Could the Western Allies Win Without the USSR?

Well, I’ll start with this little bit of background. I have a personal tie to the production of both Liberty and Victory class ships as my Mom was a Wanda the Welder at the Kaiser Yard in Portland Or., and I have explored the history of said merchant ships many times over the years. She is the one who taught me to weld both gas and arc, my Dad never mastered the skill. He didn't need to, his wife could do that very well thank you.

That was one of the eighteen different yards building these ships, Germany couldn’t match that in any way shape or form so the production of merchant men remains a non-starter for the Nazi supply machine.

The largest of those yards employed about 50,000 people at one time, in three shifts a day, seven days a week. By war’s end about 1.5 million men and women had been trained and were employed in their construction. The average of hours invested in each Liberty was 592,000 work-hours, but that again shrank as the method was perfected.

Now the length of time spend building them decreased as the mass production methods came into full swing, but the first one took 244 days to build. In the end the average was down to about 42 or 43 days (depending on which source) per ship, but that was the “average” by figuring all the ships built at all the yards, and “averaging out the time”. Much like figuring out the average age of the American citizen in any given year, sometimes the numbers don’t really tell the story. In the pre-WW2 years the infant and toddler mortality rate was much higher and that had to be figured into the average “life-span”.

How that becomes relevant is that the yards that could crank them out faster, raised the “average” for the less efficient yards to arrive at an average. And where my Mother’s input is important to this discussion is that she is the one who informed me that they were launched as ‘hull”, with no deck cargo handling equipment, no rigging, no winches, no derricks, the galley areas were incomplete without stoves or ovens (fire concerns), no crew quarters to speak of, and much of the electrical wiring not run through the conduits nor hooked up.

As to them not being “warships”, this is true. However they did carry an Armed Guard of one officer and 27 enlisted men trained to operate the 5” stern gun, the 3” bow gun, and the eight 20 mm machine cannons. These had to be installed after launch, and the Guard trained up. There were 145,000 Guards who served on the Liberty and Victory ships by war’s end.

What I am getting at here is this, the German nation simply couldn’t do things at this pace or in these numbers. No matter how “simple” it sounds to propose this solution for the Nazi war machine, they were incapable of doing it with the manpower and shipyards available to them. To get an idea of how much cargo would have to be moved, and this would undoubtedly be different for each nation, but each American serving overseas in the air or on the land needed 15 tons of supplies to support one soldier for one year. The figures for the USN would be different for obvious reasons, but each G.I. needed that 15 tons per year, the Wehrmach may have gotten along on less, but that is neither here nor there.

 

Agrees that the Germans would be unable to match the numbers or even the rate of which these ships were pumped out, However they didn't have to plan to support 90+ divisions being deployed overseas. Further research into the liberty ships, I realize that average build time was 42 days (1 1/2 months) and that the average time to commissioning was actually similar to the build time. Now while the axis would not be able to compete on the number or speed of the vessels being produced, They would've be ale to build the required amount in the time available for the forces they would have had deployed overseas. The single most useful design they could build. Yes they would take time, most likely 12 months for each vessel even after the ship yards became stream lined, but the end result would be a multi role vessel, though intended to supply ships at sea the class was more then capable of supplying land based forces. With the sizable storage space for evything from food to weapons and the ability to move 10,000 tons of fuel (give or take) the class wouldw be there best option. 1 class to concentrate on that does both there needs. Even with out the sheer numbers the US could produce the amount of supplies this vessel could carry combined with its range and speed would make up for it.

 

This is all well and good, but the RAF was keeping very close watch on what was built in German shipyards, and since they were engaged in "commerce war" with the blockade after all, so it is highly unlikely they would allow any merchant ships to be constructed to replace those which had been interned at war's out-break. This is still a non-starter. As is air-dropping fuel and supply by the Luftwaffe, another pipe-dream.

Let’s see here, the Ju-52 was a puny cargo carrier, only about 4000 lbs of cargo after the small crew, and internal fuel is excluded from the total which was needed to carry that weight. Its three BMW radials drank up its internal fuel capacity of 2,400 liters (654 US gallons) inside of 500 kilometer radius (311 miles radius) at the “blistering pace” of 245 Km/h (152 mph).

