"What if" no Pacific War

[JohnB]

Agree. Without the US entry into the war, one should not assume Lend-Lease quantities or items would flow to UK/USSR as historically occurred; with a clear chance that none would go to the USSR. Certainly things like the emergency dispatch of 300 M4 mediums to the British 8th Army in mid-1942 might not have happened.

 

209286[/snapback]

 

I seem to recall that those famous 300 Shermans were orginally destined for the British under Lend-Lease anyway, it was the outbreak of war for the US that caused delivery to be diverted to the US Army.

[larrikin]

I've always thought this is an extremely interesting "What If?"

 

If Japan is friendly ala WW1, my guess is that the combined British-Indian-Australian-New Zealand land forces deployable to the Med and Europe (or not deployed to the Far East in the first place) equal 6 to 10 divisions. Also, fairly objective (from my point of view) officers in the Middle East were 100% convinced that 8th Army would have held onto Cyrenaica after the end of Operation Crusader if Japan stayed out of the war.

 

>>>snip<<<

 

The numbers of divisions would have been considerably higher than that. Aside from the 3 AIF infantry divisions that went home, there was the 8th in Malaya and scattered all the way to Rabaul, the 1st Armd forming up in Palestine, and intentions to field at least one more armd div and a motor inf div, giving an AIF total of at least 7. Add the 3rd NZ, the 18th and 70th Brit, and probably 4 or 5 IA inf divs and 1 Indian Armd, and that gives us 15 divisions. Then there are all the Brit troops that went to India, the East African div, the RN and RAN ships that went to the IO and Pacific, probably around 50 sqns of RAAF, I'm not sure how many RAF, a few sqns of RNZAF, and it really starts to add up. Plus all that shipping that was taking war materiel to India could have been delivering it to the Canal Zone instead.

[Colin Williams]

The numbers of divisions would have been considerably higher than that. 

209363[/snapback]

 

You are certainly right on paper, but I was trying to be conservative based on a rough guess on the effects of (1) needing to leave some units in the Far East depending on assumptions regarding the Japanese, (2) a lower level of mobilization by the Indian Army in the absence of a threat from Burma, and (3) likely troop shortages in British (and possibly) units as casualties rose relative to historical levels.

 

IIRC, the Commonwealth redeployed the British 2nd, 18th, and 70th divisions to the Far East from either North Africa or the UK. The same is true for the Australian 6th, 7th and 9th divisions and the Indian 5th (later in the war). The 8th Australian, 9th Indian, 11th Indian and 17th Indian were in the area already (I'm not counting the Burma Division as it was mostly made up of garrison units). The British formed the 36th Division in India and later deployed not only the West and East African Divisions but also at least 5 other Indian divisions (that I know of). So, even without counting other units forming or later formed, like the 1st Australian Armoured Division and the 3rd NZ, we can account for 7 divisions sent from active duty in other theaters to the Far East at some point, 4 in the Far East on Dec. 7, 1941, and at least 8 more deployed there later in the war. In theory, the available forces in the absence of a Japanese war could total nearly 20 divisions. Still, I think 10 is a safer number as I can't imagine the Brits relying so heavily on the Indian/African armies in the Med for so many divisions.

[KingSargent]

More significant, on the materiel side, than the supply of US tanks to Eighth Armys fight back and victory, I would say, was the increasing provision of 6pdr A/Tk guns and the reestablishment of the doctrine of centralisation in the Royal Artillery.

That's right, the contributions of America pale before the unerring derring-do and muddling through of the Empire.

Might it be possible that the use of US tanks enabled 8th Army to survive long enough to make the changes you mention?

The Stuart and Grant tanks in use by the Brits in North Africa were all Cash purchase AFAIK.

The Grants certainly were, they were M3s modified with a British-designed turret. Lees and Shermans were definitely Lend-Lease items; the early Stuarts were purchases by the British Tank Commission, the later ones were Lend-Lease, but when the payment mode was switched I can't say right now.

A TORCH like operation, minus the Algerian landings, is certainly doable by the Brits alone, although whether Vichy French resistance would be as fierce as in Syria I doubt but probably tougher than that faced by the joint operation. To balance which the British army would probably be led by Monty.

209283[/snapback]

I doubt it would be doable by the Brits alone, simply because Mers-El-Kebir had really fried the French. So much so that British units taking part in TORCH wore American insignae and markings.

