No USW

[ferdi254]

Belisarius the theoretical answer is a convoy system but

a) a convoy sytem cuts transport by 30% compared to single riders. That additional shipping simply wasn‘t there.
b) you would also need the escorts which the RN did not have.

The convoy system was possible with all the US shipping and escorts not without them.

 

[ArtosStark]

Artos it was sourced in the other threads already. The UK, the French and the Russian governments all were clear that without further supplies from the USA there would be no possibility to continue the war after 1917 (actually summer). So anybody claiming the Entente could continue longer than their governments thought should be extremely precise how with 30% less steel, 70% less oil and a host of other important goods they could have.
And we assume no more supplies because in March 1917 the UK had run out of money and out of collaterls. They could not pay back an overdraft of 400 million dollar while for example Russia alone neede an immediate loan of 1 billion to keep on fighting.
And no, Congress had voted twice that no uncollarized loans will be given to the UK.

Ah, yes, I recall. If I remember correctly the exact details of that situation were not entirely agreed upon in those threads. I certainly haven’t seen the claim from those governments recorded before. Though that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Certainly if, as you contend, all US materials suddenly stop that would not be good for the entente.

Belisarius the theoretical answer is a convoy system but

a) a convoy sytem cuts transport by 30% compared to single riders. That additional shipping simply wasn‘t there.
b) you would also need the escorts which the RN did not have.

The convoy system was possible with all the US shipping and escorts not without them.

This I have to disagree with. Various members of Jellicoe’s staff (Admirals Duff and Oliver in particular) , and Jellicoe himself, had an incorrect assessment of the effects of implementing convoys on the fleet, and incorrect information (mostly through miscommunication) on how many ships would need to be protected under convoy. What's more, the process for setting up convoys was begun before the US entered the war.

Convoy was late in coming, much later than it should have been. But it was coming, with or without the US in the war.

 

[Post]

Again the Entente will fin side is not even really trying to adress the fact that their estimatehow long the Entente could go on is 8 times longer than what the Entente governments themselves thought it would be.

I wonder who knew/knows better?

It happens all the time that original estimates of governments pan out to be different than the actual reality when events unfolds.

 

[Catsmate]

So let's say it is postponed for a few more months. The US doesn't enter the war. The Revolution comes to Russia on schedule. France begins experiencing mutinies. What do you think the Germans will do in this situation.

Chortle?
If they're smart and canny they'll go defensive in the west and let the French army collapse, with the assistance of an adroit offer of an armistice (which the government will reject).
In the east the new government will continue the war, but the government and the continuation of the war are deeply unpopular, remember "Peace, Bread, Land."

 

[ferdi254]

Artos which part do you disagree? The one with the 30%? Or the one with the missing escorts. As OTL the USN was a substantial part of the escorts how does the UK make up for this? And 30% is a pretty standard figure.

 

[ferdi254]

Post do you have anything substantial how the governments would have made without the supplies from the USA?

 

[ArtosStark]

Artos which part do you disagree? The one with the 30%? Or the one with the missing escorts. As OTL the USN was a substantial part of the escorts how does the UK make up for this? And 30% is a pretty standard figure.

Well, to some degree all of it.

a) a convoy sytem cuts transport by 30% compared to single riders.

This is true, or at least the best estimate. However, IOTL prior to the use of convoys that Admiralty policy of diverting shipping around areas where raiders were known to be operating, and the need for shipping to follow zigzag courses also cut the rate of transport. Thus shipping was already operating at a reduced rate. When Convoys were eventually implemented it was found that the rate of reduction was not much greater than it had been previously.

That additional shipping simply wasn‘t there.

This one is a little trickier to determine, since it is difficult to find an accurate assessment of what ships of what tonnage were employed where. However, it is notable that rationing was only instituted in WW1 in 1918. It implies some level of margin in the shipping requirement.

I had a list that I posted in another thread asking similar questions that I now have a hard time finding that detailed the number of British ships (though not tonnage) that was employed at different tasks in 1917. If I find it I will put it up.

b) you would also need the escorts which the RN did not have.

In March 1917 the Admiralty calculated that they would need 75 destroyers assigned to escort duty to make convoys work. They felt they could spare 43. This was part of their argument for not implementing convoys. However, once they did end up implementing them it was found that their math had been off for several reasons:

1) Their initial figures were based on the total amount of shipping going through the ports, including lighter traffic going up the coasts. This accounted for a huge portion of the daily sailings. In reality less than half of those sailings would have needed to be in convoys. I am unsure of this error was discovered before or after March 1917, and thus whether it contributed to the 75 destroyers figure, but it is indicative of the difference between expectation and reality when it came to convoy escort.

