Combined Axis Fleet (including Vichy France v US Fleet

If UK go for negotiated peace after an disaster Dunkirk, that is before September 1940....
And the problem is not the quality of the codebreakers.... is the access to the Enigma working models, and to the polish guys that know a lot about the work of the machine. Without it, is much more difficult to break ENIGMA.
And BTW, in 40, USA is behind UK and Germany in Radar, ASW, jet, tanks and rockets. Is ahead in engines and production capability. If you cut the UK and other European scientists, the time that US need to catch up / surpass Germany is bigger - not impossible but bigger.

but in this thread, we're discussing the Axis fleet vs. the US fleet.. and the USN is ahead of the Germans in all categories (except submarines, possibly)... If the Germans started building up a real fleet right after the UK sues for peace, they still couldn't match what the US already has on the drawing board. Germany's arguable technological advantage in tanks and rockets is rather pointless in a naval conflict. To be sure, the USN will suffer some bad losses in figuring out how to deal with the U-boats... but then, so did the RN with a smaller industrial base, and they still pulled ahead. The Atlantic will belong to the USN before too long.
One has to wonder just how the war will go if Japan still attacks Pearl Harbor... I wonder if all those ships will be there, if we're worrying about the Germans in the Atlantic. Might not some of those battleships be over in the Atlantic?
And if Hitler still attacks Russia... then the USN has a lot less land-based aircraft in western Europe to worry about...
 
And BTW, in 40, USA is behind UK and Germany in Radar, ASW, jet, tanks and rockets. Is ahead in engines and production capability. If you cut the UK and other European scientists, the time that US need to catch up / surpass Germany is bigger - not impossible but bigger.

You do know that repeating popular myths without backing isn't an argument right? Both U.S. army and navy radars in early 1940 were as good or better than anything Germany had. It might have been behind in jet development, but it had much better piston engines in certain areas, particular very high power units and radials (rather important once we start talking carriers). And Sonar development was way ahead of Germany's, though obviously that doesn't mean much considering only one side really needs ASW. And the Panzer III is not exactly the height of tank technology, and only superior to what the U.S. had since the U.S. had basically invested nothing through the 30s. And the examples of the VT shell and the B-29 prove that the U.S. was capable of very rapidly developing technologies impossible for Germany to replicate from essentially nothing in a very short time and without allied tech transfers.
 
but in this thread, we're discussing the Axis fleet vs. the US fleet.. and the USN is ahead of the Germans in all categories (except submarines, possibly)... If the Germans started building up a real fleet right after the UK sues for peace, they still couldn't match what the US already has on the drawing board. Germany's arguable technological advantage in tanks and rockets is rather pointless in a naval conflict. To be sure, the USN will suffer some bad losses in figuring out how to deal with the U-boats... but then, so did the RN with a smaller industrial base, and they still pulled ahead. The Atlantic will belong to the USN before too long.
One has to wonder just how the war will go if Japan still attacks Pearl Harbor... I wonder if all those ships will be there, if we're worrying about the Germans in the Atlantic. Might not some of those battleships be over in the Atlantic?
And if Hitler still attacks Russia... then the USN has a lot less land-based aircraft in western Europe to worry about...


Fleet against fleet is a no contest - US wins easy. Without ULTRA, the battle against the U-boats is much more difficult. Germany don't have a chance in hell to match the ship building capability of US, even with Italy + Vichy to help.
 

loughery111

Banned
The problem being that those U-Boats cannot conceivably knock the US out of the war, unlike the UK. At this time, the US can get anything and everything its economy, people, and warmaking ability need from North America or, in a few minor cases, the Americas. So for a few months, maybe a year at most, the Kriegsmarine owns the sea near the US east coast... and the US ships things by land while cultivating alternate sources of supply.

My mini-TL:

The US suffers some minor, short-term economic dislocation, nothing which is allowed to affect its build-up to fight Germany and Japan, and recovers fully within at most a year. By that time, the USN and USAAF, as well as the civil authorities, have gained the experience in coastal ASW warfare that they so desperately needed to kick the crap out of Germany's U-Boat force.

The tide turns sometime in mid-42, give or take a few months, and the Kriegsmarine gives the orders withdrawing the U-Boats from US coastal waters after taking near-catastrophic losses. A much-winnowed Kriegsmarine begins heavily patrolling the Atlantic, waiting for the US to go on the offensive.

