AHC: Central Powers USA

[History Learner]

If the US is in the war, then not a single Canadian is going to Europe. No Canadian Expeditionary Force.

Sure, but that's not going to save the Canadians.

Winnipeg might be 100 km up the Red River from North Dakota, but I doubt the US could actually do more than raid the outskirts in 1914/early 1915 given their lack of soldiers. I doubt the US could make any effective offensives for a year.

The U.S. has three times the force of the Canadians. In terms of a standing army, the advantage is about 15 to 1 in favor of the U.S.

Of course as noted, a Central Powers US will have different military priorities, and Britain/Canada will react accordingly, including militarising the Great Lakes which will be responded to by the US.

My understanding is we're currently operating off the assumption the war suddenly starts in August of 1914. To do otherwise brings your earlier statement of no U.S. offensives for a year to be very weird, because that implies the Anglo-Canadians somehow militarize the border but the U.S. fails to respond despite obviously hostile intent on the part of the Anglo-Canadians.

 

[History Learner]

Tempting, but I don't think it is right. More than year for USA to win the war for the CP. US Army will not be big influence since so small. BEF still goes to Belgium. A-H still makes blunders in the east. What we see with land units is that the Canadians will not go to Europe, but fight at home. Aussies will likely be fighting to take PI. This is an indecisive mess.

The war definitely ends in less than a year simply because the Anglo-French lose access to the American market. The French, for example, imported nearly 800 million Francs worth of goods in 1914 and then over 3 Billion in 1915, with cereal grains as the biggest import both years.

The US Navy will not go to merchant warfare immediately, but will be fighting a series of battles against a talented and large Navy. The Grand Fleet will not be sitting in port. The UK will be in a much worse situation, but it will take time to have effects. i.e. UK can route a lot of shipping via eastern Atlantic.

The Grand Fleet might not be sitting in port, but it's certainly not going to be crossing the Atlantic because otherwise the HSF will be giving the British hell in the North Sea. The USN and Imperial German Navy have 25 Dreadnoughts to 22 British and 45 Pre-Dreadnoughts to 40 British. In effect, the British are in no position to do anything in the Americas and quite frankly will have to write the region off.

So we still like roll around to April 1915. A-H is in a mess, will need German help. Western front could be worse for Entente or could be much the same. Supplies are getting bad for UK and France. Hard to see CP wrapping up war before August 1915. Just so much to do.

IOTL British credit nearly collapsed in the Summer of 1915 even with the U.S. on side. Without the Americans, this is likely the Spring at the latest.

 

[History Learner]

Actually they can print the money, they did IOTL via bonds.

That's not how Bonds work. They also had heavy limitations on that:

What will happen is that imports from outside the French and British empires will be paid for by gold. Imports inside the empire will be paid for by bonds that are in theory payable in gold after the world. We immediately get to the hard Ruble, soft Ruble type situation the USSR had. So we can assume unlimited extraction of supplies from the empire and probably from outside for a while (not adjusting for US Navy). If the Entente does not have access to the USA, what is the big import market beside South American beef?

All the gold in the world is irrelevant to the matter of time and capacity. There is a limitation on how much wheat can be grown in a short timeframe and there is a definite limit on how much can be transported. Also, on the matter of Gold:

 

[Riain]

It's easy to understand why France was a net exporter in 1913, namely that she wasn't in a total war and then also didn't have vast areas of the country under German occupation; this changed rather decisively the following August.

The point being that France fought her total war in 1915 with 2.1 million tons of steel, of which a bit under half was imported, and if the 1917-18-19 figures are anything to go by much or most of that would be from Britain. Cutting off US imports in August 1914 won't make Britain and France collapse by Christmas, they'll be able to fight on well into 1915.

Indeed, but my entire point is that if we're looking at a 1914 setup we shouldn't be bringing up pre-war changes the Entente could do to mitigate U.S. entry.

I didn't, I don't think. I'm familiar with the pre 1917 US Army, and used what I have on hand from my reading on that, rather than pumping them up.

The U.S. didn't preform most of those actions, including heavily garrisoning the Mexican border, until 1916. By that point, more than sufficient U.S. manpower will be able. I also see the matter of Entente Caribbean possessions as irrelevant; Washington isn't stupid enough to leave Canada unoccupied before going for, say, Jamaica. Canada can actually serve as a threat to the United States if the Anglo-French reinforce it, Jamaica isn't.

The US Army conducted its first concentration plan since the formation of permanent divisions in peacetime in 1911 in 1914, primarily in California and Arizona, about 2 divisions (5 bdes IIRC) were mobilised. In 1915 another concentration occured, this time on the Texas, New Mexico border areas, this concentration included the deployment of the RA's only 'heavy' artillery regiments, a battalion (2 batteries of 4 guns) of 4.7" Howitzers and a battalion of 4.7" field guns, again I think 2 divisions (5 or 6 bdes) were deployed. In 1916 all 3 divisions were mobilised, mainly in Texas, and all 12 NG divisions. This is in addition to the occupation of Vera Cruz. So the US isn't going to leave the southern border unguarded, and if 2 RA divisions are sufficient then its likely that 3 NG divisions will be needed.

As for Jamaica, on 14 Aug 1914 the RN disbanded the 9th Battle Squadron and dispersed its pre-dreads to varuious stations, including the North America/West Indies station to reinforce the cruisers there. Further several of the battalions that made up the 7th and 8th divisions of the BEF came from garrisons including Bermuda and elsewhere in the WI. These forces, while not even close to the forces in Canada in terms of size, could still cause mischief that the US would need to guard against.

The upshot is that when actually facing Canada the US won't have triple the numbers, it will have about double.

Say the Canadians place 20,000 to guard Ottawa, 20,000 for Quebec City and 20,000 for Montreal. They leaves just 18,000 to guard Halifax, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and other strategic locations. No matter how you slice it, the U.S. is going to rapidly overrun strategic areas of Canada in 1914.

I don't think the Canadians would put 20,000 men at each major city, certainly no other power did that with their armies. Likely they'll form one or two major field forces (say 2 x 3 divisions, or a 4 and a 2 division FF or a 4 div FF and 2 independent divisions) to fight defensive force on force engagements using railway mobility, and likely the US will do something similar. Of course given the US could have to face a field force of 4 or so divisions the US field forces will have to be stronger than this, so no smaller than 5 divisions meaning the US won't be able to raise more than 2 field forces against Canada in 1914 and advance on 2 axes, otherwise the US risks defeat in detail.