Now, since gasoline weighs in at just over six pounds per US gallon, and it needs all of that internal fuel to fly 311 miles and return to base, it burns up almost 4000 lbs of fuel to deliver the same amount in an air drop Not a real cost benefit gain in the long run. Now, some might argue that the returning Iron Annie would weigh less and get better mileage, but that has been factored in since it is called “combat range”. Compare that to the American C-47, it used two engines instead of three, and carried an additional 2000 lbs of weight, at a faster cruise at 185mph (250 mph max), and further with a combat radius of 750 miles (out and back).

The only reason that the C-47 could be used for airdropped cargo was the fact it was more efficient, and didn’t use as much fuel as it delivered until they tried to use it to fly over the Himalayas into China. That was almost an even trade off, but compared to no fuel delivered at all, it was worth the effort.

Don’t try to throw the Luftwaffe “Gigant” into the mix, it was even less efficient for cargo delivery since so many were shot down enroute. The Gigant also had no air-drop capability, it had to land to disgorge its cargo, no matter what it was.

Efficient fuel delivery was a tricky process in the forties. Even the much vaunted “Red Ball” express became a loss at a certain distance between the delivery and pick-up point. It cost more gallons of gas to deliver a gallon than you gained on the receiving end. That cannot be sustained even by the ally that was literally “swimming” in fuel (USA), if you burn a gallon and a half to deliver a gallon you gain nothing, and actually loose wealth and resources.

 

I believe that we a on slightly different pages regarding the building of the supply ships, my main line of thinking as any real warfare requiring shipment of supplies across a decent distance of ocean was in NA and the Mid East, So the ships naturally wouldw be built in Italian shipyards, Maybe even offer Turkey a few contracts seeing as though minor they did have a limited ship building industry through out the war. in all honesty such ships would only make a diffence in the Med. They could bring supplies to Axis forces in NA and the Mid East (assuming that axis forces are able to secure these locations, which I believe they would've been able to, but we seem to have a difference of opinion that doesn't seem likely to change, care to agree to disagree?) and to if taken even in a damaged to state to eventually begin shipping oil back to Italy, with there capacity, speed and ability to keep that speed up for literally a half dozen trips before needing to be refilled, they were designed to operate from base for longer periods to help there commerce raiders, submarines and pocket battle ships etc, for all the work America put into there fleet of ships, once they got there hands on one of Germany's Dithmarchen class ships they learnt a lot of new things.

 

Von Noobie:if you would use some punctuations,it would be easier to read your posts and to understand them .

 

Yes "von_noobie" I believe we are on entirely different pages here. The Italian steel industry was high quality, low quantity because of their indgeonus lack of fuels, i.e. coal, oil and coke production. Since the 1920s they had (for Italian use) produced their steel by the electro-hydroloic process rather than coal and coke fired furnaces. They had pretty decent hydro-electric facilities with all their falling waters. As a consequence they (Italy) imported the bulk of its sheet steel, the product needed for ship production,and used indigenous steel production for the quality stuff like small arms.

The Turks on the other hand had pretty much abandoned their ship building capacity post WW1 and the collapse of the Ottomans. Even before then they purchased the ships they used, both war and merchant from outside sources, Britain, Germany, and even the US. So let's see here, the Germans cannot use their shipyards, the Italians have no large steel production capacity, and the Turks are not interested. Tough sell bud.

 

From my reading however it wasn't shipping that was the constraint historically. It was fuel and the North African infrastructure.

 

The question remains :what is "without the USSR"?
Is this
1)the USSR remaining neutral?
2)the USSR becoming a German ally ?(and when ?)
And will in the ATL everything else pass as in the OTL?=German victory in the west,BoB,Rommel in NA,PH,etc ..?
Will the Germans and the Allies pursue the same strategy as they did in the OTL?IMHO,this would be very unlikely .
One exemple :would the allied air forces not attack earlier the German synthetic oil plants ?
Would Romania be a German ally ? And,if not,what about the Romanian oil ?Would Romania sell the oil to Germany, And,would the Allies attack Ploesti ?
Honestly,I don't see the relevance of the question :by not including the USSR,you are changing the whole course of the war:all operations outside the eastern front will be affected(one way or another),because everything was connected with everything .

 

IMO 1 is the only reasonable interpretation. Otherwise it should have been worded could the Western Alllies have defeated an Axis Soviet alliance. This would act as a restraint on both sides to some extent.

