Germany attacks USA?

Perkeo

Banned
As the OTL plan appears never to have had a proper name, how about:
Operationsplan Tümmler (Porpoise)
or
Operationsplan Drossel (Throttle)
or
Operationsplan Schwertfisch (Swordfish)

I suggest Operationsplan Tölpel. IMO the double meaning fits well ;-)

The German word Tölpel means:

a) Sulidae

b) dolt, clunk, noodlehead, bumpkin, gawk, blunderer ...
 
It's always worth looking at Bairoch, via…

[snip]

…the Peruvians and Chileans.

Best,

I'm afraid this doesn't strike me as an appropriate measure to take. Approximating results of wars by industrial capacity only works in a long total war where both sides have time to bring their full industrial potential to bear against the enemy. This is not an appropriate measure in this scenario.

And experience may be useful, but will it let the US Navy defeat a German naval force that vastly outnumbers them? I doubt it.

I agree entirely that Germany will almost certainly lose this war, but I don't agree with the reasons you've proposed for why.

5,000 holding Manhattan at any point after about 1830 is pure, unadultered fantasy. 5,000 men is a raid in force able to get in, destroy whatever is in reach, and get out again with a barely acceptable level of casualties.

And what the Germans were planning was a raid, not a prolonged invasion to conquer and hold U.S. continental territory. Strawmen are fun, aren't they?

Thousands upon thousands of National Guard personnel aren't days away by train, they're hours away. New York is the center of a vast rail net that extends well into the Great Lakes region. Units from up and down the Hudson will be available for use on the ground within a day and as the days and weeks go by the area can be flooded with hundreds of thousands of soldiers if need be. Not all states had as effective and well-trained a National Guard organization as New York did, but training and equipment aren't going to let the Germans face down the escalating numbers of men the US is going to be able to bring to bear very quickly.

Now this is an entirely respectable and valid point, and it's why, unless the U.S. manages to be horrendously and bizarrely incompetent, the Germans are doomed.

And people may talk down about armed partisans but they would have the exact same effect in the US as they have had in every heavily armed society that has undergone occupation: To disrupt and disorganize enemy forces so they aren't going to be operating at 100% efficacy when the regular military arrives.

They would indeed be able to do that, as nobody disputes. What people including myself are disputing is this absurd, ridiculous idea that American civilians are going to single-handedly throw out the Germans so quickly that American military forces won't have even arrived by the time American victory is achieved.

To those proponents of this idea (not ManintheField, who did not propose this, but to those who did), my challenge remains unanswered:

If you want me to take this seriously, please do me the service of telling me one occasion in the twentieth century when a very large-scale surprise attack on a previously peaceful city was greeted by the civilians coming out en masse with weapons and attacking the invading army, rather than most of them trying to avoid the fighting and a very small number of hotheads trying to help their own army fight the invaders. And if you say "Yeah but those civilians weren't American civilians! America f*** yeah!" I'll lose any interest in continuing this discussion.

Research has shown that even in the case of violent crime being conducted very near them, people tend to do nothing. An invading army in a surprise attack—with shells and bullets flying in the air, the sound of shelling booming, houses burning, people screaming et cetera—is much, much scarier than an individual violent criminal.

And the Germans are not going to want to go into full scale reprisal mode against partisans if they are really interested in a negotiated peace. More than a few dozen civilians killed (armed or not) and the US is going to say fuck your peace and go into full war footing very easily, not really being willing to give up until no German hull larger than a toy sail boat with a rubber band launcher installed remains afloat.

…Who was talking about Germany going into 'full scale reprisal mode' against partisans? No-one.

What I was saying was that any American civilian who's probably never fired a gun in anger who, while panicked and terrified while the sound of shelling is in the air, shoots at a German soldier is likely to miss, be noticed by the sound of the gun and then be shot.