Taking a time-out in the Atlantic to hit Japan, the US moves to link up with the heavily-garrisoned and still resisting Philippines, in cooperation with the RN and RAN. This bears fruit; the Japanese can't allow American or ANZAC reinforcements to reach the Philippines, or it will further imperil their advance into the East Indies, and eventually into New Guinea. The IJN is obliged to meet the US and RN in battle; combined, the two manage to concentrate more airpower, helped by American landbased aircraft in the Philippines, sinking three IJN carriers for the loss of one. In a side effort, the Americans begin to take back the Aleutians.

By mid-1943, the Americans have assembled a massive naval task force with more ASW support than ever seen before. The objective: to poke the European Axis in the eye with a very large, white hot iron poker. Something they can't possibly ignore; bombing the living daylights out of crucial port facilities in northern Germany and western France. Hitting the U-Boat force where it lives is the one thing guaranteed to enrage Hitler and the Nazi elite, especially with the setbacks on the Soviet front.

The writing is on the wall; the Axis are losing. Having failed to take the Philippines, Japan is gradually being forced out of the East Indies by partisan forces heavily supplied by the British, Australians, and Americans. The Japanese lines of supply are no match; with the Philippines as a base, the USN can sortie and punch out Japanese supply ships almost at will. Additionally, the US learned well in the battle of the Atlantic; its submarines' effectiveness is greatly improved. Breaking Japanese codes has allowed it to position subs to sink two more carriers, though anything further will start to look suspicious.

In late '43, the British declare war on the Third Reich, having decided (in conjunction with the US), that allowing the Soviets to conquer the entire Nazi edifice would be less than ideal.

Need to sleep, can't continue writing... summary of the rest is as follows: European war proceeds more or less as in OTL; D-Day is delayed a few months, and American and British armored units are slower, without the OTL experience in North Africa. Austria, as a result, becomes the People's Republic of Austria. East Germany is a bit bigger ITTL, as well. Without being conquered, Italy signs a separate peace after Allied forces cross the Rhine, turning on Germany and tying down German forces in the Alps. In the Pacific, the Japanese are confined to the Home Islands, Manchukuo and the Korean Peninsula by late '44, because the Philippines offer a wonderful location from which to crush efforts to keep Indochina and China proper supplied. American support for partisans in both areas have the IJA running scared by then. War ends as in OTL, with butterflies changing the targets, because an invasion continues to be a quick path to killing 500,000 American soldiers and 4 million Japanese civilians.
 

fairfax

Banned
The problem being that those U-Boats cannot conceivably knock the US out of the war, unlike the UK. At this time, the US can get anything and everything its economy, people, and warmaking ability need from North America or, in a few minor cases, the Americas. So for a few months, maybe a year at most, the Kriegsmarine owns the sea near the US east coast... and the US ships things by land while cultivating alternate sources of supply.

My mini-TL:

The US suffers some minor, short-term economic dislocation, nothing which is allowed to affect its build-up to fight Germany and Japan, and recovers fully within at most a year. By that time, the USN and USAAF, as well as the civil authorities, have gained the experience in coastal ASW warfare that they so desperately needed to kick the crap out of Germany's U-Boat force.

The tide turns sometime in mid-42, give or take a few months, and the Kriegsmarine gives the orders withdrawing the U-Boats from US coastal waters after taking near-catastrophic losses. A much-winnowed Kriegsmarine begins heavily patrolling the Atlantic, waiting for the US to go on the offensive.

Taking a time-out in the Atlantic to hit Japan, the US moves to link up with the heavily-garrisoned and still resisting Philippines, in cooperation with the RN and RAN. This bears fruit; the Japanese can't allow American or ANZAC reinforcements to reach the Philippines, or it will further imperil their advance into the East Indies, and eventually into New Guinea. The IJN is obliged to meet the US and RN in battle; combined, the two manage to concentrate more airpower, helped by American landbased aircraft in the Philippines, sinking three IJN carriers for the loss of one. In a side effort, the Americans begin to take back the Aleutians.

By mid-1943, the Americans have assembled a massive naval task force with more ASW support than ever seen before. The objective: to poke the European Axis in the eye with a very large, white hot iron poker. Something they can't possibly ignore; bombing the living daylights out of crucial port facilities in northern Germany and western France. Hitting the U-Boat force where it lives is the one thing guaranteed to enrage Hitler and the Nazi elite, especially with the setbacks on the Soviet front.

