Thread: What if? The US entered WWI on the side of the Central Powers

Originally Posted by Doktor

Z, you have far more data on the matter then me, I won't go in detailed numbers on the matter, just sheer opinion.

RN might be the best Navy at the time, but faced with USN and KM they will have a really hard task. Even if they manage to somehow blow US ships, logistics involved to land on US soil and to make something of significance there (besides pissing US population) is something I can't see happening. Supposing they have men to land in USA.

1. They have the troops, DLG has been starving Haig who he considers a butcher, plus there is a full Canadian division in England at this time (it gets broken up in June). A force of 3-4 divisions is very doable for the RN.

2. The USN and KM are sperated by thousands of miles of Ocean, much like Napoleon at Waterloo, jackson in the Shenedoah. The RN has the ability however slim to defeat each in detail

If I were Wilson, I would make the famous Churchill's "We shall never surrender" and would kick the Brits so bad in the next years or so until Great Britain becomes the size of St Michael's Mount Island, Cornwall

The obvious problem is the RN unlike the panzer divisions has the ability to land. Churchill's boats was base don solid fact, Wilson's would not be. In April 1917 the entire American army not in the Philipines is 29,000 men. Most of that tiny number on the east Coast are officers at the war department or members of the coast artillery. The newly created national guard units are untrained and poorly equipped for the most part.

Unlike many countries, USA, especially at the time was self sufficient (even in surplus) in terms of food, steel, coal and oil and historically the GDP and Budget rose up while up to 3 million people (<3% of total population) were sent to war.

But she was not self sufficent in jobs... War between the US and UK in 1917 throws 4 million out of work, collapses grain prices, leaves nearly 3 billion in direct loans in limbo, and ends a 4 billion per year trade. Every sector of the economy takes a hit, most importantly the banking sector. In 1917 the US has a lot of gold, and turning a lot of it to coin, but do it it any faster would collapse the price of gold. So when the banks take a hit and depositors make a run on the banks the banks fold. Especially the commerical banks who printed thier own bank notes. Many of the commercial banks are the ones on the hook for the loans to Europe, and the godl they had is spent and thier reserves are low. The combined hits is not terribly different in substance from what caused the great depression- agricultural collapse, production collapse, large sudden spike in unemployment, failure of banks....

However now there is the threat of an enemy fleet off the coast, desrruction of cities and enemy troops landing to seize coastal forts or conduct raids... If the USN gets defeated, Wilson doesn't have anything left.... bravado without substance is an invitation to disaster.

On the other side you have exhausted Britain desperate for resources stretched on two fronts.

Wont go with stirring few independence rebellions here and there across the colonies, just to keep the RA overstretched and busy there to make things worse for them[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by 1979

YEP for spring wheat which is planted in may.
winter wheat is planted in october and harvested mid May trough mid June.

same level as in 1914.

Sorry, spring and winter wheat would both be harvested in August.

Originally Posted by zraver

1. They have the troops, DLG has been starving Haig who he considers a butcher, plus there is a full Canadian division in England at this time (it gets broken up in June). A force of 3-4 divisions is very doable for the RN.

You really think Canadians would go blindly into their own disaster? They just found their statehood. Combine Canada and Britain population and you are still half of USA. Not to mention that Somme still hurts a lot.

2. The USN and KM are sperated by thousands of miles of Ocean, much like Napoleon at Waterloo, jackson in the Shenedoah. The RN has the ability however slim to defeat each in detail

Which requires two battle groups and twice the logistics. Add the escorts to the convoys with supplies which were not needed while US merchant ships were sending the goods.

The obvious problem is the RN unlike the panzer divisions has the ability to land. Churchill's boats was base don solid fact, Wilson's would not be. In April 1917 the entire American army not in the Philipines is 29,000 men. Most of that tiny number on the east Coast are officers at the war department or members of the coast artillery. The newly created national guard units are untrained and poorly equipped for the most part.

With far better equipment Allies had serious casualties with landings 27 years later.

Following your logic, you should check the numbers of Royal Army (volunteers) at the time and where they were stationed. You are not sending "experienced" Kitchener's to US, are you?

