Larger American Army in WW2

During World War 2 the United States Army planned to have 200 divisions. The only made 93 due to wanting manpower in industry, farming, and the airforce. What if the American Army had this many men. How would this affect the war.
 

Hoist40

Banned
Only if these division appeared much earlier in the war would there be much difference and that is only if they also had equipment and transport. I don’t think any of the later war battles would have been helped much, just trying to fit them into the existing battles would be a problem. The war in western Europe had enough trouble supplying the divisions already there, the same in the Pacific.

And if there were more divisions wouldn’t this have hurt war production and the other forces such as Air force, Navy and Marines? And Lend Lease would be seriously reduced just to supply 200 divisions
 
The US population would have to be almost twice as large to be able to free up that many fighting men. If you have more soldiers, you also need more equipment, ammunition, ships, food, etc., so you need more civilian workers too. Could the US even feed 260 million people in the 1930s?

Even if it could, a population of 260 million would only be possible through immigration at a much higher rate than in OTL. This would have to happen after the 1880s, because before then the shipping capacity doesn't and can't exist to handle that many immigrants. And once all those immigrants are gone from Europe how likely is it that World War II will even occur in the same way or at the same time?
 
As Hoist40 said after a certain part it becomes inefficient due to increased logistical demands and finding space to physically fitting people into the campaign, although it would allow you to rotate people much faster. If you want to improve the US Army in WW2 I'd say see if you can institute the draft and calling up the National Guard a little earlier to give you a chance to run them through several training cycles before deploying them.
 
The US population would have to be almost twice as large to be able to free up that many fighting men. If you have more soldiers, you also need more equipment, ammunition, ships, food, etc., so you need more civilian workers too. Could the US even feed 260 million people in the 1930s?

Even if it could, a population of 260 million would only be possible through immigration at a much higher rate than in OTL. This would have to happen after the 1880s, because before then the shipping capacity doesn't and can't exist to handle that many immigrants. And once all those immigrants are gone from Europe how likely is it that World War II will even occur in the same way or at the same time?

Why would the population need to be 260 million men? Russia managed an army larger than the 6 million required for 200 divisions with 20 million less people in their 1940 population. Germany managed it with significantly less. And neither was as industrialized, or had as much food output in the Second World War as the U.S. did. The main impact is that lend-lease will have to be curtailed to make the equipment necessary fast enough, and everything the Soviets have to build themselves is less men that they can have on the front lines.
 
In 1943 the Army ceased to activate new divisions, the last being the 65th Infantry Division. There existed plans for twelve more divisions:

15th Airborne Division

19th Armored Division

61st Infantry Division
62nd Infantry Division
67th Infantry Division
68th Infantry Division
72nd Infantry Division
73rd Infantry Division
74th Infantry Division
105th Infantry Division (Colored)
107th Infantry Division (Colored)

In addition, the 2nd Cavalry Division (Colored) was disbanded in 1944. The Army, then, would have had 102 divisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisi...r_actually_formed_during_the_Second_World_War
 
There were multiple plans for ground forces of varying sizes. These were made in anticipation of various situations that might occur after 1941. These situations revolved around the defeat of one or more of Germanys priciple enemies, the USSR and/or Britain. That is to say the few allies the US has the more ground forces it would need. In 1941 these several plans, or more accurately 'estimates' of requirement were refered to as "V Plans". They were as much a effort to connect industrial planning to possbile military requirements. The largest estimated the requirements for a ground force of 300 divisions, & a smaller plan for 200 were two of the early plans or estimates. When in mid 1941 serious planning for mobilization during 1942 through 1944 a ground force of approx 155 divisions was allowed for. As estimates altered in 1942 that goal was reduced to 120 & then to 100 at the end of the year. In mid 1943 the decision was made to halt creation of US Army divisions at 89.

The US population would have to be almost twice as large to be able to free up that many fighting men. If you have more soldiers, you also need more equipment, ammunition, ships, food, etc., so you need more civilian workers too. ..

Some of that is valid. Tho when you count up the total number of men & women involved in or supporting miltiary operations, civilian crews on cargo ships used in war zones, civlian technicians in war zones, and everyone else taken from normal civilian occupations for military service in or out of uniform in 1944-45 it was well over 5% of the population and over 10% of the working population.

The other factor here is the V Plans & subsequent plans did not allow for exclusive use of US inhabitants for military service, or industrial/agricultural production. The British had already proved by 1941 there were several million military aged males world wide who were willing to fight the Axis. Arming and transporting them was what the Brits had trouble with. The V Plans anticipated arming & otherwise using in military operations several million non US citizens, and on drawing in the industrial capacity of every location possible.