2) Trans Atlantic convoys could be done without the use of destroyers. Armoured Cruisers, sloops, armed merchant cruisers and pre-dreadnoughts could all be used with basically no loss in protection. Even in the more dangerous inner waters sloops ended up taking a lot of the burden off destroyers

3) The required ratio of escorts to merchant vessels turned out to be much lower than expected. The first trans-Atlantic convoy in May had nine escorts (8 destroyers and an armoured cruiser) to 12 merchant ships. By June they had 20 ships per convoy, 26 in September and 36 in October.

The 30 destroyers that the US sent were certainly very helpful. However, partially this was because it allowed the GF to retain more of its destroyer screen (including screens for the newly arrived American Battleship squadron), and allowed them to use destroyers (who were certainly better at the job) in more areas. It was not because it was impossible to implement without American escorts.

 

[phx1138]

The answer to the U-Boat problem was always there for the Admiralty to use. The way to keep loses down was a convoy system. The creation of ASDIC, and effective depth charges made ASW far more effective. German U-Boat tactics of WWI were lone wolf, not wolf pack. Wolf pack tactics wouldn't have been very workable in WWI. One U-Boat attacking a convoy is a pretty daunting task. Shipping loses in both World Wars were mostly ships sailing alone.

Let's also not forget WW1 A/S was getting really good. There were A/S blimps, dipping hydrophones, & (IIRC) ATWs in trial in 1918.

 

[Belisarius II]

Belisarius the theoretical answer is a convoy system but

a) a convoy sytem cuts transport by 30% compared to single riders. That additional shipping simply wasn‘t there.
b) you would also need the escorts which the RN did not have.

The convoy system was possible with all the US shipping and escorts not without them.

Well respectfully American ships are shipping stuff across the Atlantic, just not with USN escorts. The 30% cut in transport is about time of arrival, not the amount of cargo delivered over a longer period. That's the whole point of the convoy system, it may take longer to get there, but more of it gets there. The same crazy argument came up again in 1942 off the U.S. East Coast. The condition of thread is no USW, so loses wouldn't be as high as in the OTL.

 

[phx1138]

The 30% cut in transport is about time of arrival, not the amount of cargo delivered over a longer period.

AIUI, the issue is deliveries per time, so with a given amount of tonnage and time, convoys do cost deliveries. The question is, does that exceed the amount lost to U-boats? The answer tends to be no, but it's not an absolute binary.

Delays in delivery, on their own, can have knock-ons that are unfortunate (or unforeseen, or both). Not to mention the issues over freight arriving in "pulses" or "waves", rather than as a steady flow.

All of which, to be sure, is getting OT.

 

[Post]

Post do you have anything substantial how the governments would have made without the supplies from the USA?

That has extensively been discussed in earlier threads.

 

[oofo]

If the company is there and digging, what does it mean? The mine is in use.

Sorry but I’m still not sure what mine you’re referring too. The mines in the Calais that weren’t occupied by the Germans were definitely in use, they supplied most of France’s coal, I don’t dispute that at all...

The St Mihiel Offensive is the first substantive effort. The Germans were not withdrawing by any means.

Not according to the Der Wieltkrieg 1914-1918. According to it, the Germans were already in the process of withdrawing from the salient to shorten their lines, desperately attempting to free up manpower.

I have to disagree with you on the impact of tanks. The employment of large numbers of tanks, along with improved artillery tactics in late 1917 convinced the Germans they wouldn't be able to cope with later Allied offensives. They had to win the war with one last great offensive of their own, or face defeat. By 1917 tanks weren't just some novelty weapon, of limited tactical use, they'd become a critical combat arm, to help infantry survive machinegun fire, and cross barbed wire. Tanks were decisive in the advances of 1918, and their impact would only have grown if the war had lasted longer.

I don’t necessarily disagree with everything you’ve said. But from what I’ve read on it there is still no general consensus on the issue among military historians.

 

[Riain]

I'll give you the rest of it, & accept that probably means the U.S. isn't entering the war on OTL schedule. This bit, however, forces me to ask: why was the U.S. invading Mexico? Because the Germans were meddling. And the U.S. damn well knew it. (So would the Brits have, & they had ulterior motive to keep the U.S. well-informed about German shenanigans.)

If it's not Zimmermann, how big a push will it take? Because sinking Lusitania didn't do it. Repeated acts of sabotage (or espionage) inside the U.S. didn't. I'm thinking it's going to need something on the OTL scale, & that ain't chump change. I'm not sure USW against armed merchantmen (& you know that's what the Germans will say) gets it.

Was there a U.S.-owned liner that might be at hazard? That, rather than a British one arguably carrying munitions, might do it. Would the Germans risk that? I have my doubts...

IDK what else makes it. I am, however, open to suggestions.

While Germany was meddling in Mexico, it wasn't the Lone Ranger nor was is responsible for the troubles there which started long before 1914.