BTW, I've never given this scenario any thought before, I didn't even know how big the NPAM was, its interesting thinking this stuff through. Here's the War Secretary's report for 1914. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101050739513;view=1up;seq=17

Edit: From the above report, the entire NG was 8,232 officers and 119,087 men and the mobile field force of the Regular Army in CONUS was 1,495 officers and 29,405 men.

 

[History Learner]

The point being that France fought her total war in 1915 with 2.1 million tons of steel, of which a bit under half was imported, and if the 1917-18-19 figures are anything to go by much or most of that would be from Britain. Cutting off US imports in August 1914 won't make Britain and France collapse by Christmas, they'll be able to fight on well into 1915.

1-1.2 million tons of Steel were U.S. imports into France for 1917 and 1918. If we're presuming this was the same levels for 1914-1916, this means that France has half the steel it had IOTL. This is an absolute disaster to their war economy.

I didn't, I don't think. I'm familiar with the pre 1917 US Army, and used what I have on hand from my reading on that, rather than pumping them up.

You didn't, my original point was that others in the thread were switching between 1914 strength for the U.S. and then assuming the Entente could do stuff Pre-War; I was making a general point via my reply to you. My apologies on that!

The US Army conducted its first concentration plan since the formation of permanent divisions in peacetime in 1911 in 1914, primarily in California and Arizona, about 2 divisions (5 bdes IIRC) were mobilised. In 1915 another concentration occured, this time on the Texas, New Mexico border areas, this concentration included the deployment of the RA's only 'heavy' artillery regiments, a battalion (2 batteries of 4 guns) of 4.7" Howitzers and a battalion of 4.7" field guns, again I think 2 divisions (5 or 6 bdes) were deployed. In 1916 all 3 divisions were mobilised, mainly in Texas, and all 12 NG divisions. This is in addition to the occupation of Vera Cruz. So the US isn't going to leave the southern border unguarded, and if 2 RA divisions are sufficient then its likely that 3 NG divisions will be needed.

This kinda emphasizes my point; it wasn't until after 1914 that serious formations began to arrive on the border and that, for 1914 at least, the U.S. is largely free to focus on Canada.

As for Jamaica, on 14 Aug 1914 the RN disbanded the 9th Battle Squadron and dispersed its pre-dreads to varuious stations, including the North America/West Indies station to reinforce the cruisers there. Further several of the battalions that made up the 7th and 8th divisions of the BEF came from garrisons including Bermuda and elsewhere in the WI. These forces, while not even close to the forces in Canada in terms of size, could still cause mischief that the US would need to guard against.

Given U.S. naval superiority, not really. This also raises the question, however, of what happens to the BEF if the 7th and 8th Divisions are largely short men.

I don't think the Canadians would put 20,000 men at each major city, certainly no other power did that with their armies. Likely they'll form one or two major field forces (say 2 x 3 divisions, or a 4 and a 2 division FF or a 4 div FF and 2 independent divisions) to fight defensive force on force engagements using railway mobility, and likely the US will do something similar. Of course given the US could have to face a field force of 4 or so divisions the US field forces will have to be stronger than this, so no smaller than 5 divisions meaning the US won't be able to raise more than 2 field forces against Canada in 1914 and advance on 2 axes, otherwise the US risks defeat in detail.

It was meant to be an illustrative point rather than taking at face value.

Let's assume the U.S. mobilizes 12 NG and 3 RA beginning in August of 1914. As you note, probably 3 NG left in the South for Mexican duty, leaving 9 NG and the 3 RA for duty elsewhere. Let's further assume the Canadians adopt the 4 division force with two independents you envision. The Canadian field force would undoubtedly be used to guard the St. Lawrence region, protecting the cities of Montreal, Quebec City, Ottawa and Toronto as this is the center of Canadian population, industry and their political seat. This leaves just two divisions to place elsewhere, but leaves three strategic regions open: the Maritimes, with the critical port of Halifax, the central provinces with their vital grain supplies routed through the city of Winnipeg, and Vancouver, Canada's Pacific outlet. We can assume the U.S. will deploy the 3 RA and at least 3 NG divisions to screen New England/New York and Detroit from possible Anglo-Canadian attack and for what actions can be done. This still leaves them six NG divisions to use elsewhere, a 3:1 advantage in divisions.

Well, what can the Canadians do? They could use the British battalions you mentioned earlier to directly garrison Halifax while freeing the two independent divisions for use in defending New Brunswick and thus keeping open a direct connection to Halifax for resupply and reinforcement. The U.S. probably would feel compelled to reinforce her forces in the Northeast by at least four divisions then, but that leaves the remaining two to take everything west of Ontario which will be left unguarded. No other real strategy makes sense, as sending those two divisions west means they'll just get destroyed by the U.S. given the sheer distances and U.S. advantage in divisions. They could try spreading the two divisions out along the length of the railway but the U.S. will just destroy them in detail; concentrate them and the U.S. will still be able to cut the railway even if they have to fight for Winnipeg because almost the entire length is undefended.

Once Canada is cut in two with the food supply of the Prairies lost and it becomes clear the English won't be supplying a sufficient field army anytime soon, I think Ottawa will surrender as they know the longer the conflict goes the stronger the U.S. will get and that it's better to seek peace while they still have chips to play (the unoccupied heartland of Canada).

BTW, I've never given this scenario any thought before, I didn't even know how big the NPAM was, its interesting thinking this stuff through. Here's the War Secretary's report for 1914. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101050739513;view=1up;seq=17

Edit: From the above report, the entire NG was 8,232 officers and 119,087 men and the mobile field force of the Regular Army in CONUS was 1,495 officers and 29,405 men.

~160,000 then, which lowers force ratios to about 2:1. I do concede this lowers U.S. options for 1914, but the overall point remains.

 

[Aphrodite]

Wars are lost when the men realize their cause is hopeless and begin to surrender and dessert. American entry into the war would destroy Entente morale and with it their war effort. The hope of American aid does more to break the French mutinies in 1917 than anything. How would the men react if instead, the Americans had cut off their weapon supplies?

