Archive through May 22, 2025
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Non-Game Discussions: Military History:
ALTERNATE HISTORY PROJECT:
PROJECT 1: BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC:
Archive through May 22, 2025
A quick internet search revealed that pre-war, British farms provided approximately 33% of the food consumed in the U.K.
By the end of the war, reforms, putting marginal land into production of food, etc…,the British farmers were providing 44% of the food consumed.
That means, in addition to the troops and war materials sent to the U.K. During the war, somewhere between 67% to 56% of the food to be consumed by the British had to be shipped there.
It should also be pointed out, that freighter speeds are slow, older ships might average 8 knots an hour, newer ships (or modern oil tankers) somewhat faster, 12 to 14 knots being mentioned in some histories of the Battle of the Atlantic. Cruise liner (Queen Elizabeth or sister ship Queen Mary for example) could average 30+ knots and did in fact cross the Atlantic regularly at around 4 days each way (depending on conditions, weather, ice bergs, etc.)
A slow cargo vessel might (depending upon departure and arrival ports) might take 10-12 days between U.K. And east coast U.S.
The same cargo ship going to Australia would take much longer travel time.(forget exactly how long, have to look that one up.)
Point is, if you only had to send ships back and forth from Portsmouth U.K. And New York, N.Y., USA you would only need X number of ships.
If you had to send ships to Australia, you might need 3x or 4x number of hulls because of the longer duration of the trip.
Makes figuring out the logistics much more difficult.
Sydney to London via South Africa is about 80 days @ 8kts. About 60 days via the Panama Canal
To reply to Alan and your Escort Carriers point.
I think I am with SVC on this one, not only from the view 'Battleships rule, so why would be build anything else' of the 'old brigade' in charge of what get built - but also the issue of making them work.
If someone said in 1938 say 'lets build some small carriers to help offset all those Subs the Germans are building', I think the response would be :-
1) Can't we just build more Battleships?? (see first point)
2) How would something so small be able to operate in the rough Waves of the North Atlantic - how would a plane take off or land in those constant swells?
3) Navy - well as it operates Aircraft - we will need a larger budget to also buy the planes - which we want under our control...
4) Air Force - well as they operate from a ship - we will need a larger budget to also buy the ships - which we want under our control....
5) Repeat 3 and 4 until someone makes a decision on WHO controls the Ships or Planes....
6) You will need more escorts to guard that Carrier - so that increases the cost even more.
7) Well thats agreed then and as I am in control of the Budget, we will build another Battleship - you can't go wrong with Battleships!!
Eventually, reality will be driven home - but at best, it probably will still take 12 to 18 months before the lack of planes in the middle of the Ocean is seen to be an issue.
(It may be noticed sooner, but you then need to resolve the issue and that does take time - hence the Merchant-CAT ships to Merchant Ships with Decks to finally true Escort Carriers takes a while to get into reality).
Would the war be lost by then? All down to Norway IMHO!
Paul, nobody said anything about cancelling the heavy cruisers so Norway falls exactly as before. Please stop rewriting the scenario. Your entire post is garbage in, garbage out.
Paul, your reply to Alan is right, but irrelevant. The CVEs operated in the North Atlantic just fine, they didn’t specifically get escorts. Alan was wrong on the main point, because in 1936, nobody knew of the value of CVEs. Without that fore knowledge, nobody would have built them, so no effect on anything. You were right on that one, but nobody other than Alan was taking his CVE plan seriously.
IIRC, the British lost a carrier to a German submarine, but for the life of me, I can't remember who or, more critically for this discussion, when.
If she was lost fairly early in the war, what might that suggest for British losses in major warships to submarines in this alternate history, especially if the ratio of submarines to freighters warrants sending some deliberately out for anti-warship duties?
Dominoing off that thought, what would that say about losses of potential escorts for the convoys to support the Soviets (something you, SVC, alluded to at the beginning of this thread).
Then, when the US gets involved, might the tempo allow the Germans to send anti-carrier submarines after Ranger and Wasp? If one (or both) are lost, what does that spell for American carrier availability at the height of the Guadalcanal Campaign?
Sheesh! I could go on with the butterfly effect on this until a Loriyill gives me a fireball to the head! 
The British lost a number of carriers.
H.M.S. Courageous while on ASW patrol. Dispatched half of her escorts to follow up on a sub contact report, that is to say two of her four destroyers, then stayed in the area where she got sunk by a U-boat.
H.M.S. Glorious (sister ship to the Courageous) got sunk near Norway by a German Battle Criser.
IIRC both the H.M.S. Argus and HMS Eagle were sunk in the Mediterranean, while the H.M.S. Ark Royal was torpedoed near Gibralter (I forget if it was in the Atlantic, or in the Med.
Plus there were a number of CVE type carriers sunk.
