1941 - Britain and Japan vs USA - How long until the USA wins?

For this TL, that means importing from Greater Germany.
They were awful trading partners with their Allies, now imagine them with the UK

Agreed.

Not in 1940 they didn’t. Oh it’ll sting sure, but not as much as it would in peacetime, and it’ll hurt others a lot more. And even if Europe is cut off South America is not, and can’t be.

US submarine warfare would be problematic. 2 years to fix the torpedoes and then 2 years to build the Silent Service up to kill the UK while PACflt kills the 1940 IJN which is a different service from the 1941 monster it became. I still don't relish the way that scenario plays out. It would be brutal and long and bitter. Only chance the UK has is to play second fiddle to that Berlin maniac, and I would be hard pressed in any reasonable PoD that is not ASB to find any quislings aside from the Duke of Windsor, Halifax and that crowd of rotters who would march into that ruination. Show me where a sane British politician makes that choice with the US and Russia arrayed against London?

I wonder which Dominion is first to bolt? South Africa? Australia for sure. Maybe Canada does not have to be Crimsoned. Maybe Canadians are Canadians and will defy fascist London. Leaves what? India? How long with the Russians and the Americans working together to nutcracker it? Maybe India goes as soon as she knows she has help?

All of a sudden from a world girdling empire, its a pair of islands off a blockaded Europe. How long before a true bombardment puts the UK under? Submarines and bombers handled by a military that knows what it is doing could be a lot worse than any RTL half hearted attempts the Germans tried.

I don't see this cockamamie setup as postulated ending well for anybody.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
No, but it certainly ends worse for anyone stupid enough to jump on the "let's attack the USA" bandwagon, unless they all do it at once, or somehow get a victorious USSR on board.

Might I remind people.... ONE-FUCKING-HUNDRED-AND-GOD-DAMN-FIFTY FLAT TOPS were produced in US yards after 1939.

In total they could embark and sortie over 5,000 aircraft.

There's just no way the UK and Japan can stack up to it.
 
The biggest issue, I feel, with American industry numbers being produced here is that unlike OTL, the USA will be under attack. In our WW2, the USA was so far away from hostile action and had little going on in terms of sabotage and espionage that it was able to just churn out armaments at ridiculous rates. It even got some breathing space to train its troops and arm them prior to sending them to Europe.

Here, depending on the initial buildup and how far the Anglo-Japanese assault reaches, the USA may not have such leeway. A lot of its heavy industry is close to the Canadian border, and even Pittsburg, Chicago, and New York are in range of enemy bombers. The infrastructure is going to take a hit, and it's going to have to weather the assault as it tries to produce enough stuff to turn the fight around.

Admittedly, even with that handicap, I'm willing to bet they'll still outproduce the Imperials (Japan & Britain) by a ridiculous amount.
 
Agreed.



US submarine warfare would be problematic. 2 years to fix the torpedoes and then 2 years to build the Silent Service up to kill the UK while PACflt kills the 1940 IJN which is a different service from the 1941 monster it became. I still don't relish the way that scenario plays out. It would be brutal and long and bitter. Only chance the UK has is to play second fiddle to that Berlin maniac, and I would be hard pressed in any reasonable PoD that is not ASB to find any quislings aside from the Duke of Windsor, Halifax and that crowd of rotters who would march into that ruination. Show me where a sane British politician makes that choice with the US and Russia arrayed against London?

I wonder which Dominion is first to bolt? South Africa? Australia for sure. Maybe Canada does not have to be Crimsoned. Maybe Canadians are Canadians and will defy fascist London. Leaves what? India? How long with the Russians and the Americans working together to nutcracker it? Maybe India goes as soon as she knows she has help?

All of a sudden from a world girdling empire, its a pair of islands off a blockaded Europe. How long before a true bombardment puts the UK under? Submarines and bombers handled by a military that knows what it is doing could be a lot worse than any RTL half hearted attempts the Germans tried.

I don't see this cockamamie setup as postulated ending well for anybody.

The torpedoes used by the S boats (the subs which would carry the Atlantic campaign for at least the first couple years) did not have the problems that the ones for the fleet boats did. They were simpler (no magnetic fuse) and worked well when used. The S boat was much closer to the German type VII which was the primary boat used in the north Atlantic. the Fleet boats were designed for the greater distances in the Pacific.