And what gives you the idea that Monty would be in command? He was unknown until Strafer Gott got killed and Monty was tapped for Eighth Army, largely because he was handy ASIUI. The CO of a British TORCH would probably have been whom the Brits actually picked, that bumbling idiot Anderson.

 

Incidentally, Anderson was slated to command OVERLORD until Ike was pulled back from the Med....

[larrikin]

And what gives you the idea that Monty would be in command? He was unknown until Strafer Gott got killed and Monty was tapped for Eighth Army, largely because he was handy ASIUI. The CO of a British TORCH would probably have been whom the Brits actually picked, that bumbling idiot Anderson.

 

Incidentally, Anderson was slated to command OVERLORD until Ike was pulled back from the Med....

209420[/snapback]

 

Actually, Monty was pulled from Torch and replaced by Anderson because of Gott's death.

[JohnB]

Might it be possible that the use of US tanks enabled 8th Army to survive long enough to make the changes you mention?

 

No.

Point out where the US tanks made a difference.

[FormerBlue]

I seem to recall that those famous 300 Shermans were orginally destined for the British under Lend-Lease anyway, it was the outbreak of war for the US that caused delivery to be diverted to the US Army.

209346[/snapback]

I believe you have this exactly backwards. The first production Shermans were due to go to the US forces. Brit problems in N/A resulted in them being sent to the 8th. Which is why the US forces went ashore with M3s in Torch.

I''ve posted the actual reference in past threads. In fact, you participated in that thread.

 

 

But hey, if those Brit tanks were adaquate maybe the US ones should have been retained by the US and the Brit ones being sent to Stalin should have been sent to N/A.

[Colin Williams]

Whether or not Stuarts, Grants and Shermans were critical to 8th Army's success I believe it's clear that the British could not have stayed in the war in the long run without Lend-Lease, as it covered their lack of gold reserves and provided all sorts of weapons and supplies the British Empire was unable to produce in adequate quantities under the circumstances.

 

BUT, this isn't the scenario for the thread. I can't see any reason why FDR wouldn't go forward with Lend-Lease whether Japan was a potential enemy or not. The only ultimate question is the degree to which Lend-Lease supplies to the USSR and Great Britain would have fallen short of historical levels after 1942 because the US wasn't in the war with a fully mobilized wartime economy.

[KingSargent]

No.

Point out where the US tanks made a difference.

209434[/snapback]

Crusader.

[JohnB]

I believe you have this exactly backwards.  The first production Shermans were due to go to the US forces.  Brit problems in N/A resulted in them being sent to the 8th.  Which is why the US forces went ashore with M3s in Torch.

I''ve posted the actual reference in past threads. 

 

Scheduled to go to US forces only after Pearl Harbor occurred. Almost the first response, 8th December IIRC, of the US to the bombing at Pearl Harbor was to embargo all miltary supplies destined for UK.

 

But hey, if those Brit tanks were adaquate maybe the US ones should have been retained by the US and the Brit ones being sent to Stalin should have been sent to N/A.

209449[/snapback]

 

Yeah but seeing on the screens and newspapers all those tanks Made in America fighting the Black Hats was bound to play well in Peoria.

 

Not saying that the US tanks weren't welcomed and liked and indeed better than the British tanks just that in North Africa nothing would have changed if they had been substituted by British made tanks - Eighth Army would still have got walloped at Gazala, Matruh and most of July '42 and would still have busted Rommel back at Alam Halfa and Alamein.

[JohnB]

Crusader.

209455[/snapback]

 

So the one Armoured Brigade equipped with the US tanks, out of five British Armoured/Army Tank Brigades, during CRUSADER made the difference between victory and defeat?

 

A general opinion on the Stuart was that its greater mechanical reliability was balanced by its rather weaker battle surviveability.

[FormerBlue]

Scheduled to go to US forces only after Pearl Harbor occurred.

210478[/snapback]

Reference please.

 

Sherman wasn't approved for production until October of 1941. Production models didn't even roll of the lines until 1942. You have evidence that they were allocated to lend-lease before PH? Reference please. I do have a reference for them being diverted from US forces because of the poor situation in the ME.

[JohnB]

Reference please.

 

Sherman wasn't approved for production until October of 1941.  Production models didn't even roll of the lines until 1942.  You have evidence that they were allocated to lend-lease before PH?  Reference please.  I do have a reference for them being diverted from US forces because of the poor situation in the ME.

