  Seeing as how the Luftwaffe is still using Me 109C and D models alongside the E, and aircraft like the Ar 86, they aren't overwhelmingly better.

                  Ranger is the only sub-par US carrier, and it's still better than most of the British ones. It's better than Hermes, Eagle, and the three Courageous class by a considerable margin. The RN has 6 carriers (not counting the Argus which is about as useful as Langley) and the FAA has just 190 aircraft of all types.

                  The only RN carrier that matches a US one in terms of number of aircraft aboard in 1939 is Ark Royal carrying about 60 planes split between Skua and Swordfish.

                  The USN also has the advantage of not having to defend the US against a German incursion and really doesn't face the KM being able to do much of anything to the US or US interests at sea outside of U-boats.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                    You might want to reconsider.

                    During the Battle of Crete, the Ju 87s also played a significant role. On 2122 May 1941, the Germans attempted to send in reinforcements to Crete by sea but lost 10 vessels to "Force D" under the command of Rear Admiral Irvine Glennie. The force, consisting of the cruisers HMS Dido, Orion and Ajax, forced the remaining German ships to retreat. The Stukas were called upon to deal with the British naval threat.[134] On 21 May, the destroyer HMS Juno was sunk and the next day the battleship HMS Warspite was damaged and the cruiser HMS Gloucester was sunk, with the loss of 45 officers and 648 ratings. The Ju 87s also crippled the cruiser HMS Fiji that morning, (she was later finished off by Bf 109 fighter bombers) while sinking the destroyer HMS Greyhound with one hit.[135] As the Battle of Crete drew to a close, the Allies began yet another withdrawal. On 23 May, the Royal Navy lost the destroyers HMS Kashmir and Kelly, followed by HMS Hereward on 26 May; Orion and Dido were also severely damaged.[136] Orion had been evacuating 1,100 soldiers to North Africa; 260 of them were killed and another 280 wounded

                    This just one battle.
                    The difference is night and day versus the USN in 1939. British ships relied primarily on individual ship AA fire for defense against air attack at the time. Their ships carry about two thirds the ammunition that US ones do. (typically its 200 to 250 rounds per gun on an RN ship for AA defense, versus 300 to 400 on a US ship)
                    The US ships have better AA fire controls and often better guns (the 5"/25 or 5"/38 that are director controlled, versus a polyglot of 3" to 4.7" guns the British use often in local control).
                    The US also uses a ring formation for AA defense and it isn't "every ship for itself." Mutual defense is the US tactic.
                    Also, if there is a carrier present, the USN will have upwards of 30+ reasonably good fighters available to take on the attacking planes... which are unlikely to have fighter escort as they often lacked at Crete.

                    The British weaknesses were first lack of carrier fighter cover. The one carrier present had just a dozen Fulmar aboard and those didn't last long. Next, their ammunition supply ran out quickly. Most of the cruisers sunk were hit only after they ran out of ammunition. This is less of a problem for the USN as they carry considerably more.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                      So, the US sends a Marine brigade to Norway along with supporting ships, particularly a couple of aircraft carriers with upwards of 150 planes between them. This is an overwhelming number compared to what the British and FAA could put up.
                      The result could go one of two ways, both very bad for Germany.
                      150 will not have a great impact on the battlle especially when the carriers could be taken as targets both by German navy and Luftwaffe.

                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                      They invade. The combined USN and RN fleets off Norway pretty much demolish the KM in its entirety. Worse, the Marines brought one of their air groups with them so the Luftwaffe in central and northern Norway are facing many times the aircraft they did historically, and these aren't a few ancient biplanes...
                      At the condition that Germany decides to send the KM. More probably the will send packs of submarines to hunt the USN and RN capital ships.


                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      On the ground the Marines add about 2500 troops that are well trained and equipped for their mission to the British and French contingents.
                      The USN carriers make it difficult or even impossible to fly Ju 52 or bomber operations unescorted meaning the Luftwaffe is less effective.
                      Bottom line: If northern Norway stays in Allied hands, the Germans end up with a large ground war in Scandinavia they're going to have a hard time supporting.
                      Compared with the number of divisions that Germans have sent, a brigade of marines will have little impact. Considering the nature of the terrain - snow and mountains - their performance can be impacted even further. Activity from the carrier would be limited in time since they will need to resupply.

