Quoted text was about axis car industry becoming world-eating after the war...
Except Italy's
A Blunted Sickle
- Thread starter pdf27
- Start date
-
- Tags
- france germany world war ii
- Status
Quoted text was about axis car industry becoming world-eating after the war...
Except Italy's
I really strongly recommend The Economic Cost of Strategic Bombing here - it's well worth reading the whole thing to get an appreciation of just how much was spent. Overall his figure is £2.78 billion ($11.2 billion - the Manhattan project cost under $2 billion and the total given in Lend-Lease was around $30 billion), with much of it being in unexpected places. The magnitude of the civil engineering works involved in building the various airfields, for instance, cost the equivalent of just under $800 million, required huge numbers of men and left the British with a huge road-building capacity after the war.
In battleship terms, the KGVs cost around £7 million each - Bomber Command spent enough to build a fleet of nearly 400, although crewing and operating them would of course be more expensive. Assuming a ratio of 40 bombers/battleship that gives Bomber Command a nominal strength of 12,000 aircraft - which nicely matches their total wartime losses of 12,330.
It is, but you've got to be very careful here. You can't just turn a factory making bombers into one making tanks or artillery - even just switching from machining aluminium to machining steel is a problem nowadays, to the extent that firms will often stick to one material per factory and accept the overhead of having two sites to get around the issues. You can shift the expansion from one area to another, but all the plant in the prewar shadow factories is going to be used for what it was designed to do - and at least a part of that is building heavy bombers.
French production is a tricky one - they were in a proper mess in 1940 even before the Germans invaded, having mobilised the wrong people and not really straightening out the problems of what to produce and where before they ran out of time. Here, they've been given that time and the big story is that they've been sorting themselves out with a vengeance. The French had some really good kit just starting to enter service in 1940 (semi-automatic rifles, the best tank in the world and some seriously impressive anti-tank weaponry), but it was never really available in quantity and production was hampered by for example trying to build a dozen different types of tank.
Here, for instance, the MAS-40 is being rolled out to all front-line units - over 100,000 of them are currently in service and by the end of the summer it's likely that every single French rifleman will have one (note - this is the first widely deployed semi-automatic rifle in the world ITTL, the Garand is coming into service but production is significantly slower so the US is still largely using the Springfield bolt-action rifle). They've also got a lot of 75mm HEAT shells for their artillery while the infantry have HEAT rifle grenades and the anti-tank guns are firing sabot shot (again, the only other people to have this are the British with whom the French have shared).
As a rough cut, I'm assuming that French production is a bit lower than British production but is rapidly catching up and by 1942 or so (assuming a continued war) would be broadly similar.
Worse trouble than you perhaps realise. With France still in Entente hands, the U-boats are entering the Atlantic from Norway, whereas in OTL they were entering it from France. That pushes the convoys away from the U-boat bases - in OTL they were heading a very, very long way north and skirting the Greenland ice pack, while ITTL they're a long way south and so not subject to weather problems (and a LOT of shipping was under repair in OTL after weather damage).
It gets better though - the British and French Atlantic ports were set up for trade coming on a great circle route, not via Iceland. In OTL the Channel ports weren't really available so causing major congestion in the northern British ports - and especially when it became too dangerous to run convoys through to the port of London. Here, again, the Germans only hold a small stretch of Channel coast between about Calais and Zebrugge - making it massively easier to fight channel convoys through.
What sources of supply are open is also a nice bonus - iron ore from Narvik and French North Africa versus pig iron from the USA for instance leads to major tonnage savings, not to mention the saving in Dollars.
Finally, the Med is part of probably the biggest improvement of all. This map shows it better than any description - I originally found it in Britain's War Machine (well worth reading as a complement to Wages of Destruction, IMHO):
In particular note where the U-boats are going to be coming from - in OTL it was a stretch to conduct war patrols off New York from bases in France. Here, it's going to be a stretch to conduct war patrols in the Mid-Atlantic from bases in Norway for similar reasons, at least until the Milch Cows come along. That vastly reduces the disruption caused by the convoys (along with being able to use the Med unescorted, versus escorted convoys to Cape Town) - meaning the ton-miles each ship does will be greatly multiplied.