The writing is on the wall; the Axis are losing. Having failed to take the Philippines, Japan is gradually being forced out of the East Indies by partisan forces heavily supplied by the British, Australians, and Americans. The Japanese lines of supply are no match; with the Philippines as a base, the USN can sortie and punch out Japanese supply ships almost at will. Additionally, the US learned well in the battle of the Atlantic; its submarines' effectiveness is greatly improved. Breaking Japanese codes has allowed it to position subs to sink two more carriers, though anything further will start to look suspicious.

In late '43, the British declare war on the Third Reich, having decided (in conjunction with the US), that allowing the Soviets to conquer the entire Nazi edifice would be less than ideal.

Need to sleep, can't continue writing... summary of the rest is as follows: European war proceeds more or less as in OTL; D-Day is delayed a few months, and American and British armored units are slower, without the OTL experience in North Africa. Austria, as a result, becomes the People's Republic of Austria. East Germany is a bit bigger ITTL, as well. Without being conquered, Italy signs a separate peace after Allied forces cross the Rhine, turning on Germany and tying down German forces in the Alps. In the Pacific, the Japanese are confined to the Home Islands, Manchukuo and the Korean Peninsula by late '44, because the Philippines offer a wonderful location from which to crush efforts to keep Indochina and China proper supplied. American support for partisans in both areas have the IJA running scared by then. War ends as in OTL, with butterflies changing the targets, because an invasion continues to be a quick path to killing 500,000 American soldiers and 4 million Japanese civilians.

So you are saying with Britain out of the war for 3 years that Germany and Japan then do worse some how?
 
Lets just say as the POD that Britain has bowed out of the war in 1940.
The rest of the war goes as normal.
Pearl Harbour is attack at the same date with the same loses.
After that however the German, French and Italian fleets are sent to the Pacific to fight the US fleet and aid Japan.

In an all out battle between both fleets at the time of Midway who would win?

Another side question some of you may wish to answer is this -
If the German, Italian and Vichy Fleets were added to the Japanese fleet at Midway would it make a difference to the Axis side?

Responding to the first post...
You can discount the Italian Navy - the ships are designed to Med operations - not for Pacific.
Even if you add KM, RM (Regia Marina) and the ships under Vichy, that is zero carriers - and Midway is a carrier battle, the fleets don't see each other.
The AAA / Flak of these ships is not good enough to improve much the survivability of the Japanese carriers.
Only helping if the battle is an old fashioned BB battle - like the Hood / Bismarck one, but Midway is not that kind of battle... if is, then bye bye USN, but is not.
 
And the examples of the VT shell and the B-29 prove that the U.S. was capable of very rapidly developing technologies impossible for Germany to replicate from essentially nothing in a very short time and without allied tech transfers.

BTW, the VT shell is invented by the British. US developed it and mass produced it, but not invented - is part of the info the UK give to US in September 1940.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze
 
Well sir, the whole Spanish Armada thing happened in 1588 as I am sure you know so that is about 400 years give our take 30. Great Britain didn't alter that idea of destroying one continental hegemony after another. See 7 Years War, see the Napoleonic Wars. See World War 1. It is kind of right in front of your face...

Yes, yes, yes, it is a very, very old policy of the English and UK governments to operate from a position of strength against the continent so as not to get fucking invaded.

But, please, the guy I now have on ignore was saying that Halifax deciding to accept any unpleasant terms that would get the UK out of the war (giving away Gibraltar? Reducing the number of RN destroyers/brown water vessels?) is the exact same thing as allowing the Germans to invade and conquer the British Isles. Yet there is no peace that could have been made by Britain in 1940 that wouldn't involve some sort of loss of power and prestige. We know the peace faction were contemplating this--that's historical fact.

The idea that traditional national survival instincts totally precludes an ATL Halifax government from making some unpalatable decisions in order to, as they would have seen it, save the empire is shear revisionist fantasy. Paulo the Limey is almost certainly a Halifax apologist, and I dare say he is influenced in his views by that odious reactionary (if talented writer) Andrew Roberts. Well I have John Lukacs' thesis on my side, and that is in the accepted mainstream.

I mean, ffs, coming onto this board and denouncing the very idea that Halifax could have sued for peace?! That's a Stalinist-like whitewashing of history.

And it's also a giant fuck you to eveyone here who has speculated about this period in history.
 
