American strategic options vs a Nazi-dominated Europe?

[BlueTrousers]

The B-36 is the only answer here. Yes, in OTL it wasn't operational until 1949 and not fully effective until the 1950s. That's because it wasn't needed - the specification was written in 1940 specifically to cover the possibility of Britain falling and the US needing to conduct operations against European targets from the North American landmass. When that contingency didn't happen, the B-36 was put on a back burner until the nascent Cold War created a demand for it.

If Britain does indeed fall, it is almost inconceivable that the US would not press on with its' development. Other than size, the B-36 was actually more conservative than the B-29. If boost jets are needed, use the J35 rather than the later, related J47 used in OTL. All that's required to get the B-36 in large-scale service in the late 1940s is intent.

 

[alexcoppo]

It is difficult not be in awe looking at B-36 stats.

#1: B-36 bomb load at maximum range was 72,000 lbs. At shorter ranges it could go above 80,000 lbs (I have read 86,000). It is reported that it could carry 2 (TWO!) 42,000 lbs. T-12 Cloudmakers. With 2 Mk-3s (~20,000 lbs) it would be almost "empty" .

For comparison:
B-17 4,500->17,600
B-24 2,700->8,000
B-29 20,000
i.e. 1 B-36 equals 4->16 B-17s, 9->27 B-24s, 3 B-29s.

#2: B-36 wing load was very low, especially with "limited" bomb loads, lower than many fighters out its age. It could have actually out dogfighted fighters, especially jets at high altitude.

#3: 10, twin 20mm cannon, radar controlled turrets. Which way for Valhalla?


100-150 B-36, with improved Mk-3s (30-50 ktons) and in one hour the Reich will glow in the night .

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Thought I had a lot of catching up to do here, but the B36 question has taken 75% of the conversation.

That makes sense. I always thought the OTL invasion of North Africa came from Britain, but doing major, exhaustive research (i.e. Wikipedia) I see at least one group sailed direct from the USA.

Going off that idea, can the U.S.-(Azores-?)North Africa route sustain the logistics you'd need to land and support millions of troops from Morocco to Algeria, then into Italy and southern France? Are the ports in Morocco and Algeria good enough? What about overland transportation? Busy times ahead for engineers and construction workers, I suspect.

There was some serious infrastructure development in NW Africa 1943-44, mostly sustained directly from the US. Previous to that France had invested in port and naval base facilities to assist industrial growth in the second half of the 20th Century. I'm unsure if the aircraft assembly facilities in Morroco or Algeria still existed in 1943.

Sea traffic on the mid Atlantic route to the Mediterranean in 1943 rivaled that to the UK.

The idea of American armies on the eastern front warms my heart.

That might start with the Middle East. The Persian route for material to the USSR had its attractions, & both the Brits and US were sending material that way in 1941, and both were involved from 1941 in improving that route. During the worst moment of 1941-42 the US military did some staff work on what it would take to place ground and air forces in the region to support the USSR.

Gotta go to work, but there are some interesting points raised in this thread.


My general idea for the Soviet Union here was that while they can't win by themselves, they can certainly survive. Moscow and Leningrad still hold through 1941. The Germans can push a little farther than in OTL since they don't have to worry at all about Britain or (for the time being) North Africa, but they can't deliver a knock out blow. The Soviets can slowly push back, but without the UK and LL, it will be a much slower and bloodier process.

Mainly I want to focus on USA vs GER as much as possible, although Spain in the Axis does offer some interesting tangents. I don't know if it would get a full invasion, or at least not the main invasion. How hard are the Pyrenees to cross in force? Might be easier just to land the main invasion in Provence and go up the Rhone, while dropping some Marines in Granada or Catalonia.[/QUOTE]

 

[Scotty]

A "Britain drops out" scenario, the US is going to occupy Iceland as OTL, they most certainly will not allow any potentially hostile forces (such as Vichy) in overseas territories in S. America and Caribbean. Naturally no German forces will be allowed period (yes, "control" officers possibly in Vichy territory but nothing else). Very likely the USA will have bases in Azores with (or without) Portuguese consent, and the Canary Islands can be seized if the Germans don't get there first and fortify - there were contingency plans for this.

