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

Originally Posted by Doktor

I was only showing you can have same amount of machine guns on hand. tbgyhn says there were 12,500 pieces UK wont get, and USA has ammo for. that's 20x more then what USA has according to your numbers. Should be enough.

Indeed, the US had 12,500 Lewis machine guns complete or nearly complete in April 1917 (page 161). These would have been commandeered by the US in the event of war with Britain. Besides the 12,500 sitting in US hands in April 1917, the Russians placed an order for Lewis machine guns in 1917, and some 6000 were exported before March 31, 1917. The US therefore was, and obviously has the continued capacity, to turn out thousands of Lewis machine guns per month.

The US also had on hand in April 1917 670 Benet-Mercie, 282 Maxim, 353 Lewis, and 148 Colt machine guns (^). In addition, the Colt factory was equipping itself to manufacture 4125 Vickers machine guns in spring 1917.

From 1914-1917, the Remington Arms Co., United States Cartridge Co., Western Cartridge Co., and the Winchester Repeating Arms Co. exported multimillions of rounds of .303 ammunition to Britain.

So, the US has 14,000 machine guns on hand, can continue to mass produce the Lewis machine gun in large quantity, and is gearing up to produce the Vickers machine gun in large quantity.

• there is absolutely no shortage of machine guns in the US.
• there is absolutely no shortage in the means to continue to mass produce them, as was already being done.
• there is absolutely no shortage of .303 British in the US or the capacity to turn out tens of millions of rounds per month, as was already being done.
• there is absolutely no need to rechamber machine guns destined for export given the enormous amount of .303 British on hand and the capacity to mass produce it, as was already being done.

Originally Posted by zraver

No its not a myth,

off topic but
The penny packets stuff is indeed a myth, they eventually did fed into the combat tanks as soon as they rolled of the production line but at the start of the war i can name 5 divisions that had 658 t-34 between them.

The US has electric mines for coastal defense - friendly ships can sail right over them, they are controlled by cables running to shore stations. They can be laid by commercial boats - special ships aren't necessary to lay these mines. Laying them is like putting out lobster traps - experienced fishermen could learn mine laying in a number of days - but there are already trained men to do it anyways. They are place and retrieved regularly - they aren't left in the water for long periods - so the drill has ben practiced many times.

Originally Posted by zraver

Its also packed full, in real history railways delays were a major problem, the network developed to support the peace time economy before 1914, not the war economy that developed.

So the railways were not fit, but supply lines for the Brits were swiss clock, OK.

Depends on how many fishing ships you started with, you have to train those crews to place and survey mines before they can actually deploy live mines. Put a minefeild location in the wrong spot, or record it in the wrong spot and suddenly they are working for the RN...

Wisky has a better option

Time is crucial, but not so crucial the RN has to maintain 20knots the entire time.

Fuel usage is another factor, the faster you go, those supplies have to keep up with your consumption. Even 1 day is an advantage for both sides.

yes, except the US was making mostly components.

That was Savage arms, and they ended up making the US over 1000 lewis guns, parts by themselves do not machine guns make unless you have all the parts. Some one stamping out receivers and barrels but not firing pins for example has a lot of almost machine guns...

OK, at first they haven't machine guns, then they haven't enough, now they can't assemble them, guess next will be they need 6 months training... I almost forgot why we have this debate about machine guns... ah, right because you said UK machine guns are superior to US hunting rifles (or something to that extent).

You can't piece meal a naval battle vs a faster force, not with big ships. Now if the US had all the Lexington's in service.... their 33 knot speed and big guns....

Say you are Jellico, on of your small ships go down, what you gonna do, go on like nothing happened or start anti-sub maneuvers.

yes, but not weeks consuming.

You are denying one factor at a time, try combining them all.

No its not a myth, the most common (like 90%) of the 50mm in German panzer service in 1941 were 42 caliber and were not up to the job. Penetration at 30 degrees at 500m was only 42mm vs a front hull thickness of 45mm at 60 degrees. Meanwhile the Russian 76.2mm will penetrate over 60mm

For the sake of the argument German encounter of Soviet T-34 and KV tanks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems to be a dead issue base don new info, but probably not. Stuff like that can't just be done, it has to be developed.

It isn't like they need to land on the moon.

But it happened a lot, where the Soviets got lucky and matched a good commander to a good tank....

With enough supplies...

Yup, becuase the German tanks (pzIII and IV) were a generation better than the British who hung on to the 2pdr (40mm) way too long.

Following this and T-34 arguments you trow = Brits had 2 generations solder tanks then Soviets

Yup... so what do they not want to lose more... the economy or a short war?

What economy if they lose?

wrong war....

So they sent troops in Europe by plane

We are talking a time frame of several weeks to a couple of months, so there is some slack...

Gotta hate those slackers.