Assume an American entry in August 1914-

The balance between the CP and Entente has swung so far towards the CP that an Entente victory is out of the question by the middle of September. The Italians, Romanians and Ottomans know this and would all pounce to get the goodies. So much for America doesn't have an army

As for the Entente financing the war through printed money: With defeat likely, the currency would lose all value. No one would want it as the victorious CP would likely declare it worthless. Think Weimar level hyperinflation

If you posit a later American intervention say January 1,1916, the effect is almost as rapid. The loss of American raw materials and war materials would be felt instantly. The war at sea would be an Entente disaster. America cannot be blockaded and t he Entente ships in American harbors would be seized. fitting them out as Armed Merchentmen to compliment the USN would deprive the Entente of almost all use of the sea. No colonial troops to support the Entente war effort

As for a POD- post 1900 is hard but the last major Anglo-American war scare is 1895. America is full of blacks and immigrants from Germany, Italy and Ireland who have no love for the British. American Jews had no use for the Russian Empire either. Any POD is going to have butterflies with a stronger American Navy for sure

 

[BlondieBC]

The war definitely ends in less than a year simply because the Anglo-French lose access to the American market. The French, for example, imported nearly 800 million Francs worth of goods in 1914 and then over 3 Billion in 1915, with cereal grains as the biggest import both years.

The Grand Fleet might not be sitting in port, but it's certainly not going to be crossing the Atlantic because otherwise the HSF will be giving the British hell in the North Sea. The USN and Imperial German Navy have 25 Dreadnoughts to 22 British and 45 Pre-Dreadnoughts to 40 British. In effect, the British are in no position to do anything in the Americas and quite frankly will have to write the region off.

IOTL British credit nearly collapsed in the Summer of 1915 even with the U.S. on side. Without the Americans, this is likely the Spring at the latest.

Collapse of credit is not the same as collapse of economy. Related but not the same. And here you are not making an important butterfly. Without the USA market, the UK is spending a lot less gold, so its gold reserves last a lot longer.

As to food shortages, one year is too fast for France to collapse. It takes time for morale to collapse. France and the UK could have rationed much more aggressively. And a quite frankly, each Frenchman has fat reserves to burn off. There are also things like you will liquidate you breeding stock of cows and pigs often before giving up. There are also typically a good bit of food in storage in the food supply chain. Pig food can be eaten by humans. A lot of stuff has to happen before a nation-state that is otherwise stable gives up over food. A good illustration is stories about how hard it was to find small mammals in the German countryside late in the war.

And to food, a second point. There is a near 100% chance the Empires will create famine in the empire before the capitals. As an illustration, in WW2 the UK cut shipping in the Indian Ocean by 2/3 or more. It cause a lot of hunger and starvation. Churchill did not care.

While you GF situation is possible, it is not the only possible outcome. The UK has the best naval officer corp in the world with the possible exception of the Japanese. They have the fighting tradition of Nelson. We can look to WW2 to see how aggressive the UK can be. "It takes 3 years to build a ship, 300 years to build a tradition". So let's look at what is possible.

• The UK, not USA/Germany have the interior lines of communication.
• UK has best port system in the world.
• UK knows that 50% ratio will deter attack. All the studies done to show how hard it is to attack German Blight. They know the reverse is true.
• On equal ship battles in open waters, UK expects to win every time.
• UK also has to deal with Japan. You need to add Japan to ratio. Looks like 2-4 dreads for the war, lot more predreads.
• Need to add French Fleet.
• Need to add Russian Fleet.

So we then need to go through the mental exercise the Sea Lords have to do. Sitting back and losing will be the last option chosen. We have to start assigning ships to regions. Baltic Sea. North Sea/Channel. Med. Atlantic. Caribbean. Pacific. I guarantee the UK will have parity in some areas, and superiority in others. Lots of options but WI.

• UK lets Japan handle Indian Ocean and Pacific.
• USA puts 1/4 of fleet in Pacific (Sea Lord Planning Assumption).
• France handles Med Sea and takes gamble Italy will not join war. Transfers bulk of fleet to channel.
• French transfer fleet, plus subs, plus UK channel fleet hold North Sea.
• Grand Fleet plus forces used at Gallipoli (4-12 Divisions) are used to Carib campaign in winter/spring of 1914/15. I have available everything at Scapa Flow plus QE lead task for from Med. Plenty of forces to allow victory. Once I take PR, Key West, Panama Canal, UK then moves forces to operate at NYC or farther north in hurricane season.

 

[VoidStalker]

For me, if you do not have battles taking place by the end of September or mid October then both Canada and Northern US forces will go in for winter quarters. Winter weather in the north is just not suited for battle, and near the great lakes they will get large amounts of snow making the situation even worse. More likely both sides deploy forces and train and try to equip them for a spring offensive.

Now the fact that part of the 7th and 8th BEF divisions includes forces from the Carribean will make a difference as both of those were deployed in 1914 and saw action first at Yepres. That would likely mean any British units pulled from the Carribean and Canada OTL are going to instead stand fast in the western hemisphere. How much of a difference that will make I am not sure, but that does mean we have changes in battles starting in 1914 in Europe (and not 1915 with the absence of the 1st Canadian division).

Looking at material, oil was the easiest one I could find numbers for and in 1917 the British used 827 million barrels for the year, 85% supplied by the US, 6% supplied by Mexico both sources of which will be cut off in a CP USA situation. More so with the US producing 2/3 of the worlds oil at the point, is there enough oil left in the rest of the world (minus Mexico) to make up that difference? If not then anywhere they are using oil is going to face a crunch. A bit of reading does mention that industry tended to require oil so a reduction in oil supplies could cause some hard decisions- keep fuel for Royal Navy units and accept a reduction in war material production, or keep war material production high and run the risk of the Royal Navy not having enough fuel. Once again not an issue that will play in 1914 but something that is going to have an effect as the war stretches out into 1915 and later.

