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

Originally Posted by Doktor

Mark 3 were produced between 1915 and 1917, 140 pcs/week, with possibility to increase that to 500/week

by 1917 upto 140wk, implying less than that in 1916 and getting progressively smaller back into 1915. I am guessing they were sold to Britain since the US's only mine warfare ship is 3000 miles away.


[quote]Mark 5 First USA designed mine. Moored type with Hertz horns. Still in use during World War II. 1,700 lbs. (771 kg) total weight, charge of 500 lbs. (227 kg) TNT.
USA Mines

Also the first effective allied mine.

How this have anything to do with him not being too stupid to start a war at once, but to starve the enemy first while regrouping home production.
Don't mix this with his declaration of war to Germany. They also had a fair time of draining after they pushed Mexico to side with them. An overreacting man like you are describing would consider that enough.
Also, Germany was not in position to leave North Sea and threat US ports.

How are they going to starve Britain without it being a cassus belli?

And NO, you wont have drop in sales, simply you wont produce as much because the workers are now conscripts training somewhere. USA conscripted close to 4 million people in 1 year and sent them in Europe, I bet they were able to conscript 4 million more and still have a better economy then Britain.
BTW, you didn't need that production as that was surplus you were exporting to Britain.

...... that makes zero sense, those draftees are not the factory workers... selling less means some percentage of those 4 million is out of work.... More importsantly is the side effects... Du Pont making powder won't be affected much, but a brass maker that is now sitting on 2 million useless brass 303 casings is out the cost to melt the bras for example. Bethlehem steel making fuses for 18lb howitzer shells is out completely... plus the lost loans, soon to collapse grain prices, glut of oil on the domestic market which the US cannot absorb domestically...

Canadian cities are closer to the border (which can be their advantage as well), but they have 3-4 divisions in Europe, some of them in very bad shape after Somme. We go in circles here.

I never said that the US couldn't hurt Canada, stop arguing against strawmen please.

It is still a loss of military personal. US has 0 losses as they are neutrals prior to 1917.

And that is a problem for the US, as Pershing showed in 1918, it took horrible losses to really understand the power of the machine gun.

Are we talking Alfred Mahan here?

IIRC, his almost 30 years old strategy wrt to Britain was to keep entire Eastern fleet in NYC ports, while defending other ports with subs. That strategy is based on much weaker USN wrt to RN.

A balance of power that has not changed... But at the same time the USN can't leave the east coast undefended.

So, USN is keeping the ships in the ports, bringing RN closer to NYC will sink their DNs as agreed before. Now what?

I never agreed that the RN close to NYC results in sunk British dreadnoughts, runnign them aground would, but that isn't an issue anymore.

I have pointed this in the previous post, in the WWII, operation Barbarossa thought us that superior tech vs vast men will lose. Britain doesn't have time on their side nor more man to conscript, USA does.

And you demonstrate how little you know about military history and war. Tech between Germany and the USSR in 1941 was balanced- each side had some advantage and some disadvantages vs the other. The Soviets had better tanks, better logistics (trains are a technology and all new Soviet tanks except the T-50 used the same engine), diesel instead of gasoline... In the same vein, had the Soviet's not adopted a defensive strategy designed to maximize the effects the Blitzkrieg....

I also dare say that Cortez and Pizzaro would laugh in your face, as would the US Army troops that rolled through Baghdad, the British troops that put paid to Mussolini's dreams of a New Roman Empire in Africa .... Smaller numbers triumph all the time... quality has a quantity all its own... What you need to win is the proper application of the the proper force to the proper center of gravity. Sometimes that force can be properly applied to the proper location through numbers, but sometimes it can't.

Drop 2 shells anywhere on CONUS or march to Moscow and you have unrestricted home support to wage the war as long as needed.

Thats why there was such serious in ranks grumblings by wives, vets and industrialists starting in May 45... It might surprise you but the US started switching back to a civilian economy when Germany not Japan surrendered- despite pearl harbor, shelling California and balloon bombing several US states. AQ based in Afghanistan took down the towers, and before that attacked us multiple times... yet the voices for "bring them home" get louder and louder...

