Us Armed forces without WW-II

In a timeline without WW-II (Hitler came under a carriage when was 9 year old,or is shot by a British soldier in WW-I),and of course without a war aganist Japan,which could be the size of United States Army and Navy in 50s and 60s?
We would have an indipendent Air Force?
 

Kongzilla

Banned
I doubt an independent air force would occr without some kind of conflict. The navy would grow like pre-war in defense. The Army isn't that important and I beleive before WW2 the US army was the size of Sweden or something. I wouldn't see it growing large unless they came out of isolationism.
 
I have to ask, where does this question come from?

The US Army that evolved from the 19th Century to 1940 lost its frontier constabulary function and only retained a role as training/leadership cadre for a army to be raised from a national volunteer or larger conscription group of men. The US Army had no organized reserve formations. Its small reserve of 50 to 60 thousand men were mostly officers and some NCOs, who were fill out the cadre of the recruits being organized into a actual field army/s. There was also the state militia, later the National Guard which could be taken into Federal service in a emergency. In that context the Guard became a partially trained and equiped organized reserve in the 1920s, as opposed to the poorly trained and ill equipped state militias of pre 1917.

Without a major war the US Army would probablly remain as it was in the 1920s. A tiny army serving to generate well trained NCOs and officers who would serve as a teaching staff and eventual leaders for a actual army should one be needed. Tied in with this would be the role as a Research and Development organization for new weapons. While the US army was poorly equipped in 1940 it did benefit from R & D put into artillery, small arms, aircraft, communications, ect... over the previous five decades.

All this would certainly continue to the 1950s absent a major war. The primary influences to modernize would be developments in foreign armies. If you poke through the professional publications of the US Army from 1900 to 1940 you find a lot of well written articles examining doctrines, practice, equipment, ect... from around the world. One that caught my eye in the 'Field Artillery Journal' was written by a Captain who spent two years training with the Japanese army artillery circa 1924. Other US Army officers attended schools or training in South American or European armies. ie: Weidermeyer attended the Kriegsacademie in Germany shortly after the Reichswehr was incorporated into the Wehrmacht. The French army probablly saw the most US Army officers between 1919 & 1939. There were of course observers sent to the small wars around the globe. Stillwell as the 15th Regiment intelligence officer spent a lot of time traveling around China observing combat between the warlords.

I've not read in detail the warplans of 1900 - 1940. Plan Black, Orange, Crimson, Red, Tan, Green, White, Blue, ect... The fragments and summaries I have seen do not contemplate large mobilizations. War Plan Orange outlined a initial preparation of two corps for overseas service against Japan. If the war became protracted then there was the idea a couple more corps might be necessary. The war plan for a Mexican war also outlined the initial preparation of two corps for expeditionary service, with the possibility of more if required.

There was on paper a plan for mobilizing a Army of 60+ divisions, as in the Great War. That was not taken seriously and the preparations of 1920-1930 barely allowed the mobilization of forty divisions out of the Regular Army, Reservists, National Guard and recruits. When the US did mobilize in the latter half of 1940 it took approx fifteen months to have 20-25 divisions combat ready, and another 25 formed and partially ready. That was after twelve months of attempts to review and up date plans, internal reorganization and a large peace time budget increase for 1939-40. were mobilization made from a 'cold start' it might have taken 20-24 months to field 20 combat ready divisions.

To best understand the US Army of the 1920s & 1930s I'd recommend reading the biographys of the officers who served in that era. Eisenhower, Bradley, Clark, Stillwell, Krueger, MacArthur, Collins, Weidermeyer,.. The list is large and all had insightful comments on everything including war plans and preparations. The professional journals of the era, like the Cavalry Journal, Infantry Journal, ect... have a enormous amount of information as well.
 
The Navy is likely to have remained large as it was regarded as the first line of defense, and US interests were global. The US has always been completely dependant of global trade. From the end of the 19th Century it was clear the US had to be able to defend its portion of that global trade. That is to say US economic well being did not relate to the national boundaries. For the USN the US defense zone was more than half the planet & overlapped that of potientially hostile nations.
 