                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      By March 1940, the US sends a corps of three infantry divisions with corps troops including say, 6 to 8 battalions of heavy artillery, 2 75mm antiaircraft battalions, 1 or 2 37mm + .50 AA battalions, two light tank battalions (M2 lights), along with engineers, and other support troops to France.
                      The French and British not fully trusting, put this corps in the sector the Germans plan to push across the Meuse river at. It's likely that the panzer thrust would fail with these added units.
                      Why? The US units are regular US Army troops of long term service (1st, 2nd, 3rd Infantry divisions). These divisions have between them about 240 37mm AT guns, another 36 75mm field pieces to be used as heavy antitank guns (in 1939 the US infantry division included an intrinsic antitank battalion with 3 companies of 12 each 37mm and one company of 12 75mm guns). There are .50 machineguns scattered all through the division for AA purposes.
                      The inclusion of several AA battalions at corps level is an addition that didn't exist in that sector as the French army in 1940 was short AA guns in general. Add in that the US corps has just over 100 light tanks with 37mm guns that can penetrate any German tank to that.
                      Just the sheer volume of weapons available compared to what was originally there would pretty much finish the German thrust. It'd stall even if the US didn't fight all that well. Air support would be more difficult too. Stukas would come under fire virtually every time they showed up to attack targets where they were operating without opposition historically.
                      It will have little effect on the German attack. Should they met the AT defenses, they will use their heavy artillery and air support. The only way to halt the German advance would be the counter-attacks with strong tank units.

                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      I think had the US, even as weak as their military was in 1939, been pulled into the war at that point might have made the difference and resulted in a repeat of WW 1 rather than what historically happened.
                      There wouldn't be much difference. A defeat in Europe could even push US out of the war with a huge blow to the morale after initial defeats.
                      There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                        150 will not have a great impact on the battlle especially when the carriers could be taken as targets both by German navy and Luftwaffe.
                        Sure it will. It means the KM is at far greater risk operating without air cover. It means that most of Norway is a danger zone for the Luftwaffe because they can't escort bombers or transport planes over it. The fact that the Luftwaffe didn't face much, if any, Allied air opposition worked in their favor as did the same with the KM.

                        At the condition that Germany decides to send the KM. More probably the will send packs of submarines to hunt the USN and RN capital ships.
                        Submarines are spoilers. They aren't capable of substituting for a surface navy. They have no capacity to operate offensively against warships. Instead, they are simply opportunists. That is, they are intelligent sea mines that if the opposing navy happens to be unlucky enough to run over one they might get a shot in.

                        Compared with the number of divisions that Germans have sent, a brigade of marines will have little impact. Considering the nature of the terrain - snow and mountains - their performance can be impacted even further. Activity from the carrier would be limited in time since they will need to resupply.
                        The Germans used 6 divisions total, and at Narvik they had a bit over 2,000 men. That means the Allies would have superiority of numbers there, not to mention air and naval superiority. In fact, with the additional USN ships present the 10 destroyers sent to land the troops there might not even make it. They might well be sunk or turned back due to greater Allied naval and air presence.

                        It will have little effect on the German attack. Should they met the AT defenses, they will use their heavy artillery and air support. The only way to halt the German advance would be the counter-attacks with strong tank units.
                        The panzer divisions at the Meuse didn't have heavy artillery available. They were relying on the Luftwaffe for support. Facing far more antiaircraft fire, and probably more fighter opposition, that would leave them with far less support than they had historically.

                        Running into three larger divisions with more heavy weapons than the French had in that sector would make just getting a bridgehead across the river more difficult. And, if the US has just two tank battalions with M2 lights present, that's almost 200% more tanks than the French had historically, which was next to none.
                        Historically, once the Germans were able to get some tanks across the Meuse, they faced little real opposition from the French and were able to panic their units into a rout. Here they'd be running into lots of 37mm M3 antitank guns and even some 75mm ones. They couldn't mount an improvised attack with a handful of tanks successfully.
                        Worse, in the early stages of the battle you could expect the US to use their far superior artillery fire control to plaster the Germans as they tried to cross the river. Even the presence of far more 60mm mortars and .30 heavy machineguns than the French had would be a problem. These would thicken the fire and make the crossing far more deadly.


                        There wouldn't be much difference. A defeat in Europe could even push US out of the war with a huge blow to the morale after initial defeats.
                        If it was a defeat. On the other hand, a loss in Norway, or even just a stalemate, would be a huge blow to Germany and one that would leave a gaping wound on their Northern flank.