I've taken a look at tensions existing in the British Empire and its interests that could be exploited by the US in 1917:

• Ireland: there was by Irish Republicans in April 1916 an insurrection and declaration of independence that was temporarily crushed by Britain. The Irish desire for independence would culminate in a war lasting from 1919-1922, leading to the independence of the Ireland. The US would be able to re-stoke the fires of revolt in 1917 with arms, financial and political support.
• South Africa: the bittereinders (irreconcilables) staged a rebellion in October 1914 lead by the Boer General Martiz, and fought the British and colonial government of South Africa into 1915. This faction would go on to dominate South African politics after World War II. Like the Irish, the bittereinders could be supported with arms and financial/political support.
• Quebec: there was near universal opposition in Quebec to the conscription laws of 1917, which would culminate in riots in 1918 that had to be put down forcefully by the Canadian Army. Historically the French-Canadians abandoned their desires for sovereignty/independence due to the futility of it. With Quebec bordering, and with the support of, the world's largest industrial power, the Quebecois would have a realistic chance of asserting their sovereignty.
• India: the "Hindu-Germany" conspiracy is underway in 1917, with plotters planning a pan-Indian rebellion to overthrow British colonial rule. There were mutinies against the British (e.g. 1915 Singapore Mutiny put down by Japan), arms trafficking by Indian nationalists, etc. The US could stoke the fires of revolt by lending whatever support it could to the Indian nationalist movement. It historically took a massive British effort to put down the Indian nationalist movement in the WWI era.
• Persia: there was massive opposition to British influence in Persia before, during, and after World War I. Persia is currently undergoing a famine in the north of the country in which millions would die. There is widespread discontent among the Iranian masses due to economic concessions to the British and the presence of British troops on its soil, and the massive influence they held over the royal government. Britain could certainly be described as hated by the average Persian. With the disintegration of allied Russian forces in Persia in 1917, the US could join Germany in providing support to anti-British elements in Persia.
• Afghanistan: there is widespread opposition to British influence and their control of Afghanistan's foreign relations during this period, which in the third Anglo-Afghan war in 1919 that would lead to complete Afghan independence. Provoking tensions in combination with support of the Indian nationalist tensions would cause further major problems for the British in India in 1917.
• China: the Republic of China had only entered the war on the side of the Allies in August 1917 at the urging of the United States, and the hopes of securing loans from Japan. China at this time is the victim of the Western powers and Japan with regards to humiliating economic and territorial concessions. Despite US participation in the Boxer Rebellion, the US was at this time historically the only major power to support Chinese aspirations to any degree, and China had high hopes for Wilson's ideas post-war to free China from the binds of the imperial powers. The US would be in a prime position to take measures to bring China within its orbit as a friend.

Originally Posted by zraver

by 1917 upto 140wk, implying less than that in 1916 and getting progressively smaller back into 1915. I am guessing they were sold to Britain since the US's only mine warfare ship is 3000 miles away.

Two years is 104 weeks. Assuming that thay started with 1/wk increasing the production by 1-2/week to reach those 140, will leave you with 7000-9000 mines produced. Assuming ALL are gone to Britain and leaving home inventory empty is naive.

Gunny and Wisky showed you don't need that warship to lay mines.

How are they going to starve Britain without it being a cassus belli?

Stop the trade.
When ready send goods to Germany and you will get your war.

...... that makes zero sense, those draftees are not the factory workers... selling less means some percentage of those 4 million is out of work.... More importsantly is the side effects... Du Pont making powder won't be affected much, but a brass maker that is now sitting on 2 million useless brass 303 casings is out the cost to melt the bras for example. Bethlehem steel making fuses for 18lb howitzer shells is out completely... plus the lost loans, soon to collapse grain prices, glut of oil on the domestic market which the US cannot absorb domestically...

US army doesn't need any of those? 4 million conscripts didn't decrease US production, but as we know, it went up.

Loans were not paid back till after the war. You don't start a war thinking you will lose it, meaning when the war is over, they will pay back with higher interest. Germany and AH might find good use of those surpluses.

I never said that the US couldn't hurt Canada, stop arguing against strawmen please.

I wont go back to Canadian front anymore.

