India, Pakistan, and Kashmir

[Grand Vol]

We more or less do have overseas provinces. Our presence is very spread out throughout the world, even more so than the British Empire's was.

Presence yes, possessions, no.

Yes, we do have some overseas provinces. But not anywhere close to what the British controlled.

 

[05_never_again]

Presence yes, possessions, no.

Yes, we do have some overseas provinces. But not anywhere close to what the British controlled.

But in any fall of the American empire, that presence would go away or not be as dominant. We don't have them as a formal "possession" like the British did, but we have huge influence in many areas all over the world. It's a form of hegemony more than traditional colonialism.

 

[Grand Vol]

But in any fall of the American empire, that presence would go away or not be as dominant. We don't have them as a formal "possession" like the British did, but we have huge influence in many areas all over the world. It's a form of hegemony more than traditional colonialism.

I agree to an extent. If we are talking purely military presence, I would see the government bringing the troops home in light of domestic concerns if the situation started getting bad here. Especially if we started having a collapse and lawlessness abounded.

 

[Grand Vol]

I have read sources before in some of my dads military stuff that said basically if we hadnt made so many advances in technology like getting p51s and later with the Merlin engines so that our bombers could be escorted all the way to Germany instead of losing half or sometimes nearly all of them to German fighters...that we may have lost the war anyway, or at least been stuck there for years more. Certainly not jist the planes though, our first tanks were garbage compared to their counterparts, even rifles were much better by the end of the war. Our ability to adapt, and then outproduce Germany in our factories back home won the war for us. Well, that and Hitler being dumb enough to attack Russia and fight 2 fronts at the same time in Europe.

Edit: just my opinion based on what i have read. I am not a ww2 buff, and some here know much more about it than i do. Pretty sure that 72vol was around for both WWs...jk

The thing is, even our "second line" fighters were still highly useful and even relevant until the end of WWII. The P-40 as an example stayed in production until 1944. While it got a bad reputation as not being "as good as" German fighters, it actually wasn't as bad as many let on. Sure, it's high altitude performance left a lot to be desired, but it did surprisingly well in lower altitude engagements. It was never going to be a bomber escort at high altitude, but "down in the dirt" it could hold its own. Here's a good article on the P-40 (with a bunch of Zero and Zeke stuff as well):

P-40 and Zero

As for our tanks, they were not as good as front line German designs. In fact, nobody really was able to compete with the Germans in terms of armor. Maybe the Soviet T-34, but the Tiger II and Panther tanks were still some of the best of the war. However, the Tiger II showed the rushed production and development instead of working out the kinks. We did have one thing going for us in the armor realm though...we could build them cheaper, faster and more efficiently than the Germans. Sometimes quantity overcomes quality especially in conjunction with artillery and air power.

 

[Matt2496]

I agree to an extent. If we are talking purely military presence, I would see the government bringing the troops home in light of domestic concerns if the situation started getting bad here. Especially if we started having a collapse and lawlessness abounded.

Do you mean in a martial law scenario?

 

[tennvols77]

"beginning of the Pacific War, the United States Pacific Fleet based at Pearl Harbor consisted of eight battleships and three aircraft carriers. After the attack on 7 December the Japanese sunk four battleships, severely damaged three others."

"At its peak, the U.S. Navy was operating 6,768 ships on V-J Day in August 1945, including 28 aircraft carriers, 23 battleships, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, over 232 submarines, 377 destroyers, and thousands of amphibious, supply and auxiliary ships."

It's damn near unimaginable even by todays standards and technology to understand just how fast we cranked out all types of military vehicles and tanks and planes and naval boats and so on and on. unreal.

 

[Grand Vol]

Do you mean in a martial law scenario?

Quite possibly. If the situation got bad enough at home, yes, the government would bring back the troops in a martial law capacity. But we're talking pure anarchy and lawlessness on the home front. If 5-10 of the nation's 30 largest metro areas started rioting and looting and got beyond the control of the locals, I could see the National Guard being federalized and active duty forces being brought in to control those areas under martial law. However, I'd tend to think you'd still have significantly reduced numbers as troops, especially the NG, would end up going home to ensure momma/daddy and the kids were taken care of.

