hipper
Banned
They made Over 5000 crusaders so probably yes they could have replaced Grants and Sherman’s.
What happens to Britain without ANY American aid in WWII?
- Thread starter Erin Go Bragh
- Start date
They made Over 5000 crusaders so probably yes they could have replaced Grants and Sherman’s.
Nope.
Possible but extremely unlikely.
Nope.
Nope.
No.
Only if Hitler's dead.
No.
When Japan is restricted by lack of access to resources.
Nonsense.
What WW2 is this? You appear to be contradicting yourself.
Somewhat.
That's always been my take on it. With tactical surprise a landing is possible, though it'd be hit with phosgene and mustard on the beaches. But it couldn't be sustained.
Indeed. But that doesn't fit with a certain mythology.
I wonder if the UK could buy merchant ships off Japan in addition to its own production. This would give Japan the foreign exchange to continue purchasing resources from The DEI, Australia and Malaya for longer. Trade occurring in Sterling.
With more intra-empire trade you reduce the requirements for $, at an increased transport requirement. But Canada and Australia should be able to provide any natural resources required, plus as much food as required.
With the correct investment India could do interesting things....
With no cash and carry Britain has income from foreign investments plus whatever trade it can still carry out.
As for people concerned about manpower, what army was the largest all volunteer force of world war 2, and how many troops did it have at its peak?
With more intra-empire trade you reduce the requirements for $, at an increased transport requirement. But Canada and Australia should be able to provide any natural resources required, plus as much food as required.
With the correct investment India could do interesting things....
With no cash and carry Britain has income from foreign investments plus whatever trade it can still carry out.
As for people concerned about manpower, what army was the largest all volunteer force of world war 2, and how many troops did it have at its peak?
The Allies still win the war, unless Japan defeats the Royal Navy and makes it a point to coordinate with Germany to deny Britain access to the European continent.
If there is no US aid either by commission or omission at all then there would be some temptation for Britain to consider renewing it's links with Japan in some form. With no need to appease the USA then perhaps they could broker some deal whereby Japan retrenches in northern China in return for oil from British and Dutch sources. Thus Japan would have no need to look south at all. Obviously China is a net loser but there could be an end to the China war and an avoidance of war in the Pacific at all unless the USA decides to start one. This both releases Commonwealth forces from deployment outside Europe/Mediterranean area and might allow the use of Japanese resources in shipping and/or Pacific/Indian Ocean naval convoy protection.
If Japan comes on side more formally it would allow the Soviet union to release forces in the Far East to the European front. At it's most extreme one might wonder about both a Commonwealth and a Japanese ground force opposing the German Eastern Front. Nationalist Chine then being free to deal with the Communists.
It is a long AH stretch but it has an internal logic
If Japan comes on side more formally it would allow the Soviet union to release forces in the Far East to the European front. At it's most extreme one might wonder about both a Commonwealth and a Japanese ground force opposing the German Eastern Front. Nationalist Chine then being free to deal with the Communists.
It is a long AH stretch but it has an internal logic
It's an intriguing idea, no doubt. I could see the UK coming to terms with Japan, and even agreeing to try to broker a peace between China and Japan (which probably wouldn't work, but still). The government could sell it to the public as "we must do whatever it takes to prevent our involvement in another war right now". But I think an outright alliance with Militarist Japan would be difficult, given the recent memories of so many atrocities in China. I'd love for you to convince me I am wrong, though. A TL wherein Japan not only agrees to stop fighting in China, but outright joins the Allies? I would be interested in reading that.
I like this idea. You could even make it an outright quid-pro-quo: Japan agrees to build a tanker or cargo ship to agreed-upon deminsions. The government then fills up said cargo ship with Manchuria soybeans or millet, and a Japanese crew sails it to the UK. When it arrives, the crew hands it over to the British government. For each such ship received, the UK agrees to pay a stipend, so the sailors can return home, and release X amount of oil to Japan.
As A Matter Of Interest...
...Chiang had links with 1930s Germany and might become an ally. My Book 2 looks into this. Sounds crazy, but depends on an understanding of Chinese links with Russia and Germany. A German 'false flag' Pearl Harbor, anybody?