It would be reasonable to assume very little change up through the end of 1940. I don't see that the axis have much abiity to change the course of North Africa and Japan is still in the same predicament as she was historically so PH is likely to occur pretty much as historical. Things become a bit harder to predict after that however. (I see even less reason for Hitler not to declare war on the US so that likely follows as well.

I'm not sure why they would. It might depend on how much oil they thought Germany was getting from where.

I don't see why Romania would join the alliance. At least until someone threatened them. They likely would sell oil to Germany but the rates could well go up.

Pretty much on the mark. There's also a serious question about how long Stalin would stay out of it. Especially if it looked like Germany was starting to loose. I think this one fails the "reasonable" test as it requires the Nazis and Stalin to act against their nature.

 

Totally agree with that, Though I personally believe Germany would be able to do more in NA and change the course of the war there, Atleast initially until the Americans became involved in numbers. But I'm stubborn like that, My mother has tried to change it and hasn't worked, Dalt you guys will be able to get me to budged, But we are all entitled to our opinions, Im sure to relax it a little we can agree to disagree?

Cheers, von_noobie

 

About Romaniane of the reasons it was joining the Axis,was to get back the territories it lost to the SU (Bukowina/Bessarabia).Would it lose these territories in the IF scenario ? And,if not,would it not remain neutral,and not sell oil to the Axis ?In this scenario,Germany would be depending much more on its synthetic oil(which would be very vulnerable to air attacks),OTOH,Germany would need less oil without Barbarossa .
One can argue that without Barbarossa,the attitude of Finland,Hungary and Romania would/could be totally different.

 

I see oil being supplied by the SU still, As for the other minor axis nations...

Would they still supply Germany/Italy? Yes, Prospects of trade with Russia I see as being low, And trade with Turkey I don't see being able to afford the total sum of what these countries were exporting combined. For the simple economical stability they would have to trade with Germany.

Would they join? I don't think they would seek out direct military action against the allies or support the positioning of Axis forces inside there territories. That being said, I believe if the allies attacked them for reasons of trying to say deny the Germans/Italians the use of the Romanian oil fields, or the limited industrial capacity of these countries then they would join, None of the citizens in these countries would stand by being bombed by the allied forces with out retaliation, And seeing as they lacked the ability to hit back at them, They would join the Axis forces.. But only if attacked first.

 

I agree that it likely would remain neutral. However that doesn't mean that it wouldn't sell oil to the axis powers.

For a while anyway. Not sure if there would be much after 41 as Germany was behind in its payments when Barbarossa started and the payments were in manufactured goods and equipment that would strengthen the Soviets. Kind of puts Germany in a bind doesn't it? Then of course the allies may try to buy up the Soviet and for that matter Rumanian excess capacity. Probably won't get it all but likely to raise the cost of oil for the Germans who are already suffering in that regard.

 

True enough, Even without full supply of oil from SU or Romania, I don't see there capability being affected, Rather increased at least for the time being. With out conflict on the Eastern front, The need to field the millions of men would not be needed, Rather they could return to the industries they had been taken from, To get there economy back to normal in some form at least as it had suffered from the loss of so many of there workers to the German armed forces etc. I may be wrong but i had read some were that there economy did suffer from so many men being deployed to the army.

As for the allies buying up the Romanian oil, While in theory that seems simple enough, Would it actually be practical and would it actually benefit the Romanian economy. Romania being in there location in that time of the war was simply isolated, There only trading partners being the Axis, the SU (which would be unlikely considering the political tension between both countries) or possibly Turkey to a limited extent. While the allies would be able to buy up the oil, i don't see them being able to ship it out of German reach. And the problem with selling the oil to the Allies when they are in no position to aid you and you are surrounded by enemies is that they risk Germany cutting them off economically, By this time in Europe many countries i understand relied on there economy getting a decent return from exports, With no ability to export, And limited opportunities to import products the Romanian economy to start to dive sharply.

But that is just a thought, Not any fact as of yet unless some one can give it some credibility.

Cheers, von_noobie

 

Indeed. I believe coal production in particular was negativly effected. On the Feldgrau page they listed the Whermacht as having a strength of ~6,000,000 in 1940 I believe and about double that in 43 or 44. Somewhere in between seems likely in the 43-45 time frame in this alternative. Probably closer to the 6M for most of the period.

Well the western allies bought not only Spanish Tungsten but Swedish steel. It would probably have to go through Turkey but I don't see the latter objecting to that. At least initially I suspect we wouldn't see huge sales the main effect would be to drive up the price for the Germans. This wouldn't hurt the Soviet barganing position either so I don't see them objecting.