In fact a considerable number of French, Chinese, & others were armed and supplied by the US. A accurate count of the number of divisions equiped and sustained by the US by 1945 would include in part:

89 US Army
6 USMC
8 French from the 1943 agreement
3 Chinese used in Burma
2 Brazilian
1 Italian

That is 119 divisions equipped and sustained that were specifically identified in various agreements with other governments. There may have been a few others I've missed. On top of that there were a number of formations that were not specifically planned but drew largely from the US stocks of weapons and supply. In early 1945 this can be estimated as:

3 Soviet tank corps or division size armored formations with US tanks,
trucks, radios, ect...
3 Chinese divisions with US weapons, and other equipment
1 Italian forming
6 French taking delivery of US equipment of all classes

That is only a rough estimate from incomplete information. Another way to estimate this is from all US combat material and supplies shipped overseas but not used by US Ground Forces. A conservative estimate for late 1944 falls out at about 15 divisions worth of 'stuff'. More is possible depending on how the numbers are interpreted.

Bottom line here is the US was fielding over 130 divisions, which is a lot closer to the 150 goal laid out in 1942 than the 89 official US Army divisions.

It is also important to note how the US Air Forces and Army Service Forces in the early V Plans were not as large as those of 1944. The number of aircraft squadrons nearly doubled and Service Forces of units like port operations groups, railroad operations, air transport, army sea transport, ect... were far larger than originally estimated. Many of the missing divisions still existed in terms of manpower, but the formations had different titles and purposes.

A final point is US labor use had some large inefficencies through to the end. One of these was racist in nature. The Japanese descended population largely sat out the war in interment camps, contributing far less than they might have. African Americans were underused by the military and by industry. Many that could have moved to war related work were discouraged from that by riots, lynchings, and other violence and remained in marginal agricultural work. Latin Americans were recruited through some programs for military service and industrial work, but the programs left a large untapped pool both in the US and south of the border. These issues could have been forced to some degree had the incentive existed.
 
As others have said. The US may not have overwhelming troops in uniform, they were supplying quite a few of the Allied soldiers.
 

katchen

Banned
So one way to get a larger army is to early on in 1942 deploy troops to physically move African Americans away from the rural South to what amounts to refugee camps for wives and children so that the men can safely be drafted. And since the cotton (much of which will go into US servicemen's uniforms will need to be ploughed, and then harvested, a much more massive Bracero program (migrant farmworkers from Mexico and Central America) will be needed to replace African Americans in the rural South.
 
What for?

The US Army fought almost all its battles in WW2 (from mid 1942 on) with superiority in manpower, firepower, logistics and often equipment quality. There was no real need for more troops. What would be relevant would be to have the numbers operational in 43/44 earlier.

What would they do with more divisions? Deploy them in China?
 

Riain

Banned
If the US had more divisions they could rotate them through the front and rest, re-equip and reinforce divisions in rear areas. Manpower replacement was a problem in the US Army, infantry units were veritable meat grinders which never got a rest.

As for the US not being able to handle more, the British were fully mobilised in all sectors on a population of about 42 million with 6 million in uniform. IIRC the US had a population of about 130 million and peaked at about 12 million in uniform. Granted the US was the arsenal of the Allies but they could easily find the manpower for a few dozen extra divisions if they wanted to.
 
If the US had more divisions they could rotate them through the front and rest, re-equip and reinforce divisions in rear areas. Manpower replacement was a problem in the US Army, infantry units were veritable meat grinders which never got a rest.

As for the US not being able to handle more, the British were fully mobilised in all sectors on a population of about 42 million with 6 million in uniform. IIRC the US had a population of about 130 million and peaked at about 12 million in uniform. Granted the US was the arsenal of the Allies but they could easily find the manpower for a few dozen extra divisions if they wanted to.
Werent some of those British units not from the isles themselves, but from colonies like India and South Africa? Are Canadian units inlcuded in that number?
 
Where also to train and house all of them? It seems in the US that back then their were training bases nearly everywhere.
 
A final point is US labor use had some large inefficencies through to the end. One of these was racist in nature. The Japanese descended population largely sat out the war in interment camps, contributing far less than they might have.
Although, wasn't the US Army's division whose members earned the most medals/decorations for gallantry actually a predominantly Japanese-American one -- deployed to fight in Europe, rather than against Japan -- from Hawaii?
 