...Chiang had links with 1930s Germany and might become an ally. My Book 2 looks into this. Sounds crazy, but depends on an understanding of Chinese links with Russia and Germany. A German 'false flag' Pearl Harbor, anybody?
I accept it is unlikely the USA would sell to the Nazis ( they could sting us for more and i suspect we have more dollars to burn) but with a change in the time line it is conceivable that our blockade could be weakened to the extent that trade was possible. After all, trade doesn't have to be via Kiel or Hamburg. It could be via Spain or via the French or Italian Mediterranean ports.
There is no way a desperate UK would attack US ships - we would be trying everything to get them on our side
I know about radar - I simply say that on some way, large or small, we relied upon US aid. Without that aid the time line of development and deployment of military equipment might change. It doesn't have to change much to put is in the clarts.
If we accept that the Uboats don't starve us out (& I maintain they could have done with a different roll of the dice) at some point we run out of cash to buy war material from Uncle Sam. What then? What happens when the oil stops coming?
I think the Brits on here have made a good case that the UK could have kept itself fed, produced war material, gotten enough oil and gas, won the war in Africa...
but then what? The UK just doesn't have the manpower to take the war to the Continent soon, even if/with Germany involved in a war with Russia. So, what next? Does the UK wait until Russia finally grinds down the Germans in a (long) war of attrition and slowly rolls into Germany itself? Then maybe invade France when Germany is on the ropes and presumably when most of the occupying forces have been moved to the east? That would be an interesting TL...
but then what? The UK just doesn't have the manpower to take the war to the Continent soon, even if/with Germany involved in a war with Russia. So, what next? Does the UK wait until Russia finally grinds down the Germans in a (long) war of attrition and slowly rolls into Germany itself? Then maybe invade France when Germany is on the ropes and presumably when most of the occupying forces have been moved to the east? That would be an interesting TL...
The British Empire had nearly 2.5 million men in the field, so it absolutely did have the manpower for an attack on the continent. The question is what happens with Japan and thus the Indian Army. Does the Royal Navy defeat the IJN? Or do they sign a separate peace that lets Japan continue against China and Britain against Germany.
how many men did Germany have in the field? And it's notable that the UK didn't think it had the oomph to invade the Continent without the US....
Japan is an interesting question. If they are neutral regarding the UK, then the UK is a lot better off back at home. If the UK is also fighting Japan, then that's not so good for them....
Depends on the year, at the beginning in 1941 they had 3.7 million with a further 100,000 or so being kept long-term in Norway. By late 1943 it was down to 3.4-3.5 million, and then got taken down closer to 3.15-3.25 after Operation Bagration and Normandy.
Idk where you get that from. Churchill obviously lobbied hard to get the USA into the war, and it helps his case with the Americans if he says "If you don't enter then you'll be left with Germany conquering the world", doesn't mean he's telling the truth, but it would mean more British casualties than OTL, obviously.
In a war without the USA, Japan would be Germany's greatest hope after the war in Russia bogs down, otherwise nothing will be able to stop the eventual re-entry into the theater of British armies. Japan - in any case - would absolutely need oil, and that's where the UK - cooperating with the DEI for assurances against Japanese attack (or their removal if this is after January 1942) - could agree to supply oil to the Japanese in return for leaving them alone to fight Hitler. if a truce is not reached then the naval clash between the British and Japanese empires, would be pivotal.
this ties in with what I said in my post... that the UK didn't have the manpower to invade the Continent soon... not 'never'. A Germany that has been severely reduced after a long grinding war with Russia is another story... I could see the UK eventually invading France to keep it out of the hands of the Soviet juggernaut that is overrunning everything else in Europe. The numbers just aren't there... the UK might have had 2.5 million men, but they could scarcely gather them all up to throw onto the Continent... logistics and requirements elsewhere just don't allow it. Yes, the Germans don't have all those 3 million men in France, but when you're launching an amphibious invasion, you have to have pretty high numbers in your favor. Later on, when the Germans have pulled out a lot of the troops out of France and sent them east, the odds get a lot better.