It's very tempting to overdo things here, so I'm trying very hard to restrain myself. The Covenanter for instance I think I can justify doing away with since the British will at least take the time to test things out, and a very similar design was available that the same factories could produce instead in the Crusader. Getting rid of that too, however, would be too much, as would be getting rid of the Liberty engine (in fact, it's being licensed to the Italians).It has been a distinct pleasure to see your analysis of the effects of the missing panic after Dunkirk. A world with 1700 less Covenanters has been a dream of mine for many years
They can, but at what cost in blood? Remember both are still deeply traumatised by memories of the Western Front, and aren't willing to repeat it. That means this has to be a war of machines rather than men, and must also be a relatively short one. In turn, that means spending money and lots of it in the US, as the only available major supplier of armaments.
With the US, the big problem is that the US government simply didn't believe the British protestations that they were out of money and only agreed to lend-lease when they were demonstrably pretty much bankrupt and on very onerous terms (notably making sterling convertible into dollars by the Bank of England after the war). Here, the money will last longer due to the better situation and the French gold reserves still being available, and being less scared the British and French will probably be less willing to agree to the US terms. That means any agreement is by no means a certainty.
Remember that a large part of the debacle in Paris was due to the Panzer commanders exceeding their authority and cracking on down the road without worrying too much about where they were supposed to be (a problem in OTL too). IIRC (without reading back all of it) that was actually in contravention of a direct order from Hitler, who was worried about the counter-attack that cut them off. So it won't necessarily count against him too much - some in the army at least will blame the Panzer troops for pressing on too far and not worrying about their flanks, while some will certainly blame Hitler. The real problem in OTL was that the opposition never really got their act together, while the Gestapo did and were pretty ruthless with it. Add in a belief that Preussische Feldmarschälle meutern nicht coupled with the personal oath to Hitler sworn by all German officers (which most seem to have taken very seriously indeed), and once the war starts the idea of a military coup removing him starts to become something of a stretch.IMHO opinion Hitler would have been “dealt with” latest by the surrender of the encircled army in Paris. In OTL he survived because he in early WWII so many times had overruled the military establishment and been proven right by events (if ever so lucky) – the stunning success of Fall Gelb was the jewel in Hitler's “GröFAZ” crown. Short of that jewel he will just wear a tinfoil hat! But of course, I can’t exclude, that on a “good” day the Gestapo could keep the opposition at bay for some time – if not for other reasons then because you have produced an extremely exciting TL which otherwise would have ended much before
The interesting bit will be if for whatever reason Hitler dies - I can certainly see a large faction within the army deciding that their authority was to Hitler rather than the Nazi Party. That would make life very short and exciting for any attempted successors...
Yes. I still haven't made up my mind about that - there are lots of long-term trends that I can easily identify in terms of logistics, raw materials, production and the like but working out how the Japanese would behave is rather harder. Maybe I should buy a crystal ball!BTW I look forward to your execution of a coming war in the Far East. I guess a war going on in the area between Japan and Singapore will be very different from the OTL Pacific one. The Japanese had a difficult strategic situation in OTL 1941 but here it is much worse – they will need all their fool hearted craziness to do anything but hide under the bed
That's one alternative. They have others - assuming a war starts. It would certainly be primarily a naval war however at least until Germany is defeated, coupled with using the Cavalry of St George in China to tie down the IJA as much as possible.
If war does start in the Far East, it's going to involve the US. The US won't stand for Japan trying to undermine it's embargo against them and the Japanese (in their mind) can't risk the threat to their SLOCs the Philippines represent. But France still being a power in the region, and a larger British naval presence, and the lack of a staging area in Indochina complicates the Japanese attack plan immensely. It is conceivable, in that case, that the Anglo-French largely play defensive in the Far East while finishing off Germany and letting the US break Japanese power. As in Europe, though, the USSR will likely capitalize by playing vulture on the carcass of Japan.
