Plausibility check: War Plan Orange-Red 1941

[NinjaCarrot]

Okay so the deal is this: I have a timeline centred around The Second Great War, roughly from 1942-1948 or 1940-1948. POD is in The Great War, which Germany won through Spring Offensive in 1918 and America never participated in. This led to decent German-American relations, maintained British-Japanese alliance, much worse British-American relations, and somewhat militarily weaker US. Pearl Harbour will happen, as OTL, though the time may change. America's buddy Germany is either in a war or at odds with fascist Novaroma pact, and Churchill (not in power but still important) is close with its leader Charles de Gaulle. Well, no doubt America will attack Japan, but would this give enough reason for them to enact War Plan Red and take on Canada, bringing Britain into the war?

And as a followup, does Canada stand a chance to hold USA off long enough for Commonwealth to support them? I find the IOTL Canadian plan of flanking American formations and attacking straight into big cities and then retreating to cause chaos and disrupt American strategy... intriguing.

As a second followup, if this is completely ASB territory, is there any other way to open up an American front?

 

[hipper]

Okay so the deal is this: I have a timeline centred around The Second Great War, roughly from 1942-1948 or 1940-1948. POD is in The Great War, which Germany won through Spring Offensive in 1918 and America never participated in. This led to decent German-American relations, maintained British-Japanese alliance, much worse British-American relations, and somewhat militarily weaker US. Pearl Harbour will happen, as OTL, though the time may change. America's buddy Germany is either in a war or at odds with fascist Novaroma pact, and Churchill (not in power but still important) is close with its leader Charles de Gaulle. Well, no doubt America will attack Japan, but would this give enough reason for them to enact War Plan Red and take on Canada, bringing Britain into the war?

And as a followup, does Canada stand a chance to hold USA off long enough for Commonwealth to support them? I find the IOTL Canadian plan of flanking American formations and attacking straight into big cities and then retreating to cause chaos and disrupt American strategy... intriguing.

As a second followup, if this is completely ASB territory, is there any other way to open up an American front?

What's Japan's motivation for attacking America ?

 

[trurle]

I tend to agree with hipper. Without strongly dominating US, US-Japan trade relations are unlikely to deteriorate to the point enabling the attack on Pearl Harbour. IOTL, Japan attacked only after the diplomatic talks to avoid a full trade embargo have failed.

As about Canada-US fight, i tried this simulated battle in map wargame in June 1941. Fighting for Canada. I was able to hold off US onslaught for 1 month, but afterwards the situation in Great Lakes region was out of control. Too many incoming US reserves, too shallow Canadian communication lines..the US pushed Canadian forces off lake coasts in several points, besieged Toronto and Montreal, and i surrendered.

As about going straight to US cities, i did it. Even captured and razed Minneapolis. It did not helped the Canada in the long term though.

 

[Saphroneth]

If the US has not undergone a preparatory mobilization and training, their army is too small to realistically have an impact on the Canadians (with reinforcements coming from the British Empire) for several months. The British Army may be small without work-up and training, but they do have places they garrison with reasonable force in peacetime.

If one side has done a preparatory training programme then they win the land war. (e.g. if the US has done a Selective Service Act and the British are at peacetime, then the US flattens the enemy.)

If both sides have done a preparatory training programme of roughly the same scale, then what it comes down to is basically if the US troop quality is high enough to overcome the British greater skill. (I don't think it's controversial that the British had more experience from WW1 OTL, or that the US needed time to build up their force.)

Hopefully this makes sense as a broad-strokes matter.

 

[trurle]

If the US has not undergone a preparatory mobilization and training, their army is too small to realistically have an impact on the Canadians (with reinforcements coming from the British Empire) for several months. The British Army may be small without work-up and training, but they do have places they garrison with reasonable force in peacetime.

If one side has done a preparatory training programme then they win the land war. (e.g. if the US has done a Selective Service Act and the British are at peacetime, then the US flattens the enemy.)

If both sides have done a preparatory training programme of roughly the same scale, then what it comes down to is basically if the US troop quality is high enough to overcome the British greater skill. (I don't think it's controversial that the British had more experience from WW1 OTL, or that the US needed time to build up their force.)

Hopefully this makes sense as a broad-strokes matter.

The reliable reinforcements from British are unlikely. US had the total air superiority as the Royal Canadian Air Forces were in the organization and training phase in middle 1941, airfields were too close to US territory, and all the logistically convenient Canadian ports (besides Moose Factory) were in artillery range from US-held territory. In my wargame, were was serious air battle over Moose Factory, but RCAF was unable to protect adequately even disembarking reinforcements in the port, not talking about forces en route. Got several hundreds thousands of British troops killed before landing. Quebec at time did not had a logistical capability to transport a large forces to the Canadian heartland.