SVC - Numbers of U-Boats
"money and steel to build 200 Uboats"
Sorry, I did the maths and if just the 2 Battleships are not built - that gives about 120 U-Boats in pure weight - or about 100 if the 4rd Deustchland ship is also built (2 x 44K v 120 v Type VII's at 750 tons+ - so I assumed incorrectly the Hippers was also cancelled (as they each build 20 U-Boats so the numbers more or less do than work)
But OK - if they are built - yep, Norway falls and so the start of the war is the same.
So 100-120 more U-Boats at the start of the war...
...What response would you allow the UK to do, without breaking the other rules you stated?
CVE's - clearly off the table for the reasons given, but I don't think the Admralty was totally Battleship 'fixed' - as they was very aware what U-Boats had done in WW1.
So - more esorts would be built and so its down to Tactics.
U-Boats initially did have the upper hand - but following the Royal Navy Wargames (can't remember who ran it, it was made into a TV mini-series) - but the ideas brought up to defeat the U-Boats might occur sooner due to the urgency and it back to how it was?
About the best outcome I think for the Germans sink enoough ships to stop any significant UK air attacks in 1940/1941 on Germany (lack of fuel and equipment), but as Convoys can get to Egypt via the Indian ocean (and so with fewer heavy Raiders, they are actually safer), the War continues as normal.
When you annouce what other changes the Axis or Allies can do, hopefully we can agree what other changes would give a big enough shift to the Germans to give them a chance to win?
The reason I posted the percentage of Englands capacity to feed it self, was because it gives a floor to the english diet.
33% is far below the level necessary to maintain weight.
We can debate the effects (for the stated scenario) on the civilian, military health but even the most draconian rationing system would be difficult at a 33% level.
I doubt that the new tactics would have happened any sooner.
I have seen nothing to stop the "Britain starves, Halifax stops the war in Oct 40, Hitler defeats Russia" outcome.
Would Ireland, in 1940, sell surplus food to England?
Meanwhile in East Asia ...
If the UK and Germany are no longer at war, and the Battle for the Atlantic is over, this would be a net negative for the Japanese. In the event of war in the Pacific the US and UK would no longer have to divide their forces between two theatres. If Japan did go to war I think they would try to avoid going to war with the US and the UK at the same time. If they thought this was unavoidable they would likely switch to attacking the Soviets instead.
Douglas:
It depends on the peace treaty.
Halifax was not Churchill.
To secure peace, it is not out of question that Halifax might pull a quisling on the British People and give away ships, naval bases, even accept occupation of part of Britain (just as happened to the French.)
Without the ships of the Royal Navy, there is nothing the British could do in the pacific except lose bases and territory.
Without the threat of the Royal Navy, Japan could have threatened India. Not saying they could win… but they could stop India from providing resources to the allies.
Japan going to war against Russia seems doubtful.
Sure, the Japanese would have a good chance at wiping the floor with the Russians, but they would not gain the sources of Oil they needed.
Only a southern campaign to get the borneo oil fields would be available to Japan.
Any combat with Russia might be satisfying from a nationalistic pov, but ultimately, they would use more resources than they could easily exploit other types of resources(minerals, iron ores, food etc.)
According to a book I read many years ago (Five Days in London, May 1940, by John Lukacs), Halifax would have surrendered the fleet in order to get peace with Germany. This is what tipped the balance of power within Westminster towards Churchill. The majority reasoned it would be better to fight on under Churchill, and perhaps be destroyed, rather than surrender in abject humiliation under Halifax.
What would the US response have been in this case? If that had happened, the Axis would have controlled the combined fleets of Germany, Italy, Japan, France and Britain. Would the US intervene if Canada was occupied by Germany? I doubt that would sit well with the US.
1939-1940 (at least thru may-June of 1940) the isolationist factions were still a significant faction of the US population.
It took the attack on Pearl Harbor to turn things around politically.
SVC:
You write:
Quote:I doubt that the new tactics would have happened any sooner.
I have seen nothing to stop the "Britain starves, Halifax stops the war in Oct 40, Hitler defeats Russia" outcome.
But part of the reason you see nothing to counter your scenario is that you preclude counterarguments before they can even be developed. On the 19th I argued that Britain might have responded to Germany's increase in submarine production by cancelling most or all of the King George V class battleships and massively increasing production of ASW forces. (Paul Howard had actually brought that up earlier.) You responded:
Quote:SVC: Institutional friction would have delayed this decision a lot. They might possibly have cancelled the last two but the others were too far progressed by the time a decision would be made.
But Bismarck and Tirpitz were layed down in 1936 and the KGV class were all layed down in 1937. Depending on when the British realized Germany was building a huge submarine fleet and a very limited surface fleet, they might have reevaluated their priorities before construction had started on any of the new battleships. In that case, the "institutional pressures", while still existing, would likely have been far weaker than was historically the case.
The KGV class ships were nearing completion in 1940. The HMS Prince of Wales was on station with the HMS Hood when they engaged the battleship Bismarck and heavy cruise Prinz Eugan in May 1941. The HMS King George V, was flagship of the fleet in Scapa Flow prior to the sailing of the Bismarck.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the steel and other material(including all long lead time systems like turbines, guns, turrets and Armor) used to construct those ships will have been ordered and being produced prior to 1940. Some of it such as boilers and the turbines would have been installed into the hulls during 1938 -39.
