TL-191: Filling the Gaps

I agree about Ireland I don't think either the Germany or US would build bases. I was think rights by the US Navy to refuel or something like that. Irelands status at the start of the war is interesting. Do you think Ireland would try to remain neutral or do you think that at the outbreak of another Great War Ireland considers itself a prime target and joins in Germany and the US. I imagine Ireland immediately mobilizes what defenses it has, but before it declares war Britain attacks.

I figured that the invasion of Ireland would have been a necessary strategic-political goal of the Silvershirt-Conservative alliance. The failed uprising by the Ulstermen in the early 20s would probably have rankled the old Imperialists and the British people would want to help their fellow Protestants I think. I figure that right at the start of the war Britain would attack them in order to both fulfill their idea of revanchism and to nip a potential hostile base on their shores in the bud right off the bat.

I agree that the Royal Navy is stronger than the German Navy post FGW. However from Craigo, the has the British government replaced by a Socialist government, which experiences a massive credit/financial crises. As a result I think like the US and German Fleet, the Royal Navy will shrink post-war. I think also the British will spend the immediate aftermath of the war trying keep the empire together. I imagine there are uprisings in India and South Africa to deal with.

Hmm possibly. I don't think even a Socialist government could justify slashing the budget on the RN though, even in peace time. They might delay the scrapping of older ships and builds of new ones, but I feel that politically in a lost war scenario that would be suicide. They might well slash the army and air force budget, but the RN would be a huge political football. I can see it not expanding substantially, but I can't see them falling behind in carrier hulls especially once Remembrance gets built.

There's probably revolts in some colonies, but I have trouble seeing a major revolt in India take place since that would probably sap all of Britains energy trying to put down.

One of the big issues I have been thinking about in writing my Henry Cabot Lodge and the Kaiser Articles is when does the post war US-German imposed order begin to collapse? When will Britain begin to challenge the US and Germany. I personally think it is around 1924, that any hopes of the US and German dominating the international system as a partnership ends. Try 1924 the isolationist Upton Sinclair is in the Powell House, the Canadian uprising has begun, the Conservatives have returned to power in Britain and Hindenburg is a year into his chancellorship. All these things mean the US-German partnership is dead. I think the Canadian Uprising is the first real attempt by the British to test the new international order.

Sound reasoning I would say.

That is exactly what I was thinking. The Germans try to Break out of the North Sea and wind up losing one or both carriers. I had an idea that the Germans win an early success, during the British invasion of Norway. A kind of reverse Battle of Narvick.

In the Settling Accounts their is a big naval battle in the North Sea, the BBC claims they win and the German Imperial Wireless doesn't dispute it. The Royal Navy then gets bold and moves into the North Atlantic and is defeated by the US Navy, which allows the US to recapture Bermuda.

I like the thought there. I pictured this "Battle of the North Sea" as a sort of Ten-Go for the HSF where they optimistically sortie against the British fleet, expecting a big gun battle of old, only to be savaged by carrier planes and land based torpedo bombers. The HSF, completely unskilled in carrier warfare get their butts kicked and lose a substantial portion of the fleet, enough that the RN can move its resources to the North Atlantic, only to be beaten by the USN in a decisively Midway style battle which sends the RN back to port, and only able to box the HSF in and protect the Channel.
 
I figured that the invasion of Ireland would have been a necessary strategic-political goal of the Silvershirt-Conservative alliance.

I agree that a Reconquest of Ireland would be high on any To-do List composed by the "King's Men" but I tend to believe that they would prefer to ensure that Germany was quite thoroughly beaten before turning against Ireland; my guess is that the European Entente would have preferred to keep the United States nice and quiet on the other side of the Atlantic while they savaged Germany, which likely means that the British would (at least initially) have honoured Irish Neutrality for the sake of avoiding a Two-Front War.

That being said the British Empire was more likely waiting for an opportune moment and I doubt there was very much reluctance on the part of Whitehall (especially in the heart of Winston Spencer Churchill) to assault the Irish Republic once President Featherston launched his attack on the United States with so great a degree of unanticipated success.


