No doubt, but it remains a fact that for US vessels, at least, the majority of sinkings were done that way in 1917, and a large proportion even in 1918. see link below.
http://www.usmm.org/ww1merchant.html
What if the United States never joined WW1?
- Thread starter Bomster
- Start date
No doubt, but it remains a fact that for US vessels, at least, the majority of sinkings were done that way in 1917, and a large proportion even in 1918. see link below.
http://www.usmm.org/ww1merchant.html
hipper
Banned
Look at the size of vessels that were sunk under cruser Rules compared to those sunk with torpedoes in the second half of 1917 only small ships (not armed or in Convoy) were captured using cruser Rules. larger ships were torpedoed.
Last edited:
I've seen it said (not in this forum) that the Americans didn't do much to help the Entente win -of course this ignores financing and arming Britain and France prior to 1917- because the British and French could handle the Spring 1918 offensives on their own. Its mainly British commentators who have said that.
However, without American entry in the war, as others have pointed out, there might not even have been any Spring 1918 offensives. There is a good chance the French would have thrown in the towel earlier. Also, though its not generally known, the American army was the largest component of Allied strength on the Western Front by the time of the Armistice.
However, without American entry in the war, as others have pointed out, there might not even have been any Spring 1918 offensives. There is a good chance the French would have thrown in the towel earlier. Also, though its not generally known, the American army was the largest component of Allied strength on the Western Front by the time of the Armistice.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
The French army or the French government? Because I think its important to remember France wasn't exactly dissolving in 1918. Sure, you had the mutinies, but I'd argue those are dramatically overplayed and tainted too much by the image of what that meant in Russia: French troops weren't leaving their positions, demanding major political reforms, or even deserting at terribly high rates. Rather, they were primarily refusing to make suicidal charges and asking for a consistent supply of hot food. France can and will be able to avoid throwing in the towel out of desperation from the bottom up, and so a lot depends on how harsh the terms Berlin offers to them for peace are.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
The OTL strength of Britain and France could certainly beat the OTL 1918 offensive. Of course absent the US, Britain and France will be somewhat weaker materially (and much weaker morally) and the CP somewhat stronger materially and morally. Whether that balance of forces has swung enough to allow the 1918 Spring offensive to succeed is the question
Well while the French might have thrown in the towel the Russians would have definitely thrown in the towel earlier. Only the promise of US loans to rebuild after the war kept Russia in the war as long as it did. That essentially eliminates the Eastern front, and is going to start a domino effect to eliminate Romania and make the Balkan front secure enough it does not collapse for the CP in 1918. Probably also means Italy gets mauled worse at Caporetto, though how much worse is the question, may or may not break Italy. However it would mean that A-H has rather more life in it and war lasts until 1919
Provided the Germans launch their late war offensive I think they will likely to lose the war. Those offensives ate up the last of the best German troops by relying on stormtrooper tacitics. British infantry doctrine by 1918 was superior. By the late war the Germans probably won’t have the logistical/military strength to maintain the breakthroughs.
German tactics and weapons were changing as well. The MP18 was potentially a game-changer, especially in large numbers, and the French had something interesting in the FAR 1918 but did not manufacture it in sufficient numbers. Large offensives were still a significant gamble, and without the looming threat of the US coming into the war en masse I doubt Germany launches the 1918 Spring offensives. They may try to coalesce the line significantly and push the troops used there OTL to Italy instead and go for a knockout (which they would likely get). Take down Italy and France might not be far behind, especially if the Austrians decide to move troops to the Western Front (and maybe move some into the Middle East to help their Ottoman ally?)
"The French army or the French government?"
The government.
This is from Wikipedia (May 25th, 2018, entry on Clemenceau), but its the best I could do with a quick internet search. I've seen the same claim in books on the war:
"Le 13 novembre en effet, le gouvernement Painlevé tombe et le président Poincaré doit rapidement lui trouver un successeur. Il aurait eu alors à choisir entre Joseph Caillaux et Clemenceau. Bien qu'il n'aime guère Clemenceau, il préfère celui-ci, favorable à une victoire militaire et dont la force morale l'impressionne, plutôt que Caillaux, partisan d’une paix de compromis mais accusé d'intriguer contre la France en faveur de l'Allemagne"
So there was some thought in high ranking French circles in 1917 to making peace with Germany, and this is AFTER the USA entered the war on the French side.
The government.
This is from Wikipedia (May 25th, 2018, entry on Clemenceau), but its the best I could do with a quick internet search. I've seen the same claim in books on the war:
"Le 13 novembre en effet, le gouvernement Painlevé tombe et le président Poincaré doit rapidement lui trouver un successeur. Il aurait eu alors à choisir entre Joseph Caillaux et Clemenceau. Bien qu'il n'aime guère Clemenceau, il préfère celui-ci, favorable à une victoire militaire et dont la force morale l'impressionne, plutôt que Caillaux, partisan d’une paix de compromis mais accusé d'intriguer contre la France en faveur de l'Allemagne"
So there was some thought in high ranking French circles in 1917 to making peace with Germany, and this is AFTER the USA entered the war on the French side.