And I am still wondering where the fuel for the British in Canada is going to come from.
 
And I am still wondering where the fuel for the British in Canada is going to come from.
Assuming there is no war between the Axis and Imperials? I'd say the closest source would be Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Yes, that does mean it'll have to be shipped considerable distances, and will rely on German-Italian goodwill to keep flowing. Japan may try to ship oil from the Dutch East Indies, but they'd either have to go around Cape Hope or get past the USN to Vancouver.

If there is an Axis-Imperial split, and Alt!WW2 is a three-way tussle? Then Britain is hosed. It'll have to fight a war in the Mediterranean, Middle East, the Atlantic and quite possibly the Pacific too, and whatever invasion of the USA is underway will get hosed. Britain can't get the oil to sustain all these fronts simultaneously, though the Pacific and Mediterranean will have a slightly better time of it due to proximity to the oil fields and refineries.
 
Erm....you know in this scenario Britain can import from Europe? Europe can import from the world. The US needs world trade to function as a society so really cannot do the kind of USW they did against Japan without the very real risk of hitting their own ships and neutrals carrying US cargoes?

You should be able to demonstrate that the US has effective responses short of these kinds of wild flights of fancy. Why not read some of the commentary above?

It's a perfectly effective response called "Canada isn't suicidal and tells Britain to fuck off and allies with the US" followed by "WHY CAN'T I HOLD ALL THESE SHIPS!?!?"
 
The biggest issue, I feel, with American industry numbers being produced here is that unlike OTL, the USA will be under attack. In our WW2, the USA was so far away from hostile action and had little going on in terms of sabotage and espionage that it was able to just churn out armaments at ridiculous rates. It even got some breathing space to train its troops and arm them prior to sending them to Europe.

Here, depending on the initial buildup and how far the Anglo-Japanese assault reaches, the USA may not have such leeway. A lot of its heavy industry is close to the Canadian border, and even Pittsburg, Chicago, and New York are in range of enemy bombers. The infrastructure is going to take a hit, and it's going to have to weather the assault as it tries to produce enough stuff to turn the fight around.

Admittedly, even with that handicap, I'm willing to bet they'll still outproduce the Imperials (Japan & Britain) by a ridiculous amount.

Except no it won't be under attack, because Canada is not going to let a Imperial build up happen, because that will mean that they will be first on the chopping block for the next fifty states. They are not dumb, you would literally need an ASB to get them to agree to join this suicide pact.
 
I'm imagining the Axis Imperial situation to be similar to the Allies Comnie one. They might not like each other and after the war there will be issue but for now they both have something more important.

A lot of interesting comments so I want to ask you a direct question.

In the scenario outlined, where Japan and Britain are in China and being generally imperialist. Would you advise they surprise attack the USA as otl? Or do you think it is better to be attacked by the USA? Or perhaps you believe the USA would never declare war.

Consider the otl demands of the USA and realise that they are likely still untenable. The USA won't compromise their demands, but will they follow through with war?

If they do is it better to surprise them or use public anger to your favour by letting them attack you?

If you believe that the public will support the USA regardless what do you, in your position as imperial advisor, recommend for the Emperors?
 
Erm....you know in this scenario Britain can import from Europe? Europe can import from the world. The US needs world trade to function as a society so really cannot do the kind of USW they did against Japan without the very real risk of hitting their own ships and neutrals carrying US cargoes?

You should be able to demonstrate that the US has effective responses short of these kinds of wild flights of fancy. Why not read some of the commentary above?
Britain can't import anything if fifteen carriers are sinking everything that gets near it.
Your scenario assumes the US and Germany don't come to an "agreement...
Rather than trying to force britain to commit suicide perhaps flip it around and have the US go communist or fascist?

With a hostile US possibly allied to the Soviets Britain tolerates Japanese shenanigans out of raw terror. The US being the aggressor alters the calculus somewhat and IMHO is far more likely.

Now there is a scenario to explore. What if the USA goes Fascist or inversely communist in 1936 and 1937?
 
Britain can't import anything if fifteen carriers are sinking everything that gets near it.
Your scenario assumes the US and Germany don't come to an "agreement...


Now there is a scenario to explore. What if the USA goes Fascist or inversely communist in 1936 and 1937?

Well 15 carriers is not remotely enough and then of course for America to be invincible it always needs another country to come hold its hand. The probably is Hitler's Germany is ideologically opposed to the very existence of the USA.