So far as the "Battle of the North Sea" goes, I do tend to agree that it was likely a battle won by some thoroughly adept aerial warfare on the part of the British; I would suggest that this German sortie was prompted by a mistaken belief that there were fewer British carriers in the area than was in fact the case (my guess would be that commitments in the Atlantic - duelling the Americans - and in the Pacific, helping keep the Japanese honest, would leave British carriers in high demand).

If I had to guess German confidence was likely bolstered by a significant success against the Royal Navy during the Entente assault on Norway (probably rendered brief & bloody by successful interdiction of Anglo-French transport ships), which probably occurred before the Big Naval Battle in 1942; assuming that this attack was launched in support of the German offensives that drove the Anglo-Belgian forces out of Germany, one might suggest calling this Big Naval Battle "The Battle of the Jade" or the "Battle of the Frisian Islands" (indicating an attempt by the High Seas Fleet to drive the RN away from the Dutch-German coast).


Having given a little thought to the European Entente, I would like to suggest that the French Armed Forces were of somewhat uneven quality - either matchless or fatally flawed, depending on the precise formation - with many Frenchmen somewhat reluctant to embrace Royalism and Ultramonte Catholicism after over a century of Republican thought, with others more inclined to nurse hideous doubts about the Revanchist line of thought after the slaughter & shameful defeat of the Third Republic during the Great War, whereas yet others were whipped to a near-frenzied zealotry by the memories of such dishonour aggravated by indoctrination (with the Maison du Roi, the King's Military Household earning a particularly ferocious reputation).

I can definitely imagine a great deal of harking back to the first Napoleon - lightning fast formations, a certain indifference to the property rights of civilians, a habit of hunting for enemy weak points etc.


I tend to imagine that the French and the British seldom see eye-to-eye during the Second Great War (ancestral memories of past rivalry being exacerbated by recollections of French Mutinies during the Great War); "Two Allies divided by a common cause" as Mr Churchill might put it, doubtless brooding on the fact that History repeats itself as Marlborough's descendent must give aid to an Absolutist French Monarchy long unmourned (the Old Duke having soldiered on behalf of Louis XIV before playing such a key role in wrecking his ambitions).

My guess is that the Empire would be eager to play "Perfidious Albion" in time-honoured fashion, intending to let Continental Powers foot the butcher's bill for the Land War, while focussing on a Naval campaign (and presumably on Aerial Warfare), while descending upon & hopefully snapping up any far-flung Enemy territories - I'd bet that Mr Churchill would also make a point of sponsoring Rebel Groups in the Dual Monarchy until those partizans were able to wreck havoc on Austria-Hungary (though doubtless Germany would still wrest any divisions required from the Habsburg Empire as needed).

I tend to see the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force as very sharp, but the British Army as somewhat neglected - the British average is slightly better than the French, but so far as the Army is concerned the Best of France is better than the Best of British. I'd bet that a formation of Belgian exiles-in-arms (the "Royal Belgic Legion" or the "Belgian Legion" perhaps?) would be used as the cadre around which a Belgian Army intended to bolster British Land Forces could be assembled - my guess is that the Anglo-Belgian and French War Efforts were often in parallel but not always in closer co-operation.


So far as the
Russians are concerned, I tend to see the Tsar's Legions as battle-hardened but war-weary; they've been fighting a long time but are being obliged to fight on against a new opponent (probably so that the Tsar does not lose the Military backing that has kept him on the Throne when he is obliged to disband his divisions at the onset of a prolonged Peace). This would be a fairly old-fashioned army, but not archaic to the point of uselessness.

I have a feeling that the Tsar is fighting this War in a bid to cement the Loyalty of his subjects, attempting to rally them against a Foreign Enemy in the name of a Pan-Slavic cause partly because he needs Victories to overawe the doubters but also because he is almost certainly in hock to the British and the French for the resources required to keep his Army up to snuff. Given all that Mister B has suggested a fairly close Sino-Northern relationship, it seems likely that the Kuomintang and the Russian Empire have made a deliberate point of NOT going to War with each other for the sake of leaving as few openings as possible into which the Japanese might insert something small, sharp and thoroughly objectionable.