                        A stalemate in France that bogs into another static war would be a crippling blow to German morale at home, far more so than to the US who really didn't suffer that much in WW 1.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          Sure it will. It means the KM is at far greater risk operating without air cover. It means that most of Norway is a danger zone for the Luftwaffe because they can't escort bombers or transport planes over it. The fact that the Luftwaffe didn't face much, if any, Allied air opposition worked in their favor as did the same with the KM.
                          Given the distance between Denmark/Germany and Norway, it wouldn't be a great problem for KM. The will get the support from Luftwaffe and will capture/build airfields while advancing to the north.

                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          Submarines are spoilers. They aren't capable of substituting for a surface navy. They have no capacity to operate offensively against warships. Instead, they are simply opportunists. That is, they are intelligent sea mines that if the opposing navy happens to be unlucky enough to run over one they might get a shot in.
                          The goal is not to be a substitution. The goal is to inflict considerable casualties on Allied navies and force them to retreat.

                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          The Germans used 6 divisions total, and at Narvik they had a bit over 2,000 men. That means the Allies would have superiority of numbers there, not to mention air and naval superiority. In fact, with the additional USN ships present the 10 destroyers sent to land the troops there might not even make it. They might well be sunk or turned back due to greater Allied naval and air presence.
                          It will just take to Germans some more time to advance to Narvik by the ground. Allies on the other side will have great trouble to supply their troops so far while being at range for ground base Luftwaffe units.

                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          The panzer divisions at the Meuse didn't have heavy artillery available. They were relying on the Luftwaffe for support. Facing far more antiaircraft fire, and probably more fighter opposition, that would leave them with far less support than they had historically.

                          Running into three larger divisions with more heavy weapons than the French had in that sector would make just getting a bridgehead across the river more difficult. And, if the US has just two tank battalions with M2 lights present, that's almost 200% more tanks than the French had historically, which was next to none.
                          Historically, once the Germans were able to get some tanks across the Meuse, they faced little real opposition from the French and were able to panic their units into a rout. Here they'd be running into lots of 37mm M3 antitank guns and even some 75mm ones. They couldn't mount an improvised attack with a handful of tanks successfully.
                          Worse, in the early stages of the battle you could expect the US to use their far superior artillery fire control to plaster the Germans as they tried to cross the river. Even the presence of far more 60mm mortars and .30 heavy machineguns than the French had would be a problem. These would thicken the fire and make the crossing far more deadly.
                          What far superior fire control ? It wasn't 44-45. At time artillery tactics weren't what they were years later. Germans on the other hand were in better condition. Their tank divisions had 75 mm infantry guns (38 for 3 divisions), 24 light howitzers and 12 heavy guns per division. Plus 75 mm guns of Pz IV. Plus the support of the Luftwaffe. The losses would be greater than they used to be but the result would be the same in the end. Tank formations concentrated at one point and with huge air support will win.

                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          If it was a defeat. On the other hand, a loss in Norway, or even just a stalemate, would be a huge blow to Germany and one that would leave a gaping wound on their Northern flank.

                          A stalemate in France that bogs into another static war would be a crippling blow to German morale at home, far more so than to the US who really didn't suffer that much in WW 1.
                          Since they took foot in Norway, there wouldn't be a defeat. It was to close to Germany and too far from Allies. There also wouldn't be a stalemate in France. Germans were much superior to Allies in tactical skill and always fought to take the initiative. Their enemies couldn't cope with them.
                          There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                            Given the distance between Denmark/Germany and Norway, it wouldn't be a great problem for KM. The will get the support from Luftwaffe and will capture/build airfields while advancing to the north.
                            Historically, the KM got beaten up badly in the Norway campaign. It was a major blow from which they never really recovered.
                            As for the air war in that campaign... If the US showed up with 150 carrier aircraft and another 75 to 100 Marine aircraft placed ashore, that represents nearly a 300% increase in Allied aircraft over the original Allied commitment. Not only that, but the planes are of higher quality in most cases.

                            The Luftwaffe can capture airfields, as they did historically, but they're not going to build any in the short run. They're using what's there and that's it.

                            With a US Marine addition, the Allies would have about numerical parity with the Germans in terms of total numbers of troops (Norwegian, British, French, and American). They only need hold northern Norway for the German campaign to fail.
                            The Germans will lose at sea, the did historically too.