Now I am quite sure the US would build a fleet that would compel Britain to come to terms but as yet I have been presented with no evidence that it has the capacity to mount a starvation campaign against the British Isles themselves.
 
Britain can't import anything if fifteen carriers are sinking everything that gets near it.
Your scenario assumes the US and Germany don't come to an "agreement...

What would this agreement entail? What does Germany have to offer that Huey Long would accept?

Now there is a scenario to explore. What if the USA goes Fascist or inversely communist in 1936 and 1937?

Doubt the Kingfisher bites at anything Berlin offers. More likely he will listen to Tokyo accommodations. Of course this assumes that the Tokyo players are rational actors. Either way the loser is London.
 
Well 15 carriers is not remotely enough and then of course for America to be invincible it always needs another country to come hold its hand. The probably is Hitler's Germany is ideologically opposed to the very existence of the USA.

Now I am quite sure the US would build a fleet that would compel Britain to come to terms but as yet I have been presented with no evidence that it has the capacity to mount a starvation campaign against the British Isles themselves.

How about the Pacific War as evidence? Iceland is quite a flattop and it is more accessible in 1941 than the Mariana Islands were in 1944. Would be interesting to see the UK RN try to stop the operation. No aircraft carrier doctrine worthy of the name, but in a region where aircraft carriers in 1940 are practically useless. I figure the odds as about even given it will be a lot like Operation Weserübung only against a much better navy than the Kriegsmarine. Just how did that turn out by the way?
 
Rather than trying to force britain to commit suicide perhaps flip it around and have the US go communist or fascist?

With a hostile US possibly allied to the Soviets Britain tolerates Japanese shenanigans out of raw terror. The US being the aggressor alters the calculus somewhat and IMHO is far more likely.
Admittedly, there's a scenario we didn't consider. Rather than Britain going 'evil', it's the USA, and DS#1 is started as self-defense.
It's a perfectly effective response called "Canada isn't suicidal and tells Britain to fuck off and allies with the US" followed by "WHY CAN'T I HOLD ALL THESE SHIPS!?!?"
Except no it won't be under attack, because Canada is not going to let a Imperial build up happen, because that will mean that they will be first on the chopping block for the next fifty states. They are not dumb, you would literally need an ASB to get them to agree to join this suicide pact.
And I agree. I was just going with the scenario, assuming Canada would remain loyal to the Commonwealth should there be a US-UK war. In such a war, Canada would be the biggest loser, as they couldn't expect to win long-term.
 
The biggest issue, I feel, with American industry numbers being produced here is that unlike OTL, the USA will be under attack. In our WW2, the USA was so far away from hostile action and had little going on in terms of sabotage and espionage that it was able to just churn out armaments at ridiculous rates. It even got some breathing space to train its troops and arm them prior to sending them to Europe.
This works under the assumption the US is as unprepared as it was for OTL WWII. With hostile Britain on the border it’s going to be preparing for a conflict beforehand.

Admittedly, there's a scenario we didn't consider. Rather than Britain going 'evil', it's the USA, and DS#1 is started as self-defense.

That makes Britain’s situation significantly worse since it means the above will result in even more forces available to the US.
 
How about the Pacific War as evidence? Iceland is quite a flattop and it is more accessible in 1941 than the Mariana Islands were in 1944. Would be interesting to see the UK RN try to stop the operation. No aircraft carrier doctrine worthy of the name, but in a region where aircraft carriers in 1940 are practically useless. I figure the odds as about even given it will be a lot like Operation Weserübung only against a much better navy than the Kriegsmarine. Just how did that turn out by the way?

Actually trying to assault the British Isles from the CONUS springboard has been discussed extensively on this board. The outcome is not positive. That said RN carrier doctrine versus the USN in 1941? Yeah you thought losses at Midway were bad, the British have much better fighter control. The Americans conversely do not even have the good planes they had in 1942 just the bad ones.

This works under the assumption the US is as unprepared as it was for OTL WWII. With hostile Britain on the border it’s going to be preparing for a conflict beforehand.

I think the point that is being missed is the USN as constituted was quite capable of cutting the supply lines of any would be invader of the CONUS in the 1930s.