BTW, the VT shell is invented by the British. US developed it and mass produced it, but not invented - is part of the info the UK give to US in September 1940.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze

Oh for the love of god, yet more of the fallacy that techs weren't being worked on by everybody. The British made some experiments in radio based proximity fuses, as did the U.S., and Germany. They also realized the U.S. was the only nation in the world with the electronics industry to mass produce it, and thus passed along the basic experiments. The actual workable fuse was an entirely American development, and there were plenty of initial experiments in the U.S. that could have led to it if the British don't pass their experiments along. You might as well argue that the Spitfire was invented by Americans because Americans invented the wing, or that the RR Merlin was invented by Germany because of their initial experiments in internal combustion.
 
Oh for the love of god, yet more of the fallacy that techs weren't being worked on by everybody. The British made some experiments in radio based proximity fuses, as did the U.S., and Germany. They also realized the U.S. was the only nation in the world with the electronics industry to mass produce it, and thus passed along the basic experiments. The actual workable fuse was an entirely American development, and there were plenty of initial experiments in the U.S. that could have led to it if the British don't pass their experiments along. You might as well argue that the Spitfire was invented by Americans because Americans invented the wing, or that the RR Merlin was invented by Germany because of their initial experiments in internal combustion.


Classic.....

You can't accept that for one time your info is bad... but no, US invented everything and if not, is not relevant because can, etc, etc.
At last grow up and recognize that your research is wrong...
You are so found of do it (most of the time wrong) to me....
 
Classic.....

You can't accept that for one time your info is bad... but no, US invented everything and if not, is not relevant because can, etc, etc.
At last grow up and recognize that your research is wrong...
You are so found of do it (most of the time wrong) to me....

Quite wrong, old chap...

Although inventors had suggested almost every possible type of proximity fuze, in both prewar and war years, they failed to indicate how the formidable development and engineering difficulties could be satisfactorily overcome. Such fuzes to be useful for artillery purposes would have to be capable of withstanding the shock of acceleration when shot from a gun, in addition to undergoing a high rate of rotation in flight. Many patents on proximity devices were issued in various countries, but these also failed to indicate how the invention would be manufactured.

British scientists were working on proximity fuze devices for rockets and bombs at least as early as 1939. Captured documents indicate that German work on proximity fuze development had begun in the early 1930's, and was still in process when hostilities ended in the European Theatre.

In brief, there is nothing unique about the "idea" of a proximity fuze. The possibility that proximity fuzes of various types might be feasible has been recognized for a long time. The American achievement, accomplished by no other country, was the actual development of a proximity fuze that would function and that could be manufactured by mass-production techniques.
 
Adam,

Not that you are wrong, but....

See the relevant dates.

The US 'have ideas' before.
Germany 'have ideas' before.

The first operational VT shell is UK.

If you read the dates of your provided document, you see that except the 'ideas', the real work start after the UK release of hard data...

You info

During the summer of 1940 shortly after the formation of the NDRC [National Defense Research Committee], work was started on the development of a proximity fuze.

Wiki

Prototype fuzes were then constructed in June 1940, and installed in unrotated projectiles (the British cover name for solid fuelled rockets) fired at targets supported by balloons.[1] The details of these experiments were passed to the United States Naval Research Laboratory and National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) by the Tizard Mission in September 1940, in accordance with an informal agreement between Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt to exchange scientific information of potential military value.[1]
Following receipt of details from the British, the experiments were successfully duplicated by Richard B. Roberts, Henry H. Porter, and Robert B. Brode under the direction of NDRC section T chairman Merle Tuve.[1] Lloyd Berkner of Tuve's staff devised an improved fuze using separate tubes for transmission and reception. In December 1940, Tuve invited Harry Diamond and Wilbur S. Hinman, Jr, of the United States National Bureau of Standards (NBS) to investigate Berkner's improved fuze.[1] The NBS team built six fuzes which were placed in air-dropped bombs and successfully tested over water on 6 May 1941.[1]

Just look at the dates...

The real breakthrough is UK with 'prototype fuzes in June 1940'.
 
Adam,

Not that you are wrong, but....

...

Just look at the dates...

The real breakthrough is UK with 'prototype fuzes in June 1940'.

Really? And wiki of all places? Do you have anymore sources on this other than wiki?

...

After the arrival, in September 1940, of the British Technical Mission, headed by Sir Henry Tizard, the NDRC received a report from the British that, although they were consuming supplies, they had not made a workable fuze. The Tizard mission claim to fame was in bringing a magnetron to the United States. This early magnetron was to be used as a pattern that set us into production of better radar equipment! (See McMahon’s Radar section).
 
Well, there's your problem right there. All you have to go on is repeating a wiki article you already posted, on general proximity fuses which all the powers were able to build during the war...yes even the Japanese. Notice that mounting of prototypes on rockets and bombs.