IOTL there was about 10 weeks between the start of USW and the US DoW, in that time no event took place that dissuaded the US from thinking that a DoW was in their best interest, after all Germany was already undertaking USW. With a Sharpened Campaign this schedule might get pushed out by maybe 5 weeks (just a bum-pluck), in that time the Nivelle Offensive will have failed and the French Mutinies will have started and the prospect that a DoW will trigger USW may give the US pause that the DoW is in the best interests of the US right now.

Once the first delay occurs when does it end? What is the next big success the Entente can point to in order to demonstrate to the US that they're the winning side and the US should join them?

 

[Belisarius II]

AIUI, the issue is deliveries per time, so with a given amount of tonnage and time, convoys do cost deliveries. The question is, does that exceed the amount lost to U-boats? The answer tends to be no, but it's not an absolute binary.

Delays in delivery, on their own, can have knock-ons that are unfortunate (or unforeseen, or both). Not to mention the issues over freight arriving in "pulses" or "waves", rather than as a steady flow.

All of which, to be sure, is getting OT.

You of course have a point, which is why no one sails in convoy, unless they have to. But when convoys were implemented the crisis passed, and the war was won, so that was the solution.

 

[Belisarius II]

While Germany was meddling in Mexico, it wasn't the Lone Ranger nor was is responsible for the troubles there which started long before 1914.

IOTL there was about 10 weeks between the start of USW and the US DoW, in that time no event took place that dissuaded the US from thinking that a DoW was in their best interest, after all Germany was already undertaking USW. With a Sharpened Campaign this schedule might get pushed out by maybe 5 weeks (just a bum-pluck), in that time the Nivelle Offensive will have failed and the French Mutinies will have started and the prospect that a DoW will trigger USW may give the US pause that the DoW is in the best interests of the US right now.

Once the first delay occurs when does it end? What is the next big success the Entente can point to in order to demonstrate to the US that they're the winning side and the US should join them?

The U.S. wasn't waiting for the Allies to prove they could win the war without them. What convinced them to enter was fear that the Germans might win, if they didn't.

 

[Belisarius II]

Ah, yes, I recall. If I remember correctly the exact details of that situation were not entirely agreed upon in those threads. I certainly haven’t seen the claim from those governments recorded before. Though that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Certainly if, as you contend, all US materials suddenly stop that would not be good for the entente.


This I have to disagree with. Various members of Jellicoe’s staff (Admirals Duff and Oliver in particular) , and Jellicoe himself, had an incorrect assessment of the effects of implementing convoys on the fleet, and incorrect information (mostly through miscommunication) on how many ships would need to be protected under convoy. What's more, the process for setting up convoys was begun before the US entered the war.

Convoy was late in coming, much later than it should have been. But it was coming, with or without the US in the war.

The argument that the U.S. would stop suppling the Allies was based on the British running out of dollar reserves, in the early Spring of 1917. My argument, and that of many others was even without dollar reserves, Britain was still credit worthy, and arrangements would've made.

 

[ArtosStark]

The argument that the U.S. would stop suppling the Allies was based on the British running out of dollar reserves, in the early Spring of 1917. My argument, and that of many others was even without dollar reserves, Britain was still credit worthy, and arrangements would've made.

I would agree with that, but I would leave that to those like yourself better versed in American politics of the day.

 

[phx1138]

Once the first delay occurs when does it end? What is the next big success the Entente can point to in order to demonstrate to the US that they're the winning side and the US should join them?

Fair point. It has to be balanced against German efforts to keep the U.S. distracted, IMO; how effective are those, & how big?

OTOH, the U.S. had a strong pro-Entente bias, thanks to money owed by British & French banks; if it looks like the Entente is about to collapse, does the U.S. come in against Germany?

 

[McPherson]

Sorry but I’m still not sure what mine you’re referring too. The mines in the Calais that weren’t occupied by the Germans were definitely in use, they supplied most of France’s coal, I don’t dispute that at all...

If they mining, then the coal is being dug out of the ground.

Not according to the Der Wieltkrieg 1914-1918. According to it, the Germans were already in the process of withdrawing from the salient to shorten their lines, desperately attempting to free up manpower.

Lies. Or Truth? PoV?

I don’t necessarily disagree with everything you’ve said. But from what I’ve read on it there is still no general consensus on the issue among military historians.

This is true. See previous comment. On the tank question, the Germans seemed to have made up their own minds as to what cracked their WWI west front open. They went all in for Panzers and used that instrument in France 1940. Now they did use airpower and they also used stimulants and battle drill to get inside the French OODA loop, but it still was the tanks that punched the hole in the French line just north of Sedan.

 

[ferdi254]

So again we are back to „somehow“. Somehow the war without US ressources would have continued as OTL, „somehow“ the UK would have found means to pay, „somehow“ some people on the internet claim they know better than the acting governments.