Assuming bases in Iceland, Azores, Canaries the U-boats can be contained pretty well. Furthermore its 1800 air miles from the Azores to Berlin, 2240 air miles Canaries to Berlin, Iceland to Berlin 1420 air miles. With those bases, air attacks on Europe, especially with in flight refueling very doable. Of course having said that, in a non-UK scenario sending bombers over Europe with out escort would be a slaughter. Bombing around the edges certainly is doable.

The USA can take over French colonies in West Africa, and build up bases there. Between the islands above, and infrastructure in West Africa, a landing in North Africa and subsequent campaign there is doable. Assuming the USA now holds North Africa...

Sending US forces, other than air forces, to the USSR in a no UK scenario is simply not possible. Forgetting Stalin's paranoia, incredible problems of command & control (imagine Soviet generals expending US troops like they did their own), supply will be impossible. No way the US can send supplies via the northern route, the Luftwaffe & Kriegsmarine will shit that, and through the Med...forget it. That leaves the through Iran route (iffy) and if no Pacific War, have both US & Russian ships to Vladivostok as well as ferrying aircraft Aleutians to Petropavlosk. Unfortunately the capacity of the trans-Siberian RR to carry supplies westward is limited. The US is better sending supplies absent significant troops to the USSR, their problem won't be manpower but "stuff".

In 1940/41, Spain was a basket case. One of the reasons they never jumped in with the Axis was the reality that absent petroleum and food from the Western Hemisphere, in particular the US, their economy would completely collapse and they'd starve. Even if not fighting the UK, the Axis cannot supply the food and oil Spain needs to survive so Spain being more than a strongly tilted neutral is not happening. having said that, absent the UK Italy and Germany can pretty much control the Med until the US has the southern shore...

exactly - iceland, the azores and the canaries get concreted over and turned into giant US airbases

sure, its nowhere near as good as the unsinkable UK but it allows the USAF to take the fight to the Germans and the Canaries / Azores can act as jumping off points to N.Africa

 

[pattersonautobody]

I presume that Britain stays out even with the US in? That's impossible after a landing in Africa unless the Germans occupy Britain. Then, if that's the case, then reconquering of Europe looks awfully a lot like OTL but with a stunted strategic bombing campaign.


If Britain stays out, then the US takes Africa, Italy, and then the Balkans, essentially attriting the Germans to death until the point when a landing in Southern France becomes feasible.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

If I may make a suggestion OP: the best means to have an American-dominated WW2 in Europe isn't to have the British stay out, but the Soviets. The demographic and economic factors mean that in a Anglo-American alliance the British are ultimately doomed to play second fiddle. And without the Soviets, it will invariably fall upon the Americans to pay the blood price of defeating the Germans.

So what you are looking for is a TL where Britain stays in the conflict and the US enters the war, but Germany never attacks the Soviets. In such a case, Stalin will likely keep selling the Germans stuff and improving his military but won't attack Germany until it's clear that the Germans are doomed anyways. In such a case, WW2 in Europe will become predominantly an American vs Germany affair with the British playing a important supporting role instead of OTLs Soviet vs Germany with the Anglo-Americans playing a important supporting role.

 

[Dave Howery]

a question about 'occupying the Azores/Canaries'... would that bring Franco in on the side of the Axis? In OTL, he didn't find it quite tempting enough, but in TTL?

 

[varyar]

If I may make a suggestion OP: the best means to have an American-dominated WW2 in Europe isn't to have the British stay out, but the Soviets. The demographic and economic factors mean that in a Anglo-American alliance the British are ultimately doomed to play second fiddle. And without the Soviets, it will invariably fall upon the Americans to pay the blood price of defeating the Germans.

So what you are looking for is a TL where Britain stays in the conflict and the US enters the war, but Germany never attacks the Soviets. In such a case, Stalin will likely keep selling the Germans stuff and improving his military but won't attack Germany until it's clear that the Germans are doomed anyways. In such a case, WW2 in Europe will become predominantly an American vs Germany affair with the British playing a important supporting role instead of OTLs Soviet vs Germany with the Anglo-Americans playing a important supporting role.

Ooof. All those Eastern Front troops freed up for the Germans... I think that version of the war ends with many mushroom clouds.

a question about 'occupying the Azores/Canaries'... would that bring Franco in on the side of the Axis? In OTL, he didn't find it quite tempting enough, but in TTL?