The truth is, this kind of operation is much more likely to start WWI a decade early than it is to be the kind of limited use of military force some junior staff officers were imagining, except this time Germany will be the unequivocal aggressor and the US will be 100% committed from the get go.

That would be true… if the German fleet got through to the United States. In truth, of course, the Germans would never have launched the operation, because they must have known that if they had done so the Grand Fleet would have had a perfect excuse to destroy the German dreadnoughts that some Britons had been so worried about, and Germany would be unable to do anything about it.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
PA - With respect, what is your opinion on the naval balance in 1900 based on?

And experience may be useful, but will it let the US Navy defeat a German naval force that vastly outnumbers them? I doubt it...

In 1900, the USN was significantly larger in total tonnage than the German navy, and the number of modern ships (commissioned 1880-1900) was almost the same (the US ships tended to be larger); here's a basic breakdown - tonnage figures are from Kennedy, ship types are from various sources, but include everything significant I could find that commissioned before 1901:

USN - 333,000 tons
IGN - 285,000

BB – 6/6
2 Kearsarge, Kentucky; 1 Iowa; 3 Indiana, Massachusetts, Oregon;
2 Kaiser Friedrich III, Kaiser Wilhelm II; 4 Brandenberg, Kurfurst Friedrich Wilhelm, Weissenburg, Worth;
CD – 7/8
1 Texas (CB); 1 Monterey; 1 Puritan; 4 Amphitrite, Monadnock, Terror, Miatonomoh;
2 Odin, Agir; 6 Siegfried, Beowulf, Frithjof, Heimdall, Hildebrand, Hagen.
CA – 2/1
1 Brooklyn; 1 New York;
1 Furst Bismarck;
CL – 18/11
2 New Orleans, Albany; 1 Olympia; 2 Columbia, Minneapolis; 1 Marblehead; 2 Cincinnati, Raleigh; 2 Montgomery, Detroit; 1 San Francisco; 1 Philadelphia; 1 Newark; 1 Baltimore; 1 Charleston; 3 Atlanta, Boston, Chicago;
2 Niobe, Nymph; 5 Victoria Louise, Hertha, Freya, Vineta, Hansa; 1 Kaiserin Augusta; 2 Irene, Prinzess Wilhelm; 1 Gefion;

Additional:
Torpedo boats (1890-1900) (USN advantage; Germans could not cross the Atlantic absent tenders, towing, etc.)
Gunboats (1880-1900) (It's a wash, considering the German colonial ships and the ocean-going USN and USRCS vessels)
older ships (1860s-1870s); (the Germans have an advantage here, since they were building iron-hulled vessels in this period, while the US was building wood or composite hulls; having said that, none of these vessels are particularly effective in 1900).

One other point, with regards to the "5,000 German troops raid Long Island" concept (putting aside the availability of transports and landing craft); the NYNG alone numbered more than 14,000 men in 1900, and 3/5ths of those men were in units headquarted in NYC (including Brooklyn), so call it 8-9,000 troops, within a few hours (by rail) of the entire island, and another 5-6,000 within a day's travel by rail...

The OOB amounted to five light brigades, three in NYC , one in Albary, and one in Buffalo(each with 2-3 battalions of infantry and a battery with 3 inch field pieces, plus machine guns; division level troops included a full regiment of coast artillery (in NYC), a cavalry squadron, and signals and service units. Senior officers, including the C-in-C, were veterans, of the SA War and the Civil War.

And for what its worth, in 1898, when the NYPD was created from the previous independent city departments (NY, Brooklyn, etc.) the total of armed officers was more than 6,000.

And the c-in-c of the NYNG in 1900 had some significant ties to the NYPD, FWIW.