                            The goal is not to be a substitution. The goal is to inflict considerable casualties on Allied navies and force them to retreat.
                            There is not one single case of submarines successfully defeating a surface naval force in WW 2. So, their goal can be whatever you claim, the results won't match that. Submarines are spoilers and nothing more. At most they'd be an annoyance to the Allies.

                            It will just take to Germans some more time to advance to Narvik by the ground. Allies on the other side will have great trouble to supply their troops so far while being at range for ground base Luftwaffe units.
                            That gives the Allies time to build up a defense. The US in particular can commit more and more troops to a Norwegian campaign at ZERO cost to the Allies elsewhere. The Germans are limited to trying to push and supply their troops in Norway without control of the sea.

                            What far superior fire control ? It wasn't 44-45. At time artillery tactics weren't what they were years later. Germans on the other hand were in better condition. Their tank divisions had 75 mm infantry guns (38 for 3 divisions), 24 light howitzers and 12 heavy guns per division. Plus 75 mm guns of Pz IV. Plus the support of the Luftwaffe. The losses would be greater than they used to be but the result would be the same in the end. Tank formations concentrated at one point and with huge air support will win.
                            The US had already developed the Fire Direction Center for massing artillery fire. This was a result of the Watervielt board in the early 30's. They were going to clobber the Germans just as they did in N. Africa and everywhere else when it came to artillery fire.

                            https://armyhistory.org/u-s-and-germ...-a-comparison/

                            The US Army may have lacked experience, but when it came to directing artillery, they were streets ahead of the Germans even in 1939.
                            That US corps would likely have 216 75mm M1897A4 guns, 54 M1918A1 155mm howitzers, 54 M1918 155mm guns, and 54 M1908 4.7" guns for support.
                            I'd expect within the corps' area of responsibility that there'd be 54 M3 75mm AA guns along with 64 M1 37mm AA guns and 64 M2 water cooled .50 machineguns. That doesn't include the roughly 300 that would be in the divisions for local air defense. That is a massive increase in antiaircraft guns over the French units they replaced which had next to none.
                            Given that there are 108 37mm M3 antitank guns in a US infantry division at the time, if the Germans tried to use tanks for direct fire support they'd probably lose that fight between the AT guns and artillery the US would counter them with.
                            The panzer divisions can't count on the Luftwaffe for close air support on call or even in a timely fashion. In 1940, the procedure was requests went up to Army level then to the Luftwaffe who would plan the mission, if they accepted it, and they would then schedule the strikes. That could take hours, and sometimes a day or more to make happen. Worse, only Richtofhen's VIII fliegerkorps is trained and equipped for the ground support mission.

                            Since they took foot in Norway, there wouldn't be a defeat. It was to close to Germany and too far from Allies. There also wouldn't be a stalemate in France. Germans were much superior to Allies in tactical skill and always fought to take the initiative. Their enemies couldn't cope with them.
                            As it was, it was a near run thing for the Germans. The Allied problem wasn't distance, it was material. The French commitment was tepid. The British commitment was ad hoc and, well in many ways, half @$$ed. Throwing one or both USMC brigades into Norway is a totally different ballgame. They are well trained and fully equipped veterans (yes, the Marines saw considerable combat in Central America and elsewhere in the 20's and 30's). They won't be pushovers.

                            The 1st Marine brigade would have had 4 or 5 infantry battalions assigned, along with artillery and other support assets. The air group would have had a fighter, bomber, scout, and utility squadron assigned along with a ground support base unit. If both Brigades were sent, it's the equivalent of an infantry division.

                            If the USN is off shore with a carrier or two, they have steady air support. They'd also have their own close air support group with fighter cover to throw in.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              There is not one single case of submarines successfully defeating a surface naval force in WW 2. So, their goal can be whatever you claim, the results won't match that. Submarines are spoilers and nothing more. At most they'd be an annoyance to the Allies.
                              What type of ship accounted for the greatest tonnage sunk in the Pacific?

                              The Germans are limited to trying to push and supply their troops in Norway without control of the sea.
                              You have heard of the Skagerrak? 140 mile Denmark to Oslo.

                              The first is the Germans decide they can't invade so, they get screwed on iron ore deliveries from Sweden.
                              How so, Sweden is on the Baltic as well as Germany and Norway is not in between. Sweden is much closer than Norway to occupied Denmark. Norway plays no role in ore shipments.
                              "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                              Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                              youre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X