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

Frankly, the US doesn’t need to grab all of Canada in this scenario. They just need Halifax, because that’s the only port through which the British can ship men and material in amounts to matter. No St. Lawrence Seaway yet, after all. Then they might be able to make a deal with Canada.

Now, whether the US will be able to pull this off early is an open question...
 
Frankly, the US doesn’t need to grab all of Canada in this scenario. They just need Halifax, because that’s the only port through which the British can ship men and material in amounts to matter. No St. Lawrence Seaway yet, after all. Then they might be able to make a deal with Canada.

Now, whether the US will be able to pull this off early is an open question...

I don't think the sea route is viable. That means the hard way, overland from New York, New England.

WPR-Map_p72-big.png


If you think that was farcical, (and I certainly do); this will produce a guffaw.

DS1-Map_p66-big1.png


ASB in both cases.
 

Lusitania

Donor
As for oil, we are talking about a decade old build up of tensions and animosity between the two. The British empire already had access to the Iraque oil wells it would of made sense that they look for more oil in the region (Persian Gulf and Iran )since they controlled the area.

Plus thing is if Mexico was in play it would knock a huge amount of oil production out of play early on with their attack on Texas.

Thing is we cannot look at things the way they were iOTL 1939 and say now we have war. No it would of meant changes in both sides. It could of started with US falling under Communist or Socialist control. Canada could of received 1-5 million refugees and industry be twice as big. The point figures from 1939 are useless. We need a realistic scenario that takes into account military, resources and economic situation in alternative TL. Unless we in same boat as discussion few months ago where US and Britain best of buddies then suddenly we at war.
 
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.
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.
Saudi oil fields weren't developed til after the war (I believe the mid 50s) Libya opened about the same time. Iran & Iraq were the two main sources but with the Med closed to Shipping (France is an enemy) it would have to go around Cape Horn in ships that were not designed to be cost effective on such long journeys. in WWII most Mid eastern oil was used in theater and maybe india. DEI Oil will all stay in the region. Some may supply Australia, New Zealand, Malaya, and Burma but most will go to Japan.

That possibly leaves some Romanian production (If the Germans release it) but the primary sources are all in the Western Hemisphere. Most of that is in the U.S. but Curacao & Venezuela could sell to Britian (if they are not outbid for on the market by other regional powers such as Brazil and Argentina. Even then they have to get the oil to Britian to be refined into aviation fuel to be shipped back to Canada (I believe at the time most refined product in Canada came from U.S. refineries. Which involves another trip across the Atlantic (a second chance for subs to interdict the flow). Any tank farms in Canada would be targets for U.S. bombers. That all assumes that Canada doesn't figure a way to sit this one out.
 
Plus thing is if Mexico was in play it would knock a huge amount of oil production out of play early on with their attack on Texas.

I don't think there is much of a chance of Mexico interdicting the supply of Texas oil. Spindletop and other eastern Texas fields were the primary source in the area and that is well away from the border with major military bases between them and the border. I don't think the Odessa/Midland foelds came in til after the war but even they are 100-150 miles behind a border with military bases between them. If there was any major increase in capability of the Mexican army in the late 30s it would have stirred up U.S. interest and caused more preparations along the border. ANy British interest would cause Monroe doctrine repercusions (That could be part of the reason for the tensions leading to the war but would have caused preparations to be made. And again while there was a resntment of the Norte Americanos paternalism I don't think the Mexicans would have wanted to declare war on the U.S.
 

I don't think we should work in a vacuum. YMMV may very vary about Friedman's conclusions (I don't think the FAA was as anywhere as bad as he suggests.), but I still find his observations "interesting". I do have to make clear that in surface battle, I would put money on the RN in 1940 until the Americans climb that learning curve, (about a year, cref the Solomon Islands as the referent example.), but as for aircraft carrier warfare? I tend to think the RN were not as good as the USN and the USN was not as good as the IJN in this scenario. I have a lot of RTL history to cite as proof for that conclusion.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

with the Med closed to Shipping (France is an enemy) it would have to go around Cape Horn in ships that were not designed to be cost effective on such long journeys.

For that very reason, wouldn’t the RN sweep the Med of French warships? Depending on scenario, the Mediterranean Fleet was a decent formation and OTL the MN was never really up to snuff. I can’t see the RN allowing the MN to build a material lead in such an important Theatre uncontested.
 
For that very reason, wouldn’t the RN sweep the Med of French warships? Depending on scenario, the Mediterranean Fleet was a decent formation and OTL the MN was never really up to snuff. I can’t see the RN allowing the MN to build a material lead in such an important Theatre uncontested.