^The ideas found above represent Rough ideas and I am more than willing to hear out any suggestions of your own that you fellows may care to offer.^
 
We had discussions on this earlier in the thread. I think this is a very different British Army than in OTL. I think both the French and British Armies are more competent in this period than OTL. The Brits and the French are successful in capturing the low countries, all of Germany west of the Rhine and then make a combined offensive into the North German plain which is only halted at Hamburg. This definitely means a larger more able British and French Armys than started World War 2 in OTL. I imagine that tank proponents like Fuller and Liddel Hart are push to the fore. Britain's army in the early 20th century was held by its overly conservative Officer Corp. I don't think that is the case here. Like the CSA and France, i bet it shed a lot of its older Great War era senior officers.

I think the British Army is involved in hard fighting on the Western Front. I think the British take away from the FGW is that it must focus on the western front in Europe, that is the decisive front. Everything else is the province of the Navy or to be ignored. bUT Naturally Churchill's attention will begin to wander.

As for France I can see that. But I think most French will put aside their problems with the new system to get revenge or defend their homeland. The big reason France quit in 1940 was because they did not trust their officers and did not want to go through another 4 years of slaughter. A rapid successful invasion of enemy territory changes that. But yeah i imagine the regime has some units akin to OTL Waffen SS or Freedom Guard units. I even had an idea for the british having specific fascist party (silver shirt) raised units occupying Ireland, Holland and then Germany. Kind of like a more sinister version of the Black and Tans in Ireland.
 
Last edited:
I do like the idea of both France and Britain adopting the ideas of their more modern thinking leaders (DeGaulle and Fuller) respectively. Obviously the U.S. didn't until after Morrell took command during Coalscuttle. I wonder if Germany did though?
 
Germany's military culture in WWI says yes. In the SGW the US was able to stop the CSA, because it was so much bigger in size and population. France and Britain outnumbered Germany in population size. I think this means that the German Army remained not just competent but adaptive. They were obviously more than competent on the defenisve. Despite its smaller population by 1943 it had regained the offensive and was pushing forward in both the East and the West. I was thinking that it might have taken them like US until 1943 to reorganize the army and create enough Barrel Divisions to begin rapid offensives.Maybe thats when then make Guderian an Army Commander.
 

bguy

Donor
I re-read the description of Japan's acquisition of French Indochina in The Center Cannot Hold yesterday, and it came across as much more of a shakedown than how I described it in Part 1 of my Pacific War article. As such I've edited my article to get it more in accord with the novel.
 
Germany's military culture in WWI says yes. In the SGW the US was able to stop the CSA, because it was so much bigger in size and population. France and Britain outnumbered Germany in population size. I think this means that the German Army remained not just competent but adaptive. They were obviously more than competent on the defenisve. Despite its smaller population by 1943 it had regained the offensive and was pushing forward in both the East and the West. I was thinking that it might have taken them like US until 1943 to reorganize the army and create enough Barrel Divisions to begin rapid offensives.Maybe thats when then make Guderian an Army Commander.
As I recall we did; everything says that the German Army of 1941 is a much more competent beast; which says a lot.

The British, French and Russian successes can be attributed more to shock and awe rather any particular incompetence of the German Officer Corps.

My thought entirely came back to a rapid British and French thrust through the Low Countries, utilizing Paratroopers, armor and a Belgian uprising, which allowed them to rapidly advance while the French, being the French, focused on Alsace and Lorraine and likely reclaimed the bulk of but go stopped dead at the German border at their own Siegfried Line type position.

In the east the Germans are forced to retreat as the Polish and Ukrainian puppets they've propped up don't have the man power to stop a massive Russian offensive across their entire line, though obviously enough to stall them.
 
As I recall we did; everything says that the German Army of 1941 is a much more competent beast; which says a lot.

-Vesica I always loved your idea of the combined Anglo- French attack, being a three pronged attack. The right prong being aimed at Alsace Lorraine, the center through Luxembourg/southern Belgium, and the left through Belgium.

I imagined the ultimate objective of the right and center prong being too surround the Ruhr Valley. This obviously failed.

I think I speak for everyone when I say we would all love to see your history of the western and eastern fronts of the Second Great War, Vesica.
 