In particular note where the U-boats are going to be coming from - in OTL it was a stretch to conduct war patrols off New York from bases in France. Here, it's going to be a stretch to conduct war patrols in the Mid-Atlantic from bases in Norway for similar reasons, at least until the Milch Cows come along. That vastly reduces the disruption caused by the convoys (along with being able to use the Med unescorted, versus escorted convoys to Cape Town) - meaning the ton-miles each ship does will be greatly multiplied.
see this Numbers are Essential": Victory in the North Atlantic Reconsidered, March-May 1943
for even more drivers against u-boats
I'm still mulling that one over. The Philippines are a major potential threat, but at the same time the Japanese saw the US as cowards and profit-hungry - with little benefit to them from declaring war on Japan. That makes it possible that they would decide to leave the US for later, planning on a sequence of victorious battles that would leave them with only the US to fight. Not a great plan viewed objectively, but it fits with the Japanese mindset.
From the US point of view, it needs to be remembered that without the shocks of 1940 the electorate is still pretty isolationist. Going to war to protect European colonies in the Far East from being taken over by another bunch of colonisers was deeply unpopular in OTL - it's hard to see it being any more acceptable ITTL, and almost certainly not by itself enough to form a casus belli.
Yep. No Arctic or Mediterranean convoys, no need to protect amphibious operations, and being as there isn't presently a war in the Far East they might well have skimped a bit on Destroyers as escorts. Finally, there will be a number of French escorts available as well, while the U-boat numbers actually in their patrol areas will be reduced due to longer transit times. The U-boats are still a major bogeyman, but the actual situation is much less bad than OTL.
iddt3
Donor
The only issue I have with this is that that reasoning should apply to OTL too; The US was always going to be the biggest potential adversary Japan faced in OTL from about 1920 on, especially with France and the UK tied down in a (More successful, but they can't see OTL to know that) land war. If Japan was going to go the safe route, than the weakened Empires should have been an even more inviting target to pick off alone in OTL, but Japan went and DoW'd the US anyway in a spectacular fashion. ITTL as well, the US isn't in military overdrive mode, so, to the Japanese mindset, might appear a fair bit weaker.
From the Japanese perspective, *if* they strike at all, I think it still makes more sense to hit all their potential adversaries at once, rather than hitting the stronger ones and tipping off the nominally weaker one, letting it potentially fortify and cut the Japanese SLOCs.
If Japan doesn't hit the US though, I think you're right here. Without lots of nasty massacres, the US public is not going to be particularly sympathetic to the plight of Imperialists, while that attitude might change due to Franco British propaganda, they'll be working against the natural inclinations of the electorate.
marathag
Banned
He would do what he did every other time that things went his way---
Started another Purge.
The traitors and wreckers are out there......
marathag
Banned
When you spent 45 Billion Dollars for Lend Lease, well, He who pays the piper, calls the tune.
and 45B was a lot of music for Billy Yank to listen to, while being overpaid and oversexed, in the ruins of Italy, Germany and Japan.
This TL, however, you won't probably get that whole 'Without US, you would all be speaking German'
But ' another goddam European War... glad we were out of it'
John Farson
Banned
"And besides, they seem to be doing perfectly fine without us!"
At least, until the Japanese attack the Philippines, Pearl Harbor, Wake and Guam (maybe). And Hitler DoWs them so that the Americans don't "pre-empt" him.
To most, money and other numbers are just... numbers. Americans don't complain about the economic cost of the war. I mostly mean in terms of blood sacrificed/spent. When the Americans talk "saving Europe" they're thinking of boys dying on the beaches, not back room deals between fatcats and bigwigs. Which of course is funny becuase those "mongey-grubbing war industrialists" were the ones with the true heoric impact, meanwhile American nationals suffered perhaps less than half a percent of total war fatalities.
Will the U.S. economy be coming out of Depression if they don't participate in the war?
If Dean Acheson can be kept from messing with the embargo and Japan still has enough oil for the civilian economy they only need to power the military. Can they manage with oil alternatives and creative rationing?
I know China had good public relations in the U.S., what was Japan's like? Could they do better?
If Dean Acheson can be kept from messing with the embargo and Japan still has enough oil for the civilian economy they only need to power the military. Can they manage with oil alternatives and creative rationing?
I know China had good public relations in the U.S., what was Japan's like? Could they do better?
He-he
But it is just because they don't understand the true potential of the Axis. Start exporting VW, BMW, Toyota etc. and you'll end up running British industry
What about Fiat!
My point. Fiat's not much of a threat to the British industry, or at least is WAY down the list of threats.