I doubt the USAAF would become its own branch without a major conflict. Besides that, I'd imagine it'd stay to its Interbellum size, perhaps growing just a tad bit as the years go on, but since I'm assuming the US is still isolationist, I doubt it becomes very large.
 
If there is no World War II can see the size of the US military remaining the size of Sweden's. It's also possible the Philippines can get its independence as well as world threats are reduced. Without the fear of invasion or nuclear disaster from the Russians there is no need for the massive national highway system, maybe a much smaller road system, but not like what Eisenhower did.

If the Soviet Union eventually creates an atomic bomb and either uses it in combat or threatens to use it against the Western powers I can see this changing as America wants to defend itself from outside attack, but not as much as in World War II's build up. It may even eventually get an atomic bomb of its own for defensive purposes, but at have at most a stockpile of only a few hundred. This also means no nuclear powered air craft carriers, submarines, destroyers, etc. for decades more, and no jet aircraft really either in the 1950s and 60s. Roosevelt gets voted out in 1944 and replaced by the GOP.
 
Possible a greater development of USMC ?

That would depend on any wars occuring. in the 1920 the Marine battalions were reorganized into two combined arms expeditionary brigades. Those were true combined arms units with infantry, artillery, armored vehicles, and a composite air group rolled into a single tactical unit with its own logistics support. In addition the seperate base defense battalions remained in existance.

Given the doctrines and expectations of the late 1930s thats probablly where things would have remained. War Plan Orange for a Japanese war, and WP Tan for a Cuban or Caribbean war depended on the US Army providing the bulk of the ground combat forces, with the Marines used only to support naval operations or as a small supplement to Army ops.

Perhaps one or two more of these Marine brigades would have been formed later in the 1940s is there was enough activity. Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt wound down the Bananna Wars by 1933. But had those been revived, or other minor expeditions made the Navy would have wanted more Marines.
 
This also means no nuclear powered air craft carriers, submarines, destroyers, etc.

You might be right, but the advantages of nuclear power - for submarines especially - are very hard to ignore once realised. I suppose it depends how important the alt-USN thinks it is to be able to stay at sea for long periods. If their doctrine involves being tied to harbour or putting in for resupply frequently, then it might not seem like a big deal. But if they have a lot of ocean to cover and are conducting long patrols, nuclear power will start to look very attractive.
 
With no WWII I think you'd see an over all degradation of of the armed forces world wide.
No Jets until possibly the 60's, and even then most likely they would be civilian aircraft first.
No Atomic weapons, (no need for them)
No Assault rifles until the 60's at least
More regional conflicts involving less of the great powers
The Aircraft carrier would not be king like it is now

On the US forces, I think the cadre approach would continue through until today.
No WWII means the chances of the US coming out of isolation would be slim for a while. It means no UN, No Cold war with the Soviet Union, potentially no US involvement in the Korean or Veitnam wars.

I think outside of the military as well, you'd see some major shifts in society and pop culture as well.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Possible a greater development of USMC ?

Where/How?
The USMC at the time had developed COIN operations to a science by the time World War II broke out. (Indeed, the Small Wars Manual 1941 edition is still taken as being authoritative on the subject.)

What the USMC needed was better equipment, and not much else. ITTL they'll probably be the first American service to jump on the Assault Rifle as a regular-issue weapon, and also be the first to heavily emphasize the importance of Close Air Support and the need for forward air controllers and artillery spotters in combat operations. If the Alligator isn't butterflied they will be operating LVTs as ship to shore transports. They'll likely have company sized units operating from APDs in a sort of raiding/vanguard role as well, securing a beach before landing operations can begin in earnest. You'll probably see them develop the first modern special operations units for the US ITTL, operating from APDs, Seaplanes and submarines.

Hell, the Catalina probably would be heavily operated in support of USMC special operations/pathfinding units into the 50's or 60's ITTL, given it's range, versatility and ubiquity.