We ARE always glad to see other hands and other minds contribute to this Thread - not least because they provide such delicious Food for Thought at the very least.;)
 
The U.S. Army of the Second Great War 1941-1944

Organization
The Army of 1941 paled in comparison to the Army of 1914. The Army at the outset of the Great War was the product of nearly two generations of rationing and marshaling of resources. In contrast the Army of 1941 had an Army of occupation for the last twenty years. It had been neglected by successive Socialist administrations. In this period military spending was on average 2.6% of the GDP, briefly rising to 2.9% during the Canadian uprising of 1914. This changed with the outbreak of the Pacific war in 1932. President Blackford, began a slow military build up which continued into the Hoover and Smith administration. Chief of Staff Sturgis oversaw this gradual build up of U.S. forces, which increased defense spending to 3% of the GDP. The U.S. briefly increased its military spending in 1940 to greater than its pre-Great War levels of 3.9%, as a part of President Smith deal with Democrats for a plebiscite. This is in comparison to the rapid military build up beginning in 1934 under Chief of Staff Marshal, which climaxed at 24% of their GDP in 1940-1941. Thus the U.S. Army was nominally larger than their Confederate counterpart, but was not nearly as well equipped. One of the first changes made by incoming Chief of Staff McNair in 1940, was the re-organization of the Army under Army Commands. By the commencement of Operation Blackbeard in June of 1941, the U.S. had re-organized and reconstituted Six Army’s, each with designated zones of operation and Defense. These nominally conformed to their previous zones of operation in the Great War.

First Army, headquartered in Fort Leavenworth
Second Army, Evansville, Indiana
Third Army, Columbus, Ohio
Fourth Army, Ottawa, Military District of Ontario
Fifth Army, Warrenton, West Virginia.
Sixth Army, Phoenix Arizona
Seventh Army, Winchester West Virginia

Unfortunately these armies were vastly under strength in the summer of 1941. The average U.S. Army of 1914 had nine divisions. When the balloon went up in June of 1941, Only Fifth was at full strength. The average Army was only at six divisions, with Sixth and Seventh Army at roughly two Divisions apiece. After the invasion of Ohio the U.S. rapidly mobilized and increased in size. By Late July the core armies, 1st,2nd,3rd and 5th taking the brunt of the fighting, had reached planned strength of nine divisions or 135,000 to 150,000 men. Once it was clear that the U.S. was not going to surrender, despite being split in two, the U.S. Army grew exponentially. Most astute officers realized that which ever side could carry out simultaneous operations in two major theaters would likely be the winner. The U.S. won this race in the summer of 1943 when U.S. invaded south of the Ohio River and launched a heavy attack against the Jackson line in Northern Virginia. By then the U.S. had expanded to Eleven Armies, albeit Tenth and Eleventh Army had roughly six divisions between them. The Core fighting Armies the First, Second, Third, Fifth and Seventh Army had expanded to four divisions a corp. Each then had twelve divisions per Army.

Eighth Army Grand Junction, Colorado
Ninth Army Stafford, West Virginia
Tenth Army Honolulu, Hawaii Military District
Eleventh Army Clovis, New Mexico

The Army Division began the war with the old “four square” organization, which consisted of two brigades one with two regiments of infantry and the other with one infantry and one artillery/support regiment. However after the success of Operation Blackbeard and the ascension of Deputy Chief of Staff Wedemeyer the Army re-organized into the triangle division structure. The Triangle Division was composed of three Infantry Regiments Combat teams, which added a battalion of artillery or Barrels to each Regiment. In 1943 General Morrell began the introduction of Barrel divisions, which were made up of two Barrel Regiments, a motorized then later mechanized reserve infantry regiment. Army Group West under General Morrell even went so far as to establish Armored Corps, like that of General Patton. Other Army Groups copied General Morrell beginning in 1943, but emphasized the Combined Arms Regimental Combat Team over the Barrel. These added a battalion of Barrels and artillery to each infantry regiment. The exception being Sixth and later Seventh Armies under General Dowling, who copied General Morrell. At the start of the war each division had a strength of 15,000, however thanks to the high attrition rates of 1942 and divisions on average became roughly 10-12 ,00 and remained so the rest of the war.