Again, this would make a pretty good TL...
hipper
Banned
Historically the UK stopped US flagged ships going to neutral countries all the time, the U S was mildly ticked off about the RN reading the letters carried on Passenger liners to Italy. The reason the US could not object was that it had applied the same sort of blockade on the Southern States in the ACW. If the UK did not like the cargo carried to a neutral power it bought it. (in pounds sterling). In essence however they controlled world merchant shipping through the Navycert programme. (let the UK read
oil comes from the Carribean, Iran or the DEI in none of these cases are dollars required. The only reason to get oil from the US to save on tanker utilisation, without the disaster of Paukenschlag then oil tankers are in greater supply
The Uk relied on American aid to put the size of forces it did into the field. Without American aid British forces would have to be smaller. The war would be longer and more people die.
marathag
Banned
Replace?
No.
Stand in for, yeah.
But the A15 was nowhere close to the same reliability, armor protection, or ability to shoot HE as the Grant.
marathag
Banned
BP and Royal Dutch did have to spend Dollars. They used a good amount of supplies from US companies. because in general, it was best and at lower cost
hipper
Banned
But it could shoot a round that penetrated 3.5 inches of armour at 1000 yards compared to the 75 mm which could only penetrate the same thickness of armour under 500 yards.
Last edited:
Okay, fair enough. On the Germany being reduced part, I'd still say the German Army of 1944 waxes the floor with the 1941 German Army, so manpower isn't everything
Without the heavy German buildup in the west in preparation of D-Day - and the invasion of Italy prior to - the Germans would have kept a lot closer to the 3,000,000 they had on the Eastern Front at the Battle of Kursk, rather than the 1.9-2.0 million IOTL around May 1944, so there wouldn't have been a Soviet steamroller, not yet anyway (if ever; without a second front), rather the Soviets would have broken through for the same reason they did in the OTL, because of German forces being transferred west to deal with the new theater in France. Likely you have a stalemated Eastern Front, with the Germans not having to pull out the II SS Panzer Corps - and other divisions - at the height of operations in order to transfer them to Italy for the Allied invasions.
Defeat the Japanese Navy or sign an armistice with Japan, and you absolutely could. Hell they may even had enough to pull it off just with what they fielded in Europe and Italy (Second Army, Canadian First Army, Eighth Army, I Airborne Corps, and the 4-5 divisions still kept in England to make Hitler think they were going to attack Norway; Second and Eighth Armies were massive formations btw, both about the same size as U.S. First Army). I'll give you a run down of the Empire's forces. For comparison, remember that U.S. First, Third, British Second, and Canadian First Armies were enough to crush the Germans in France.
I Corps in North-West Europe
II Corps in Britain (only 3 divisions)
III Corps in Persia and Iraq Command by 1943 (only 2 Divisions and a Brigade)
IV Corps in India/Burma
V Corps in Italy
VIII Corps in North-West Europe
IX Corps in Italy
XII Corps in North-West Europe
XIII Corps in Italy
XXX Corps in North-West Europe
I Airborne Corps in North-West Europe
(more British divisions attached to the Indian Corps listed further below)
I Canadian Corps in North-West Europe
II Canadian Corps in North-West Europe
Indian III Corps in India/Burma
Indian IV Corps in India/Burma
Indian XV Corps in India/Burma
Indian XXI Corps in India/Burma
Indian XXV Corps in India/Burma
Indian XXXIII Corps in India/Burma
I Australian Corps in South-West Pacific
II Australian Corps in South-West Pacific
III Australian Corps in South-West Pacific
(Australian Army = 9 Divisions total; smaller corps than typical British, Canadian or Indian Corps, unless specified)
All in all we're talking over 5,700 tanks btw, pretty much just as many as the 6,300+ in the U.S. Army. Thousands were given in lend-lease from America, but then Britain also gave over 5,000 tanks to the USSR, so mostly a wash.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
Drilling 57mm holes in in PaK40 gunshields is hardly better than drilling 40mm holes
long range HE was a real problem solver for the PakFront that the UK armor kept running headlong into.
UK Tankers were using that 75mm to whack AT guns at 4000+ Yards, something impossible with solid shot, or the few 3" CS that they had, equipped with more smoke than HE, and was not accurate for AT gun plinking like the US 75mm M2 or M3 could do