 

About the Romanian oil:it only was number 2 in the importance order for the Germans
1940
1)synthetic oil:3.3348 million ton
2)Home crude oil:1.465 million
3)import from Romania:1.41
1941
1)synthetic:4.166
2)import from Romania:2.88
3)Home crude:1.562
1942
1)synthetic:4.92
2)Romania:2.2 (deliveries to the Ostheer included)
3)Home:1.686
1943:
1)Synthetic:5.748
2)Romania:2.5(idem)
3)Home:1.883
Total German oil production and imports
1940:6.9 (of which 1.4 from Romania =20 %)
1941:8.5 (2.9 =34%)
1942:9 (2.2 =24 %)
1943:10.4(2.5 =24%)
Source :AHF :Germany and oil P4

 

From your numbers that only seems to hold true for 1940. After that it exceeded domestic production and that's if you seperate domestic production into crude and synthetic. It's also important as synthetic oil was quite expensive and a rather inefficient use of coal which was also in limited supply.

 

Now:the importance of the oil export to Germany for Romania (same source)
1940:
production :5.8
1)domestic consumption:1.86
2)export to Germany:1.4
3)export to Italy:0.33
1941:
production:5.6
1)to Germany:2.9
2)domestic:1.8
3)to Italy:0.76
1942:
production:5.6
1)to Germany :2.2
2)domestic:2.1
3)to Italy:0.62
1943:
production:5.2
1)to Germany:2.5
2)domestic:2.0
3)to Italy:0.39

 

Interesting, Seems there oil production decreased as the war went on, I'm guessing to bomber attacks? Or more likely wear and tear on the system with there limited industry being focused on the war.

But taking into account the decrease in active armed forces, With only the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe acting in any continuous role fielding a sizable force needing large amounts of supply. Seems rather German oil stocks would increase over time. Seems to me that oil supply would not be an issue, At least not until both the Allies landed in France and Stalin decided to do a Mussolini and try and grab some of the land in Germany's 'defeat'.

Though on the other side of things, What would the defensive situation possibly be like? The defense's in Italy or Greece etc being any different, France i see a bigger investment into the Atlantic wall, and what about the SU - Axis border.. Would Germany build up a defensive line along it? (If Hitler was smart he would, At least 25+ miles in depth). Would they be capable of building such defensive lines?

 

Even if Stalin doesn't take Bessarabia, so forcing the Rumanians to seek protection from Hitler, the Rumanians will continue to sell oil to the axis, as they were already doing pre war, no reason to stop and very good reason to continue (you don't want to anger Hitler when you're even more isolated than Poland was). At that point securing the Eastern Med becomes a priority, with the RN and RAF out of the area the oil can be shipped to Italy and southern France more easily than railing it through the Balcans so we may expect a massive German effort to clear the Eastern Med. IMO they can airlift infantry divisions to NA (IIRC they did so with one in 1942) and if they do the Commowealth cannot match the reinforcement rate. This is likely to mean Italian East Africa will not fall as the Commowealth cannot spare the troops to mount an offensive and the lines will stabilize with the Germans in control of the whole Eastern Mediterranean coast and the horn of Africa with a heavily sabotaged Suez canal. I don't think they can get much further without local support as if they move away from the coast the "interior lines" advantage disappears and both contestants have to rely on long lines with the British actually having the better land transportation infrastructure, on the other hand Vichy Syria, Iraq and to a much lesser extent Iran were far from pro-British, Turkey is also an unknown quantity and we can't expexct Stalin to stay idle while Hitle occupies his southern border so it gets too open to speculate.

Assuming they stop on the coast with nothing else to do with them the Germans can probably demobilize some infantry divisions (as they historically did), with beneficial effects on production, but they will be missing the hisorical "Eastern loot" so the overall effect may be a reduced output. Despite that getting back control of the Med is far from a given result for the Allies, raising the huge navy required to compensate for the axis "interior lines" and at the same time mobilizing the 100+ divisions that is the minimum required to go head to head with the German Army is a big proposition, this looks like a stalemate and so becomes a question of "national will" historically neither the Germans nor the British had problems there but will the US, that will have to foot the bill as the British are close to bankruptcy, be ready do so to basically "defend the British Empire?" .