Rough translation (if something below is out of place or incorrect please correct me):
"Indeed, on 13 November, the Painlevé government fell and President Poincare quickly needed a successor. He would then have had to choose between Joseph Caillaux and Clemenceau. Although he did not like Clemenceau, he preferred this one (who was) favorable to a military victory and whose moral force impressed him, rather than Caillaux, who supported a peace of compromise but was accused of intrigue against France in favor of Germany"
By the way, Wikipedia entries in non-English languages usually go into much greater depth in history topics covering non-Anglophone countries than the English language entries. Its a good trick to know.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Thank you for clarifying. I was just trying to head off the usual cliche that the moral of the French army and civil society was on the verge of collapse in 1917, only to be saved by hope of American intervention. It's clear you have a much deeper perception on the subject.
We would see a far greater and stronger German Culture all over the USA. Before World War 1, German was in fact the de facto second language before anti-German hysteria killed it. Without that, and the lack of anti-German sentiment, you would see an very viable German-American culture take root.
... would LOVE to learn more about this situation, esp how "strong" IOTL the positions of Clemenceau as well as Caillaux were wihtin the political community of France at that time.
Some thoughts on : No USW
IOTL the losses to subs were already increasing from August 1916 onwards to somewhat around 350.000 tons/month, wirth a slight tendency to further increase (January 1917 368.521 tons) (source).
Well before USW, though its was still/already a theme discussed by the germans.
AFAIK this was to the most extent due to the german sub-production finally kicking in sufficiently for a 'war-time' industry.
Now ... ITTL without USW and US-entry, the british ability to fight of the german subs even on cruiser rules would be reduced at least (less oils for ships, less escorts, if convoy-systems would still be adopted as there are less ships also).
That in turn would increase the number of available subs for the germans.
In this situation it would be IMO well within range of the germans to increase cruiser-rule sinking to something around 400 to 420 k tons/month.
Still far from the IOTL by the germans envisaged/hoped for 600.000 tons, you might say.
True, but ...
The Brits are now without the US-entry quite short on cash to buy :
IOTL the losses to subs were already increasing from August 1916 onwards to somewhat around 350.000 tons/month, wirth a slight tendency to further increase (January 1917 368.521 tons) (source).
Well before USW, though its was still/already a theme discussed by the germans.
AFAIK this was to the most extent due to the german sub-production finally kicking in sufficiently for a 'war-time' industry.
Now ... ITTL without USW and US-entry, the british ability to fight of the german subs even on cruiser rules would be reduced at least (less oils for ships, less escorts, if convoy-systems would still be adopted as there are less ships also).
That in turn would increase the number of available subs for the germans.
In this situation it would be IMO well within range of the germans to increase cruiser-rule sinking to something around 400 to 420 k tons/month.
Still far from the IOTL by the germans envisaged/hoped for 600.000 tons, you might say.
True, but ...
The Brits are now without the US-entry quite short on cash to buy :
food for the british people
oil for the british warships
ships for shipping whatever can be bougth abroad
ships for protecting convoys (destroyers)
and therefore the "ratio" of british ships to be sunk for fighting down Britain also decreases, which with the increasing numbers of german subs available ... vicious circle with a not well ending on the british side IMO.oil for the british warships
ships for shipping whatever can be bougth abroad
ships for protecting convoys (destroyers)
hipper
Banned
Whatever the USA or Germany Do the UK will introduce Convoy once losses reach a critical level. Even without any Escorts Convoy will reduce the number of encounters between U boats and British Ships. escorts and Air parols make the U boats job harder. Once Convoy is introduced Shipping losses will drop substantially. Coal fuelled Converted trawlers were effective as costal escorts and the U boats were compelled to hunt in Coastal waters as they could not find merchant shipping in the western approaches.
Not Swedish wikipedia were articles on Swedish history are better in English than Swedeish.
IF USA stays out we might see a White Peace in 1918-1919.
Last edited:
German civilians were on the verge on starvation in 1917. I can seee Germany trying one last push as OTL and might get further, but it runs out of steam and Germany offer a cease fire and Peace based on 1914 western borders
I know the rivalry over football is heated... but keeping the war running for over a hundred years is a bit much... even for the British!
I know the rivalry over football is heated... but keeping the war running for over a hundred years is a bit much... even for the British!
LOL changed now
We had very informative discussions about the relevance of the convoys. Mostly @BlondieBC agrued that the convoy in itself is a victory for the U-Boots as it introduces inefficiencies to the system...
Also what "Air patrols" are you talking about? This is the Great War and not WWII. So air cover is much more in its infancy and less reliable. Also may ships did not have a wireless so the work for the subs is much easier.
Imo the worse economic situation in late 17/18 is more a function of USA entry then RN success. As they, the Entente, could block the materials at the source.