And that is a problem for the US, as Pershing showed in 1918, it took horrible losses to really understand the power of the machine gun.

Browning was producing machine guns for US Navy for 20 years and for 7 years they were producing .30 machine guns.

A balance of power that has not changed... But at the same time the USN can't leave the east coast undefended.

I am not getting it, USN will follow his strategy or not?

I never agreed that the RN close to NYC results in sunk British dreadnoughts, runnign them aground would, but that isn't an issue anymore.

Sorry, you will have run aground DNs, what good use they can serve?

And you demonstrate how little you know about military history and war. Tech between Germany and the USSR in 1941 was balanced- each side had some advantage and some disadvantages vs the other. The Soviets had better tanks, better logistics (trains are a technology and all new Soviet tanks except the T-50 used the same engine), diesel instead of gasoline... In the same vein, had the Soviet's not adopted a defensive strategy designed to maximize the effects the Blitzkrieg....

No comment, especially on the bolded part.

I also dare say that Cortez and Pizzaro would laugh in your face, as would the US Army troops that rolled through Baghdad, the British troops that put paid to Mussolini's dreams of a New Roman Empire in Africa .... Smaller numbers triumph all the time... quality has a quantity all its own... What you need to win is the proper application of the the proper force to the proper center of gravity. Sometimes that force can be properly applied to the proper location through numbers, but sometimes it can't.

And sometimes your commanders will do a major screw up and lose everything.

Spaniards in your scenario were seen as the Gods coming home, at first, but was enough. You could've use Britons in Africa, India and other colonies as a better example.

I didn't know Italy was bigger then Britain, nor that Iraq is bigger then USA.

That's why there was such serious in ranks grumblings by wives, vets and industrialists starting in May 45... It might surprise you but the US started switching back to a civilian economy when Germany not Japan surrendered- despite pearl harbor, shelling California and balloon bombing several US states. AQ based in Afghanistan took down the towers, and before that attacked us multiple times... yet the voices for "bring them home" get louder and louder...

Vietnam? And CONUS wasn't scratched.

I don't see why the US couldn't use those muiltions being built for the Britsih, they could rechamber rifles to use the surplus .303, they could modify a US howitzer projectile version to use those 18 Pdr fuses. Using the enemy's ammo and weapons is widely done in wartime - for example 9mm and weapons to use it were adopted and manufactured (the Sten gun) in Britian in WWII to capitalize on German stocks, the Germans issued captured equipment. The US chambered 1911 pistols for it. The US could also capture or buy British export rifles and howitzers abroad too to leverage these resources. They have more options than melting them down.

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

I don't see why the US couldn't use those muiltions being built for the Britsih, they could rechamber rifles to use the surplus .303,

You can rechamber rifles, but that adds another link in the supply chain since the US is using 30-06. If you convert to 303, then you have to keep making 303 as well.

they could modify a US howitzer projectile version to use those 18 Pdr fuses.

Not so sure, the 18 pounder OQF is an 84mm weapon, the fuse cap is likely too big for the US 2.76" and 3" inch guns which are 70.1 and 76.2mm respectively.

Using the enemy's ammo and weapons is widely done in wartime - for example 9mm and weapons to use it were adopted and manufactured (the Sten gun) in Britain in WWII to capitalize on German stocks, the Germans issued captured equipment. The US chambered 1911 pistols for it. The US could also capture or buy British export rifles and howitzers abroad too to leverage these resources. They have more options than melting them down.

The Germans re-issued everything becuase they were short of everything. But after WWI and II the UK did not re-issue Mauser G98's in German 8x57. The 9mm is like the 45acp an ideal pistol round (although from the other side of the mass vs velocity argument than the 45).

This is not to say the US can't use some munitions made for Britain, but a lot of it is not going to work with out major supply headaches and more of it is simply no use stuff.

Originally Posted by Doktor

Two years is 104 weeks. Assuming that thay started with 1/wk increasing the production by 1-2/week to reach those 140, will leave you with 7000-9000 mines produced. Assuming ALL are gone to Britain and leaving home inventory empty is naive.

The US has some 15,000 mines in the process of being manufactured in April 1917, with around 6000 completed or nearly completed. US factories were capable, and had plans to, of churn out 500-1000 mines per week.