Infantry Weapons
Unlike the Great War the average U.S. infantryman entered the war with less firepower than his Confederate counterpart. The standard infantry weapon was the venerable M1903 Springfield. A bolt-action, .30-06 weapon, which entered service that year and saw extensive use for more than four decades. This gave the average U.S. Infantry squad a significantly smaller rate of fire than their Confederate counter part. Confederates infantrymen were equipped with the C.S. Tredegar Automatic Rifle [TAR] with a twenty round clip. To compensate the U.S. Army began issuing the Thompson sub-machine gun. A big, heavy, brutal looking weapon with a slower rate of fire than its Confederate equivalent. Nevertheless, with its .45 caliber bullets, it was an effective and robust weapon. To compensate for the firepower deficiency, U.S. soldiers often dropped their own rifles for TARs. In recognition of this the U.S. Supply Corp began distributing ammunition and spare parts for the weapons by the summer of 1943. The squad light machine gun was the M1918A2 Browning Automatic Rifle, an improvement on the model introduced in the last months of the Great War. Weighing 15 lbs it could fire 500-650 rounds a minute. This again was significantly less the less the C.S. Army air cooled TLMG 39 which at 25lbs could fire 800- 900 rounds a minute. It was completely outclassed by the TLMG 42 which could fire up to 1200 rounds a minute. The average grenade was the M36 which was an improved copy of the C.S. pineapple grenade of the Great War.

Mortars and Artillery
Luckily the U.S. Infantry Battalion had access to greater indirect fire than their CS counterparts with U.S. Companies being equipped with 4-6 M1 81mm mortars. Each Infantry battalion was equipped with 6 M2 105mm mortars. US models on average were larger and more reliable than their C.S. counterparts. In the FGW U.S. Artillery out-classed its Confederate opponent in all aspects, save the excellent Confederate field gun the 75mm. At the outset of the SGW the U.S. and C.S. Artillery was equal, in fact it was identical. Confederate Dictator Jake Featherston a former artilleryman of the Great War, remembered the U.S. superiority in nearly all facets of indirect fire. President spurred by the C.S. spies to capture U.S. weapons designs, organizational charts and fire direction techniques. As a result both U.S. and C.S. divisions began the war with thirty six 105mm howitzers and twelve 155mm howitzers. However as the U.S. industrial base continued to grow so to did the number of U.S. guns per division. While the Confederate numbers did not change, by summer 1943 each U.S. division had fifty four 105mm and twelve 155mm howitzers. Eighteen of the 105 were under direct regimental command. The Confederates responded to these increases with the introduction of rocket artillery batteries in 1943. The U.S. also far outstripped its confederate opponents in self-propelled howitzers. Beginning with the formation of Barrel regiments and later divisions in 1942, each Barrel Battalion was given six self propelled 105mm howitzers, nicknamed the reverend. These were 105mm howitzers were placed on an M-4 tracked mount, it was nick-named reverend for its pulpit like appearance. As the war dragged on the superiority of U.S. industry showed. By 1943 it was clear the metallurgy in U.S. cannon barrels was far superior leading to a slower wear down of the bore and which resulted in less friendly fire. U.S. artillery also improved its accuracy thanks to introduction of wireless range finding to detect incoming enemy fire and using its incoming angle to compute counter battery fire. Despite the introduction of so many new instruments of death, the artillery remained responsible for causing the greatest number of battlefield deaths .

Barrels
Like Artillery in the Great War the Second Great War is widely considered the apotheosis of Barrel warfare. The beginning of the war can be characterized as the U.S. being outclassed in both barrel design and tactics by the Confederacy. In 1941 Barrels were controlled as a division weapon, like artillery, and used to support the infantry attack. Meaning companies of Barrels were often used to support an infantry battalion’s attack or defensive operation. The U.S. began the war with the Mk. II, Nicknamed the 'Custer.' When it rolled off the production line in 1934 the ‘Custer’ was advanced for its time. It carried a crew of 5; had sloped armor mounted a 37mm gun, and carried at least 2 machine guns. However the failure of successive Socialist administrations to fund Barrel development meant by the outbreak of the war it was inferior to the C.S. Army Mk 3, which had 50mm gun, at least 2 machine guns. By 1942 the U.S. Barrel factories began production on the Mk II.V a quick up grade that consisted of a Custer barrel body with an upgraded turret. It carried a crew of 5; and mounted 60mm gun, at least 2 machine guns. This was done to compete with the Confederate Mk 4 introduced in 1942. Despite its inferiority design the Mk. II.V. served admirably under General Morrell’s reorganization of Barrel forces. Beginning in 1943 the U.S. Armies beginning with General Morrel and then also being employed by Generals Krueger and Dowling, switched to a more barrel centric doctrine. This employed Barrels in larger formations being the spearhead of the assault, being supported by infantry. Arguably the same tactics used by Custer’s First Army in the Great War.