210864[/snapback]

 

Well the Brits had ordered 1,000 M3 Grants before the design had even been completed and indeed had considerable involvement in its design, although the British Tank Commission in the States was never really that happy with it. I guess they were much more impressed with the T6/M4.

Interesting story I'll have to find out more, anyway I found this by Hunnicut on his Sherman tank history

"Production of the medium tank M4A1 started in February 1942 on the assembly line established by the British contract at Lima Locomotive Works. A month later they were also being produced at the Pressed Steel Car Company. These early production tanks incorporated the modifications specified for the T6. The side doors were eliminated, although the first tank built at Lima used a T6 upper hull casting with the holes for the doors welded up. This tank was taken over by Ordnance for test purposes, but it retained its British WD number, T-25189, throughout its service in the U.S. Army. The second tank, T-25190, used a new hull casting with the side doors completely eliminated. Both vehicles were equipped with the short barreled 75mm gun M2 fitted with double counterweights since the new M3 cannon was not yet available. T-25190 was shipped to England bearing the name MICHAEL on its sides, probably in honor of Michael Dewar, head of the British Tank Mission."

[KingSargent]

Not saying that the US tanks weren't welcomed and liked and indeed better than the British tanks just that  in North Africa nothing would have changed if they had been substituted by British made tanks - Eighth Army would still have got walloped at Gazala, Matruh and most of July '42 and would still have busted Rommel back at Alam Halfa and Alamein.

210478[/snapback]

Really? What British tanks existed that were combat-worthy during the period in question? Are you going to equip 8th Army with Covenanters? He!!, 1st British Army went to Tunisia with Crusaders and Valentines, and a few Churchills. Most of the tanks that did the "whuppin'" at Alam Halfa and Alamein were American.

 

What British tanks existed that could fire a decent shell (other than Smoke)? Even the 6pdr came later than the 75mms on the US tanks, and 6pdr lacked an HE shell until the fighting in Africa was over.

 

Unless of course you postulate that the war in North Africa would continue until the Brits pull their thumbs out and field Comet.

[FormerBlue]

Well the Brits had ordered 1,000 M3 Grants before the design had even been completed and indeed had considerable involvement in its design, although the British Tank Commission in the States was never really that happy with it. I guess they were much more impressed with the T6/M4.

I'm curious on what part of the design they had involvement with. That is the T5 circa 1938.

 

 

 

Interesting story I'll have to find out more, anyway I found this by Hunnicut on his Sherman tank history

 

"Production of the medium tank M4A1 started in February 1942 on the assembly line established by the British contract at Lima Locomotive Works. A month later they were also being produced at the Pressed Steel Car Company. These early production tanks incorporated the modifications specified for the T6. The side doors were eliminated, although the first tank built at Lima used a T6 upper hull casting with the holes for the doors welded up. This tank was taken over by Ordnance for test purposes, but it retained its British WD number, T-25189, throughout its service in the U.S. Army. The second tank, T-25190, used a new hull casting with the side doors completely eliminated. Both vehicles were equipped with the short barreled 75mm gun M2 fitted with double counterweights since the new M3 cannon was not yet available. T-25190 was shipped to England bearing the name MICHAEL on its sides, probably in honor of Michael Dewar, head of the British Tank Mission."

211015[/snapback]

I guess this has been overcome by events. The 500 Shermans that were sent were not allocated to US forces. They were the result of emergency production for shipment. That is 18 days of Sherman production lost but I don't think that really mattered. Probably ate up quite of bit of supply chain goods (engines) but that's that. Those tanks were never destined for US forces.

[KingSargent]

So the one Armoured Brigade equipped with the US tanks, out of five British Armoured/Army Tank Brigades, during CRUSADER made the difference between victory and defeat?

Given the "close-run thing" history of the battle, yes, I'd say there was a damned good chance that the British would have lost if they had not had 4th Armoured Brigade.

And 4th Armoured could not have been equipped with British tanks in lieu of Stuarts because there weren't any - available British tanks, that is.

 

A general opinion on the Stuart was that its greater mechanical reliability was balanced by its rather weaker battle surviveability.

210482[/snapback]

Whoopee. "A general opinion"? WHOSE "general opinion"?

In any case the Stuart at least got to the battle which contrasted with British machines that littered the desert after falling out of approach marches. And rather more of them came driving back with battle damage that would have sidelined a British tank - at least according to the REME fitter in Brazen Chariots: 'You had a whole bogie wheel shot off, sir. You didn't know? Christ, any other sort of tank and you wouldn't have gone ten yards.'