But she was not self sufficent in jobs... War between the US and UK in 1917 throws 4 million out of work, collapses grain prices, leaves nearly 3 billion in direct loans in limbo, and ends a 4 billion per year trade. Every sector of the economy takes a hit, most importantly the banking sector. In 1917 the US has a lot of gold, and turning a lot of it to coin, but do it it any faster would collapse the price of gold. So when the banks take a hit and depositors make a run on the banks the banks fold. Especially the commerical banks who printed thier own bank notes. Many of the commercial banks are the ones on the hook for the loans to Europe, and the godl they had is spent and thier reserves are low. The combined hits is not terribly different in substance from what caused the great depression- agricultural collapse, production collapse, large sudden spike in unemployment, failure of banks....

Historical data shows that US conscripted over 3 million combatants (could easily be 4 million and you don't have unemployment), raised the budget 6 times and had surplus if the war started in 1917. Someone, somewhere (Army maybe ) needs that food, and being war time, food prices wont go down.

People off the fields are 3-4% of the US population. British had 10% of the malnutritioned population conscripted to match same numbers. Double the efforts on both sides and I am really wondering which economy would be hit more. At the time, Brits had over 500,000 dead and 1,000,000 wounded, while USA would come in fresh. Late start is not always bad - at least for USA was good in both wars.

However now there is the threat of an enemy fleet off the coast, desrruction of cities and enemy troops landing to seize coastal forts or conduct raids... If the USN gets defeated, Wilson doesn't have anything left.... bravado without substance is an invitation to disaster.

Besides the raids I don't really see RN doing much damage, pull the population 200ml west and you are fine.

USN didn't even had to really engage with Brits, all they had to do is to lay enough mines.

Being so close to home coast has a lot of advantages in terms of supplies and maintenance, something Brits had to manage with high delicacy.

Not sure how much cannons and ammo US had at the time.

Originally Posted by tgbyhn

Sorry, spring and winter wheat would both be harvested in August.

Winter Wheat:
Planting: Winter wheat is planted from mid-August through October.
Harvest: Winter wheat is harvested from mid-May to mid-July.

Spring Wheat:
Planting: Spring wheat is planted from April through May.
Harvest: Spring wheat is harvested from mid-August to mid-September.

Originally Posted by tgbyhn

Sorry, spring and winter wheat would both be harvested in August.

Sorry no, as early as May or June depending on climate and the seasons weather. Plus even August harvested wheat can be harvested early for a lower yeild. Wheat can be harvested as soon as it heads out.

1. I've established with multiple refrecnes that 1550 calories a day with stave off famine for a year.
2. The calorie count for the average Britisher (per capita) is way high and reflects non-human consumption liike livestock, industrial uses, fermentation etc.
3. India alone has enough excess in the diet to replace the loss.

Oil, export figures that divide the Uk from France for oil products with specifics for gasoline and naptha (motor and airplane fuel and explosives) was 124,717,989 gallons in the 11 months of 1917 for which the book had compelte figures. Divide by 42 is roughly 2.7 million barrels divide by 11 equals 245, 545 barrels a month. For those same 11 months the US exported 2.75 billion gallons of all oil products vs 2.2 billion in 1916 with the biggest gain in gasoline up 44% to a total of 425 million gallons.

France and Italy combined to take 137,000,000 gallons of gasoline and napthas, other Europe 18.05 million gallons, others 79 million gallons. As you can see the UK is hardly the be all and end all of US oil exports, its only the biggest player. In the 11 months of 1917 fuel oils the stuff the UK needs the most total 5,343,000 barrels or 485,000 barrels a month to all users ALL USERS.

Business digest - Google Books

Iran was producing 18,000 barrels a month in 1914 meetign 1/4 of the RN needs of 72,000 barrels a month even if we triple that requirement to 226,000,000 barrels a month there are 900,000 barrels on hand according to you. Now if we double the gasoline numbers to include all other non-fuel oils thats 490,000 barrels a month, leaving 500,000 or so barrels... suddenly 226,000 a month starts to look like 8 weeks at the start of the before imports which include Royal Dutch Shell.....

