What if America entered WW1 earlier?

Well torpedoes are expensive and often unreliable. Mind you searching surface ships can destroy a submariners morale. I read an account of a U boat captain realising the war was lost after seizing a fishing boat and finding things not seen in Germany for years. Fine white bread and tins of rich creamy butter.
 
I was thinking with an earlier consolidation of American intervention in the war, America might ask to go to the Ottoman Front, and possibly get in on the post-middle east deal for American companies in the middle east. Just sounds like an Ottoman-American confrontation might be interesting.
 
I was thinking with an earlier consolidation of American intervention in the war, America might ask to go to the Ottoman Front, and possibly get in on the post-middle east deal for American companies in the middle east. Just sounds like an Ottoman-American confrontation might be interesting.

Um... no. The United States diden't even declare war on the Ottoman Empire IOTL, and their oil companies have GEYSERS of the light sweet stuff they're pumping money into developing in Texas, Calfornia, and Mexico. Any US on the Entente side is going to be driven there by Germany, thus want to go after Germany. Besides, France, Italy and Britain might not be too keen on allowing the Yankees a peice of that particular Imperial pie.
 
The one place the USA won't be interested in going will be the Middle East. In 1914 there are no US business interests (ie: oil) in the Middle East and those fields are mostly unknown at this time. In 1914 the USA is probably the world's #1 producer of petroleum so has no need to "go for it." OTL there was essentially zero involvement by the US against the Ottomans, certainly if the USA gets in early it will be for the UK and France. The only US interest in the Ottoman Empire would be the liberation of Jerusalem pushed by the US missionary groups and mainline Protestant churches. This would not be enough to bring the US in to the war, or to focus US military efforts against the Ottomans.
 
To get the US into the war earlier, you need someone other than Wilson to win the 1912 Presidential Election. You need someone who's far more interventionist, better at dealing with Congress and more of an international statesman than Wilson.
Also a POTUS willing to risk going into the trenches if it's literally any point post 1914. Especially since, well....

Domestically, going for England? Risks uspetting the Irish-Americans and German-Americans, two pretty good sized ethnic groups in your country. So if he's a Democrat.... He ain't getting re-elected anytime soon.

Also need a good CB. Lusitania, yes, is a good one, problem is, well, it was on the Aux cruiser list and had parts of munitions and rifle rounds. So one could make a argument of it being legit. Or at the very least, raising some very awkward questions about why that stuff is on a civvie liner.
 
Would a different Preparedness Movement have changed the US's viewpoint, maybe not the general populace but perhaps leaders who were in the know, on war?

After the successful reforms under SecWar Stimson the administration of SecWar Garrison saw no major movement forward in the reform and preparedness of the US Army. Garrison backed the 'Continental Army' plan to expand the Regular Army and create a reserve but marginalised the National Guard, a plan which didn't please anyone so it died a death.

WI Garrison, for whatever reason and perhaps by sheer fluke, plumps for the plan which IOTL was successful and became the 1916 Defense Act; basically doubling the size of the Regular Army to 200,000 and expanding the NG to 440,000? Sorting out this political issue nice and early could transform both the preparedness of the Army, the 1916 DA saw the immediate raising for 3 new artillery regiments including 1 of 6" howitzers (the RA only had 6 artillery regiments in early 1916, only 1 had 4.7" guns and howitzers) and the political decisions concerning the trouble in Mexico and in Europe.
 
I think most countries reaction to the US entering the war in 1914 or 15 would have been "I didn't think they even had an army". For a would be world power they barely had enough troops for a training cadre. The navy was better but still not fit to fight the High Seas Fleet and would struggle against the Austro-Hungarian Navy, mainly for logistical reasons.

In years past with various 'WI Bismarck ran into the USN' threads, I've posted that the _New York_ class would prove a very difficult opponent, even with the speed differential.
But in WWI?

USN 14" or even the 12" on the Wyomings were more than adequate for for the latest HSF dreadnoughts like Baden, and had very large immunity zone vs the HSF 11" on the older ships.

As far as logistics, the USN was the only other nation beside the Royal Navy to do world wide deployments of heavy units. The 'Great White Fleet' global good will tour impressed many, for being able to do a cruise like that.

The real limit of the USN in that era was in cruisers, but the USN would make a mince of the Kuk Fleet, if they would venture out from Pola. They were Brave, not stupid. Those sailors would know that was a deathride
 

hipper

Banned
In years past with various 'WI Bismarck ran into the USN' threads, I've posted that the _New York_ class would prove a very difficult opponent, even with the speed differential.
But in WWI?

USN 14" or even the 12" on the Wyomings were more than adequate for for the latest HSF dreadnoughts like Baden, and had very large immunity zone vs the HSF 11" on the older ships.

As far as logistics, the USN was the only other nation beside the Royal Navy to do world wide deployments of heavy units. The 'Great White Fleet' global good will tour impressed many, for being able to do a cruise like that.

The real limit of the USN in that era was in cruisers, but the USN would make a mince of the Kuk Fleet, if they would venture out from Pola. They were Brave, not stupid. Those sailors would know that was a deathride


Well the USN in 1914=has the same ineffective fuse problem that plagued the RN but added to it with slow ROF and excessive Dispersion but apart from that the’re good.
 
The real limit of the USN in that era was in cruisers, but the USN would make a mince of the Kuk Fleet, if they would venture out from Pola. They were Brave, not stupid. Those sailors would know that was a deathride

The shortage of destroyers wasn't much better, iiuc about 54 in 1914. Indeed you can use these numbers to work out how big a battle fleet the USN could deploy to Europe.
 
Well the USN in 1914=has the same ineffective fuse problem that plagued the RN but added to it with slow ROF and excessive Dispersion but apart from that the’re good.
The twin barrel turrets didn't really suffer from that like the Nevadas, Texas RoF on D-Day was one shell every 27.5 seconds, and was a consistent winner of the Fleet gunnery competitions in the interwar era
 

hipper

Banned
The twin barrel turrets didn't really suffer from that like the Nevadas, Texas RoF on D-Day was one shell every 27.5 seconds, and was a consistent winner of the Fleet gunnery competitions in the interwar era

Per wiki

on 17 December 1917, Battleship Division Nine conducted its first full-caliber target practice in nearby Pentland Firth.[28]

The results were relatively poor. Where British battleships by the end of 1917 generally managed a rate of fire per salvo of 40 seconds or less, and an average spread (that is, the distance measured between the closest and furthest shots in a salvo) of 300–500 yd (270–460 m), the four ships of the American squadron proved both slow and inaccurate. The rate of fire of Delaware (with an acceptable spread of 475 yd (434 m)) was 108 seconds, and Wyoming' and Florida's average spreads were 956 and 1,131 yd (874 and 1,034 m), respectively.[29]

Only the flagship New York managed to match British practice in both categories.[29] In Admiral Beatty's words, the results were "distinctly poor and disappointing"
 
Top