500px-R23.jpg



Best,
 
Last edited:
In 1900, the USN was significantly larger in total tonnage than the German navy, and the number of modern ships (commissioned 1880-1900) was almost the same (the US ships tended to be larger); here's a basic breakdown - tonnage figures are from Kennedy, ship types are from various sources, but include everything significant I could find that commissioned before 1901:

USN - 333,000 tons
IGN - 285,000

BB – 6/6
2 Kearsarge, Kentucky; 1 Iowa; 3 Indiana, Massachusetts, Oregon;
2 Kaiser Friedrich III, Kaiser Wilhelm II; 4 Brandenberg, Kurfurst Friedrich Wilhelm, Weissenburg, Worth;
CD – 7/8
1 Texas (CB); 1 Monterey; 1 Puritan; 4 Amphitrite, Monadnock, Terror, Miatonomoh;
2 Odin, Agir; 6 Siegfried, Beowulf, Frithjof, Heimdall, Hildebrand, Hagen.
CA – 2/1
1 Brooklyn; 1 New York;
1 Furst Bismarck;
CL – 18/11
2 New Orleans, Albany; 1 Olympia; 2 Columbia, Minneapolis; 1 Marblehead; 2 Cincinnati, Raleigh; 2 Montgomery, Detroit; 1 San Francisco; 1 Philadelphia; 1 Newark; 1 Baltimore; 1 Charleston; 3 Atlanta, Boston, Chicago;
2 Niobe, Nymph; 5 Victoria Louise, Hertha, Freya, Vineta, Hansa; 1 Kaiserin Augusta; 2 Irene, Prinzess Wilhelm; 1 Gefion;

Additional:
Torpedo boats (1890-1900) (USN advantage; Germans could not cross the Atlantic absent tenders, towing, etc.)
Gunboats (1880-1900) (It's a wash, considering the German colonial ships and the ocean-going USN and USRCS vessels)
older ships (1860s-1870s); (the Germans have an advantage here, since they were building iron-hulled vessels in this period, while the US was building wood or composite hulls; having said that, none of these vessels are particularly effective in 1900).

One other point, with regards to the "5,000 German troops raid Long Island" concept (putting aside the availability of transports and landing craft); the NYNG alone numbered more than 14,000 men in 1900, and 3/5ths of those men were in units headquarted in NYC (including Brooklyn), so call it 8-9,000 troops, within a few hours (by rail) of the entire island, and another 5-6,000 within a day's travel by rail...

The OOB amounted to five light brigades, three in NYC , one in Albary, and one in Buffalo(each with 2-3 battalions of infantry and a battery with 3 inch field pieces, plus machine guns; division level troops included a full regiment of coast artillery (in NYC), a cavalry squadron, and signals and service units. Senior officers, including the C-in-C, were veterans, of the SA War and the Civil War.

And for what its worth, in 1898, when the NYPD was created from the previous independent city departments (NY, Brooklyn, etc.) the total of armed officers was more than 6,000.

And the c-in-c of the NYNG in 1900 had some significant ties to the NYPD, FWIW.

500px-R23.jpg



Best,

OK, the German force is even more screwed than I thought. With the USN at or near part to the German one and a regiment of coast artillery even if they somehow land they aren't going home for sure.
 
Kaiserliche Marine vs U.S. Navy

PA - With respect, what is your opinion on the naval balance in 1900 based on?

In 1900, the USN was significantly larger in total tonnage than the German navy, and the number of modern ships (commissioned 1880-1900) was almost the same (the US ships tended to be larger); here's a basic breakdown - tonnage figures are from Kennedy, ship types are from various sources, but include everything significant I could find that commissioned before 1901:

Admittedly posted on the other thread and not on this one, but:

Point taken. For Germany, then, probably the late 1900s or the 1910s rather than the 1890s.

The Anglo-German naval arms race changed things. The USA was not a participant in this race (or at least, not a participant to the extent that Germany and the United Kingdom were—commissioning 10 dreadnoughts commissioned by 1914 isn't what I'd call "relaxed", however obviously true it is that the United States could have built more).

