what if? Britain allies with Germany and fights the USA

[teamgene]

as i said in the other thread, US tech was far behind Germany and UK. I want to remind you that while Wernher von Braun was sending his rockets to accomplish the first sub orbital flight, us scientists was writing their outstanding report about how much nuclear energy was weak and useless in any civilian or military application. Without UK support, scientists like Fermi and Einstein could simply not reach USA and you can bet Oppenheimer could not develop A bomb alone.
Without Tizard mission, US couldn't have basically anything. No self sealing tanks, no radars, no welding techniques, no liberty cargos, no Shermans, no 17 lb, no 20mm Hispano cannons and so on.
German and english aviation, together, with far superior technology (p-36 vs spitfires and bf-109E? lol) and based in UK Canada could wipe out US air forces in no time and then focus on destroying US IC (basically the same US did on Germany).
On land, us army did not have tanks. US decided to completely scrap tanks at the end of ww1 arguing they were useless. They had no tanks, no anti tank weapons, no mobile infantry and the whole logistic still based on horses.
With no supply and logistical problems thanks to the UK navy, wehrmacht could easily invade US even without the support of english troops if not as garrisons in conquered territories.

Actually, to Britain's suprise the Americans already had radar. Please see CXAM Radar. It was installed on US captial ships starting in 1939. Well before the british mission. Tizard mission enabled US to produce smaller radar units to be used on aircraft.



Oppenheimer may or may not, Edward Teller could since he did(but your right not alone, nor can you prove UK could have done it alone). To my knowledge Fermi came to the US from Sweden, not England and it was January of 1939, so before the 1940 timeline. Einstein came to the US in 1933 from Germany, the Nazi's took over while he was in USA so he never went back. Please explain how UK keeps him out???

Self Sealing Fuel Tanks is an American Invention from World War I.

The Japanese Zero was a copy of the H1 racer built by Howard Hughes.

Not sure the UK connection on the Sherman except by name, but the M3 was more than a match for anything Britain or Germany had without lessons learned against Soviets.

No need for 17lb gun as no Tiger or Panther without Germany fighting Soviets. US 75mm from 1897 did quite well on US tank destroyers. It came up lacking in Korea.

20mm Hispano, was not used much by US in WW2, US used .50 cal again it did the job well but came up lacking in Korea. In 1940 the 20mm was unreliable and it took some time to work out the kinks, before UK started actually using it in squadrons.

Those P36's you laugh at....had about a 2.5 to 1 kill ratio against GERMANY in France in 1940. They accounted for around 30 or 35% of the french kills. I am willing to bet a few of those were 109's as most of the french aces flew P36's.

I could go on, but pretty sure that anyone with an open mind can see that no one had a hugh technological advantage over the other. Just like the BF109 could not do some things the Spitfire could, didn't mean it was inferior, just had to know how to use it. This was shown with the P40 in China against the Zero. Fight doing what it does best and it will get the job done and get you home. Don't and a letter will be sent to your next of kin.

 

[Denkt]

American artillery used targeting computers from atleast early 30s, don't think Germany employed such technology during the whole war. US could still get the bofors gun which was far better medium anti aircraft gun then anything Germany and UK developed on their own during the whole war. In fact Germany's medium anti aircraft gun was so poor that they choose to use light anti aircrafts guns as their main naval anti air gun.

US had more experience with tank design then Germany did.

German naval gun design was really far behind. While Germany did not even have dual purpose guns, bofors was already in the early 40s building automatic loaded 152 mm dual purpose guns and effective medium anti air guns 40mm M/36 and late 1940s they was building 40mm M/48 which Germany was probably nowhere close to develop.

 

[seattle]

i opened a thread in about a fight between the USN and the Royal Navy and who would win, but it was closed. Maybe this time we can ceep chemical attacks out of the thread and stick to the topic. I would like to expand that question to the scenario of a fight between UK, Germany, Italy and Japan on the one side and US on the other side. I know its maybe unlikely of this to happen, but its interesting to think about. The scenario sets in 1940, brits are destroyed at dunkirk and a right wing government comes to power in UK, they ally with Germany and Hitler convinces them that the US it the biggest danger for the empire and has to be destroyed. An Invasion of the US is planned. Do you think this 4 powers could make it into the US and win this fight?

Your scenario is implausible to the highest degree which renders discussing it moot. Hitler did everything to appease the US. Roosevelt ever expanded the protection zone in the Atlantic to lure Germany into taking the bait. Hitler ordered his U-Boats to not violate this ever expanding zone. Trust me, had Germany beaten the UK they would not have dow'ed the US.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

American artillery used targeting computers from atleast early 30s, don't think Germany employed such technology during the whole war.