 

[Saphroneth]

The reliable reinforcements from British are unlikely. US had the total air superiority as the Royal Canadian Air Forces were in the organization and training phase in middle 1941, airfields were too close to US territory, and all the logistically convenient Canadian ports (besides Moose Factory) were in artillery range from US-held territory. In my wargame, were was serious air battle over Moose Factory, but RCAF was unable to protect adequately even disembarking reinforcements in the port, not talking about forces en route. Got several hundreds thousands of British troops killed before landing. Quebec at time did not had a logistical capability to transport a large forces to the Canadian heartland.

How on earth do you have several hundred thousand British troops killed before landing? What were the US bombers using?

Anyway, that seriously implies that you're having the Canadians (and British) doing their OTL buildup and shipping of aircraft to Britain to fight the Germans. While possible-ish, as a point of comparison, I'm not sure that the USAAF had enough aircraft in trained-up squadron service to completely dominate Canadian air space in mid-1941 - my feeling is that if they did then they'd have been able to transplant the 8th Air Force to Britain considerably earlier than it was done OTL, for example.

 

[NinjaCarrot]

What's Japan's motivation for attacking America ?

I don't see how the American presence in the Pacific would change even if they never built tanks and raised troops for a war in Europe. Likewise Japan will still try to isolate China and take on Southeast Asia. If they believe that USA is still opposing those goals, they'll attack. And also, it's not like Imperial Japan was too rational.

Also, from the responses here I believe there's a decent chance for Canadians hold back long enough if Americans haven't mobilized in advance, but the first question remains open: Would USA attack Canada and declare war on Britain in these circumstances in the first place?

 

[trurle]

How on earth do you have several hundred thousand British troops killed before landing? What were the US bombers using?

Anyway, that seriously implies that you're having the Canadians (and British) doing their OTL buildup and shipping of aircraft to Britain to fight the Germans. While possible-ish, as a point of comparison, I'm not sure that the USAAF had enough aircraft in trained-up squadron service to completely dominate Canadian air space in mid-1941 - my feeling is that if they did then they'd have been able to transplant the 8th Air Force to Britain considerably earlier than it was done OTL, for example.

My adversary used with terrible effect the PBY Catalina flying boats and sometimes B-10 bombers for strikes against British shipping. Also, at shorter ranges a mixture a various fighter-bombers was pretty much devastating. At later stages of wargame (end of July), newly assembled B-17D have also started to take their toll.
As about historical settings, wargame used exactly OTL settings for troops disposition on 22 June 1941. Therefore, in this ATL the Canada would be more militarized, although i doubt much changes are possible. Middle 1941 was the time in Canada to build military infrastructure, not yet to ramp-up the the actual army or air forces size.

 

[trurle]

I don't see how the American presence in the Pacific would change even if they never built tanks and raised troops for a war in Europe. Likewise Japan will still try to isolate China and take on Southeast Asia. If they believe that USA is still opposing those goals, they'll attack. And also, it's not like Imperial Japan was too rational.

Also, from the responses here I believe there's a decent chance for Canadians hold back long enough if Americans haven't mobilized in advance, but the first question remains open: Would USA attack Canada and declare war on Britain in these circumstances in the first place?

The myth of Japanese irrationality is the purely US propaganda intended to cover-up the OTL US diplomatic failure. Japanese weighted their options and made a decision to attack US+British+Dutch after been deprived of all other survival options. Basically, US diplomats believed the Japan is too dependent on US-supplied raw materials to attack. The Japanese on the other hand, faced with imminent US trade embargo, searched for alternative supply sources, and identified the weakness of the Dutch East Indies and Singapore defences.

Overall, US have overlooked the available Japanese option. On the other hand, Japanese under-estimated the US determination. The sad story about consequences of brinkmanship in diplomacy.

As about invasion of US to Canada, such decision is extremely unlikely. US would be severely politically isolated if making a such decision (although military victory for US in the long term is still expected - especially with greater Germany as potential US ally).
Also, i should note what in the event of the US-British conflict, the large-scale participation of Japan on the British side is nearly impossible. Japanese already had more problems in China than they can handle by late 1939, and if any even limited support (in terms of at least oil supply) can be maintained, they would never attack US (except for may be token actions like interning part of US shipping in Japanese ports if heavily pressured by losing British)

 

[NinjaCarrot]

I'd call invading China quite irrational already. A military operation the size of Barbarossa by area alone, but with much more people targeted and invading across a sea... And then starting loads of other wars to help the war in China. They were good at overextending

 

[Poach]

Why Japan attacks is crucial to the British response and the Americans would know it. There wouldn't be an embargo because British and Dutch sources would likely still be available to Japan, so they wouldn't feel pushed into a war of aggression to seize what they needed.