Found some tables here and I think the most interesting one for me is the oil production. In 1913, the US produced 64.2%, Russia 16.7%, Mexico 6.8%, Romania 3.7%. In 1917 those numbers were US 65%, Russia 13.7%, Mexico 12.1%, Dutch East Indies 2.6%. Romania was low on accounts of being invaded by the CP after their declaration of war. Still between US and Mexico that was about 70.9% of the pre-war production, increasing to 71.5% if you include Peru all of which are likely to be denied to the Entente in this situation. Galacia as another 2.11% of production would also be denied. That would leave Russia, Dutch East Indies, Romania (via Russia), British India, Japan, and the small amounts produced in other countries (not sure if Persia falls here or was included in India's numbers). And for Romania there will be competition in purchasing from the Central Powers plus any oil would need to go through Russia up towards Scandinavia to actually reach UK and France. Russian oil is the same or if it is produced on the Eastern side has to travel around Africa or through the Suez, with the introduction of the US the Panama Canal (which opens just as the war is starting) is closed to Entente traffic which will add transit time, and approaching even via South America puts you in range of USN assets (more so if the German units in the pacific make for the US and rebase from there). Same situation with Dutch East Indies long transit times to Europe and reliant on a relatively small numbers of tankers where if enough are sunk it changes the course.

 

[BlondieBC]

That's not how Bonds work. They also had heavy limitations on that:

All the gold in the world is irrelevant to the matter of time and capacity. There is a limitation on how much wheat can be grown in a short timeframe and there is a definite limit on how much can be transported. Also, on the matter of Gold:

How I stated it was the way it worked. What you are showing is what happened for foreigners, not citizen of the empire. What happened in the UK is they UK neither issue you gold (money) or bills (receipt for money). The UK issued you bonds payable after the war. If the bonds were transferred to foreigners, the terms did not change. So the UK was effectively printing money, and we get into what would wreck the world economy in the 1920s.

The UK paid gold for imports. The merchandise was paid for in gold before the ship left port.

The UK also issue bonds to non-citizen. These items did function as you indicate. The issue is that you are only looking at part of the picture.

You seem to think the UK did not print a vast amount of money IOTL, but it did. To go back to 1913 support ratios of gold to bills, the UK would have needed to do a 3:1 devaluation in 1919. Since the UK back its bills in peace time by less than 30% metal to bills outstanding, we have a 10:1 ratio here from real money (gold) to paper money.

You also bring up France, not the UK. The UK did the heavy lifting in WW1 before April 1917. The French and Italians were relying upon UK credit (1915-17), then later USA (1918) credit to stay in the war. What you are showing in your quote is France after France had largely be locked out of international credit markets.

Also, at least in the UK, taking bonds not gold was not a voluntary event. The government made you take them.

 

[VoidStalker]

Collapse of credit is not the same as collapse of economy. Related but not the same. And here you are not making an important butterfly. Without the USA market, the UK is spending a lot less gold, so its gold reserves last a lot longer.

As to food shortages, one year is too fast for France to collapse. It takes time for morale to collapse. France and the UK could have rationed much more aggressively. And a quite frankly, each Frenchman has fat reserves to burn off. There are also things like you will liquidate you breeding stock of cows and pigs often before giving up. There are also typically a good bit of food in storage in the food supply chain. Pig food can be eaten by humans. A lot of stuff has to happen before a nation-state that is otherwise stable gives up over food. A good illustration is stories about how hard it was to find small mammals in the German countryside late in the war.

And to food, a second point. There is a near 100% chance the Empires will create famine in the empire before the capitals. As an illustration, in WW2 the UK cut shipping in the Indian Ocean by 2/3 or more. It cause a lot of hunger and starvation. Churchill did not care.

While you GF situation is possible, it is not the only possible outcome. The UK has the best naval officer corp in the world with the possible exception of the Japanese. They have the fighting tradition of Nelson. We can look to WW2 to see how aggressive the UK can be. "It takes 3 years to build a ship, 300 years to build a tradition". So let's look at what is possible.

• The UK, not USA/Germany have the interior lines of communication.
• UK has best port system in the world.
• UK knows that 50% ratio will deter attack. All the studies done to show how hard it is to attack German Blight. They know the reverse is true.
• On equal ship battles in open waters, UK expects to win every time.
• UK also has to deal with Japan. You need to add Japan to ratio. Looks like 2-4 dreads for the war, lot more predreads.
• Need to add French Fleet.
• Need to add Russian Fleet.

So we then need to go through the mental exercise the Sea Lords have to do. Sitting back and losing will be the last option chosen. We have to start assigning ships to regions. Baltic Sea. North Sea/Channel. Med. Atlantic. Caribbean. Pacific. I guarantee the UK will have parity in some areas, and superiority in others. Lots of options but WI.

• UK lets Japan handle Indian Ocean and Pacific.
• USA puts 1/4 of fleet in Pacific (Sea Lord Planning Assumption).
• France handles Med Sea and takes gamble Italy will not join war. Transfers bulk of fleet to channel.
• French transfer fleet, plus subs, plus UK channel fleet hold North Sea.
• Grand Fleet plus forces used at Gallipoli (4-12 Divisions) are used to Carib campaign in winter/spring of 1914/15. I have available everything at Scapa Flow plus QE lead task for from Med. Plenty of forces to allow victory. Once I take PR, Key West, Panama Canal, UK then moves forces to operate at NYC or farther north in hurricane season.

A few questions- who is watching the Austrian Navy if you transfer the French navy to the North Sea? Would the French Fleet and Channel Fleet be able to beat the HSF fleet if they came out to fight? How are you getting a winter campaign in 1914 when the two Anzac divisions did not ship from their countries until November with the original destination of England to train up then deploy on the Front Line? Does the UK have sufficient basing capabilities in Canada/Caribbean to both repair the fleet, provide fuel and ammo stocks and storage and also all the various spare parts you need for maintenance?