 

[LouderVol]

They had enough bombers, even though they weren't "strategic" bombers. They just decided to stop going after the airfields and industrial complexes during the Battle of Britain and went after the cities instead. Had they continued to go after infrastructure and industry instead of reprisal raids against the civilian population, they very well might have brought the RAF to its knees and been able to invade.

The way the Soviets moved everything east of the Ural Mountains hurt because nobody had a bomber capable of reaching the factories. Not even the B-29 could have reached them.

Two big mistakes, not putting the boot to the UK's throat and invading the Soviet Union.

I doubt it would have been enough. maybe if we hadn't been helping them it would have been enough. but there was a reason they developed the Vengeance (V1/2/3s) program. they couldn't bring enough weapons to bear, fast enough, against the British to be effective.

just compare the two programs and how much ordinance was dropped between our campaign and the German's.

 

[LouderVol]

"beginning of the Pacific War, the United States Pacific Fleet based at Pearl Harbor consisted of eight battleships and three aircraft carriers. After the attack on 7 December the Japanese sunk four battleships, severely damaged three others."

"At its peak, the U.S. Navy was operating 6,768 ships on V-J Day in August 1945, including 28 aircraft carriers, 23 battleships, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, over 232 submarines, 377 destroyers, and thousands of amphibious, supply and auxiliary ships."

It's damn near unimaginable even by todays standards and technology to understand just how fast we cranked out all types of military vehicles and tanks and planes and naval boats and so on and on. unreal.

at peak production one of Henry Fords plants was cranking out a B24 every hour (on average).

 

[tennvols77]

at peak production one of Henry Fords plants was cranking out a B24 every hour (on average).

It's absolutley un f****** real to think about the things we are capable of.

 

[LouderVol]

It's absolutley un f****** real to think about the things we are capable of.

IIRC we had more people working on the war effort side of things (industry, supply, and troops) than Germany had in total population. not sure how that math was determined because the US only had slightly more than twice the population of Germany at the time, so that might be counting farmer john who had one of his cows slaughtered and sent to the meat packaging plant sending stuff overseas.

 

[Grand Vol]

I doubt it would have been enough. maybe if we hadn't been helping them it would have been enough. but there was a reason they developed the Vengeance (V1/2/3s) program. they couldn't bring enough weapons to bear, fast enough, against the British to be effective.

just compare the two programs and how much ordinance was dropped between our campaign and the German's.

Depends. Had the Germans managed to force the RAF to move their bases out of Southern England, the Germans could have likely staged Operation Sea Lion since they would have been able to cover their invasion forces from France and the Low Countries. The problem, as with most things during warfare, was a political decision to stop striking the military targets and give in to the population that was calling for retaliation for the British bombing the urban areas of Germany.

Anyway, the Germans proved they could perform an airborne and sea invasion in 1941 with the invasion of Crete. Provided, the UK would have been a tougher nut to crack, but overall if they could have gotten a toehold on the British Isles, it would have been hard to stop them.

It's an interesting alternate history to discuss.

 

[Grand Vol]

In reality, four huge mistakes by the Germans in WWII:

1. Not continuing the bombing campaign of military-industrial targets in the UK during the Battle of Britain

Had the Germans managed to either invade the UK or as a minimum gotten them to the peace tables, they would have been able to preserve their hold on the Continent and reinforce it against future actions. The Swiss, Spaniards and Swedes weren't going to challenge them and if you take the UK out of position, they have control over most of Europe. Bring the British to their knees, force them to acquiesce and then start building your forces for Operation Barbarossa. If the British sue for peace, it also takes North Africa out of the picture and allows the Italians to garrison those areas they were "responsible" for.