Quote from memory, might not be exact.

[KingSargent]

I've always thought this is an extremely interesting "What If?"

 

If Japan is friendly ala WW1, my guess is that the combined British-Indian-Australian-New Zealand land forces deployable to the Med and Europe (or not deployed to the Far East in the first place) equal 6 to 10 divisions. Also, fairly objective (from my point of view) officers in the Middle East were 100% convinced that 8th Army would have held onto Cyrenaica after the end of Operation Crusader if Japan stayed out of the war.

 

>>>snip<<<

 

The numbers of divisions would have been considerably higher than that. Aside from the 3 AIF infantry divisions that went home, there was the 8th in Malaya and scattered all the way to Rabaul, the 1st Armd forming up in Palestine, and intentions to field at least one more armd div and a motor inf div, giving an AIF total of at least 7. Add the 3rd NZ, the 18th and 70th Brit, and probably 4 or 5 IA inf divs and 1 Indian Armd, and that gives us 15 divisions. Then there are all the Brit troops that went to India, the East African div, the RN and RAN ships that went to the IO and Pacific, probably around 50 sqns of RAAF, I'm not sure how many RAF, a few sqns of RNZAF, and it really starts to add up. Plus all that shipping that was taking war materiel to India could have been delivering it to the Canal Zone instead.

209363[/snapback]

 

70th Brit was the old Palestine div, later 7th Div in Oct 39, later 6th Infantry Div in 1941 in Syria, re-flagged to 70. So it wasn't a "new" division. In a somewhat similar vein, the 36th British Div in Burma had been the 36th Indian Div on formation.

 

There were also two West African divisions (81 & 82) that fought in Burma. IIRC the East African div was tagged 'not to be used north of Sudan,' so it wouldn't have gone to the desert.

 

All this is only to show that counting divisions can be very misleading.

[JohnB]

Most of the tanks that did the "whuppin'" at Alam Halfa and Alamein were American.

 

211219[/snapback]

 

Most of the "whuppin" at Alam Halfa and Alamein was done by the Royal Artillery, most of the Panzer killing by the 6pdr.

[JohnB]

Given the "close-run thing" history of the battle, yes, I'd say there was a damned good chance that the British would have lost if they had not had 4th Armoured Brigade.

And 4th Armoured could not have been equipped with British tanks in lieu of Stuarts because there weren't any - available British tanks, that is.

 

Well let's see now, between January and September (the latest I guess the tanks could be shipped and made desert worthy before CRUSADER) 1941 Cruiser tank deliveries in the UK was 937. Minus those that had already been shipped and the Covenanters, obviously, that would still leave several brigades worth in the UK.

For Infantry tanks, less desired in the desert after the experience of BATTLEAXE, deliveries amounted to 1,974 of which about 450 were sent to the SU, again multiple brigades worth.

 

"A general opinion"? WHOSE "general opinion"?

In any case the Stuart at least got to the battle which contrasted with British machines that littered the desert after falling out of approach marches.

211346[/snapback]

 

General Auchinlecks to be precise That was his informed position after CRUSADER, I can dig the quote out for you if you like.

 

Although the Stuart was pretty universally regarded as mechanically superior to the Cruiser tanks, the reputation of the Cruisers has also suffered owing to their being rushed into battle (usually on Churchills urgings) before there had been time to make them 'desert worthy'.

[JohnB]

I'm curious on what part of the design they had involvement with.  That is the T5 circa 1938.

 

Well the turret on the Grant was British designed at least, I believe there were a number of modifications made in line with experience ...

 

I guess this has been overcome by events.  The 500 Shermans that were sent were not allocated to US forces.  They were the result of emergency production for shipment.  That is 18 days of Sherman production lost but I don't think that really mattered.  Probably ate up quite of bit of supply chain goods (engines) but that's that.  Those tanks were never destined for US forces.

211232[/snapback]

 

In the context of this thread, 'no Pacific War', a lot more if not most US production would have been destined for Brit forces. The Lend-Lease acts followed by $20 billion dollars of credit were passed before Pear Harbor.

[KingSargent]

Although the Stuart was pretty universally regarded as mechanically superior to the Cruiser tanks, the reputation of the Cruisers has also suffered owing to their being rushed into battle (usually on Churchills urgings) before there had been time to make them 'desert worthy'.