Butterflies: Elements of the OTL 7th and 8th BEF are in Caribbean/Canada those division will either be short units or require units from elsewhere (perhaps those stood up in 1915 for the 29th division can be routed into replace?) and both of those divisions fought in 1914 at Yepres
1st Canadian Division does not go to England in Fall/Winter of 1914 and as such is not included in deployment plans for France in February of 1915 so they are short a division OTL on the Front.
Anzac Corp (2 divisions) is not stopped at Egypt due to overcrowding concerns since the 1st Canadian Division is not using those facilities so instead arrive for training in England in December.
Major decrease in fuel supply due to no US or Mexican oil

Looking at the Gallipoli order of battle:
29th Division- Formed in 1915 from garrison troops spread throughout the british empire
Royal Naval Division- At Antwerp until October 9th when they withdrew, does not seem to be deployed OTL again until Gallipoli
Anzac Corps- reached Suez early December OTL
1st Australian Division- Formed in 1914 a mix of regulars, militia and volunteers not trained or properly equipped
New Zealand and Australian Division- Formed in 1914 also reliant on non regulars and poorly equipped and not trained on a divisional level
1er Division (France)- Raised February of 1915 from small individual units

So for a winter campaign you either pull out the Royal Naval Division early from Antwerp or rely on scattered units none of which are trained together. That rules out a winter campaign. You also need to replace the missing 1st Canadian in the line of battle, and are short units in the 29th if those were plugged into the 7th and 8th instead of the OTL units in the Americas. You do have those units available for deployment but unless you concentrate them ahead of time you once again have the issue of no divisional training.

 

[BlondieBC]

A few questions- who is watching the Austrian Navy if you transfer the French navy to the North Sea? Would the French Fleet and Channel Fleet be able to beat the HSF fleet if they came out to fight? How are you getting a winter campaign in 1914 when the two Anzac divisions did not ship from their countries until November with the original destination of England to train up then deploy on the Front Line? Does the UK have sufficient basing capabilities in Canada/Caribbean to both repair the fleet, provide fuel and ammo stocks and storage and also all the various spare parts you need for maintenance?

Screened with smaller ships. Do you think the Austrians will send their navy to the French coastline and leave the Adriatic open to the Italians? Risk have to be taken in wars.

I was sending the Grand Fleet to win the Battle of the Atlantic. Once US possession are isolated, they will be easy to take. Start with the Marine Division for easy targets like Key West. You can pull out whatever units you want, when you want for the rest. Lots of possibility, but if the Marine Division say takes the Canal Zone and the Grand Fleet is taking names and kicking ass, why can't the Anzac units sail straight to the Canal Zone? This give me three Divisions. Say use the French Divisions used at Gallipoli to replace UK divisions that are pulled out of the line in Flanders.

Grand Fleet will likely use Halifax as main base, and yes some ships will have to go back to England for repairs.

Butterflies: Elements of the OTL 7th and 8th BEF are in Caribbean/Canada those division will either be short units or require units from elsewhere (perhaps those stood up in 1915 for the 29th division can be routed into replace?) and both of those divisions fought in 1914 at Yepres
1st Canadian Division does not go to England in Fall/Winter of 1914 and as such is not included in deployment plans for France in February of 1915 so they are short a division OTL on the Front.
Anzac Corp (2 divisions) is not stopped at Egypt due to overcrowding concerns since the 1st Canadian Division is not using those facilities so instead arrive for training in England in December.
Major decrease in fuel supply due to no US or Mexican oil
[/quotes]

Yes, lots of butterflies. And USA entering was does mean Entente loses. USA entering war does not have to mean UK does poorly against USA in first year of war. I am trying to illustrate options. There is Entente strategy that puts pain on USA. After losing Puerto Rico, the Canal, and PI; USA has suffered some pain. And even if USA takes big chunk of Canada, it is not a blow away win. Especially if we see 12 or more Entente divisions of good quality in Canada.

[quotes]
Looking at the Gallipoli order of battle:
29th Division- Formed in 1915 from garrison troops spread throughout the british empire
Royal Naval Division- At Antwerp until October 9th when they withdrew, does not seem to be deployed OTL again until Gallipoli
Anzac Corps- reached Suez early December OTL
1st Australian Division- Formed in 1914 a mix of regulars, militia and volunteers not trained or properly equipped
New Zealand and Australian Division- Formed in 1914 also reliant on non regulars and poorly equipped and not trained on a divisional level
1er Division (France)- Raised February of 1915 from small individual units

So for a winter campaign you either pull out the Royal Naval Division early from Antwerp or rely on scattered units none of which are trained together. That rules out a winter campaign. You also need to replace the missing 1st Canadian in the line of battle, and are short units in the 29th if those were plugged into the 7th and 8th instead of the OTL units in the Americas. You do have those units available for deployment but unless you concentrate them ahead of time you once again have the issue of no divisional training.

Don't think so. Do US order of battle for land units in Caribbean. These UK forces start looking pretty heavy. USA is about potential in years 2-3, not year 1. Now yes, if we pull these units from other areas, the CP is doing better elsewhere. In this scenario, the Ottomans are looking pretty good.

 

[VoidStalker]

Screened with smaller ships. Do you think the Austrians will send their navy to the French coastline and leave the Adriatic open to the Italians? Risk have to be taken in wars.

I was sending the Grand Fleet to win the Battle of the Atlantic. Once US possession are isolated, they will be easy to take. Start with the Marine Division for easy targets like Key West. You can pull out whatever units you want, when you want for the rest. Lots of possibility, but if the Marine Division say takes the Canal Zone and the Grand Fleet is taking names and kicking ass, why can't the Anzac units sail straight to the Canal Zone? This give me three Divisions. Say use the French Divisions used at Gallipoli to replace UK divisions that are pulled out of the line in Flanders.

Grand Fleet will likely use Halifax as main base, and yes some ships will have to go back to England for repairs.



Don't think so. Do US order of battle for land units in Caribbean. These UK forces start looking pretty heavy. USA is about potential in years 2-3, not year 1. Now yes, if we pull these units from other areas, the CP is doing better elsewhere. In this scenario, the Ottomans are looking pretty good.

And if the Austrians push they can cut off supplies running through the Med via the Suez, how much of the Royal Navy depends on oil at this point as they could face an interrupted supply, also Italy is not in the war at this point. And this also reduces the flow of troops from Africa to France, leaving the French short on units (1er Division was raised in Northern Africa so without naval cover it can't move to France or the US theater)

Or for that matter why would they sail the Grand Fleet to the other side of the ocean to try and attack the USN instead of pushing to make an attack on the HSF? Both are risks one of them does not leave the protection of England dependent on another nation's navy and we know they wargammed attacks on the German ports. Furthermore if you are using the French fleet what happens if the HSF sorties, does the French fleet try to intercept and if so who wins that battle? If the French fleet is beaten back and the HSF does a show off force off the English coast somewhere how long before the howls of the politicians force the recall of the Grand Fleet?