Cancelling the battleships in 1940 wouldn’t gain much in additional production of new escorts, and infact likely would have delayed some due to the time required to scrap the KGV hulls while still on the slip ways. Faster to complete the hull and launch the hulls just to clear the slip ways.
I cancelled the battleships in 1935, see the first post.
Alan, just my interpretation of historical fact. The Brits just didn’t build escorts until they were losing the war,
SVC:
I was addressing Alans point concerning point in time the UK Government would have realized WHEN Germany was concentrating on U-boat construction.
It being almost a certainty that Hitler would not have been honest about sharing his plans in 1935. In fact, for Hitler, the longer the UK kept on building battleships, the better for Germany.
In fact, off hand, I can only recall ONE battle ship in the Royal Navy that got official credit for killing a German U-boat during a time of war.
Probably worth noting the London Naval Treaty and budgetry issues are both relevant on Escort Builds??
The Germans was not part of this 1930 (or 1936 second agreeement).
However, more relevant is the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935.
i.e - if the Agreement allows the Germans to build 4 Battleships...... and there are no reports of them being built but lots more U-Boats being built which is against the agreement... the Brits (and the building of the first 12 U-Boats caused the Anglo German Naval Agreement to be done) I don't think would have ignored it?
I am not saying the Brits would have 100 Destroyers to match the 120 to 200 U-Boats - but would have done something different - which doesn't seem to be allowed by the 'rules'?
In other words - the outcome can't be changed as only 1 side can change anything?
As I said, institutional inertia is a powerful thing. In both wars, the Brits didn't realize the need for escort production until smacked in the face with it. Given that, I don't think it follows they would have cancelled battleships to build escorts in 1938. They had the idea that escorts can be built swiftly if really needed, while battleships take four years from keel to commission. Plus, cancelling a battleship to build 70 escorts would probably see Parliament cancel 40 of the escorts. It's hard to cancel half of a battleship.
Despite their experiences in World War I, the British still underestimated the severity of the U-boat menace?
If that truly was the case, then IMO, the hypothesized extra 120 or so U-boats would have likely fully blockaded Britain shortly after the fall of France, perhaps even to the point where Goering's mismanagement of the Battle of Britain might not have been enough to save the island nation. 
With that many more U-Boats, Germany could have redirected more to the Japanese Sub policy, use them mainly against Naval Vessels.....
After 2 years of U-Boat success, you would have thought the IJN would have been more aware of the supply chain sent against them....
"What would have happened if Germany won the battle of the Atlantic and starved Britain?"
OK, on the premise that the UK ignores the change in German Naval Policy and Germamy wins the Battle of the Atlantic by the Summer/Autumn of 1940, I think there could have been three outcomes - all bad for the World.
1) "Best for the Rest of the World Outcome*" - Churchill steps down, Halifax Steps up and a cease fire is declared - but on modest terms.
UK Keeps its Navy and it's Empire and Germany is Master of Europe.
Far East War ends the same way - but Germany controls 'Greater Germany' - from the Atlantic to the Urals'.
The Italian Second Empire dominates the Mediteranean and Near East.
Limited Global Support to Russia keeps the War going for ever and a day.
* - Those minorities disliked by the Nazi's in Europe will be even bigger losers and just become a foot note in history.
2) The UK ends the war at any cost.
A Deal is done which turns the UK and parts of the British Empire into a State similar to Vichy France.
Germans are able to send more forces to Russia - but due to the size of Russia - probably still can't beat them and end the War - but the 1,000 Year Reich will control the bulk of the World.
War in the Far East probably sees Japan owning the Pacific in a Co-Prosperity Sphere, with 'Free Trade Ports' controlled by the Japaneese in the US, Australia, India and Africa.
3) Moseley and his Party take power - End the War AND join Germany in a anti-Communism Pact.
A similar party is then 'elected' in France - allowing both France and the UK some automony from Germany, but in 'Alliance with them'.
With additional German forces available and with modest numbers of additional Anti-Communist forces provided by France and the UK AND less support for Russia AND more areas to attack Russia - Russia loses and we have a World Map simiilar to the 'Man in the High Castle'.
Japan wins in the Far East. America is invaded (probably from Canada and Mexico) and losses in the West.
The Greater Reich and Japaneese Pacific Empire rule the World - until Germany decides it didn't like then Non-Arayan Japaneese after all and makes them into a Puppit nation, like France, UK and the US.
The Reich eliminates all the minorities it dislikes in the world - as there is no one to stop them.
Under 2 or 3, it is probable to very likely the Germans would win the Atomic Bomb Race.
(Depending on what the US and the UK does, Option 1 might still win the Race - but that requires other variables to be allowed)
Yep - a pretty grim outcome?