I think the main problem here is the fragile jingoism of a lot of US posters. You do not want the US to lose but you cannot be bothered to research how it might win? The thing is the US can defend itself, even in a rather stretched scenario where the mighty Commonwealth launches a mechanised invasion it can likely defend itself well enough. Look at how the US Army was being built up as a result of the war in Europe of OTL when the prospect of a British Empire invasion was nil and the prospect of the Germans crossing an ocean controlled by the RN was nil.

Defence of US soil is possible and it is doable, inroads could be made but while that would hurt the US has strength in depth that it did not have in previous decades at least in part due to efforts to deliberate kick start the economy by the Roosevelt administration. A lot of this stuff was OTL seen as boondoggles before the war but would prove even more useful in the event of this envisaged war.

The US counterstroke then need not be launched at great cost and greater risk of failure after even waiting till 1948 against England itself. Rather the counterstroke would be aimed at the Empire, far in places from the US but equally far from the British, drawing out ships and men and planes where they can be overcome at more favourable loss rates.

Look at the motivations of this Glory Hunter (OP definition) British Government. To defeat it you strike at the glory and such a government that loses control of the Empire would fall.

The US was exceptional by World War 2 in the effort their intelligence services and decision making organs put in towards understanding the psychology of the foe. They employed psychologists equipped with the best data intelligence gathering could provide to make due assessments. Which is what I would expect them to do here.

And that is how the US wins at least cost to the US people. It might not seem cheap in absolute terms but far less expensive than the go straight at the UK plans being proposed here.
 
You do not want the US to lose but you cannot be bothered to research how it might win?
Where exactly have I suggested the US invade Britain. In point of fact my posts have been aimed at demolishing the idea that Britain will be capable of launching massive attacks on the US interior or winning a total war. My first post notes that the UK’s best bet was either negotiating status quo ante early, or avoid enraging the US by such stupid acts as attacks on civilians.
 
Where exactly have I suggested the US invade Britain. In point of fact my posts have been aimed at demolishing the idea that Britain will be capable of launching massive attacks on the US interior or winning a total war. My first post notes that the UK’s best bet was either negotiating status quo ante early, or avoid enraging the US by such stupid acts as attacks on civilians.

Okay fair enough. The issue lies in assuming the US as was is unprepared for war. A war that comes to it, it was in fact very prepared for, which is not the same as perfectly prepared for but still it had the means in place to defend against any likely attacker. This did need mean planning for a British attack as they were the only ones with both a serious mechanised forces and sea lift in the era. The Norwegians had the sea lift but no army or navy to speak of and the Germans had after 1936 a potentially interesting army but no sea lift worthy of the name. The Japanese had the bits but not enough to go far enough and so on and so forth.
 
Actually trying to assault the British Isles from the CONUS springboard has been discussed extensively on this board. The outcome is not positive. That said RN carrier doctrine versus the USN in 1941? Yeah you thought losses at Midway were bad, the British have much better fighter control. The Americans conversely do not even have the good planes they had in 1942 just the bad ones.

Fletcher or Fitch vs. Tovey or Somerville? I'll take Coral Sea vs. what happened off Sri Lanka. I'll even stack USNAS against RNFAA 1940, too, and tally the results. The RN gets slaughtered. Not hyperbole, RTL results indicate negative RN outcomes. Especially if Midway is invoked.

I think the point that is being missed is the USN as constituted was quite capable of cutting the supply lines of any would be invader of the CONUS in the 1930s.

The USN weakness was both sides of the submarine warfare coin in 1940. Fix US torpedoes and that goes away on the submarine side. Atlantic geography dictates submarine warfare. Without UK occupied and ASW asset based Iceland early, it becomes a virtual certainty that with US LANTflt boats and working torpedoes, the UK starts off in immediate trouble and stays there. Nothing they do or try will help overcome their geographic disadvantage vis a vis the US. First, South America, either through political pressure or by active measures is cut off from Europe. Then the subs go to work off Western Europe. They just have to use flow strategy and let the geography work in their favor.

Then, once again, using South Atlantic geography against her, the UK loses India. Expect US naval operations off western Africa early.
I think the main problem here is the fragile jingoism of a lot of US posters. You do not want the US to lose but you cannot be bothered to research how it might win? The thing is the US can defend itself, even in a rather stretched scenario where the mighty Commonwealth launches a mechanised invasion it can likely defend itself well enough. Look at how the US Army was being built up as a result of the war in Europe of OTL when the prospect of a British Empire invasion was nil and the prospect of the Germans crossing an ocean controlled by the RN was nil.