Re: the Azores, the OTL occupation by the UK and then USA didn't provoke Franco. Would he here? I dunno. I think he's still too canny to commit. The Canaries, OTOH, are Spanish territory, so...

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

If Britain gets knocked out in 1940ish with the peace terms mentioned above (keep empire, RN), then what on earth is to stop them from declaring war again when the US is ready - say 1946 or so? quiet diplomacy ensures that a welcoming committee is ready to hold e.g. Liverpool (more likely every port on the west coast), and the US arrives with battleships, tankers, thousands of aircraft, 100s of thousands of men, and unloads.


???
But even if Britain is conquered and occupied (ha!), the US has Iceland. Probably takes the Faroes. Then takes Scotland. Then England soon thereafter.

 

[Dave Howery]

If Britain gets knocked out in 1940ish with the peace terms mentioned above (keep empire, RN), then what on earth is to stop them from declaring war again when the US is ready - say 1946 or so? quiet diplomacy ensures that a welcoming committee is ready to hold e.g. Liverpool (more likely every port on the west coast), and the US arrives with battleships, tankers, thousands of aircraft, 100s of thousands of men, and unloads.

I think that is undoubtedly what would happen. But this whole POD is basically a thought experiment... "WI the US had to fight Germany without the UK". Granted, it's unlikely, but stranger things have happened...

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Ooof. All those Eastern Front troops freed up for the Germans... I think that version of the war ends with many mushroom clouds.

In all probability, yes. It would also likely be the first (and only) war in US history to break the "one million men dead" mark.

 

[sloreck]

Franco may bitch and moan and even expel US diplomats, but he won't declare war. Doing so would mean economic collapse and starvation. Furthermore if you think Germany having Italy as an ally is a drain, let alone Hungary or Romania, Spain brings absolutely zero to the plate with the exception of small arms and some ammo all of the modern equipment has to be imported, and basically given to Spain as they have no money - remember the gold reserves of the Spanish government were taken to Russia for safekeeping, and they are still there quite safe...

I can see Germany giving Condors and seaplanes to the Spanish so they can do patrols over the Atlantic "to protect their sea lanes", very possibly with Luftwaffe "volunteers" flying them (like Russian recon planes flown in Egyptian AF markings during cold war with Russian crews). Naturally the Spanish recon planes will report sightings in clear on frequencies monitored by the Kriegsmarine, the US did the same with destroyers spotting U-Boats before the US was in the war. Anything more than that will piss off the USA and oil and food shipments cease, if need be the US would "blockade" Spain and even if Argentina or others wanted to ship food no go.

IMHO if the US occupied the Canaries Spain would vigorously object, and after the war the US would apologize and leave.

 

[brovane]

Assuming an "Isolationist US, no Lend-Lease, Britain (probably under weaker leadership) grudgingly sues for peace, USSR unlikely to drive the Nazis out any time soon, Hitler still declares war on America because Hitler is crazy" scenario - what are the USA's options for defeating Germany?

Is there any feasible non-UK route to invading mainland Europe, or is the USA forced to rely on war at sea and in the air (if even possible - bombers based out of Iceland and the Azores, perhaps?) until the Manhattan Project starts turning out bombs?

Some assumptions in this scenario would be helpful.

#1- When does Britain drop out of the War?
#2- Does Japan declare war on the US?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Some assumptions in this scenario would be helpful.

#1- When does Britain drop out of the War?
#2- Does Japan declare war on the US?

Assuming we get an unlikely POD like Robert Taft as president (even with FDR assassinated in 1933 its unlikely) then Britain probably drops out in May 1941. Destroyers for bases and neutrality patrols happen, but Taft then makes it clear that Britain is not getting lend-lease and badly sours relations between London and D.C. and Britain realizes it cannot fund the war and it need to make terms before its economic situation deteriorates and Uboats make their situation unsustainable.

In that case Taft does not create the final embargo that pushes Japan to war and Japan knows it can get away with things so long as Taft is president. They don't have their bank accounts frozen, so they can keep paying for oil from other providers like the DEI after Britain exits the war (the Dutch cut a deal with Germany and have to sell both Germany and Japan oil at cost or something to retain the DEI), while Britain is going to want to court the Japanese to keep them from going after British holdings now that Taft is making it clear he will not do anything unless attacked and there is money to be made on the Japanese, breaking with D.C. over the 1940 embargo.