Presuming you mean computers for specifically naval artillery, then everyone used them (I'm almost certain this applies to land based anti-aircraft artillery as well), nor was this particularily new technology in principle or anything. Mechanical calculators for gunnery first came up with the revolution in fire-control that happened during first and second decades of 20th century. Already widespread during WW1, particularily if we count use of simple range clocks etc. which were easily fitted on just about anything (they were man portable).

 

[Loke]

I would guess that USA wins in the long run if its going all in.

 

[seattle]

I would guess that USA wins in the long run if its going all in.

US always wins in the long run given the proper casus belli. If the US is attacked, then determination will be extremely high to win and given the means they will succeed. They undoubtedly had the means (by far greatest IC).

 

[Secret Master]

US always wins in the long run given the proper casus belli. If the US is attacked, then determination will be extremely high to win and given the means they will succeed. They undoubtedly had the means (by far greatest IC).

But not highest population, assuming the British Empire plus Germany.

I understand that IC and shipyards matter most in an air or naval conflict, which a conflict between Germany/Britain and the US might be, but if the US wants to invade Europe, it's a pointless exercise even if the British-German Axis has no naval strength. The US cannot invade. The US will also be unable to invade India unless the British act really dumb or the Indians are already in open revolt.

I think the irony of a US-British war is that surface raiders might become more useful. With close naval parity between the two powers, it might become important to not only protect convoys, but also use them as focal points to force decisive naval battles.

I am interested in what the economics of such a war look like, though. If there is no trade between the Americas and Europe, what happens to the world economy?

 

[Loke]

US always wins in the long run given the proper casus belli. If the US is attacked, then determination will be extremely high to win and given the means they will succeed. They undoubtedly had the means (by far greatest IC).

Population ok, I was more thinking about the industrialisation level of the USA, in 1939 was it twice the size of Britain+Germany combined?

 

[tommylotto]

Britain+Germany, huh? Sort of the War Debts / Reparations Deadbeat Coalition. If they didn't want to repay the money, why'd they borrow it? The US would have to break their deadbeat thumbs. We can't have other nations thinking they can just borrow our dollars and not pay them back, now can we?

Neither side could invade and defeat the other. To suggest otherwise is just silly talk. You might have various colonial bush wars, but mostly it would be a naval/economic war. It would be a matter of pain tolerance. Germany, as predominately a land power, would be a relatively minor player Plus, they are a god-awful ally. Just ask the Italians. The war would hurt both sides in the pocket book. Resource-wise the US is self sufficient and with its industry and dockyards could eventually fill the seas with carrier task forces and long range subs. The UK has the most to lose. As an island nation, it is not resource self-sufficient and relies on convoys for necessities. The vasty larger US Navy could do a much more lethal job than the Kriegsmarine at strangling the Brits. Just ask the Japanese. It would get ugly, and Churchill would get as thin as Chamberlain. Think the Germans would act as the "Arsenal of Evil", give destroyers for bases, offer lend lease, spew out fleets of "Totalitarian Dictator Ships" to replace the sunk UK merchant fleet, etc.? Think again. They would be laughing at the Brits for being chumps for getting themselves into this situation. The Commonwealth nations (particularly Canada) would say thanks, but no thanks, you are on your own. Colonies would use the opportunity to agitate for independence, which the US would be happy to help facilitate. Then eventually there would be a flash in the New Mexico desert, and even Hitler would take notice.

Don't you think it would be a better idea to just be a nice world citizen and pay your damn debts?

 

[BBBD316]

Well looking at the British NF's unlike France, the UK has no tree for reconciliation with Germany so unless the UK gets involved against the USSR first for some reason. Perhaps a pacifist Germany, with Poland and France aligned which is attacked by the USSR first.

It would be interesting to see how the UK would be able to survive if the US decides to attack the UK on its own. Not allied to Germany, but simply decides the time of Empires and Colonies is over and pushes War plan Red/Orange/Magenta/Pink with purple polkadots.

 

[Magnus Imperator Rex]

OP, this would automatically activate War Plan Red.

Add Japan, and its WP Red-Orange.

 

[Acaios]

Actually, to Britain's suprise the Americans already had radar. Please see CXAM Radar. It was installed on US captial ships starting in 1939. Well before the british mission. Tizard mission enabled US to produce smaller radar units to be used on aircraft.

and we all saw the effectiveness of those radars in December 1941.
also, despite us navy already developed the tecnology, not a single us plane had an iff device installed. In 1941 all new German planes came with the FuG25 transponder.

