Quote:
Originally Posted by Hop
Why? As soon as the Italians entered the war the British stopped running merchants through the Med. All the trade with the far east went the long way around Africa.
The Germans taking the Med merely reduces British commitments a little.
|
Actually, the loss of Alexandria and possibly the loss of Massawa in its wake (eg., the Axis retakes Italian Ethopia) takes away the two major ports of operation the British have in Eastern Africa. The loss of these two along with their use by the Axis as operating bases for U-boats into the Indian Ocean would represent a huge strain on Commonwealth escorting resources. Trade around the Horn would be far more difficult now running a several thousand mile long gauntlet of U-boat "infested" waters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hop
They did, it was called the Blitz. It was called off for the attack on Russia, but after the early phase it didn't really achieve much.
|
What I was suggesting wasn't so much a high intensity Blitz as just a sustained campaign with possibly several raids of maybe just 20 to 50 aircraft per night with nightfighter escorts along with daylight fighter bomber raids, the occasional anti-shipping strike, etc. Enough to keep the pressure on the RAF but not sufficent to draw down Luftwaffe strength. This would make it hard for the British to withdraw RAF units to other theaters while the Germans have sufficent forces uncommitted to action over the UK to operate else where.
In regards to U-boats:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hop
Again, this is what Germany actually did. Again it didn't do them much good.
Britain didn't build more ships than the Germans were sinking, but it benefited from the merchant fleets of neutral countries Germany had invaded, like the Norwegians, Dutch etc.
In 1939 the British merchant fleet amounted to 17.7 million tons. By the end of 1941 it was 20.8 million tons.
As to starving, food stocks in Britain were 10.53 million tons at the start of the war, 7.49 million tons by December 1939, 10.63 million tons in December 1940, 13.39 in December 1941.
Because of the long shipping route, most of Britain's oil came from the western hemisphere, either the US or Caribbean.
The big producers in the Caribbean were Trinidad and the Dutch West Indies, being allied there was little problem in paying for this fuel. Production in 1939 was something over 10 million tons a year, and with the pre war expansion plans would likely have increased as the war went on.
The US was the world's largest oil producer and supplied oil, but in return for dollars or gold only, until Lend Lease cut in in 1941.
|
True enough. But, the Allies historically were spending roughly ten times the money Germany was on the U-boat war. The US could afford it. Britain alone could not. If Germany steps up their operations even slightly and adds a larger dedicated force of maritime aircraft into the mix the British are faced with a real problem. Even if they can maintain their merchant tonnage the drain on resources would be unmanagable long term if the US is not helping. British escorts were also of lower quality than US ones. The
Flower Class for example was too slow to run down a surfaced U-boat, unable to fight any type surface raider should one appear, as it lacked torpedoes, and basically was a cheap stop-gap that Britain could afford. Note, how the US only used eight of this class and then only temporarily.
But, if the Germans are more scruplious about not attacking US and neutral shipping outside declaired war zones then the US is given little reason to engage in a European war. Where ever the materials are coming from to Britain they go by sea. The Germans need only worry about tonnage sunk not where it is or what it is carrying. Eventually, this will hurt Britain's ability to pursue the war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hop
I don't understand this. Once the Japanese declare war on the US, the US sees far more common cause with the UK.
There's no way Japan would declare war on the UK and not the US, because it was the US embargo that drove Japan to war anyway. Their whole strategy in going to war against the US was to secure a free hand for themselves.
|
I would expect both to be involved in a Pacific war (the US and UK). But, a Pacific War against Japan by the US does not translate automatically into a US declaration of war on Germany or Italy. If the US is reluctant to engage in a European war then Britain is likely to only receive war supplies from the US that go towards winning the Pacific War.
It would be difficult for US politicians to justify giving Britain war material to fight Germany while the US was at war with Japan. This could easily be political suicide in the US.
In fact, I would expect the US to even limit their own shipping in the Atlantic to own needs telling Britain that they have to ship all of their goods in British hulls simply because the US needs their shipping for the war with Japan.
You would have definitely seen a drop in US naval strenght in the Atlantic far greater than was historically done once it became clear Germany was not going to go to war with the US. So long as the US is fighting Japan and Germany will not get involved I cannot see Britain getting any great amount of help from the US to fight Germany.