Not until the international situation has stabilized. He wants a competent army to take advantage of opportunities and the Winter War has already given him a lesson that massed purges will not provide him with that. The days when he would execute 10% of the officer corps and shove another 30% into the Gulag are well past.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
Stalin was Purging in 1941, with the Air Force and munitions officials, right up to Barbarossa.
And it was zilch compared too the scale of 1938, which is indicated by the results: the 1940-1941 purge doesn't really appear to have had any effect, positive or negative, on Soviet forces. On the whole, the Red Army and VVS were undergoing a wholesale program of reform and rearmament to transform it into a modern fighting force. Stalin is putting tremendous effort into overhauling the Soviet military for the purpose of playing vulture on the German and Japanese corpses and deter the Anglo-French forces from trying to take the resulting gains from him, he isn't going to wreck it on a whim until he is damn sure the international scene has stabilized.
marathag
Banned
As was typical, Stalin's Purges got rid of the competent officers. The Air Force got purged twice, '38 and '41
The latter got some of the Spanish Veterans that missed the first
I can't see how that could be anything but negative, leaving inexperienced toadies in charge.
In 1941, the VVS, 91% of Commanders had held their positions for less than 6 months.
Training flights were drastically lower, some Military Districts had less than 4 hours a week for flight time.
You see, a landing accident might just be an accident, or the sign of a Wrecker or Saboteur.....
Last edited:
Not by now. The US public overwhelmingly sympathised with China- though that's not to say they were interventionist.
That support was based on some rather potent factors. On the one hand, you have very detailed reports coming in of Japanese atrocities. By 1939 American missionaries were sending letters back to their home congregations all across America describing the rapacious advance of the Japanese forces, and American forces were on the ground for Nanjing, the 'heroic' resistance at Shanghai and the aerial bombing of Chongqing- a particularly horrific act in the minds of contemporary observers despite its low death toll.
That means that the Chinese are seen as a valiant underdog fighting barbarian invaders- and if the Chinese were in need of an outside, civilising touch, surely that was better to come from American missionaries than heathen Tokyo?
Alongside that, and even more important: Japanese hegemony in China meant a real loss in terms of American national interests. There were decades of American investments in the country, and there is no chance that the autarkic Japanese militarists would have accepted a settlement where there were major western rivals to the Japanese in their own sphere of influence.
Since by the early 40s any peace settlement would have left the Japanese with the whole of China as their sphere, that's problematic for the bankers of the US China lobby.
Added to the fact that the Japanese had been the number one racial bogey man of the Yellow Peril since 1905, and there's simply no way that they could overtake China's PR efforts by this late stage.
The US re-arming at high speed gave the Japanese a time limit they had to win by - if they left it too long, even they didn't think they could win. That meant that if they were ever going to take on the US, it had to be as early as possible, i.e. as soon as their new carriers were finished.
Here, things are very different. US rearmament is much slower, and critically the British Eastern Fleet is in play - and it's hugely powerful. As in, as powerful as the US Pacific Fleet. The most likely conclusion is that Japan can't take on both at the same time - that would leave her outnumbered by 2:1. So the question then is whether they try for a series of decisive battles during the same war, or whether they gamble on the US not getting involved (US-first isn't an option because they know the British would put them under an oil embargo, and none of the US territory they could capture has any oil - if they only go for one it's the colonial powers and try to take the DEI).
But yes, all options are higher-risk for them than their OTL choice!
Big difference between help and a declaration of war however - armaments are easy to supply (profitable, too), loans less so and troops deeply problematic.
Yes. Fortunately it'll probably be a bit shorter and less bloody, but it's very hard to see the US getting involved unless they get dragged in kicking and screaming. Even Roosevelt isn't pushing nearly as hard against the Germans ITTL, because there's nothing to make him think they will win without US intervention.
I think so. To some extent it was cyclic anyway, and the recovery was well underway. With money coming in from Europe, instead of being soaked up by the government and used for armaments it'll most likely stay in the economy and be spent on consumer goods. Growth will probably be a little slower, but I can't see the US economy not growing.
Without Acheson the embargo would probably have been completely toothless - and Japan might well not have gone to war at all. That's something I'm looking at - I'm not at all sure Acheson would have ended up in government ITTL.
- Status