Everybody had prototypes and preliminary designs. The point of the VT shell is making it tough enough to survive being fired from a gun, small enough to be fitted to small AA shells, reliable enough for general use, and simple enough to mass produce.

edit: Come to think of it, this whole thing is getting off track. Even if the UK is knocked out of the war by September 1940, it still won't have the resources to develop the VT shell, cavity magnetron, tube alloys, etc. It will still know that the U.S. does have the resources. It will still be more friendly towards the U.S. than a victorious Germany without ASB intervention, and it will still seek means to eventually reverse its defeat. Hell, it even still needs the industrial and financial aid from the U.S. that it got for the tech transfers, which it sure as hell won't be getting from Nazi Germany. This whole line of argument is a nonstarter without an ASB Sealion and occupation of Britain by September 1940.
 
Last edited:
OK, back to the basic question.

It makes absolutely no sense for German, French, and Italian surface fleets to sail halfway around the world to assist the Japanese navy in the Pacific. As others have said these navies would be much more useful to the Axis cause by functioning as an aggressive "fleet in being" capable of threatening US assets and trade routes in the Atlantic, forcing the USA to concentrate a larger percentage of heavy surface units in the Atlantic than they would want to. While some have argued the defeated/neutral Royal Navy would present a restraint on the expansive use of the Axis navies, I do not see why that in inevitable. A Britain forced out of the war would not be Churchill's Britain, even if it remained well-armed and still hostile to the Axis powers that defeated it. Such a Britain might be nationalistically opportunistic and chose to remain neutral or re-enter the war on either side depending of the fortunes of the war between the USA and the Axis.


Regarding the military question, however, it seems almost impossible that any kind of combined German, French, Italian, and Japanese naval campaign against the US would be successful if it actually sought to wrest control of the Atlantic from the USN. As has been noted the European powers wouldn't have any aircraft carriers, and really very few modern capital ships. Bismarck would have already been sunk anyway already, the British attacks French bases in north africa would probably have virtually crippled the French battlefleet, leaving only Italy with a sizeable force of heavy units.
 
Yes, yes, yes, it is a very, very old policy of the English and UK governments to operate from a position of strength against the continent so as not to get fucking invaded.

But, please, the guy I now have on ignore was saying that Halifax deciding to accept any unpleasant terms that would get the UK out of the war (giving away Gibraltar? Reducing the number of RN destroyers/brown water vessels?) is the exact same thing as allowing the Germans to invade and conquer the British Isles. Yet there is no peace that could have been made by Britain in 1940 that wouldn't involve some sort of loss of power and prestige. We know the peace faction were contemplating this--that's historical fact.

The idea that traditional national survival instincts totally precludes an ATL Halifax government from making some unpalatable decisions in order to, as they would have seen it, save the empire is shear revisionist fantasy. Paulo the Limey is almost certainly a Halifax apologist, and I dare say he is influenced in his views by that odious reactionary (if talented writer) Andrew Roberts. Well I have John Lukacs' thesis on my side, and that is in the accepted mainstream.

I mean, ffs, coming onto this board and denouncing the very idea that Halifax could have sued for peace?! That's a Stalinist-like whitewashing of history.

And it's also a giant fuck you to eveyone here who has speculated about this period in history.

You are making a series of assumptions about me and my attitude to AH which are frankly insulting. A few facts for you:

I am not a Halifax apologist.

I have not been influenced by the author mentioned, as I have not read works by him.

I am not making a big fuck you to anyone. I'm simply pointing oub that the course of action you lay out is going against centuries of stated British foreign policy- to avoid continental Europe being dominated by a single power.
 

backstab

Banned
You are making a series of assumptions about me and my attitude to AH which are frankly insulting. A few facts for you:

I am not a Halifax apologist.

I have not been influenced by the author mentioned, as I have not read works by him.

I am not making a big fuck you to anyone. I'm simply pointing oub that the course of action you lay out is going against centuries of stated British foreign policy- to avoid continental Europe being dominated by a single power.
Careful Paulo .... Magniac knows everything ... just ask him. If you dont agree with him, he'll lable you as a crap artist.
 
Careful Paulo .... Magniac knows everything ... just ask him. If you dont agree with him, he'll lable you as a crap artist.

Sorry, but that just really pissed me off. Doubt it will carry any weight with him but I wanted the record corrected so people don't assume that what he says is correct.
 
Top