Of course, this raises an objection that I usually raise in other contexts, which is that if there were sufficient tension between Germany and the United States that a war was imminent the United States would not just act exactly as it did IOTL but rather would react and take the countermeasure of increasing its own naval strength… but supposing that somehow a war broke out with naval strength roughly as it was IOTL, the Kaiserliche Marine reached ahead of the US Navy. To be more precise, if we are talking in terms of launched dreadnoughts:

Month of launch Year of launch (USS/SMS Name-of-DN): [no. of Ger. DNs]-[no. of U.S. DNs]
March 1908 (SMS Nassau): 1-0
May 1908 (USS Michigan): 1-1
July 1908 (USS South Carolina + SMS Westfalen): 2-2
September 1908 (SMS Rheinland): 3-2
December 1908 (SMS Posen): 4-2
February 1909 (USS Delaware): 4-3
September 1909 (SMS Helgoland + SMS Ostfriesland): 6-3
November 1909 (USS North Dakota + SMS Thüringen): 7-4
December 1909 (USS Utah): 7-5
May 1910 (USS Florida): 7-6
June 1910 (SMS Oldenburg): 8-6
January 1911 (USS Arkansas): 8-7
March 1911 (SMS Kaiser): 9-7
May 1911 (USS Wyoming): 9-8
June 1911 (SMS Friedrich der Große): 10-8
November 1911 (SMS Kaiserin): 11-8
February 1912 (SMS Prinzregent Luitpold): 12-8
April 1912 (SMS König Albert): 13-8
May 1912 (USS Texas): 13-9
October 1912 (USS New York): 13-10
March 1913 (SMS König): 14-10
May 1913 (SMS Großer Kurfürst): 15-10
June 1913 (SMS Markgraf): 16-10
February 1914 (SMS Kronprinz): 17-10
March 1914 (USS Oklahoma): 17-11
July 1914 (USS Nevada): 17-12

Obviously this is disregarding the differences between dreadnoughts (differing armament, armour et cetera) but it is a fairly simplistic, 20-minutes'-work measure. Were I to be more proper I would also show what happened with pre-dreadnought battleships before 1909, where Germany had the Second Naval Law to spur on construction.

But just judging by this data, the trend is clear. Germany was consistently ahead since September 1908 and consistently greatly ahead since November 1911.
 
Admittedly posted on the other thread and not on this one, but:



The Anglo-German naval arms race changed things. The USA was not a participant in this race (or at least, not a participant to the extent that Germany and the United Kingdom were—commissioning 10 dreadnoughts commissioned by 1914 isn't what I'd call "relaxed", however obviously true it is that the United States could have built more).

Of course, this raises an objection that I usually raise in other contexts, which is that if there were sufficient tension between Germany and the United States that a war was imminent the United States would not just act exactly as it did IOTL but rather would react and take the countermeasure of increasing its own naval strength… but supposing that somehow a war broke out with naval strength roughly as it was IOTL, the Kaiserliche Marine reached ahead of the US Navy. To be more precise, if we are talking in terms of launched dreadnoughts:

Month of launch Year of launch (USS/SMS Name-of-DN): [no. of Ger. DNs]-[no. of U.S. DNs]
March 1908 (SMS Nassau): 1-0
May 1908 (USS Michigan): 1-1
July 1908 (USS South Carolina + SMS Westfalen): 2-2
September 1908 (SMS Rheinland): 3-2
December 1908 (SMS Posen): 4-2
February 1909 (USS Delaware): 4-3
September 1909 (SMS Helgoland + SMS Ostfriesland): 6-3
November 1909 (USS North Dakota + SMS Thüringen): 7-4
December 1909 (USS Utah): 7-5
May 1910 (USS Florida): 7-6
June 1910 (SMS Oldenburg): 8-6
January 1911 (USS Arkansas): 8-7
March 1911 (SMS Kaiser): 9-7
May 1911 (USS Wyoming): 9-8
June 1911 (SMS Friedrich der Große): 10-8
November 1911 (SMS Kaiserin): 11-8
February 1912 (SMS Prinzregent Luitpold): 12-8
April 1912 (SMS König Albert): 13-8
May 1912 (USS Texas): 13-9
October 1912 (USS New York): 13-10
March 1913 (SMS König): 14-10
May 1913 (SMS Großer Kurfürst): 15-10
June 1913 (SMS Markgraf): 16-10
February 1914 (SMS Kronprinz): 17-10
March 1914 (USS Oklahoma): 17-11
July 1914 (USS Nevada): 17-12