If Japan's motives are ridiculous then the UK wouldn't back them, because the UK would recognise that Canada would be very difficult to defend and the US' industrial might would be difficult to compete with. There would need to be a set of circumstances in which the UK felt Japan was justified in attacking or that Japan was the victim.

If the US was in such a position (rising tensions with Japan where a war looked probable) I think they'd be making preparations and Canada would fall fairly quickly. If Japan attacked out of the blue (thus the US is unprepared) I'm not sure the UK would back them anyway.

 

[NinjaCarrot]

If the US was in such a position (rising tensions with Japan where a war looked probable) I think they'd be making preparations and Canada would fall fairly quickly. If Japan attacked out of the blue (thus the US is unprepared) I'm not sure the UK would back them anyway.

What if Japan attacks out of the blue as OTL, but USA also declares war on UK because of the alliance? This way UK isn't backing up anyone but Canada.

 

[Saphroneth]

My adversary used with terrible effect the PBY Catalina flying boats and sometimes B-10 bombers for strikes against British shipping. Also, at shorter ranges a mixture a various fighter-bombers was pretty much devastating. At later stages of wargame (end of July), newly assembled B-17D have also started to take their toll.
As about historical settings, wargame used exactly OTL settings for troops disposition on 22 June 1941.

I remain unconvinced that completely inexperienced (as in, never used in combat) Catalinas or B-10s could be very effective. B-17s too - high altitude bombing was dreadful at sinking ships - and fighter bombers are not really a thing yet in 1941. (IIRC it took another year or two.)

And if the wargame used exact OTL settings then it's interesting, but not especially relevant for the actual question of the OP. See, with the US never getting involved in WW1 it's basing everything off the Spanish-American War... we'd be talking the kind of army which saw trench warfare tactics as dangerously defeatist.

 

[trurle]

I'd call invading China quite irrational already. A military operation the size of Barbarossa by area alone, but with much more people targeted and invading across a sea... And then starting loads of other wars to help the war in China. They were good at overextending

Yes, the problem is what invasion to China was not exactly a decision. It was an adventure by some high-ranking (and in times, even low-ranking) Japanese individuals. The political faction (kodoha, or "Imperial Way Faction") supporting such individuals reached the peak of their political power in early 1936 (although never was a dominating power), and progressively lost the power and influence following 26 February incident, Marco Polo Bridge incident, subsequent military quagmire in China and finally Nomonhan incident (Battle of Khalhin Gol). By late 1939, Japan has evolved to be relatively controllable and rational state. The process of political transition was never as abrupt as typical for western powers though; The Japanese custom of searching compromise between all parties, instead of completely purging a losing party, coupled with inflexible age-based promotion system and the tendency to cover-up failures is to blame. On tactical level, most notable is Mutaguchi`s adventure in India (Operation U-Go or Battle of Imphal) in 1943. Also, the contradiction between military discipline and the need to organize multiple-redundant channels to transfer tactical information horizontally and vertically through army hierarchy was adequately solved only in late 1944. Early attempts to tightly control the Army were done by strictly limiting the number of possible decision channels, and had a number of nasty side effects. Most typical side effect was breakdown of command chain after sudden change of commanders due combat losses. Fighting on Mindanao was the worst example.

Over-extension issues of Japanese Pacific Campaign of 1941-1942 were well known and well handled. The Japanese defeats have started during attrition phase, not during the phase of initial expansion, as typical for over-extension failure. The Japanese were able to supply their initial offensive, capturing over 95% of pre-planned territory.

The rationality of the Japanese decision to engage in war with US: you should understand what Japanese did the war declaration decision based on very limited options left for them by political rivals, therefore their best possible solution have included some "wishful thinking" about the political decisions by adversaries. Error of such sort is obvious in retrospective and from US, but was difficult to detect in Japan of 1941. The Japanese original plan was to capture regions critical for short-term survival (just because joint US/British embargo IOTL brought them to the brink of collapse by 1941) and then to re-engage into negotiations with all major powers. Unfortunately for Japanese, the negotiators have failed to appear until 1945.

 

[HMS Warspite]

Okay so the deal is this: I have a timeline centred around The Second Great War, roughly from 1942-1948 or 1940-1948. POD is in The Great War, which Germany won through Spring Offensive in 1918 and America never participated in. This led to decent German-American relations, maintained British-Japanese alliance, much worse British-American relations, and somewhat militarily weaker US. Pearl Harbour will happen, as OTL, though the time may change. America's buddy Germany is either in a war or at odds with fascist Novaroma pact, and Churchill (not in power but still important) is close with its leader Charles de Gaulle. Well, no doubt America will attack Japan, but would this give enough reason for them to enact War Plan Red and take on Canada, bringing Britain into the war?