At least a dozen German U-Boats were sunk by the very same design of mines that the US had in inventory or was manufacturing by April 1917.

Originally Posted by Doktor

US army doesn't need any of those? 4 million conscripts didn't decrease US production, but as we know, it went up.

Loans were not paid back till after the war. You don't start a war thinking you will lose it, meaning when the war is over, they will pay back with higher interest. Germany and AH might find good use of those surpluses.

• UK GDP in 1914 was £2.4 billion (source).
• UK exports in 1913 were £635 million (source)
• UK exports in 1915 were £484 million (^)
• The difference between those two figures is 6.2% of GDP.
• The overall change in the balance of trade was nearly 10% of GDP.
• The British economy did not collapse or enter into a depression.

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

I don't see why the US couldn't use those munitions being built for the British

There is a substantial amount of US production of weapons for the Allies prior to April 1917.

One of the more interesting things I discovered is a castle 50 miles up the Hudson from New York, where a Mr. Bannerman stored over a hundred thousand rifles, cannon, Gatling guns and 30 million rounds of ammunition. This was the one of the warehouses for his 501 Broadway, New York City military surplus store.

Originally Posted by Doktor

Two years is 104 weeks. Assuming that thay started with 1/wk increasing the production by 1-2/week to reach those 140, will leave you with 7000-9000 mines produced. Assuming ALL are gone to Britain and leaving home inventory empty is naive.

Not all, but many or most.

Gunny and Wisky showed you don't need that warship to lay mines.

IIRC, some thing like 25 mine warfare ships blew up before or during WWI becuase the fusing was so sensitive. Rough seas could break the glass of acid which would ignite when it touched the sugar and set off the bursting charge... Laying early mines is nearly as dangerous as hitting one. You can't just put them on he deck of a trawler and send them out.

7-9000 mines. Lets say you need to really block a path 4km wide. You can use a loose barrage say the mines 100 yards apart in say 4 off set rows. 160 mines. Or you can set them closer say 50 yards apart 320 mines. That is a single small barrage, the more you want to cover the more mines you need or the thinner the belt. The famed North Sea Barrage used 16 lines of mines 234 miles line or 4375 per line at 19 mines per mile (1.6 km) or 1 mine every 92 yards that is why the barrage only sank between 4-6 u-boats.

But those are not the only problems, in places where the continental shelf is close to shore the areas where you can mine are limited and known. You also likely won't want to mine fisheries, major merchant routes used by coasters....

Stop the trade.
When ready send goods to Germany and you will get your war.

Stopping the trade is the cassus belli.... Even if you allow Britain to buy all the food and oil she wants and issue all the loans she wants, British industry is maxxed out, it can't makes all the fuses, chemicals, gun cotton, steel ignots, lead ignots, brass ignots etc that the war requires.... The US was called the arsenal of democracy for a reason... no US industry and the CP wins.

US army doesn't need any of those? 4 million conscripts didn't decrease US production, but as we know, it went up.

See my reply to Jay, best way to describe it is trying to fix an American car using a metric tool kit... some tools will work just fine, some will work OK, and some are totally useless...

Loans were not paid back till after the war. You don't start a war thinking you will lose it, meaning when the war is over, they will pay back with higher interest. Germany and AH might find good use of those surpluses.

Loans are made on the promise of payment, war between lender and borrower will cause huge problems in the banking industry and thus create huge pressure on Wilson to secure the loans quick. The banks are also not just lending to the allies, but to the industrialist supplying them, the new workers taking out mortgages, the farmers planting record numbers of acres, the factories expanding to sell those farmers tractors.... $1 lent to the allies might be backed by $2 or more dollars of domestic loans that are now just as unsecured. In 1917 US private debt excluding war bonds was 75% of GDP, with bonds it was 100% of GDP.

I wont go back to Canadian front anymore.

thank you.

Browning was producing machine guns for US Navy for 20 years and for 7 years they were producing .30 machine guns.