So no war with Japan, no war with the UK before Crete is invaded. Britain withdraws from Libya, Crete, and Italian East Africa leaving the Axis masters of the continent while Britain cuts deals with Japan to avoid invasion, same with the Dutch. The Belgians and Dutch deal with Hitler now that the British are out. Germany gets imports, some of it it doesn't have to pay in hard currency for only RM (DEI resources, Belgian Congo resources, French colonial resources), while being able to buy from the US and other with captured Western European gold and looted money from private industry and Jews. The French gold stocks alone in US banks were $2.5 Billion, so they can buy what they want. They still invade Yugoslavia and Greece, but don't have to do Crete before the Brits exit the war and the Syria-Lebanon campaign doesn't happen, but the Iraqi revolt does and its crushed, while the Brits invade Iran during Barbarossa as per OTL to open up LOC to the Soviets and cut off that source of oil to Germany.

At that point its a Germany-USSR campaign, but not Mediterranean theater, so Luftflotte 2, 3, and 5 are all in with Russia, while the Afrika Korps and Fallschirmjager participate in the East.

Not sure when Hitler would DoW the US though; maybe Taft loses in 1944 and by 1945 the rump USSR finally gets LL and Hitler DoWs Germany or the UK gets back into the war later, perhaps 1944 when Germany is considered sufficiently weakened and the US political situation is more favorable to US entry.

 

[brovane]

Assuming we get an unlikely POD like Robert Taft as president (even with FDR assassinated in 1933 its unlikely) then Britain probably drops out in May 1941. Destroyers for bases and neutrality patrols happen, but Taft then makes it clear that Britain is not getting lend-lease and badly sours relations between London and D.C. and Britain realizes it cannot fund the war and it need to make terms before its economic situation deteriorates and Uboats make their situation unsustainable.

In that case Taft does not create the final embargo that pushes Japan to war and Japan knows it can get away with things so long as Taft is president. They don't have their bank accounts frozen, so they can keep paying for oil from other providers like the DEI after Britain exits the war (the Dutch cut a deal with Germany and have to sell both Germany and Japan oil at cost or something to retain the DEI), while Britain is going to want to court the Japanese to keep them from going after British holdings now that Taft is making it clear he will not do anything unless attacked and there is money to be made on the Japanese, breaking with D.C. over the 1940 embargo.

So no war with Japan, no war with the UK before Crete is invaded. Britain withdraws from Libya, Crete, and Italian East Africa leaving the Axis masters of the continent while Britain cuts deals with Japan to avoid invasion, same with the Dutch. The Belgians and Dutch deal with Hitler now that the British are out. Germany gets imports, some of it it doesn't have to pay in hard currency for only RM (DEI resources, Belgian Congo resources, French colonial resources), while being able to buy from the US and other with captured Western European gold and looted money from private industry and Jews. The French gold stocks alone in US banks were $2.5 Billion, so they can buy what they want. They still invade Yugoslavia and Greece, but don't have to do Crete before the Brits exit the war and the Syria-Lebanon campaign doesn't happen, but the Iraqi revolt does and its crushed, while the Brits invade Iran during Barbarossa as per OTL to open up LOC to the Soviets and cut off that source of oil to Germany.

At that point its a Germany-USSR campaign, but not Mediterranean theater, so Luftflotte 2, 3, and 5 are all in with Russia, while the Afrika Korps and Fallschirmjager participate in the East.

Not sure when Hitler would DoW the US though; maybe Taft loses in 1944 and by 1945 the rump USSR finally gets LL and Hitler DoWs Germany or the UK gets back into the war later, perhaps 1944 when Germany is considered sufficiently weakened and the US political situation is more favorable to US entry.

If no war with Japan this leaves the primary focus of the US navy the Atlantic and Germany has no hope of winning the Battle of Atlantic. The Atlantic becomes essentially a US lake that can be used by US carries to strike against Nazi held Europe. The US can also move any material it wants to Germany through Vladivostok port, with no Japanese attacks to worry about.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

If no war with Japan this leaves the primary focus of the US navy the Atlantic and Germany has no hope of winning the Battle of Atlantic. The Atlantic becomes essentially a US lake that can be used by US carries to strike against Nazi held Europe. The US can also move any material it wants to Germany through Vladivostok port, with no Japanese attacks to worry about.