211594[/snapback]

Recall that there wasn't anything else to send, and Churchill had very little choice. It took years to make the designs "desert worthy" or even battle-worthy. Some never made it (Covenanter). By the time some of the bugs had been ironed out of British tanks the troops didn't trust them at all. Wasn't it 7th AD that bytched mightily about losing their trusty Shermans for Cromwells before OVERLORD?

 

I'm sure you have David Fletcher's Mr. Churchill's Tank. Check that for the immense reconstruction schemes necessary to get a proportion of the tanks built into combat.

 

The 'I' Tank's reputation went down after they ran into 88s during BATTLEAXE. Having a reliable 75mm Churchill instead of non-upgunnable Matilda might have kept the I Tank in favor. At least they could have shot back at the German AT.

 

As I mentioned before (possibly not in this thread) I feel the British would have been a lot better off sticking with the Vickers 'Slow Motion' suspension and upgrading that than haring off down the Christie trail and ending up with 'eight varieties of tank, with five varieties of suspension, and the ones that carried guns all armed with the same inadequate gun, and no provision to up-gun.' (I paraphrase Fletcher) Of course they couldn't go with anything made by Vickers, because Vickers Ltd were "bloated arms manufacturers" and "merchants of Death," and Parliament didn't want Whitehall buying from them. So the only reliable design and the only tank design team in the UK were bypassed and tanks were farmed out to loco and sports car builders.

 

There is a reason Mr. Fletcher's book on the first half of WW2 is called The Great Tank Scandal

[Redbeard]

Sometimes I can get the feeling that the best that could happen to the British would have been realising that they didn't have the tactical brilliance and brutal force to carry Battleaxe, Crusader etc. to decisive victory. If the absense of reliable tanks leads to that realisation - it might be OK - Rommel will still get stuck once he advances to far east, and even Covenanters will have a role in a defensive campign to pull out the teeth of the Germans. It must not be forgotten that UK alone by 1941 outproduced Germany, Italy and Japan combined - also in tanks.

 

Aside from that the British surely couldn't have done without Lend-Lease, but I don't see why Lend-Lease should vanish because the Japanese stay put. LL was made before PH and was constructed for the situation of USA not capable to taking part directly - i.e. exactly the situation carried on for some longer in this scenario.

 

The number of Divisions capable of being transferred to Europe and NA indeed could be impressive. AFAIR 10+ Indian Divisions (I'll check Ellis tonight) were kept in India for Far Eastern deployment. But you could fear Chiuchill now being unstoppable when he wants to launch some Balkan offensive, or landing Indians in Norway - poor devils!

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[Ken Estes]

Aside from that the British surely couldn't have done without Lend-Lease, but I don't see why Lend-Lease should vanish because the Japanese stay put. LL was made before PH and was constructed for the situation of USA not capable to taking part directly - i.e. exactly the situation carried on for some longer in this scenario.

212041[/snapback]

 

LL would be in jeopardy only for the USSR in this hypothesis, but surely the US rate of production remains less impressive without PH and US entry into the war. So less flow/rate ultimately goes to the UK, and maybe machines are not taken away from a US armored division and shipped to Suez?

[Kit Hildreth]

FDR already had the US Navy escorting convoys to Britain (actually to mid-Atlantic where the RN took over) for months before Pearl Harbor. Then he got all indignant and tried to get a war declaration when German U-boats torpedoed some convoy escorts that turned out to be Americans.

 

I think that if the people and Congress knew what was really going on in late 1941 (FDR waging war on his own hook), FDR would have had a real tough time selling US involvement in WW2 in Europe. He would be lucky if he wasn't impeached.

 

What could have been interesting is the Japanese getting Germany to make the Dutch cede the NEI to Japan - or at least all the oil production. They got France to agree to a Japanese takeover in IndoChina.

208179[/snapback]

***********

Couple of points:

in late '41 Zhokov set the Siberian Armies on their way west just in time to catch the Jerries napping in their summer uniforms in the dead of winter outside Moscow. He was able to do this because Richard Sorge in Tokyo confirmed the Nips had learned their lesson at Zhukov's behest.

Hitler couldn't but via operations such as the "miracle of the Donetz" and ops around Zhitomir - both in '43 - the German Army could -almost indefinitely

[Guest AdamMachell]

I know it's a "what if", but "if" the Germans don't have to dedicate so much equipment to France and send it East instead, they may have held out some type of deal. Additionally, what would have become of all the damage done to German infrastructure by the bombing?