2. Invasion of the Soviet Union (even though it was highly likely they were going to fight eventually) and opening a second front before the UK was pacified

No sane General ever fights on two fronts unless there is no other choice. Having said that to say this, the Germans almost managed to pull it off in the Soviet Union before weather became a serious factor. That and pushing all the chips in on Stalingrad. The Soviets were completely unprepared for an invasion and barely managed to stop the Germans before they got to Moscow. The problem was those pesky British were still bombing the Germans and hurting their industry and the "third" front still ongoing in North Africa. If you want to invade the Soviet Union, you have to have every person capable of pulling a trigger to do so. Because the Soviets were not going to be deterred from kicking their ass all the way back to Berlin before it was over.

3. Declaring war on the United States to show solidarity with the Axis Powers

Hitler and his Generals should have known the US, specifically Roosevelt, was spoiling for a fight in Europe. They gave Roosevelt the excuse he needed to get the US into the war when they declared war after Pearl Harbor. If we were just going to continue the Lend-Lease Act in regards to the UK, that was not going to stem the tide against a German onslaught. What the British desperately needed was not equipment, but manpower. We could give them every fighter, ship, tank and rifle we produced but it wouldn't have done a dang bit of good if there were no troops to operate them. Once we got into the fray, we provided all the manpower the Allies needed to keep the second and third fronts open and relieve a bit of pressure on the Soviets. Even though Stalin complained, the Germans still needed massive amounts of troops to garrison North Africa and Italy that could have been used in the Soviet Union.

Take away the "excuse" they gave Roosevelt to ask for a Congressional Declaration of War (on Germany at least) and you end up with a completely different situation in Europe.

4. Not having an efficient Navy especially in regards to the UK

The Germans didn't take Billy Mitchell's words to heart when it came to air power against a fleet, but the British sure did. Nobody, even us, had a Navy that was as good as the British at the start of WWII. Several hundred years of pride and experience went into the Royal Navy. Germany did not have a decent enough Navy, nor the right types of ships, to take on the British and were stuck in a 19th Century mentality that battleships had to take on battleships. They had no aircraft carriers to take on the British aircraft carriers. They pushed in all their chips on antiquated ships like the Bismark and were doomed to failure before it even started. Unless...

You draw them into an area where your strengths come into play. Lure them into an area where you can bring your fighters and bombers into play and where maneuvering room starts to dwindle down (the English Channel/Celtic Sea for example) and their strengths become less apparent. Threaten an invasion of the UK and they will be forced to move their Navy to counter. Once they do that and are within range of your land based aircraft, the situation can change. Sure, the British could also counter with their land based aircraft, but that also take away from the defense of the UK. Germans really didn't have the experience to take on the Royal Navy in this regard.

Some meandering thoughts on this sunny, but chilly, morning.

 

[LouderVol]

Depends. Had the Germans managed to force the RAF to move their bases out of Southern England, the Germans could have likely staged Operation Sea Lion since they would have been able to cover their invasion forces from France and the Low Countries. The problem, as with most things during warfare, was a political decision to stop striking the military targets and give in to the population that was calling for retaliation for the British bombing the urban areas of Germany.

Anyway, the Germans proved they could perform an airborne and sea invasion in 1941 with the invasion of Crete. Provided, the UK would have been a tougher nut to crack, but overall if they could have gotten a toehold on the British Isles, it would have been hard to stop them.

It's an interesting alternate history to discuss.

I don't think you can just look at Crete as an example. while it was technically a victory for the Germans it caused them to rethink their airborne strategies to the point where they never tried again*. even to the point of rethinking their re-planned invasion of Britain.

as long as the British kept the straight closed the germans couldn't have done much on the main island. only reason it worked for our troops was because they controlled the waterways, which even at the height of the Battle of Britain the English Straight was British territory.

 

[Grand Vol]

I don't think you can just look at Crete as an example. while it was technically a victory for the Germans it caused them to rethink their airborne strategies to the point where they never tried again*. even to the point of rethinking their re-planned invasion of Britain.

as long as the British kept the straight closed the germans couldn't have done much on the main island. only reason it worked for our troops was because they controlled the waterways, which even at the height of the Battle of Britain the English Straight was British territory.