And as a followup, does Canada stand a chance to hold USA off long enough for Commonwealth to support them? I find the IOTL Canadian plan of flanking American formations and attacking straight into big cities and then retreating to cause chaos and disrupt American strategy... intriguing.

As a second followup, if this is completely ASB territory, is there any other way to open up an American front?

Something else that wonders me, Where does Charles de Gaulle come in this story? There was no war in France as suggested. so it seemed quite unlikely that colonel De Gaulle in this ITTL can suddenly come into play from out of nowhere. His OTL influence was a direct result of the dissaster of the surrender of France and the creation of the Free French movement. Without these, De Gaulle would not likely have had the support of the OTL.

 

[trurle]

I remain unconvinced that completely inexperienced (as in, never used in combat) Catalinas or B-10s could be very effective. B-17s too - high altitude bombing was dreadful at sinking ships - and fighter bombers are not really a thing yet in 1941. (IIRC it took another year or two.)

And if the wargame used exact OTL settings then it's interesting, but not especially relevant for the actual question of the OP. See, with the US never getting involved in WW1 it's basing everything off the Spanish-American War... we'd be talking the kind of army which saw trench warfare tactics as dangerously defeatist.

Yes, the questions of US bombing efficiency has several problems during the wargame. I personally insisted what bombing efficiency should be reduced by factor of 4, but wargame master decided against it. May be with reduced bombing efficiency, Canada would hold out a month or two longer, although i doubt the final result will change much. US had approximately 3-times advantage over British Commonwealth in total war-making potential, so perspectives for Canada were bleak regardless of initial ratio of the strengths anyway. Also, with less US experienced officers in this ATL..may add some more weeks to Canadian resistance. Experience is gained during actual war in the timescale of few months anyway.

 

[Saphroneth]

Total warmaking potential is a bit of a tricky metric. It absolutely helps determine who wins, but it also doesn't act as a panacea - if you can neutralize the enemy with your existing forces before they can actually work up, then warmaking potential avails you little.
Just look at France in WW2, which was significantly outproducing Germany in tanks and aircraft but which wasn't able to harness that advantage before the Germans destroyed their army. Similarly in a War Plan Red-Orange Scenario, the US has at most 900,000 men in training total and a very small army (~450,000 counting national guard) when the balloon goes up (for the crisis) and that in turn means the British Army of the same time - 1.65 million British Army alone in 1940 - can significantly outnumber them, in fact can outnumber them in trained manpower roughly three to one and with significantly more experience.
This doesn't mean an instant win, of course, you need to ship the army over (logistic bottlenecks) and so on. But it also means that the US needs quite a lot of time simply to get itself mobilized, and invading Canada is simply not a thing you can do in a rush when the US Army is spread out from Maine to the Philippines.

 

[NinjaCarrot]

Something else that wonders me, Where does Charles de Gaulle come in this story? There was no war in France as suggested. so it seemed quite unlikely that colonel De Gaulle in this ITTL can suddenly come into play from out of nowhere. His OTL influence was a direct result of the dissaster of the surrender of France and the creation of the Free French movement. Without these, De Gaulle would not likely have had the support of the OTL.

De Gaulle is the French Hitler as for now, though I might change it. But that's not very relevant here, point is that Britain is close with fascists whereas USA is close with Kaiser, though neither of them have any alliances, and Britain and Japan do have an alliance.

 

[HMS Warspite]

De Gaulle is the French Hitler as for now, though I might change it. But that's not very relevant here, point is that Britain is close with fascists whereas USA is close with Kaiser, though neither of them have any alliances, and Britain and Japan do have an alliance.

Good suggestion though questionable. Given the Great War result, it was more likely the UK would move somewhat more toward Germanyy, rather than France, given the needs for both to have acces to foreign markets for their economies, both in real OTL as in ITTL. France was more likely to be opposed to both Germany, no matter who was ruling there, as well as the UK which still was a serious compeditor in Imperialistic means. The USA on the other hand was more likely to go its own way, or something like that, possibly seeking contact with on a limmited scale only with other "outcast" states, like the USSR, if it still existed in this timeframe. The USA did not realy want, nor need foreign friends in the thinking of Domestic US Politics, which always was a split in the greater US Politics.

Besides that, the Anglo-Japanese alliance was dying already in the Great War, mostly due to Imperial Japanese ambittion, so it was questionable it was continued post Great War. Japan was self confident and thought it was its natural right to dominate East Asia at the expense of European and American colonial influences, including the UK.

 

[Saphroneth]

Besides that, the Anglo-Japanese alliance was dying already in the Great War, mostly due to Imperial Japanese ambittion, so it was questionable it was continued post Great War. Japan was self confident and thought it was its natural right to dominate East Asia at the expense of European and American colonial influences, including the UK.

My understanding was that it was American pressure which led to the termination of the alliance in the early-mid 1920s.