It was not until the spring of 1943 that the U.S. finally began producing a barrel design superior to any thing in the confederate vehicle park. The Mk. IV was powerful, heavily armored with "perfectly" sloped armor, and carried a mounted 90mm cannon along with three 50. Caliber machine guns. The U.S. would go on to produce more of these vehicles then any other Barrel model on the earth. To stem the Yankee tide the Confederate produced the Mk 5. A beast of a weapon, it sported a low hull, superbly sloped and thick armor that increased crew survival rates, and a high-velocity long-range 4.5 or 5-inch (120mm) gun. While superior to all US barrels, they were introduced too late and in too few to stem the yankee onslaught.

The C.S. general staff responded to the overwhelming superior numbers of U.S. Barrels by introducing “Barrel Busters” or tracked elf propelled anti-barrel weapons. Barrel busters proved quite adept at killing barrels at long range with single hits. Also, the heavier cannon of barrel busters proved to be quite useful for destroying soft targets, such as infantry fighting positions and buildings. In addition, due to their lacking a turret, barrel busters had a lower profile, an advantage in defensive operations. However these were offset by the barrel buster lack of a turret, which gave a barrel buster a narrow field of fire. This made the barrel buster more vulnerable to enemy fire. In addition, the barrel buster lacked any anti-infantry machine guns. This allowed enemy infantry to close readily with a barrel buster and engage it with hand grenades and Featherston Fizzes. The confederacy also tried to compensate by introducing the stovepipe (an anti-barrel rocket launcher) and a number of other rocket artillery weapons. One criticism of Chief of Staff McNair, was that he favored towed anti-barrel artillery over self-propelled Barrel Busters, even after it had become apparent that Confederate forces were converting their anti-barrel forces into self-propelled guns as soon as such vehicles could be produced. Due to inherent delays in deploying such towed guns, combined with greatly increased crew exposure to Confederate small arms and mortar fire, American towed anti-barrel artillery was never really effective during the war. When U.S. anti-barrel guns were used against Confederate Barrel and defensive emplacements, the towed battalions suffered disproportionate casualties compared to the self-propelled Barrel Buster battalions

Training and Manpower
McNair also come under criticism for his approach to training and replacing casualties. The U.S. began the war with a large pool of reserves and previously trained personnel, with experience fighting insurgents in Kentucky, Houston, Sequoyah and Northern Virginia. The Army had learned a lot form the Great War and spent a great deal of time training not only instilling discipline and marksmanship, but small unit leadership and tactics. Thanks to large numbers of soldiers captured in the invasion of Ohio and horrific casualties in Northern Virginia this pool began to run shallow. Under pressure to quickly produce huge numbers of soldiers, McNair resorted to cutting back basic and advanced combat training, particularly in the areas of combat initiative (small-unit leadership exercises for enlisted troops, where all NCOs and officers have been ruled killed or wounded, combat acclimatization, weapons proficiency, and small unit tactics. With the exception of elite combat units such as airborne forces, who received intense physical training as well as realistic weapon and unit combat instruction, McNair used the bulk of the training cycle to train Army inductees in their particular specialty or classification. The faults in this system were soon exposed after the Battle of Fredericksburg.