More like what Canada could do by herself until the divisions arrive from Europe.

To do what? More guerrilla?

All the other factors that promise even greater economic suffering and political instability if he doesn't.

Loosing the war is good for the economy? Noted.

...it also took the better part of a year for the US to send in Pershing in Mexico.

So they were not so jumpy after all

Let me ask you this, British Empire with France failed to defeat the Turks and accomplish the goal (despite the losses, they still failed).

If those British failed to break the Turks, why you think tey would success wrt USA?

I took the time to illustrate this map showing the impossibility of hitting Lower Manhattan with dreadnoughts from outside the shallows of the Lower Bay.

As I've said time and again - it's not possible to hit Manhattan from the south without running dreadnoughts aground.

It's almost as if God designed the seas in this area to put Manhattan just out of range of British WWI dreadnoughts in a "what-if US joins CP WWI" scenario.

Seriously, borders on intelligent design.

The British would have to suicide cruisers into the Lower Bay past the thicket of overlapping fire from 12" 27-30,000 yard rifled M1888/95/00s, and 12" 12,000yd M1890 plunging fire mortars, just to hit Manhattan with paltry 6" fire.

Every one of those cruisers would be sunk.

I'll follow up with maps of other cities and the northern approaches of New York.

While very interesting in and of itself, WWII tanks from the USSR and Germany are way outside the subject of this thread. We can be pretty confident that tanks won't play any part in this 1917 scenario.

Wisky, it started like one of examples of tech vs vast men, I am sorry that it took this path, but we are both stubborn and just dragged it this far

Originally Posted by Doktor

So the railways were not fit, but supply lines for the Brits were swiss clock, OK.

Uhm I never said that, but Britain is a much smaller chunk of dry land. Moving troops from Southern England to one of the ports is a journey measured in tens of miles, not thousands.

Wisky has a better option

Those mines were retired in 1906...

OK, at first they haven't machine guns, then they haven't enough, now they can't assemble them, guess next will be they need 6 months training... I almost forgot why we have this debate about machine guns... ah, right because you said UK machine guns are superior to US hunting rifles (or something to that extent).

per his source the US has parts for 12500 machine guns, not 12500 machine guns. Why would they have such a large supply of parts and no complete weapons? His source gives the answer- they were made in the UK. All savage arms was doing was producing parts not complete weapons which implies they are not making all the parts.

Say you are Jellico, on of your small ships go down, what you gonna do, go on like nothing happened or start anti-sub maneuvers.

Thats not what you said at first.

You are denying one factor at a time, try combining them all.

I have

For the sake of the argument German encounter of Soviet T-34 and KV tanks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And....

It isn't like they need to land on the moon.

sigh.... its not much less complicated... you can jam one of three ways 1. broad spectrum- jam everything. The obvious problem is your own units are closer to the source of the jamming than the enemy. 2. Only jam the freqs the enemy is using. This offers pinpoint accuracy in the jamming efforts, if you get the freqs rights, if you don't your jamming dead air. Plus with early wireless I am not sure bleed over wouldn't be jamming friendlies as well. 3. Spoofing- ID the enemy freqs and try and hijack their communications with false reports. This is why most military communications require authentication of transmissions. Other problems include making the transmissions directional. If you can, then an enemy taking up a 20 degree arc is only getting hit with 18% of the jammers power the rest is radiating into areas where there is no enemy. Plus the farther from the jammer, the easier it is too talk right over the top of it if the friendly receiver and transmitter are close enough (squelch)

With enough supplies...

well duh...

Following this and T-34 arguments you trow = Brits had 2 generations solder tanks then Soviets

In the Soviet Union the T-34 forever changed tank combat. In the desert when Rommel arrived the British were still using designs based on the lessons of WWI. The German's were between these two. The British tank the Italians dreaded was the Matalida II, it had massively heavy armor and its 2pdr ATG was more than equal to what the Italians had for tanks. The PzIIIH had 60mm of welded frontal armor vs the Italian M11/39's maximum of 30mm unsloped riveted armor.

What economy if they lose?

they supply the applies.... return to status quo ante bellum. The damage to the US is if they win...

So they sent troops in Europe by plane

wrong war, in WWI the USN did not escort convoys before the war.

To do what? More guerrilla?

No, to hit back at US actions until the Canadian division and a new BEF arrive from Europe.

Loosing the war is good for the economy? Noted.

In this case yes, it would secure the loans, allow production to continue, stabilize grain prices, shore up the financial system....

So they were not so jumpy after all

been saying that.

Let me ask you this, British Empire with France failed to defeat the Turks and accomplish the goal (despite the losses, they still failed).

If those British failed to break the Turks, why you think tey would success wrt USA?

Completely different terrain and forces involved.