Obviously this is disregarding the differences between dreadnoughts (differing armament, armour et cetera) but it is a fairly simplistic, 20-minutes'-work measure. Were I to be more proper I would also show what happened with pre-dreadnought battleships before 1909, where Germany had the Second Naval Law to spur on construction.

But just judging by this data, the trend is clear. Germany was consistently ahead since September 1908 and consistently greatly ahead since November 1911.

Still the US is 3,000 miles away from Germany which means it will take far longer for Germany to get its ships to New York Harbor than it would take the US. Also that would mean the Germans would have to take a high percentage of their fleet and sail all the way to America and trust that the RN and the French Navy don't take the opportunity to cause havoc. If either using the or both decide this is the time to settle their problems with Germany by using the unprovoked attack on the US as a justification for war it is in a hell of a lot of trouble. It can do little to stop the Brits and French from sinking the rest of their navy and bombarding their ports. Meanwhile the US will be out for blood. It can't land troops in Germany but it sure as Hell can ship troops to France within a few months like in WWI.
 
If either using the or both decide this is the time to settle their problems with Germany by using the unprovoked attack on the US as a justification for war it is in a hell of a lot of trouble. It can do little to stop the Brits and French from sinking the rest of their navy and bombarding their ports. Meanwhile the US will be out for blood. It can't land troops in Germany but it sure as Hell can ship troops to France within a few months like in WWI.

How do you come to the coclusion that this was an unprovoked attack on the US????

Why should France allow the US to use its soil as stagingground for an invasion? - Bet the Brits soon might come to the conclusion to support the Germans to keep the balance of power intact.

Contrary to popular believe its not automatically all vs Germany (and pals)
 
How do you come to the coclusion that this was an unprovoked attack on the US????

Why should France allow the US to use its soil as stagingground for an invasion? - Bet the Brits soon might come to the conclusion to support the Germans to keep the balance of power intact.

Contrary to popular believe its not automatically all vs Germany (and pals)

Because of the fact short of invading Germany itself there would be little that I can think of that would justify invading the US mainland. At this time the various European powers did not invade each other over remote colonies, they fought in the colonies themselves.

The French were worried about the rise of Germany during this time period. It had been worried about it since the Franco-Prussian War. The French and the British didn't become allies for no reason. My guess is that it would start WWI about a decade early with a weaker Germany and the US being against Germany from the start, which is really bad for Germany.

Of course it isn't a sure thing which is why I said IF. If I were part of the German Foreign Office or the German High Command I wouldn't rule that possibility out by any means.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Even in 1910, after the Anglo-German building race

Even in 1910, after the Anglo-German building race was well and truly rolling, the tonnage differential (historically) was still pretty close.

GE - 964,000
US - 824,000

The other worth keeping in mind is what each side was building; in the event of a German attempt at intervention (somewhere) in the Western Hemisphere, the 1910 equivalent of the HSF will not be deploying - most of the German torpedo craft (surface and submarine) of 1910 are not designed for an Atlantic crossing, for example.

Whereas the (US) Atlantic Fleet will be a balanced force, from dreadnoughts to cruisers to destroyers to submarines...

Best,
 
And what the Germans were planning was a raid, not a prolonged invasion to conquer and hold U.S. continental territory. Strawmen are fun, aren't they?

I was responding to someone who said:

"They wanted to occupy Manhattan..."

