Oh, I wasn't trying to imply that the Soviets would lose the whole eastern war because the USA sent less trucks.Amerigo Vespucci said:I completely agree. It would've taken a bit more time, but even without L-L, the Soviets are going to win.
In OTL, less than one percent of Soviet Lend-Lease was supplied in 1941. In 1942, 12 percent of the total was given. That leaves 87 percent to come in two and a half years of fighting. Fighting that came largely after the war turned in the favor of the Soviet Union.
Hyperion said:What if by loosing the Enterprise and Lexington at Pearl, this changes some later events.
If Saratoga is torpedoed in January as it was in OTL, this may see the Wasp getting sent earlier.
Having less carriers means no Doolittle Raid will happen, as Nimitz may consider the plan, however bould, to be too risky.
What if The Japanese conduct themselves similar to OTL.
They send two carriers fleet carriers and a light carrier to Coral Sea. The US, not launching the Doolittle Raid, sends Yorktown, Hornet, and Saratoga to stop them. What in OTL turned out as a draw, turns into a victory, with a third US carrier and escorts available.
stevep said:Calbear
While I disagree about the Italian campaigns potential and the wider options in the Med. you are totally right about the naval build-up that would have been possible. With a very large economy slowly recovering from the depression and then boosted by the war in Europe, no blackout or real material shortages US capacity by the 40's was immense. Have heard very few comments about restrictions. Think it was said one reason the Montana class BBs were cancelled was because of a steel shortage at the time. [Although that could have been a political statement and some people simply realised that such ships were largely irrelevant]. Also that the manpower needed for the B29 campaign meant the US decided it was not practical to expand its forces beyond 100 divisions. Those are the only restrictions I have ever heard at all on UD production during this period.
Steve
US Navy would be in very deep s... well, you know.
Well, no. Nimitz & U.S. might be better off in the long run (harsh as it seems), with more emphasis on commerce war (subs...), which could conceivably end the war before the end of '44, changing nothing but priority on tankers & basing all subs at Pearl....war in Pacific would last a lot longer.
It was nothing like that simple... A 3d wave, presuming it went off, risked unnecessary losses to aircraft & the prospect of abandoning Kido Butai's destroyers en route home, 'cause they didn't have the fuel to make it back.Japanese really wanted to get the carriers in Pearl Harbor, and Nagumo called off third wave because he was affraid of their counterattack.
Which all presumes there would be a 3d wave, which I deeply doubt. Don't forget, IJN expected it to be a short war, so the need to target facilities like Navy Yard or tank farm wasn't even considered in the planning (as obvious as it seems today)...third wave would destroy magazines, yards and fuel tanks of Pacific Fleet.
Not without help from the Cardassians.No Battle of Coral Sea means the Japanese are very close to invade Australia itself.
Very unlikely. USN could still place 3 CVs at Point Luck 6 June '42. It does mean ferry missions to Malta get butterflied, unless Ranger is used, or an Empire McAlpine-type merchant CV appears sooner (which it could readily have...).And Midway would probably by captured by Imperial Navy.