Oppenheimer may or may not, Edward Teller could since he did(but your right not alone, nor can you prove UK could have done it alone). To my knowledge Fermi came to the US from Sweden, not England and it was January of 1939, so before the 1940 timeline. Einstein came to the US in 1933 from Germany, the Nazi's took over while he was in USA so he never went back. Please explain how UK keeps him out???

simply because it's impossible to travel between Europe and US if UK and Ger control all the airspace and the seas. The years is not a real matter: if i plan an attack on us lands and i have suck a control over Europe, I would not allow any scientist to reach us despite the fact we're at war or not.

Self Sealing Fuel Tanks is an American Invention from World War I.

and that's why the first us plane that mounted it was the Corsair, not ready until december 42'.

The Japanese Zero was a copy of the H1 racer built by Howard Hughes.

this is just a legend. The only person that claimed that statement was Hughes himself, after he sees how much effective Zeros were. Not a single engineer us or Japanese but him confirmed that. Let's guess why.
It's also unlikely that more than decent engineer like Horikoshi decided to copy a plane built for speed that highly fail his duty (550 km/h vs 740 km/h of the macchi 72) to create the Zero, a plane designed specifically to exploit as much as possible an engine lacking of power like the Nakajima 12.

Not sure the UK connection on the Sherman except by name, but the M3 was more than a match for anything Britain or Germany had without lessons learned against Soviets.

uk experience in northern Africa and Europe was essential to the development of this tank. Also, you have to understand that all intelligences us gather during ww2 came from the UK.

No need for 17lb gun as no Tiger or Panther without Germany fighting Soviets. US 75mm from 1897 did quite well on US tank destroyers. It came up lacking in Korea.

So, US army that had not a SINGLE tank (M2A1 and M2A2 were tankettes, not real tanks.) in 1939 could develope Sherman tanks out of nothing while enemy are pressing from Canada, but Germany and UK that already developed Churchills, Matildas, Cruisers, pz 3, pz 4 and so on could not develope anything else. This is not really fair.

20mm Hispano, was not used much by US in WW2, US used .50 cal again it did the job well but came up lacking in Korea. In 1940 the 20mm was unreliable and it took some time to work out the kinks, before UK started actually using it in squadrons.

they did the job in the pacific theater vs planes known to be way light armored. There's a reason if RAF decided to mount hispano cannons on P51 US sent them.

Those P36's you laugh at....had about a 2.5 to 1 kill ratio against GERMANY in France in 1940. They accounted for around 30 or 35% of the french kills. I am willing to bet a few of those were 109's as most of the french aces flew P36's.

to be honest, i did not find any Realible information about those numbers.
Anyway, I'm just asking myself why us decided to scrap such a successful plane after an year of service in favor of other designs, while both spitfires and bf109 lasted till the end of the war.

I could go on, but pretty sure that anyone with an open mind can see that no one had a hugh technological advantage over the other. Just like the BF109 could not do some things the Spitfire could, didn't mean it was inferior, just had to know how to use it. This was shown with the P40 in China against the Zero. Fight doing what it does best and it will get the job done and get you home. Don't and a letter will be sent to your next of kin.

I could go on, but I'm pretty sure that anyone without a nationalistic view of us forces in 1940 can understand that us was the weakest nation between the super powers in that time frame, the one with the worst technology and the one with the older doctrines (france actually developed way better doctrines both in tank warfare and infantry usage and still they don't last more than a week.).
You can be as good as fighting as you want, but if you do not have an anti tank weapon, you will not be able to kill tanks. technology means something.

 

[Acaios]

US had radar project(s) independent of British with, by the time of Tizard mission, a competent air warning and limited capability sea search radar (CXAM) in production as well as fire-control radars in development (based on triodes before Tizard mission, switched to magnetrons afterwards). I mean yeah, the British magnetron was very useful contribution, particularly for long term development of fire control radars (at least ship based) and miniaturized radar, but 'no radars' is clearly false statment.

magnetron technology is not only useful to build smaller radars (that are still an huge advantages during patrolling missions). it also allow the usage of microwaves instead of the radio waves used before. microwaves are way more accurate at locating objects and also allow an expert operator to identify the shape of the object that is pinging just looking at his radar profile. Radio waves used in radars were metrical (i just checked cxam used 200mhz, meaning it used 1.5-2 meter long waves). I would like to challenge you to draw a plane using only 1.5m long and wide pixels.