That also leaves the US without a means to even fight Germany if Britain is out of the war. Keep in mind too that the US needs bases to project past the mid-Atlantic otherwise they cannot logistically patrol its vastness and need to keep a fleet in the Pacific against the Japanese, a stronger one in fact than to manage the Germans. Neutrality patrols are quite different than offensive ones. Yes, the US can transport non-contraband, the Japanese though were quite strict about war materials passing through their waters, which is why LL IOTL only involved mostly food and non-contraband through Siberia.

 

[marathag]

That also leaves the US without a means to even fight Germany if Britain is out of the war.

OTL the UK turned over Iceland to the USA in July 1941.

Depending on this TL events before that, nothing stopping the USA from doing to Iceland what the UK did the year before.

Or the Azores, for that matter

 

[Deleted member 1487]

OTL the UK turned over Iceland to the USA in July 1941.

Depending on this TL events before that, nothing stopping the USA from doing to Iceland what the UK did the year before.

Or the Azores, for that matter

Other than the British not turning it over or giving it back to the Danish instead. Probably the British would keep it while spinning it off as an independent state with basing rights.

 

[brovane]

That also leaves the US without a means to even fight Germany if Britain is out of the war. Keep in mind too that the US needs bases to project past the mid-Atlantic otherwise they cannot logistically patrol its vastness and need to keep a fleet in the Pacific against the Japanese, a stronger one in fact than to manage the Germans. Neutrality patrols are quite different than offensive ones. Yes, the US can transport non-contraband, the Japanese though were quite strict about war materials passing through their waters, which is why LL IOTL only involved mostly food and non-contraband through Siberia.

With Britain leaving the war sometime in 1940 this means the US switches sooner to a full wartime economy. This means by 1940 more equipment is available, just not capital ships. So more aircraft, destroyers, tanks everything is more off. You can probably pull the numbers for US production one year forward, it will be with not as great equipment but there will be more off by the end of 1941.

If Japan is not at War with the US then US flagged ships are going to sail right into Vladivostok port. If Japan wants to press the issue about war material then they can discuss it with the US navy. I suspect the US will just buy off the Japanese by taking a less harsh line on their activities in the Asian mainline.

With the US territories in the Pacific, mainly the Philippines. The US has multiple strategic locations, especially the Philippines. This means by the end of 1941 you have a fairly serious force in the Philippines and this US force is sitting right in the Japanese backyard. You have more patrols around Hawaii etc. all this means the Japanese have a lot lower chance of catching the US by surprise in December 1941. With the military equipment the US would have available the Japanese would pay dearly for any attack. No easy take over of the Philippines or Wake by the Japanese. These bases also allow the US to shift more forces to the Atlantic, remember that the US can shift naval forces easily back and forth through Panama. The US can leave a smaller naval presence in the Pacific, especially in the area of Carriers. If Japan does attack the current forces hold the line until reinforcements arrive from the Atlantic. This point becomes essentially moot by 1943 as first wave of Capital ships from the Two Ocean Navy start being commissioned.

The Atlantic is a interesting beast for the US. The US will take and hold Greenland, Iceland. The Azores will be occupied and Portugal can either decide to lease the US bases on the islands or have them occupied and not get paid. With these bases the US with B-17 bombers can fill in most of the gaps for patrolling the Atlantic. I suspect by the middle of 1943 you would start to see the first of a serious of series carrier raids on European mainland. As 1944 starts you will also start to see B-29 bomber attacks on the outlier of the Nazi held terror ties in Europe. A serious raid by B-29's into the heart of Germany would probably be shattered by German Air Defense. The main focus of the US will be to keep up the pressure and keep the Soviet Union in the war.

Any assumptions around what the British Commonwealths do? Does Australia, Canada, South Africa and India stay in the war and ally with the US or do they follow the British into declaring peace with Germany?

 

[brovane]

Other than the British not turning it over or giving it back to the Danish instead. Probably the British would keep it while spinning it off as an independent state with basing rights.

The US would just occupy Iceland if necessary.