The Royal navy is low on oil, its not running on fumes.

Are mines a US option at this time? I read earlier in this thread that the USN didn't have appropriate mines ready to go in this time frame - it would take some time to get them built and tested - maybe more time than this scenario allows?

In 1918 the population of NYC was 5.6 million with less than 475 less than 10 per 100,000 persons.

That didn't come across.

Thats funny, that Royal Marines with Lee Enfeilds, machine guns, grenades and trench mortars at a minimum are out gunned by cops using shotguns and .38 caliber revolvers... There are not even hunter sin NYC since the trip the areas where long arms would be useful are by the methods of transport and costs of transport in 1917- too far away for most. Never mind that I didn't mention landing in NYC, but near coastal forts.
yes, but the areas where I talked about landing, people are generally thin on the ground.

New York City departments store in this time period would carry more rifles than whatever the Royal Navy can bring against them.

It doesn't matter where the RN tries to land troops. It would be a slaughter. They are going to be lucky to make it ashore. Trying to land a few hundred or even a few thousand sailors in at any point on the East Coast in a country where there are more guns than people would be a recipe for disaster.

1. They have the troops, DLG has been starving Haig who he considers a butcher, plus there is a full Canadian division in England at this time (it gets broken up in June). A force of 3-4 divisions is very doable for the RN.

This would mean carrying out transporting over 100,000 men from England and landing them on US shores. That's comparable to the landings on D-Day, but 27 years earlier and across an ocean instead of a narrow channel.

2. The USN and KM are sperated by thousands of miles of Ocean, much like Napoleon at Waterloo, jackson in the Shenedoah. The RN has the ability however slim to defeat each in detail

The RN would be heavily outclassed and outgunned by the KM in what's left of the RN in the North Sea and all of British waters with your strategy. They couldn't inflict a defeat on the KM at Jutland (despite possessing strategic advantage) with 150% of the KMs strength. The Germans instead inflicted a tactical defeat on the British.

Meanwhile, looking at the Mediterranean:

• those Italian and French dreadnoughts called for to reinforce the North Sea several weeks after withdrawing the Grand Fleet are absolutely vital in maintaining the blockade of the Adriatic. Despite being almost completely ineffective against submarines, the k.u.k. KM is now able to enter the Mediterranean.
• those dreadnoughts proved to be vital in weakening the position of the pro-German Greek king - the Central Powers won a string of victories in April and May historically on the Macedonian Front - the situation is on a knife's edge in April, and now the odds on the Macedonian Front favor the Central Powers.
• overall the situation in the Mediterranean is going to vastly weaken for the Allies. April was the peak month for Allied shipping losses - the situation is only going to get worse at a time when the Mediterranean is the only lifeline to prevent Allied starvation with supplies from India realistically a couple months out.

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

Are mines a US option at this time? I read earlier in this thread that the USN didn't have appropriate mines ready to go in this time frame - it would take some time to get them built and tested - maybe more time than this scenario allows?

I believe US laid more mines then Britain during WWI. 56000:16000 ratio in favor of US IIRC.

Sorry no, as early as May or June depending on climate and the seasons weather. Plus even August harvested wheat can be harvested early for a lower yeild. Wheat can be harvested as soon as it heads out.

Maybe in the United States. Winter wheat in the UK is harvest in August. Period. And the British wheat harvest was 2 million tons in 1917, total.

1. I've established with multiple refrecnes that 1550 calories a day with stave off famine for a year.

Loss of US imports alone bring daily consumption to less than that.

2. The calorie count for the average Britisher (per capita) is way high and reflects non-human consumption liike livestock, industrial uses, fermentation etc.

3320 calories per day for a British munitions worker, railway worker, factory laborer, dock worker. In reality, less than 2500 calories per day per average Briton. Likely 2200-2300.

The US food imports I listed totaling nearly 9000 calories per week are exclusively for human consumption, and it was certainly not a comprehensive list.

Oil, export figures that divide the Uk from France for oil products with specifics for gasoline and naptha...