And when do you expect this attack on the Canal Zone to happen? If it requires the Royal Naval division to be withdrawn earlier then you weaken Entente performance during the initial German push and run the risk of them winning the race to the sea or at least pushing further down the coast. Also the Anzac corp will be given orders to head to England initially unless they plan out a canal attack before then and in that case you are looking at a delay at sending them thanks to USN and German forces in the Pacific (you don't want a troop convoy intercepted). So you would not have those units until Spring of 1915 like OTL. My main objection is that any winter 1914 campaign is just not feasible due to units being committed to the Western front or still being stood up. Until the lines stabilize in France I cannot see the British being willing to send troops elsewhere as Germans at Calais is a scenario they do not want to see.

My main objection is that I don't see units outside the Royal Naval Division that can be used in a Winter campaign, and even then after Antwerp it needs rest and resupply then the transit time. Plus waiting on the French fleet to withdraw from the Med to take up stations in Scapa Flow.

The grand fleet sailing to the US is using a lot more fuel and putting more wear and tear on their ships then OTL even before we get to any naval battles. Halifax sailing down to the Caribbean requires sailing past the USN so the USN should be able to intercept if it chooses to or you are swinging out into the ocean using more fuel. You are also using shipping capacity to send troops and supplies for both the troops and fleets to the Western Hemisphere, reducing what you can ship to France and England.

Do you have a good source of the British deployments at the start of WW1? All too often I find that for the divisions they just saw troops stationed in the Empire without stating where in the Empire those troops where. One reason is to see just what effect keeping troops in the Western Hemisphere in place would have on the 7th and 8th and if troops from elsewhere could be brought over in time or if they would be delayed due to a longer journey (in which case some of the 8th might be moved into the 7th to be deployed on OTL schedule while the 8th would be held) which will have an impact on Yepres.


Edit- Naval Forces August 1914:
USN- 10 DN, 23 PDN 6 DN under construction (1916-17 finish OTL)
Austrian- 3 DN, 3 Semi DN, 6 PDN, 1 DN under construction (1918 finish)
German-17 DN (4 launching from August to November), 29 PDN, 6 BC (1 launching Sept 1914), 2 DN under construction, 2 BC under construction (1916 to 1917)
French Fleet- 4(2 are working up) DN 6 Semi DN, 15 PDN 3 DN under construction (1915-1916 finish OTL)
Royal Navy- 30 DN (1 launching September, 1 December) 41 PDN, 10 BC, 5 DN under construction, 5 BC under construction (seems to be 1916 for all 10 except Hood which was 1918)
Japan- 2 DN, 5 BC (4 listed as 2nd class 20knots), 10 PDN, 4 DN under construction, 3 BC under construction (DN 1 in 1915 2 in 1917 1 in 1917, BC 1914 to 1915)
Russia- Baltic 4 DN (launching November to December 1914), 4 PDN Siberia- 2 PDN, Black Sea 5 PDN, 3 DN under construction (1915 to 1917)

Italian Fleet-3 DN, 8 PDN, 3 DN under construction (1915 to 1916)
Ottoman- 2 PDN
Greeks- 2 PDN


That is as best I can tell the status of capital ships (PDNs, DNs, and BCs). No idea which of the active ships are in for refit or repair.

 

[DougM]

If the US is on the side of the Central Powers does Italy join in on England and Frances side? Or does it stay the hell out? It seams to me that it was a bit close in OTL to Italy not joining and I wonder if the US being in on the CP side may be enough for a few dominos to fall in the direction of just staying out of it.

Also how likely is it that Canada has issues? Either they see it as a bad idea to get involved and at least some folks start agitating to stay neutral and use it as an excuse to separate from England. I know that Quebec would love nothing better. And Canada is not dumb. They know that most of the fighting against the US will be by Canadians and fought in Canada. Add this to the obvious fact that England is in no position to fight Germany on mainland Europe and the US at the same time and it does not take a lot of thought to realize that Canada is not going to get a lot of help against thier closest neighbor. Which brings up the point that Canada is probably closer at that point to the US then they are to England as far as economic and other factors go. So I could easily see a Neutrality party or even an Independence Party starting up.
Remember this assumes the US is a CP on day 1 so Canada has not taken an active part in the war yet as it has not started. At this point we are still choosing up sides. And it would be in Canada’s better interest to go whatever way the US goes or at least not get involved. It is one thing to stay loyal to England and send troops and supplies when the US is neutral but it is a whole other thing to step up on day one ad tell the world that you are willing to fight the bigger neighbor to the south with no natural boarder for most the distance and that you are suggesting that your country is a good place to hold the battle all so that some country across an ocean can go off and fight some other country.
And knowing that at least some of your citizens will be allot happy to cut a deal with the enemy as some as they set foot in Canada. As long as the US promises an independent Quebec post war.

The reality for Canada is that ultimately the US is going to kick it’s but and nothing Canada can do will stop that. The fighting WILL take place almost exclusively in Canada so it is Canadian property that is going to get destroyed. And unless England wants to leave France to fall to a Germany thier is nothing England can do to protect Canada. So the war for Canada IS going to end with the western seaboard belonging to the US to connect to Alaska. And most likely with Quebec and that area independent. There is basicly nothing that Canada in WW1 can do about it. So why do they want to get involved?

As for England. In OTL it was everything that England (and France) could do to take on Germany and that was with the US supporting them with materials, ships and money but now folks think that without this England can fight not only that fight but one against the US also? That is about the funniest thing I have heard. It may not end by Christmas but it is going to end a lot sooner and in a bad way for England and France.
WW1 was amazing in that it was a VERY close run match between the two sides and that at many points in the war things could have gone either way. So it does not take a lot to tip the balance. And the lose of US material support, and financial support alone is probably enough to ultimately cause England and France to lose or at best declare a “tie” and negotiate. Add in an activily hostile US ramping up from day one with them and the lose of all Canadaian troops as those have to fight the US for as long as they last and that is just Way to big a lose for England and France to win against.