The navy won't be defending the beaches from the beach... the US Army has 142 Browning and a few Vickers and Hotchkiss guns... lets say 284 guns in total between 30 active duty regiments- 9 per regiment or 1 per battalion plus a machine gun company with 3 guns and no MG's for the national guard.... Thats half the density the armies of 1914 marched into battle with. In 1917 the British have at least 1 Lewis gun per company plus heavier Vickers medium and heavier machine guns.

I am not getting it, USN will follow his strategy or not?

Yes, and that is the problem, becuase they didn't follow his strategy faithfully before... The US has 50 submarines in service in April 1917 and a few more under trials. They are split between the Philippines (9 boats), the West Coast, the Caribbean, the Gulf coast and the East coast.

Sorry, you will have run aground DNs, what good use they can serve?

I don't have to run aground....

No comment, especially on the bolded part.

Why not? In 1941 the T-34 and KV series were superior to anything the Germans had. The BT-7, T-34, and KV series all used the same engine as well... a diesel engine which is not only incredibly reliable, but if a round hit the fuel tank below the air/fuel line acts as armor for the tank. Which btw is why modern tanks like the Abrams have their fuel tanks on the side of the hull.

And sometimes your commanders will do a major screw up and lose everything.

Yup....

But in this situation unlike Jutland, the US doesn't have Germany's extensive radio jamming operations to force the British to rely on flag signals in a mostly coal using fleet...

Spaniards in your scenario were seen as the Gods coming home, at first, but was enough. You could've use Britons in Africa, India and other colonies as a better example.

Or a single KV tank in June 1941 that was hit over 100 times by German 37mm door knockers, survived two satchel charges that blew the tracks off and eventually had to be knocked out by Luftwaffe 88mm...

I didn't know Italy was bigger then Britain, nor that Iraq is bigger then USA.

The US invaded Iraq in 2003 with about 130,000 men including allies, far less actual riflemen.. In 1940 Sir Wavell with 35,000 men and less than 300 tanks attacked the Italian Army in Egypt that had over 150,000 men and over 400 tanks- plus 5x the artillery and 2x the aircraft.... The result of that attack caused Hitler to dispatch the DAK to Africa under the command of a German rising star called Erwin Rommel.

Vietnam? And CONUS wasn't scratched.

Yup, US resolve isn't anything special, like all peoples it is based on a mixture of variables that change over time.

Originally Posted by tgbyhn

The US has some 15,000 mines in the process of being manufactured in April 1917, with around 6000 completed or nearly completed. US factories were capable, and had plans to, of churn out 500-1000 mines per week.

At least a dozen German U-Boats were sunk by the very same design of mines that the US had in inventory or was manufacturing by April 1917.

a dozen uboats over 5 years of war.... how many thousand mines?

• UK GDP in 1914 was £2.4 billion (source).
• UK exports in 1913 were £635 million (source)
• UK exports in 1915 were £484 million (^)
• The difference between those two figures is 6.2% of GDP.
• The overall change in the balance of trade was nearly 10% of GDP.
• The British economy did not collapse or enter into a depression.

1. Total imports in 1915 were 767 billion and exports were 483 billion before re-export
In 1917 where we have the complete figures (you source) imports totalled 5.17 billion and total exports totalled 2.28 billion beofre re-export which increased the export number to 3.7 billion.

2. balance of trade is not GDP. As British exports declined, domestic production rose. Its not the same situation for the Us who has by 1917 spent 2.5 years re-ordering the economy to meet allied needs so the war does not create demand as it did in Britian, but cuts demand at lreast temporairly, kills food prices, oil proices and throws the financial markets into turmoil.

Originally Posted by tgbyhn

The US has some 15,000 mines in the process of being manufactured in April 1917, with around 6000 completed or nearly completed. US factories were capable, and had plans to, of churn out 500-1000 mines per week.

At least a dozen German U-Boats were sunk by the very same design of mines that the US had in inventory or was manufacturing by April 1917.

a dozen uboats over 5 years of war.... how many thousand mines?

• UK GDP in 1914 was £2.4 billion (source).
• UK exports in 1913 were £635 million (source)
• UK exports in 1915 were £484 million (^)
• The difference between those two figures is 6.2% of GDP.
• The overall change in the balance of trade was nearly 10% of GDP.
• The British economy did not collapse or enter into a depression.