I don't think they will be able to get rid of all the submarines which would require heavy escorts for most of the transit. There would also be the threat of light forces sortieing from the French North African ports.
Also where do the Italians fit into this?
 
Also where do the Italians fit into this?

Good question! The RM was kind of deadly at the ASW stuff, and was no slouch at sea either. They did "okay" under terrible conditions as the British, themselves, when they write about their Mediterranean woes, attest. If Italy winds up with France, Uncle and the Russians (You would have to get rid of Bennie the Moose and introduce ASBs for that to happen.) the RN is finito in the Med. I also do not agree that the French navy was all that bad either. They conducted some decent actions and gave the RN heartburn during the Vichy phase. When you are fuel starved and port bound does not mean you are incompetent. It just means you are fuel starved and port bound.
 
First Saudi well came in 1938 or so, so fifties sounds right for development although could have been butterflied earlier.
East Texas oil field is like 600km from the border, north Texas / Oklahoma fields a similar distance (ie about the width of France) plus there is all the oil in places like California, Michigan, Pennsylvania etc it’s hard to see the US hurting for it.
 
First Saudi well came in 1938 or so, so fifties sounds right for development although could have been butterflied earlier.
First Refinery at Ras Tanura was producing 3000 bbl a day in 1941, and an expanded refinery with 50,000 bbl a day in 1945
 
Plus thing is if Mexico was in play it would knock a huge amount of oil production out of play early on with their attack on Texas.

This would be the Mexico currently recovering from over a decade of civil war and then another decade of internal instability, while trying to get their economy sorted out? Yeah, that sounds like a solid source of help invading the US...
 

Lusitania

Donor
This would be the Mexico currently recovering from over a decade of civil war and then another decade of internal instability, while trying to get their economy sorted out? Yeah, that sounds like a solid source of help invading the US...
But I do wonder if the US is on the ropes would they be tempted to dip their feet.
 
But I do wonder if the US is on the ropes would they be tempted to dip their feet.
Prez Cardenas had finished a minor purge of the Military and cut the size of the army and commissioned officers, and was working on a peasant militia to replace them. Didn't quite get all that accomplished, but the Mexican Military was in no shape for an 'on to Austin!' blitzkrieg across the Rio Grande
 
Good question! The RM was kind of deadly at the ASW stuff, and was no slouch at sea either. They did "okay" under terrible conditions as the British, themselves, when they write about their Mediterranean woes, attest. If Italy winds up with France, Uncle and the Russians (You would have to get rid of Bennie the Moose and introduce ASBs for that to happen.) the RN is finito in the Med. I also do not agree that the French navy was all that bad either. They conducted some decent actions and gave the RN heartburn during the Vichy phase. When you are fuel starved and port bound does not mean you are incompetent. It just means you are fuel starved and port bound.
I was mainly wondering how they fit into the alliances in this scenario. Are they aligned? if so with who? or are they sitting it out. If they are actively involved are they pro or anti British? If anti they present a major threat in the Med (especially in the Central Med and the Sicilian narrows) and off East Africa with submarines and/or raiders based out of Italian East Africa which could intercept tankers in the Red Sea and Indian ocean
 
But I do wonder if the US is on the ropes would they be tempted to dip their feet.
Nope. Cardenas wasn't an idiot. He was a solid president, and would probably see that whoever came out on top in the US/UK war DIDN'T MATTER. Not for Mexico at least. The US is always going to be bigger, stronger, and richer than Mexico (at least for the forseeable future. And giving the US a good reason to be angry with Mexico would be an excellent way to get embroiled in a war where his country got to stand alone in the future. And that would be win or lose. Britain by contrast can't really offer anything beyond some vague promises for war's end, which they'll definitely honor. Pinky swear.

I feel like I've read this telegram somewhere before come to think of it...

Regardless, basically getting involved will benefit Mexico not at all. Absolute best case they get to annex territory with a whole lot of unhappy American citizens who really, really don't want to be under their new government. And then his careful steps to keep the generals who had fought for the country since Maduro was assassinated all comes tumbling down since he'll need more troops to keep order. He also was busy trying to break the power of other elits in Mexico, having revived land reform during his term as well. What I'd actually expect him to do would be to nationalize Mexico's oil industry early if war breaks out pre-1938 and use the conflict as a means to get away with it even more cleanly than he did OTL due to WWII.
 

Lusitania

Donor
I have to say, this scenario could be a lot more interesting if the POD wasn't so late.
The pod has to be 1920 or early 1930s otherwise not possible and not going to happen. As indicated you need a communist government in US that is hostile to British empire or Fascists British Government in power prior to 1930. Otherwise not going to happen. A US embroiled with insurgents against communist or government would be a good tempting target.
 
Top