Another problem surfaced with the individual replacement system (IRS), a concept devised by General Davis and implemented by McNair. Instead of learning from combat veterans in the same units, replacements were first trained at a variety of facilities, and then sent to replacement depots (repple-depples). Shipped without unit organization or strong command, they were passed from one temporary duty station to another, often spending months between leaving their original organizations and assignment to a unit. During this time they became physically soft, their discipline slackened, and their acquired basic infantry or combat skills tended to be forgotten. It was at this point that the individual army replacement was transferred to an active duty unit, frequently a fighting arm such as armor or infantry that was 'on the line' (currently engaged in combat operations). In addition to this, U.S. commanders frequently encountered replacement soldiers that had received no training on their individual rifle or assigned weapons system at all. As the IRS plan began to break down completely in late 1944, other men, including older individuals and those physically incapable of rigorous physical duty were taken from other army specialties (clerk-typist, cook etc.) or training programs and hurriedly given six weeks' infantry training, upon which they were reassigned as combat infantry replacements. In consequence, casualty rates skyrocketed; in many frontline units, replacement soldiers lasted an average just three to four days before being killed or wounded. At the same time, veteran soldiers were retained on the line until they were killed, wounded, or became incapacitated by battle fatigue or physical illness.

Air Support.
The Confederate use of Close Air Support in the Invasion of Ohio, had a profound affect on of Chief of Staff McNair and the rest of the army. General Bruckner’s, one of the creators of the combined-arms tactical doctrine, believed the best way to provide cover for the crossing would be a continuous stream of ground attack aircraft on U.S. defenders. Though few guns were hit, the attacks kept U.S. soldiers under cover and prevented them from manning their guns. Aided by the sirens attached to Asskickers, the psychological impact was disproportional to the destructive power of close air support. At the start of the War, the United States Army Air Corp (USAAC) had, as its principal mission, the doctrine of strategic bombing. This incorporated the unerring belief that unescorted bombers could win the war without the advent of ground troops. This doctrine proved to be fundamentally flawed. However, during the entire course of the war the USAAC top brass clung to this doctrine, and hence operated independently of the rest of the Army. Thus it was initially unprepared to provide CAS, and in fact, had to be dragged "kicking and screaming" into the CAS function with the ground troops.

In August 1941, USAAC commander Lt. Gen. Henry ("Hap") Arnold developed a modification of the Wright 27 with dive brakes – the Wright A-27. A good intitial test platform, it was then replaced by a purpose built Boeing-7. Though not quite on a par with the Confederate Mule divebomber, the Boeing-17 was effective as flying artillery and for precision targeting during air raids. By 1943, Boeing-17s were armed with 1.5" antibarrel cannon to penetrate the thinner roof armor of Confederate barrels. The USAAC saw the greatest innovations in 1943 under Gen. Elwood Quesada, commander of IX Tactical Air Command, supporting the First U.S. Army. He developed the "barrel column cover", where on-call fighter-bombers maintained a high-level of availability for important barrel advances, allowing armor units to maintain a high tempo of exploitation even when they outran their artillery assets. XIX TAC, under the command of General Queasada utilized similar tactics to support the rapid armored advance of General Morrell's Army Group West in its drive across Kentucky. As the U.S. aircraft production ramped up it began the carpet-bombing of enemy lines, which was used as breakthrough artillery at the start of many operations. This took the place of the concentrated conventional artillery used in the Great War and in Virginia in 1941. In the invasion of Kentucky 1,500 heavies, 380 medium bombers and 550 fighter-bombers dropped 4,000 tons of high explosives and napalm. At first these operation were not as accurate as the Army wished. In a thousands aircraft carpet bombing attack in the summer of 1942, south of the Rappahannock; 77 Bombers dropped their ordinance early and nearly killed Chief of Staff McNair. From then on the Army began embedding airmen with forward army units like artillery forward observers. It was these such operations that blunted Patton's offensive through the appalachian mountains in the summer of 1943. It again helped break the stalemate in the western virginia area known as the wilderness by burning them to the ground. By 1944 U.S. air dominance and close air support made any large scale Confederate Counter attacks impossible.

Do you think you can do something on the CS Army?
 
I believe that President Mahan is currently working on some Biographical profiles and I don't have any plans to construct such an article, but I'm sure we'll do our best to fulfil your request if the proper inspiration strikes; have you considered submitting an Article on this subject yourself? We're very happy to welcome contributions from New Associates.:)
 
I believe that President Mahan is currently working on some Biographical profiles and I don't have any plans to construct such an article, but I'm sure we'll do our best to fulfil your request if the proper inspiration strikes; have you considered submitting an Article on this subject yourself? We're very happy to welcome contributions from New Associates.:)
Yeah I'm working on it. I've made a number of contributions to this timeline before.
 