1. Total imports in 1915 were 767 billion and exports were 483 billion before re-export
In 1917 where we have the complete figures (you source) imports totalled 5.17 billion and total exports totalled 2.28 billion beofre re-export which increased the export number to 3.7 billion.

2. balance of trade is not GDP. As British exports declined, domestic production rose. Its not the same situation for the Us who has by 1917 spent 2.5 years re-ordering the economy to meet allied needs so the war does not create demand as it did in Britian, but cuts demand at lreast temporairly, kills food prices, oil proices and throws the financial markets into turmoil.

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

I don't see why the US couldn't use those muiltions being built for the Britsih, they could rechamber rifles to use the surplus .303, they could modify a US howitzer projectile version to use those 18 Pdr fuses. Using the enemy's ammo and weapons is widely done in wartime - for example 9mm and weapons to use it were adopted and manufactured (the Sten gun) in Britian in WWII to capitalize on German stocks, the Germans issued captured equipment. The US chambered 1911 pistols for it. The US could also capture or buy British export rifles and howitzers abroad too to leverage these resources. They have more options than melting them down.

I did a little research. Some interesting facts concerning US armaments stockpiles/production prior to April 1917:

• The US had on hand 200 million .30 caliber cartridges in April 1917 (source).
• The US produced on average 136 million rounds per month of .30 cartridges from April 1917 through November 1918 (^).
• The US produced out on average 28 million rounds of .45 caliber per month for the same period (^).
• The US military alone had 600,000 Springfield rifles and 160,000 Krags on hand in April 1917 (^).
• US production of Springfield and Enfield rifles was 130,000 per month from April 1917 through the end of the war (^).
• The US had 12,500 .303cal Lewis machine guns completed or near completion in April 1917, destined for export to Britain or Canada, and the United States Cartridge Company was also producing massive amounts of .303 British ammunition from 1914-1917, thus alleviating the need to re-chamber the machine guns. (^)

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

Yes, the Army handled the forts, mine laying and mine control for 150 years after 1907 with a specialized Coastal Artillery Corps, they had a large number of ships and boats for this, and the shore based guns had large range finders too - the typical long range shore batteries could elevate to 45 degrees and and use super charges, which ships couldn't do. The 12" mortars can drop 700# projectiles on the GF's decks at 75 degrees out to about 12 miles.

The 9 foot B&S rangefinders used by most of the dreadnoughts in the Grand Fleet were effective to 16,000 yards (9 miles) on a clear day, and 12,000 yards (7 miles) on a lower visibility day.

So, the Royal Navy would have to be well within range of US coastal forts to be able to target them.

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

It appears that US War Plan Red considered the British would be using Canada as the route of attack in a war with the US, why wouldn't they do that in this scenario?

From what I understand of British war planning in the 1920s, there were no plans to reinforce Canada. Policy in the event of war with the US would be to abandon it, as it was viewed as futile to attempt to defend it, and that Canada was not viewed as vital to the Empire.

Originally Posted by zraver

IIRC, some thing like 25 mine warfare ships blew up before or during WWI becuase the fusing was so sensitive. Rough seas could break the glass of acid which would ignite when it touched the sugar and set off the bursting charge... Laying early mines is nearly as dangerous as hitting one. You can't just put them on he deck of a trawler and send them out.

I would like to see a source for that info. The US Navy didn't have minelaying boats until the 1920s. The Army Harbor Defense units use to contract the work out to civilians. They did use Army Mine Planter boats and everything down to and including crab boats.

And not the big "Deadlest Catch" type boats but small inshore crab boats.

here are some examples. And one of "Just put them on the deck"

Originally Posted by tgbyhn

I did a little research. Some interesting facts concerning US armaments stockpiles/production prior to April 1917:

To bad you didn't list the downsides...

• The US had on hand 200 million .30 caliber cartridges in April 1917 ((source).

• That is enough ammo to give the entire war time strength of the US Army (regular not reserves) 941 rounds per man. Add in the full authorized strength of the national guard and that number drops to 308 rounds per man before training....
  
  
• The US produced on average 136 million rounds per month of .30 cartridges from April 1917 through November 1918 (^).