Bomb the radar sites, bomb the supporting airfields and the English Channel becomes neutral ground.

 

[LouderVol]

Bomb the radar sites, bomb the supporting airfields and the English Channel becomes neutral ground.

so easy even a methed up Hitler could do it.

 

[Grand Vol]

so easy even a methed up Hitler could do it.

'Bout that lol

I don't honestly think your BAR analogy was accurate either. It was a niche weapon that didn't really have a direct counterpart in other services except maybe the Bren.

 

[Velo Vol]

2. Invasion of the Soviet Union (even though it was highly likely they were going to fight eventually)

The outcome of the war mostly boils down to this, with the German need for (and lack of) oil being the main factor.

 

[Grand Vol]

The outcome of the war mostly boils down to this, with the German need for (and lack of) oil being the main factor.

It eventually was a factor. I think they could have gotten by with the Romanian sources if they were just going against the UK.

But yes, oil was their problem.

 

[LouderVol]

'Bout that lol

I don't honestly think your BAR analogy was accurate either. It was a niche weapon that didn't really have a direct counterpart in other services except maybe the Bren.

exactly.

but the Germans didn't even how a true counterpart to the Maw Deuce. The MG 1934/42 only shot the same 7.62 (or was it 7.92?). Not sure if they even had a sniper/Anti Armor rifle round either. I know the Russians carried around some elephant killers to tackle light vehicles, and by the end they were running some 14.7 rounds thru their vehicle mounts.

we might have been a trend setter, but you would figure with a military designed around mobility (and the armored mechanized component of that) they would want a squad based weapon that could take on troop carrier types.

 

[Velo Vol]

It eventually was a factor. I think they could have gotten by with the Romanian sources if they were just going against the UK.

But yes, oil was their problem.

Maybe this guy oversells the case, but he cites some interesting statistics.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Maybe this guy oversells the case, but he cites some interesting statistics.

Thanks for posting this, Velo....very good and informative.

GUYS...please post stuff like this about all the different subjects we discuss...as well as different stuff that happens to interest you, maybe as a hobby or subject of study etc..

I love to learn, but am decades removed from school of any kind. The internet has made society so much more connected...and all the info from every library on earth is at our fingertips. We can share with eachother so much knowledge

 

[Burhead]

In reality, four huge mistakes by the Germans in WWII:



2. Invasion of the Soviet Union (even though it was highly likely they were going to fight eventually) and opening a second front before the UK was pacified

No sane General ever fights on two fronts unless there is no other choice. Having said that to say this, the Germans almost managed to pull it off in the Soviet Union before weather became a serious factor. That and pushing all the chips in on Stalingrad. The Soviets were completely unprepared for an invasion and barely managed to stop the Germans before they got to Moscow. The problem was those pesky British were still bombing the Germans and hurting their industry and the "third" front still ongoing in North Africa. If you want to invade the Soviet Union, you have to have every person capable of pulling a trigger to do so. Because the Soviets were not going to be deterred from kicking their ass all the way back to Berlin before it was over.

I'm not sure what would have happened if Moscow was taken by German troops but I think the single biggest mistake was when Hitler signed Directive No. 33 which diverted forces away from a final push towards Moscow instead they went into Ukraine and Kyiv.

 

[Velo Vol]

I'm not sure what would have happened if Moscow was taken by German troops but I think the single biggest mistake was when Hitler signed Directive No. 33 which diverted forces away from a final push towards Moscow instead they went into Ukraine and Kyiv.

I'll refer to the oil argument above and add, would the fall of Moscow have necessarily killed Russia?

 

[tvolsfan]

I'll refer to the oil argument above and add, would the fall of Moscow have necessarily killed Russia?

I think it would have made things difficult, seeing how important Moscow was to their rail system. I don’t think it makes them surrender right away, though. They had a **** ton of bodies to throw in the way of the German army, and they were going to use them.