As I alluded to in the previous thread, British were leaps and bounds behing Americans in application of welding for naval contruction. All USN DDs post WW1 were welded (ie. Farragut onwards). The first British DD class designed to be fully welded? Daring class. Full welding allowed for stronger, lighter hulls and could be cheaper too. It also reduced water resistance and hence increased endurance and speed.

actually, the first all welded ship in the world was the HMS Fullagar in 1920. Fokker developed and used welding techniques during ww1 in plane construction.
One of the greater problem in developing the liberty cargo design was the fact that between the 20 us shipyards assigned to the production of this ship, just 2 or 3 were able to deploy experienced welding squads. Only in 1942, with the introduction of GTAW welding became more common.
On the other hands, Krupps, Rehinmetals, Porches, henkel, and all other important companies could use a really skilled labor force high trained in different welding techniques (arc, plasma, chemical and also termite welding) and this also became a problem because when Germany started to hit ussr factory, they could just replace killed workers with fresh ones, while Germany had to train them again wasting more time.
We all agree the fact that welding is way better than riveting I think.

 

[Acaios]

American artillery used targeting computers from atleast early 30s, don't think Germany employed such technology during the whole war.

First of all, US used for the whole war, women to calculate artillery solutions for troops in the Ballistics Office of Aberdeen.
All calculations required to build the A bomb was provided by humans, not computers. (I suggest an interesting lecture about that, "When computer where humans", by David Alan Grier)
This does not means they weren't effective, just they were not computers.
Germany not only developed an elettro mechanical machine to calculate artillery solution during the war (thanks to Conrad Zuse), but they also developed small enough radio to deploy dedicated first line artillery spotters. Germany doctrine was not particularly focused on artillery and indirect strike (not as much as uk was at least), but it still was really accurate and effective in tactical situations.
Also, Churchill himself stated that they won the war thanks to the work of Alan Turing. I'm not really sure us could crack enigma code without his help.

German naval gun design was really far behind. While Germany did not even have dual purpose guns, bofors was already in the early 40s building automatic loaded 152 mm dual purpose guns and effective medium anti air guns 40mm M/36 and late 1940s they was building 40mm M/48 which Germany was probably nowhere close to develop.

US could still get the bofors gun which was far better medium anti aircraft gun then anything Germany and UK developed on their own during the whole war. In fact Germany's medium anti aircraft gun was so poor that they choose to use light anti aircrafts guns as their main naval anti air gun.

German had to follow the Versaille naval treaty that limited them to build vessels ligher than 10k tons. this highly reduced the development of big caliber guns.
Also, it's pretty unfair to compare 30s designs like the Bismark, with 40s design, like the Dakota (the one with bofors guns), redesigned and build after the sunk of the Forces Z.
Despite that, Bismark fire control was one of the best in the world and the main guns were one of the most accurate artillery pieces mounted on ships. This is why the managed to score an hit at 16km on the HMS Hood. This is on of the hit at longer distance during ww2, if not the longest at all.

US had more experience with tank design then Germany did.

I do not know were you find this statement, but it's simply wrong. In 1939 us army was developing the M2 tank. UK meanwhile started the development of the Churchill tank and Germany was testing the vk3601 tank, then scrapped to develop the tiger tank. US had simply NO experience in tank developing.
I highly recommend you to review your sources.

 

[womble]

...the scenario of a fight between UK, Germany, Italy and Japan on the one side and US on the other side...in 1940, brits are destroyed at dunkirk and a right wing government comes to power in UK, they ally with Germany and Hitler convinces them that the US it the biggest danger for the empire and has to be destroyed. An Invasion of the US is planned. Do you think this 4 powers could make it into the US and win this fight?

No. Because they'd take longer than 3 years to get their act together, and then the Soviets would be steaming over the M-R Pact line into "East Germany". The Commonwealth would have nothing to do with any military adventurism against the USA, so the "greater Axis" wouldn't have Canada to springboard from. Britain's interest in the defeat of Communism would've been lukewarm at best, having just lost a war of self-determination; think how reluctantly they got involved in defense of their guarantees of European national borders. You don't turn around a defeated nation and make it into a useful world-conquest ally in a couple of years. Takes a couple of decades.

Without Barbarossa, the Russians wouldn't need US lend-lease, and the Murmansk/Vladivostok convoys to beat the stuffing out of the Germans; T-34 and KV-1 would have seen to that. So the RN could maybe fight the USN to a standstill (for a while), but getting enough help out of the disintegrated British Empire to throw back the Russian Hordes is deeply unlikely.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

magnetron technology is not only useful to build smaller radars (that are still an huge advantages during patrolling missions). it also allow the usage of microwaves instead of the radio waves used before. microwaves are way more accurate at locating objects and also allow an expert operator to identify the shape of the object that is pinging just looking at his radar profile. Radio waves used in radars were metrical (i just checked cxam used 200mhz, meaning it used 1.5-2 meter long waves). I would like to challenge you to draw a plane using only 1.5m long and wide pixels.