The US army deployed was about 90 divisions. That's paltry. It was principally a naval/air war the US waged. The OP postulates a condition where even more so, the US would wage a naval/air war. Britain as an Island group is highly vulnerable to such an attack profile geographically. I give the UK about 30% chance in such a scenario. I remind some posters that I am not a jingoist American, and that I am well versed in what the shortcomings of the US war machine were in WW II.

Defence of US soil is possible and it is doable, inroads could be made but while that would hurt the US has strength in depth that it did not have in previous decades at least in part due to efforts to deliberate kick start the economy by the Roosevelt administration. A lot of this stuff was OTL seen as boondoggles before the war but would prove even more useful in the event of this envisaged war.

The secret airbase complexes in New England and in Michigan were the Hoover Administration. The US was nervous about the UK right until FDR was elected.

The US counterstroke then need not be launched at great cost and greater risk of failure after even waiting till 1948 against England itself. Rather the counterstroke would be aimed at the Empire, far in places from the US but equally far from the British, drawing out ships and men and planes where they can be overcome at more favourable loss rates.
Look at the US Warplan. Eliminate Canada, then move against the British offshore and in the Caribbean. If the UK does not negotiate at that juncture, then RED looks a lot like ORANGE from then on. Subs and bombers. It gets dirty.

Look at the motivations of this Glory Hunter (OP definition) British Government. To defeat it you strike at the glory and such a government that loses control of the Empire would fall.

Look at MAHAN. Destroy the RN and its over. Expect raids on the British shore establishment and attacks on the British merchant marine. After that, the Empire breaks up. (As it did.)

The US was exceptional by World War 2 in the effort their intelligence services and decision making organs put in towards understanding the psychology of the foe. They employed psychologists equipped with the best data intelligence gathering could provide to make due assessments. Which is what I would expect them to do here.

Please read "Those Marvelous Tin Fish". I would not claim the US military intelligence services (with some notable exceptions) were all that sharp.

And that is how the US wins at least cost to the US people. It might not seem cheap in absolute terms but far less expensive than the go straight at the UK plans being proposed here.

You win a naval war by siege. (Blockade). In a globalist sense that means one denies an island nation the use of the sea. Destroy their merchant fleet and starve them. That means the US will go straight for the jugular, and that means the UK is defeated in the UK via maritime blockade.
 
Last edited:
The biggest issue, I feel, with American industry numbers being produced here is that unlike OTL, the USA will be under attack. In our WW2, the USA was so far away from hostile action and had little going on in terms of sabotage and espionage that it was able to just churn out armaments at ridiculous rates. It even got some breathing space to train its troops and arm them prior to sending them to Europe.

Here, depending on the initial buildup and how far the Anglo-Japanese assault reaches, the USA may not have such leeway. A lot of its heavy industry is close to the Canadian border, and even Pittsburg, Chicago, and New York are in range of enemy bombers. The infrastructure is going to take a hit, and it's going to have to weather the assault as it tries to produce enough stuff to turn the fight around.

Admittedly, even with that handicap, I'm willing to bet they'll still outproduce the Imperials (Japan & Britain) by a ridiculous amount.

The problem is that US will detect the build up by UK as everything has to be shipped from UK. Any increase in UK forces in Canada simply does not make sense and US is going to react.
 
Assuming there is no war between the Axis and Imperials? I'd say the closest source would be Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
Development of the Saudi fields was 100% US, as Ibn Saud hated the British and there wasn't output till 1943

1940 production

USA 182 Mtons
USSR 29 M
Venezuela 27 M
Iran 10 M
Dutch Indonesia 8M
Mexico 6M
Romania 6M
Columbia 4M
Iraq 4M
Then a bunch of smaller producers, and
Burma 1M
Canada 1M

Imperials are screwed for wartime levels of usage.
In 1939, UK got around 18% Oil imports from the US, 45% from the rest of the Americas, and 33% from the Mideast. By 1942, Mideast Oil was only used in theater, 55% from USA and the rest from Latin America. 1944, it was 75% from the US

And good luck keeping the Soviets out of Iran.

Things don't look good for Team Pink on the Oil front. Latin American Oil will dry up, as it's carried mostly in US hulls.
 
Top