Confederate States Army Commanders of the Second Great War


Chief of Staff
Nathan Bedford Foresst III (1940)
Benjamin Willard (1944)
Cyril Northcot (1944)


Deputy Chief of Staff
Cyril Northcot (1940)
Troy H. Middleton (1944)


Adjutant General
Charles E. Kilbourne (1937)
Brehon B. Somervell (1942)
Charles L. Bolte (1944)


Inspector General
Johnson Hagood (1941)
Simon Bolivar Bruckner II (1942)
Raymond S. McLain (1944)


Chief of Army Intelligence
John Magruder (1938)
Clarence Potter (1944)


Army of Kentucky/Army of Tennessee/ Army of Georgia
Commanders: Simon Bolivar Bruckner II (1940)
George S Patton (1942)

Command A:
George S. Patton (1941)
Lucian Truscott II (1944)

Command B:
Alexander Vandegrift (1941)
George Marshall (1942)
—Surrendered at Pittsburgh—

Command C:
Courtney Hodges (1941)
Alexander Vandegrift (1943)


Army of Northern Virginia
Commander: Henry Coomer (1941)

Command A
Leonard T Gerow (1941)
George S Patton (1941)
Leonard T Gerow (1942)

Command B
Joseph Lawton Collins (1941)


Army of the Valley (Fake Army to confuse US intelligence)
Commander: George Marshall



Army of the Mississippi
Commander: Roy Stanley Geiger (1940)


Army of Texas
Commander: William H Simpson (1941)

Command A
John Leonard Pierce (1941)
John B. Coulter (1943)

Command B
Ira Clarence Eaker (1941)

Army of the Caribbean
William P. Upshur (1939)
Charles D. Barrett (1943)
 
Last edited:
I wrote that a while back and forgot to throw it up. Craigo in his George Marshall article talks about how Confederate Armies were more like Army groups.

I have a Simon Bolivar Bruckner article that is half written. I have him being the Heinz Guderian, or proponent of Maneuver Warfare in the inter war period. His victory in the XIII Battle of the Roanoke was the only successful CS Army attack in the latter part of the war. Simon Bolivar Bruckner commands the successful invasion of Ohio and Indiana splitting the US in half. Unfortunately he and Featherston fight in the immediate aftermath of the capture of Sandusky. Bruckner wants to turn the surviving US Armies and destroy them. Arguing that was his entire objective. The US is more likely to make peace if they do not have any Army's in the Mid west to stop him.

Featherston overrules him arguing that the main objective was political/psychological and the US under Smith is weak and just has to be given time to let it sink in. Bruckner resigns and is replaced with Patton.
 
Last edited:
Do you think you can do something on the CS Army?

I do not have any immediate plans on doing something like that for the CS Army . If you want to take a crack at it feel free. If not I'll throw something up. The US article is a lot of wikipedia info, woven into stuff Craigo had put up and background info I had compiled for some army bios.
 
We need some stuff on Europe in The SGW as a heads up I am working on a Churchill article. If you want to coordinate. It will be a while before I get to the SGW.
 

bguy

Donor
Confederate States Army Commanders of the Second Great War

Chief of Staff
Nathan Bedford Foresst III (1940)
Cyril Northcot (1944)

Good list, except it's stated in In at the Death that the man that replaced Forrest as head of the General Staff was a man named Willard. (Potter can't remember if Willard is his first name or last.)


Otherwise, while looking for the passage on Willard I came across this reference to the Churchill-Mosley government. Taken from page 365 of In At the Death.

"This just in from the BBC-the Churchill government has fallen. Parliament voted no confidence in the Churchill-Mosley regime that has run the United Kingdom for more than ten years."

That passage occurs in 1944, which means the latest the Conservative-Silver Shirt coalition could have taken power in the UK would be sometime in 1934, so I guess we'll have to retcon Craigo's 1935 start date for the coalition.
 
Top