As for Japan. I wonder if the US goes CP if Japan doesn’t keep its nose out of it. Basically Japan had zero interest in the war and did very little. The got involved because they saw the chance to steal some territory for little cost as they knew Germany would be to busy to resist, But the US was another mater. From Japan’s point of view it looks like the US is not that likely to get involved directly in the fighting in Europe as it is a long way to go and England and her navy are in the way. So if Japan enters the war against the US then thier is a good chance that after the US takes Canada they may look around and decide this is a great chance to expand in the Pacific and that would leave Japan to fight the US basically one on one. And why would Japan want to do that? For the chance at a couple German colonies?
No I think if the US is a CP on day one Japan stays clear.

 

[Catsmate]

You have two separate issues in the original question.
1) how do you creat a POD that results in the US declaring war in. Aug 1914. And most of those would require such a large change that you would not recognize the world (ok maybe not that big but still large changes) or it requires something so out there as to be all but ASB such as France and or England committing obvious acts of aggression in the first week. Something like England blowing a couple of US ships out of the water. Or worse.

You'd probably need a few issues.
Maybe Salisbury doesn't listen in 1895 during the Venezuela crisis and something stupid happens.
Shooting troubles in the Yukon and a deadlocked arbitration panel on the US/Canadian border.
The continuation of British support for Spain during the Spanish-American war, with a lack of assurances regarding the future of Cuba.

Start small and let things snowball.

 

[Riain]

1-1.2 million tons of Steel were U.S. imports into France for 1917 and 1918. If we're presuming this was the same levels for 1914-1916, this means that France has half the steel it had IOTL. This is an absolute disaster to their war economy.

The stats you provide had 1917 1.5 mil tonne from UK, 1.3 from US, 1918 it was 800k from UK, 1 mil from US and in 1919 the ratio was more in favour from the US, this is consistent with the US entry into the war underwriting the French war finance. In 1915 France only imported 1 million tonnes of steel in total; I don't have a breakdown, but if the 1917-19 increasing US ratio is any indication the US would have provided a small portion of that, maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of that. The total French usage of steel in 1915 was 2.1 million tonnes, losing 1/8 of that isn't going to push them out of the war, it going to push them to economise further and seek other sources of steel. The same applies for other commodities.

You didn't, my original point was that others in the thread were switching between 1914 strength for the U.S. and then assuming the Entente could do stuff Pre-War; I was making a general point via my reply to you. My apologies on that!

No worries, we do have to compare apples with apples. People seem to have jumped the PoD hurdle now and are looking at forces available in 1914.

This kinda emphasizes my point; it wasn't until after 1914 that serious formations began to arrive on the border and that, for 1914 at least, the U.S. is largely free to focus on Canada.

I agree that the US will send the vast bulk of its forces against Canada, but these other commitments will siphon off 'divisional equivalents' in dribs and drabs; a few divisions to Mexico, a brigsade here, a battalion there. I also think US entry into the war will drastically change events in Mexico and the Caribbean that the US will have to guard against or accept the risk; for example the US had 4 regiments of infantry in Vera Cruz in November 1914 resulting from the invasion in June, do these get withdrawn or reinforced? If they get withdrawn do they go to Panama and Puerto Rico, or back to CONUS and if CONUS do they become training cadres or go to Canada?

Given U.S. naval superiority, not really. This also raises the question, however, of what happens to the BEF if the 7th and 8th Divisions are largely short men.

Dunno about the BEF. The USN is in the same position as the Army, it has to balance its ongoing commitments guarding the Caribbean and supporting/withdrawing the Army at Vera Cruz, Panama, Puerto Rico against the need to keep a powerful, balanced fleet available to fight a major battle with a large portion of the RN's Grand Fleet. In the USN's case the limiting factor will be the drastic shortage of destroyers and cruisers in 1914; with only 34 destroyers and 3 armored and 3 scout cruisers that could be considered 'modern' in 1914, so I'm guessing the USN would only be able to gather and support 10-12 dreadnoughts in a 'striking fleet' in 1914.

Let's assume the U.S. mobilizes 12 NG and 3 RA beginning in August of 1914. As you note, probably 3 NG left in the South for Mexican duty, leaving 9 NG and the 3 RA for duty elsewhere. Let's further assume the Canadians adopt the 4 division force with two independents you envision.

I don't know about which units will go where, but with the 4:1:1 Canadian deployment the US will have to do a deployment to match and defeat as they see fit, keeping in mind that the offensive requires a handy superiority in numbers at the decisive point. Will the US risk a 5 division FF being held and bled white against the 4 division Canadian FF so that it can have spare units to gobble up less important areas of Canada?

For me, if you do not have battles taking place by the end of September or mid October then both Canada and Northern US forces will go in for winter quarters. Winter weather in the north is just not suited for battle, and near the great lakes they will get large amounts of snow making the situation even worse. More likely both sides deploy forces and train and try to equip them for a spring offensive.

Good point, IOTL in the Eastern Front the fighting in and around East Prussia died right down at the end of 1914 and the next offensive was in the south at Gorlice-Tarnow. my guess is the US and Canada will push and shove in Sept-Nov ad then hold their positions through the winter. The US will use this opportunity to withdraw troops to receive the huge numbers of recruits, train them up and maybe put them to use in the south. An analogue is that the British sent 2 Territorial divisions to India in October 1914 to swap with 2 Indian Army divisons going to France. Veteran units from the Canadian Front would be sent to Panama, Mexican border etc and double or tripled in size with new recruits and train them up as they guard these areas. The units there would likely already have received some new recruits and they will be moved north ready for the Spring.

As an aside the CONUS RA was at peacetime establishment; 65 man infantry companies rather than 150 for example.

Do US order of battle for land units in Caribbean. These UK forces start looking pretty heavy. USA is about potential in years 2-3, not year 1.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101050739513;view=1up;seq=17
Canal Zone; 1 inf rgt, 3 coys coastal artillery = 2,179 men
Vera Cruz; 4 inf regt, 2 cav coys, 1 arty btn, 1 eng coy = 4,090 men
Porto Rico; 1 inf rgt (2 btn) = 707 men.