The USN and Pan Am will definitely operate flying boats much longer than IOTL, given that you won't see the massive infrastructure projects we saw in WWII going on in their main operational areas. The *Boeing 314 will likely be developed pretty far as a result, along with the *Martin M130, and what Consolidated flying boats see use. Probably ending with pressurized turboprop monsters looking to all the world like a cross between an R3Y and a Boeing 377 or Lockheed Electra, with a career probably like that of the C-130 and P-3 Orion, but less so (after all, Seaplanes are of limited utility in most of the inhabited world, although very nice in the wilder places.)

By the mid to late 50's, the obsolescence of the Battleship as a primary combat unit ought to have been obvious to everyone for about a decade, and the Navy will have retired most of the older BBs and BCs, replacing them with carriers, and much more versatile AA Cruisers, with a few Fast Battleships built to take a command role, escort the now-all important carriers, and to hammer anything the IJN has. (Because that war is definitely coming unless you've got a lot of butterflies staking out Tokyo, or both sides have WMDs and the means to deliver them.)

Also, the Navy might've listened to Hedy Lamarr and George Antheil and adopted frequency hopping equipment sooner, probably adopting equipment invented by Danilewicz, and Willem Broertjes to make it work even better. Although it's about as likely the navy could've stuck with dangerously crappy torpedoes into the 50's.

As for naval bases, in the Pacific, Subic Bay, Apra Harbor, and Pearl Harbor, along with to a lesser extent Apia, have likely become veritable fortresses. The IJN will definitely have done the same to Truuk, given the importance of the South Pacific Mandate to policy makers pre-war.
 
With no WWII I think you'd see an over all degradation of of the armed forces world wide.
No Jets until possibly the 60's, and even then most likely they would be civilian aircraft first.
My own personal opinion is that the jet engine development would not have been disrupted. Sir Frank Whittle already had the basic principles of jet propulsion already worked out prior to WW2 whilst also being a serving officer in the RAF. The designs were well established and if anything there may have been more funding without the outbreak of war ... and as it was funding that seemed to hold things back it might have even made the development of a jet fighter quicker without the war.

No WWII means the chances of the US coming out of isolation would be slim for a while. It means no UN, No Cold war with the Soviet Union, potentially no US involvement in the Korean or Veitnam wars.
I doubt there would have been a Korean or Vietnam war as both confilicts occured as a direct result of WW2. Korea was divided into the north occupied by the Soviets and the South by US as a result of there involvement as allies of Japan. In Vietnam the French rule was undermined by Japonese occupation and the independence movement encouraged. I think the French would have remained in control without WW2 so no conflict there either, or maybe at a later stage.
 
Where/How?

Well i assumed the need for a Force relatively lean,but fast ready to go in action in places like central and south America,Pacific islands and China.


Hell, the Catalina probably would be heavily operated in support of USMC special operations/pathfinding units into the 50's or 60's ITTL, given it's range, versatility and ubiquity.

The USN and Pan Am will definitely operate flying boats much longer than IOTL, given that you won't see the massive infrastructure projects we saw in WWII going on in their main operational areas. The *Boeing 314 will likely be developed pretty far as a result, along with the *Martin M130, and what Consolidated flying boats see use. Probably ending with pressurized turboprop monsters looking to all the world like a cross between an R3Y and a Boeing 377 or Lockheed Electra, with a career probably like that of the C-130 and P-3 Orion, but less so (after all, Seaplanes are of limited utility in most of the inhabited world, although very nice in the wilder places.)

This is very interesting!
So Flying Boats clippers also for airlines?
(instead of "jet set",the "Seaplanes set" age)!


My own personal opinion is that the jet engine development would not have been disrupted.

This is probable,but i don't see the 50s and 60s OTL quick development of jet planes.
Is probable that around 1955 of this timeline USAAF have only two or three squadrons of some jet fighter to OTL F-80 Shooting Star (and the fighter of 60s could be a F-86 Sabre look alike).
 
Top