Anything the Germans could do in Manhattan that could even be considered 'occupation' under the loosest sense of the word would be impossible with 5,000 men. 5,000 soldiers couldn't control an unarmed riot by a fraction of Manhattans population in this time period, let alone engage in anything that could be meaningfully called 'occupation'. When I say the best they could do is raid I mean they could get in, damage whatever is within reach, and get out without stopping over the course of a few hours at most, or else all the German soldiers are dead or captured.

They would indeed be able to do that, as nobody disputes. What people including myself are disputing is this absurd, ridiculous idea that American civilians are going to single-handedly throw out the Germans so quickly that American military forces won't have even arrived by the time American victory is achieved.

Well, as TFSmith has done a good job demonstrating, American military forces aren't going to have a time where they haven't 'even arrived'. When the Germans begin their raid there are already New York National Guard troops in New York City. And, in Manhattan itself, civilian assaults are going to be debilitating through sheer force of numbers. Manhattan had a population in the 2 million range in this era. A German raid on Manhattan risks sparking a riot that even the domestic authorities are going to have trouble with, let alone a relatively tiny number of Germans.

The idea of 5,000 Germans being able to accomplish much of anything in NEW YORK CITY in the early 1900's is almost as fantastic as the idea of 5,000 Germans being able to occupy New York City in the early 1900's. Between civilians taking up arms, the police department, and the local National Guard units they are so incredibly, hopelessly outnumbered that they would be saving themselves a whole lot of time and effort to just put their own pistols in their mouths and pull the triggers. It would have the same end result and fewer people would get hurt.

…Who was talking about Germany going into 'full scale reprisal mode' against partisans? No-one.

What I was saying was that any American civilian who's probably never fired a gun in anger who, while panicked and terrified while the sound of shelling is in the air, shoots at a German soldier is likely to miss, be noticed by the sound of the gun and then be shot.

Which is likely to endanger everyone near him, too.

And like I said, even a few dozen dead civilians in general, armed and attacking the Germans or not, is going to be one hell of a causus belli to the American population. What MIGHT, MIGHT have been possible to keep as a limited colonial war becomes a total war very quickly. Notice the US hasn't fought a non-total war where civilian casualties happened on the American mainland since 1812.

How do you think the French government would react if the Germans raided along the Siene and killed a couple dozen Frenchmen? It would be total war before the Germans could say, 'Shieze!'\
 

TFSmith121

Banned
And realize, the CA regiment I referenced is NYAG

OK, the German force is even more screwed than I thought. With the USN at or near part to the German one and a regiment of coast artillery even if they somehow land they aren't going home for sure.

They would provide personnel to supplement the RA Coast Artillery units in the New York Defenses, as well, which - my count is from the source below - in 1900 had a total of 16 12 inch guns, 32 12 inch mortars, 20 10 inch guns, and 9 8 inch guns, plus numerous smaller caliber weapons I didn't bother to count.

http://cdsg.org/old/matlan.htm

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
This is the Commanding General of the NYNG in 1900

Maj. Gen. Charles F. Roe, NYNG; graduate of West Point (class of 1868), veteran of 20 years in the RA, and saw action in the Plains Wars, including the campaign against the Sioux in the 1870s (after Little Big Horn); by 1900, he had a decade of service in the NYNG, rising from captain (he organized Squadron A, New York Cavalry, which exists today as a troop of the 101st Cavalry) to brigadier general (including active service during the SA War, at one point commanding a force of 30,000 men undergoing training in the US); he was apppointed CG and major general by TR, who presumably was a pretty good judge of soldiers by then...

You can find his obit in the NYT, here:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0F14FC345A1B7A93C0A91789D95F468285F9

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yes, it seems pretty ridiculous

I mean, consider the alternative - the US attacks Hamburg in 1900 with 5,000 regulars and marines and the Atlantic Fleet?

It's about as likely.

Best,
 
Top