 

[Riain]

Fleets are an interesting thing, I'd divide them into 3 types or tasks: offensive or strike fleets to use modern parlance, defensive fleets and patrol or local forces fleets. The RN in August 1914 had the Grand Fleet with the Harwich Force as its offensive striking fleet, most modern, powerful ships conducting sweeps deep into the Heligoland Bight etc, the Channel Fleet of a large battle squadron of modern pre-dread which would engage the enemy in the Channel but wouldn't go on offensive sweeps into the Dover Straight, and the patrol forces of local defence flotillas at home and old pre-dreads and cruisers scattered at patrol stations worldwide. In this hierarchy a defensive fleet can take the offensive against a patrol fleet/force, which is what happened at the Dardanelles and would likely be the case ITTL if the USN took action against the Entente in the Carribean where USN defensive forces would take on Entente patrol forces.

As far as I can tell the strike fleets in 1914 available for the Atlantic theatre would be the GF of 24 BBs and 9 BC, HSF of 17 BBs and 5 BCs, the USN with 10 BBs and French MN with 4 BBs. That appears to balance each other out, however the Anglo-French fleets can combine and set up a defensive against one CP strike fleet while taking the offensive against the other, I'd suggest that the USN would be first on the menu for this. It is smaller and therefore more manageable and represents more of a threat to world trade and Canada than the HSF.

 

[Riain]

Just for a bit of context on Canada; in 1913 Australia had 1896 officers and 42,342 men and had authorised an expansion to 2436 officers and 49,384 men for 1914. When adjusted for population this looks similar to Canada's PAMs, but makes the US Army, Navy and Marines look tiny for a country of 95 million people.

 

[VoidStalker]

Just for a bit of context on Canada; in 1913 Australia had 1896 officers and 42,342 men and had authorised an expansion to 2436 officers and 49,384 men for 1914. When adjusted for population this looks similar to Canada's PAMs, but makes the US Army, Navy and Marines look tiny for a country of 95 million people.

Of course it is because the US Army was extremely small for the size of the country, and the Navy got most of the love when it comes to budget. Which if you assume a neutral/friendly British Empire and Mexico makes a lot of sense since anyone has to come at the US by sea. Which gives time to build up the army.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

I was sending the Grand Fleet to win the Battle of the Atlantic. Once US possession are isolated, they will be easy to take. Start with the Marine Division for easy targets like Key West. You can pull out whatever units you want, when you want for the rest. Lots of possibility, but if the Marine Division say takes the Canal Zone and the Grand Fleet is taking names and kicking ass, why can't the Anzac units sail straight to the Canal Zone? This give me three Divisions. Say use the French Divisions used at Gallipoli to replace UK divisions that are pulled out of the line in Flanders.

Grand Fleet will likely use Halifax as main base, and yes some ships will have to go back to England for repairs

Ok, I do have to ask this. Define winning the battle of Atlantic. What exactly does that entail? Blocking off US commerce with Europe? Possible, but pointless and easier done on the other end of the Pond since the SUM can't project there out of frinendly bases. Blockade US coastal commerce? Suicidal as dispersing the fleet so far from home is a platinum oppriunity to see it worn down in detail and suck the fuel reserves in the Western Hemisphere the Brits have available dry if they frequently sorte. Halifax isen't and can't be stocked up like Scappa Flow, and besides is in the immediate sights of the USN right at the wars start. Setting up the complex, global, multinational naval dance you propose is certainly going to take longer than it will for the Americans to navally tightly blockade and start reducing Halifax, so I question just how useful it will be as a base by the time the GF arrives even if they win the initial confrontation to get into it (or the US refuses to give battle). Especially if the US lays mines on the retreat.

 

[BlondieBC]

Ok, I do have to ask this. Define winning the battle of Atlantic. What exactly does that entail? Blocking off US commerce with Europe? Possible, but pointless and easier done on the other end of the Pond since the SUM can't project there out of frinendly bases. Blockade US coastal commerce? Suicidal as dispersing the fleet so far from home is a platinum oppriunity to see it worn down in detail and suck the fuel reserves in the Western Hemisphere the Brits have available dry if they frequently sorte. Halifax isen't and can't be stocked up like Scappa Flow, and besides is in the immediate sights of the USN right at the wars start. Setting up the complex, global, multinational naval dance you propose is certainly going to take longer than it will for the Americans to navally tightly blockade and start reducing Halifax, so I question just how useful it will be as a base by the time the GF arrives even if they win the initial confrontation to get into it (or the US refuses to give battle). Especially if the US lays mines on the retreat.

In the scenario I am talking about, think more in terms of a Nelson victory (i.e. French still had plenty of ships at sea) than a WW2 type victory. I mean generally dominating the Atlantic Basin, winning most of the naval battles, and being able to pick a few areas of operations to dominated. And not losing the key naval bases.

To be clear, I don't think it is the most likely choice. Or a likely choice, but I don't like saying "power X is incapable of" when we really mean "power X chooses to do something else". The Royal Navy clearly has enough ships to keep the HSF away from the Midlands, and even if this is not 100% true, the Royal Navy can stop Sea Lion in 1915 AND the Royal Navy can have most of the newer ships fighting the Americans. If the sea battles go well for the RN, the British Empire clearly has enough land units to take the Panama Canal, Gitmo, Key West, and Puerto Rico. And I would call this winning, and I think most newspapers in this ATL will call it winning in 1915. Now it is likely the UK is losing somewhere in Canada at the same time.

Halifax will be secure from land if you put one Corp of BEF there. Panama canal can be taken with divisions (6:1 ratio of forces). Canal can be held with regiment of second class troops.

Royal Navy fuel comes from Persia. It will take a while to burn out stocks. Also, I am cancelling most Med Sea operation ITTL, so that should help some.

Now none of this wins the war for the Entente, and the critical failure will be well before early 1917. Holding Canada (Halifax) will probably mean using one corp of the BEF in the Western Hemisphere. So Flanders will be short of troops compared to OTL until at least Gallipoli is cancelled. So we have at least a six month window where down a corp or more, and the battles play out a lot different. As we roll into late 1915 and what is likely the decisive 1916 Grand Campaigns, the British Empire will need multiple armies in the Western Hemisphere or the masses of poorly trained and equipped US Army units will take most/all of Canada.

We do a lot of "What if USA and UK fight". Most of the scenarios have months or years of increasing hostility where the USA has time to ramp up. Here is something different if I am not confusing this with another thread. We have basically a cold start to the war where the USA is a year from having a decent size army, and this is the most favorable type scenario for the UK.