I concede that the British magnetron was useful for sea search radar development too, not that I exactly claimed otherwise. Though I don't think it would have been anywhere near important as for main battery gun-laying radar, particularly for the mature (~1943+) radars that were accurate in blind-fire since they needed to be able to clearly distinguish fall of shot from the target.

Air warning sets like CXAM were generally metric sets during WW2, even in Britain. Valiant used a 7m(!) wavelength Type 79 radar at Matapan against the Italian cruisers.

I suppose it's also worth pointing that even with an improved magnetron you could end up slumped in radar research. Japanese independently came up with improved type of magnetron and heavily relied on it in their radars, but seem to have been crawling along by war's end regardless. I do not know (nor remember) enough of the technical differences between the British and Japanese types of magnetron to say if this was simply because of potential technical differences beween them.

actually, the first all welded ship in the world was the HMS Fullagar in 1920. Fokker developed and used welding techniques during ww1 in plane construction.
One of the greater problem in developing the liberty cargo design was the fact that between the 20 us shipyards assigned to the production of this ship, just 2 or 3 were able to deploy experienced welding squads. Only in 1942, with the introduction of GTAW welding became more common.

British also built an early longitudinally framed destroyer (Ardent, the WW1 one). But that's as may be, as they subsequently abandoned the practise until J-class. As I said, this was about application. Something that certainly hampered British application of welding in warships was the fact that the basic structural steel they had chosen in 1920s was not suited for welding.

In regards to the Liberty Ships, I'd speculate that due to massive concurrent naval construction program, itself making ubiquitous use of welding, little or none of the pre-war know-how built on warships was available for merchantmen. A question of supply, demand and priorities, that is.

 

[ashbery76]

Invading a united Europe would be impossible for the US.You would need Normandy +50.Realistic politics would be a peace treaty and a possible 1984 like future.

 

[ashbery76]

Basically the US still wins, the only nation able to beat the US is the USSR, and vice versa. The only thing that matters in a modern war is industry, and the US has that in spades. It is fairly cut and dry in that regard. There is a reason why the US was able to fight a 2 front war, one of which being the largest theater of the Second World War.

Or at least that is how I view it.

Last time I checked they already lost to a small nation in asia.Industry is not the only factor you need the people too to make an empire.

 

[teamgene]

@Acaios Not going to spend the time to edit your quotes as it really doesn't matter as this is s flight of fantasy topic...however...

US radar in 1941 did report the sighting, had B17's not been coming in that day things would have gone differently, how much is opinion.

The scenario is that Brits lose at Dunkirk and join Germany, by your post I assume you missed that. Also, which side Canada would be on is open to debate as Churchill for instance planned to continue the war in Canada. But this is flight of fantasy scenario so either way.

On self sealing fuel tanks a quote from MIlitary Wikia which certainly isn't the end all, but decent source:

" George J. Murdock applied for the patent "War Aeroplane Fuel Tanks" on February 7, 1917 but was temporarily blocked by an order of the Federal Trade Commission, on February 6, 1918, to keep any discussion or publication of the invention secret. The order was rescinded by the United States Patent Office on September 26, 1918 and Murdock was eventually granted United States Patent 1,386,791 "Self-Puncture Sealing Covering for Fuel-Containers" on August 9, 1921. Military aircraft built by the Glenn L. Martin Company used this self-sealing fuel tank. "

To my knowedge, the only version of P51 that the UK fitted with 20mm guns was the P51 A1. The US kill ratio in europe speaks for itself.

The information on the performance of the Curtis Hawk P36/ model 75 is all over, so I assume you didn't try very hard. It had the first kills by an allied fighter of the war, shooting down two BF109's on September 8, 1939 with no loses. Several French squadrons using the model 75.

Fact is the 75/L40 gun the US had since World War I, but everyone wants to ignore that. Really doesn't matter what platform it gets put on. US 76mm developed in 30's. 90mm 1940 though not used as anti tank til 43.

Its not fair to rule out the Germans designing Tiger, but we can't have USA invent anything it didn't have before 1940, yeah right.

40 u-boats brought England to its knees, but somehow US subs are not a factor in this fantasy war.

Could the USA take on the world, no. No one could, but by the time UK and Germany would REALISTICALLY be ready to invade iIt would be far different than 1940 America and I think they would have looked for other solutions.

 

[Secret Master]

STRAP ON YOUR BLACK SHORTS

What?