Originally Posted by tgbyhn

The British would have to suicide cruisers into the Lower Bay past the thicket of overlapping fire from 12" 27-30,000 yard rifled M1888/95/00s, and 12" 12,000yd M1890 plunging fire mortars, just to hit Manhattan with paltry 6" fire.

ya paltry.... 152mm is so weak.... moron.

How many times do you have to be told those guns can fire past 10km becuase they can't see any farther...

Every one of those cruisers would be sunk.

I'll follow up with maps of other cities and the northern approaches of New York.

Take the forts first... Historically sea coast forts were vulnerable to infantry assault as most had less than a company of infantry if that assigned to defend them.

15"/42 mk1 naval rifle - mk 1 turret, Queen Elizabeth class, elevation 20 deg, range 23,734 yrds (13.5 mi). Long range battle practice is about 11 miles (20K yards).


Brooklyn - yellow, Staten Island - purple and Queens - light orange, Bronx - Red, Manhatten - Blue.





.

This map displays the western Long Island Sound approaches to New York City.

As can be seen, it is fraught with shallow waters and extremely narrow chokepoints. Keep in mind this is based on 2011 maps - in 1917 the chokepoints would have been narrower as the waters were shallower.

On either side of the Execution Rocks, there is a channel less than 1000 yards wide on the NW, and less than 300 yards wide on the SE. Very easily mined. Suicidal to sail a fleet in through there.

Not pictured are the defenses in the eastern Long Island Sound, which are the first line of defense that would have to be cracked to even get to the points pictured on the map.

Those mines were retired in 1906...

The US harbor defense mines were upgraded to TNT filling in 1912 and were still operational in 1917, they were removed for storage ashore when not required - they weren't required historically, but were available and still being upgraded in 1930. The Army added more mine planters in 1940.

Mines proper were composed of the casing, explosive (gun cotton or dynamite before 1912, trinitrotoluene (TNT) thereafter) compound plug with mine transformer, moorings, and anchors. The unit for planting, called a group, consisted of 19 mines planted at intervals of 100 feet across the waterway to be defended, with submergence as required by tactical considerations. The mines in each group were numbered from left to right as viewed by an observer on the inshore side of the group. One group of mines thus defended 1,900 feet (18 intervals plus 50 feet to each flank). An appropriate number of mine groups to cover the length and breadth of the waterway provided the underwater defense. The groups of mines were numbered from left to right looking offshore, beginning with the most advanced line, if the project included two or more lines of mines. The mines were delineated by a numerical designation indicating displacement capacity. During this period there were two basic mine shapes: the spherical mine and the sphero-cylindrical mine

Control Devices. The 1930 single-conductor system consisted of 19 mines, 19 lengths of single-conductor cable leading from the group back to the distribution box which contained the selector and accessories, the single conductor cable leading from the distribution box to the terminal hut on shore, the lead-covered cable running in a conduit from the terminal hut to the mining casemate, and the instruments and wiring included on the operating board. In the older 19-conductor system, an operating board with its master block and 19 individual mine blocks was used to control each mine in the group.

The mine flotilla consisted of a mine planter, a distribution box boat (DB boat, also known as a L-boat after the numerical designation on the side of the boat), and two to four yawls. There were rarely enough mine planters for one to be assigned to each harbor that had mines. Often one or two mine planters were assigned to a major harbor. They would be called on to perform service in other harbors or in the laying and maintenance of the military underwater cable systems. Smaller harbors without assigned mine planters would be visited by a planter for practice, and during wartime after it had performed its duty at its primary station. Many harbor defenses used vessels that were jury-rigged to serve as makeshift mine planters and DB boats due to the lack of a sufficient number of actual army mine planters.

Army mine planters were custom built after 1904. They had wide decks to hold assembled mines, and the necessary booms and davits for loading the assembled mines from the wharf and planting the mines out in the channel.
The four mine planters ordered in 1904 were 150 ft. in length, 32 ft. beam, 14 ft. draft and 447 tons in displacement.
The 1940 series of mine planters were 188 ft. in length, 37 ft. beam, 12 ft. 6 in. draft and displaced 1,320 tons.
The ships had a wartime crew of two officers, 6 warrant officers, and 41 men.
Usually the fleet would plant one group of mines at a time.
Distribution box boats were smaller boats that held the distribution box while it was being attached to the cables as the mines were being planted. The DB boat had a large boom to hoist an assembled distribution box over the bow and lower it into the water.
The mine yawls were typical small craft which were used to ferry ropes, cables, etc., from the mine planter to the DB boat or shore as needed.

CAC Mines

My apologies, the source I raid said they were retired, may have been the old type then...

Here's a map I've illustrated of Boston Harbor and surrounding waters. To get within range of the city, the British fleet would have to get in close enough to be at risk of plunging fire from 12" mortars and barbettes. The effective range of the 12" disappearing/rifled guns outranges the effective 16,000 yard clear weather range of the Grand Fleet.