During World War 2 the United States Army planned to have 200 divisions. The only made 93 due to wanting manpower in industry, farming, and the airforce. What if the American Army had this many men. How would this affect the war.

Less experienced units due to the equipement of allies being prioritized to newly created units. For example, at Monte Cassino, the French Expeditionnary Force was one of the largest component of experienced troops. The 2ème DB (2nd French Armored Division) in France was used by Patton as it's Spearhead as it was one of it's most experienced division. Those division would either have to sit out it North Africa or be used with their old equipement (which mean they are almost unusable except on occupation duties). Also simply expanding the number of division would mean either cutting on other forces, or cutting on industrial manpower base (or being less segregationist but i think it is almost ASB). The first mean that the Luftwaffe is more powerful in 44 (half of the US army personnel was fighting in the USAAF) and that the Pacific War is longer, the second mean that your units won't be equipped with the best stuff (M3 stay in operation longer because equipping units with M4 would take longer).

Having more division might be used to open a Balkan Front (in addition to the others), but outside that, it is not really useful.
 
The US population would have to be almost twice as large to be able to free up that many fighting men. If you have more soldiers, you also need more equipment, ammunition, ships, food, etc., so you need more civilian workers too. Could the US even feed 260 million people in the 1930s?

...?
How much of the Black African American community's manpower population was under-utilized due to the government policy of segregation that probably made the folks less enthusiastic to join up??

I think I read or heard from somewhere that most of the Black American Combat troops were put into Indepentent combat Battalions and not fully integrated into Divisions until manpower shortages in Europe during the drive into France and Germany forced the ETO Americans to attach these independent Battalion strength units;

Artillery, Tank, Motorized, Engineer, Support;

to the various slowly depleted front line combat divisions...

Just how much of the African American Black manpower was used for support and later on, combat during the OTL ??

Would their full inclusion usage into both the ETO and PTO garner more troops, both combat and support, to allow those other divisions being planned to be activated or would these extra troops be sent as reinforcements to the other Combat Divisions slowly getting attrited as they stay on the frontline constantly ???

[EDIT] Somebody above already made references to this one... ninja'd [/EDIT]
 
Last edited:
The US Army fought almost all its battles in WW2 (from mid 1942 on) with superiority in manpower, firepower, logistics and often equipment quality. There was no real need for more troops. What would be relevant would be to have the numbers operational in 43/44 earlier.

What would they do with more divisions? Deploy them in China?
The ETO was suffering from a shortage of combat Infantry troops and not enough Infantry Divisions available to rotate worn out and depleted units from the front and get back behind the line for R&R and replacements & replenishments..

Often, the Divisions will stay the front for long durations, suffer acute attritions from sustained combat and get un-experienced & untrained Infantry replacements sent to their units from the states and later on, some from the Air Force special programs and excessive AT Artillery units that were then disbanded and these excess troopers were given some basic infantry training and then sent immediately to the depleted and often exhausted Infantry Division fighting at the front...
 
Last edited:
(snip)

As for the US not being able to handle more, the British were fully mobilised in all sectors on a population of about 42 million with 6 million in uniform. IIRC the US had a population of about 130 million and peaked at about 12 million in uniform. Granted the US was the arsenal of the Allies but they could easily find the manpower for a few dozen extra divisions if they wanted to.

Need to bear in mind though, that Britain 'over mobilised' and in consequence screwed its economy.
 
The ETO was suffering from a shortage of combat Infantry troops and not enough Infantry Divisions available to rotate worn out and depleted units from the front and get back behind the line for R&R and replacements & replenishments..

Often, the Divisions will stay the front for long durations, suffer acute attritions from sustained combat and get un-experienced & untrained Infantry replacements sent to their units from the states and later on, some from the Air Force special programs and excessive AT Artillery units that were then disbanded and these excess troopers were given some basic infantry training and then sent immediately to the depleted and often exhausted Infantry Division fighting at the front...


Something the Germans facing them would regard as luxury conditions...
Is there any campaign were you think having more US troops would change things a lot?
If I wanted to be mean:rolleyes: I could say the main role of the US infantry was telling the USAAF were the Germans where so the bombers could bomb them until it was safe for the GIs to move forward (or send some Polish troops first to see if it was really safe).
But since I'm not really trying to alienate all US citizens on the board, I'd say the US forces were usually adequated for the job at hand, and limited to what a long logistic chain could suply...
 
Top