The US is supplying 80% of Allied needs at this period - France and Italy are as equally dependent on Britain on the US. Previously, we've only looked at Britain in isolation with respect to imports of oil from the US - throw France and Italy in and the problem is compounded.

France, Italy, and Britain need to find some way to make up for an 80% loss in their oil supply - and find excess refining capacity on top of that which quite simply does not exist.

The entire output of the Dutch East Indies is 165,000 tons per month in 1916 (source). British India oil production is 100,000 tons per month (source). Iranian oil production is at 45,000 tons per month (source).

There's about 300,000 tons per month of production among the remaining principal oil producers with available supplies - against 4.4 million tons of US production per month. 300,000 tons of which was already being 100% consumed. How far does 300,000 tons per month go between Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Australia, Canada, and neutral European nations? The entire remaining supplies alone are not enough for Britain.

Britain was using 292,000 tons per month for military purposes alone (91% by the RN), merely patrolling with much of its fleet inactive. Britain was using just as much for civilian purposes and industry, not to mention the merchant marine. There is not enough available oil supply in the rest of the world to even fuel an active Royal Navy. It would be running on fumes.

3. India alone has enough excess in the diet to replace the loss.

800,000 tons of grain per month - two months out. Out of 36 million tons of grain harvested in India in 1917, that is 1/4 of Indian grain on a monthly basis. It's certainly not 'excess' either - if there's one thing I know about India having traveled there, there is little available to provide excess in their diets.

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

Are mines a US option at this time? I read earlier in this thread that the USN didn't have appropriate mines ready to go in this time frame - it would take some time to get them built and tested - maybe more time than this scenario allows?

The US certainly has no shortage of explosives or metals - it was supplying the Allies with massive amount of both prior to entering the war. It did lay nearly the entire North Sea minefield, but this is some time off historically.

Fire ships don't take any time to develop or test. Just load a ship with loads of readily available explosives and sail it toward the Grand Fleet. The Italians took out the HMS York in 1941 with a motorboat loaded with 600lbs of explosives.

Italian Navy was very creative during WWI.

Originally Posted by tgbyhn

That didn't come across.

murders per capita sorry

New York City departments store in this time period would carry more rifles than whatever the Royal Navy can bring against them.

not even close...

It doesn't matter where the RN tries to land troops. It would be a slaughter. They are going to be lucky to make it ashore. Trying to land a few hundred or even a few thousand sailors in at any point on the East Coast in a country where there are more guns than people would be a recipe for disaster.

That is why they burned Washington a century earlier...

This would mean carrying out transporting over 100,000 men from England and landing them on US shores. That's comparable to the landings on D-Day, but 27 years earlier and across an ocean instead of a narrow channel.

Gallipolli anyone? Iraq?, The Indian uprising (sepoy mutiny)? the Boer war?

The RN would be heavily outclassed and outgunned by the KM in what's left of the RN in the North Sea and all of British waters with your strategy.

And they would be permanently outgunned by a peace treaty....

They couldn't inflict a defeat on the KM at Jutland (despite possessing strategic advantage) with 150% of the KMs strength. The Germans instead inflicted a tactical defeat on the British.

really.... the Britsh lost more ships, but who ended up in control of the waters for the rest of the war....

Meanwhile, looking at the Mediterranean:

• those Italian and French dreadnoughts called for to reinforce the North Sea several weeks after withdrawing the Grand Fleet are absolutely vital in maintaining the blockade of the Adriatic. Despite being almost completely ineffective against submarines, the k.u.k. KM is now able to enter the Mediterranean.

• Nope, I left behind more than enough to block the Austro-Hungarian navy.
  
  
• those dreadnoughts proved to be vital in weakening the position of the pro-German Greek king - the Central Powers won a string of victories in April and May historically on the Macedonian Front - the situation is on a knife's edge in April, and now the odds on the Macedonian Front favor the Central Powers.
• overall the situation in the Mediterranean is going to vastly weaken for the Allies. April was the peak month for Allied shipping losses - the situation is only going to get worse at a time when the Mediterranean is the only lifeline to prevent Allied starvation with supplies from India realistically a couple months out.