Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What if: Japan delayed or abandoned its entry into WWII
Volkodav    2/15/2009 6:03:02 AM
What would the effect have been on Australia and our invilvement in WWII had Japan delayed or abandoned their entry into WWII. What would the effects have been on the conduct of the war globally, i.e. would the US have entered the war without Pearl Harbour. Would Australia have deployed Armoured Divisions to the Middle East and North Africa? Would the invasion of Italy or Normandy have been possible? Possible reason for Japan not joining the war, earth quake and tsunami destroying economy and putting back military preparations by years. or Humint allowig the US to mobalise and head off the threat.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Aussiegunneragain    Correction   2/19/2009 6:16:03 AM































I wouldn't rule out the prospect of Germany strangling Britain into submission with unrestricted ASW warfare, before the Brits could get the bomb. I also wouldn't rule out the Germans getting it first and beating both Russia and Britain outright.






































I've seen the German work approach. Heisenberg was great on theory, His physics for a two lens implosion type bomb was elegant, better than the brute force approach the Americans used, but his industrial approach was CRAP. No bomb before 1950 if EVER.















This guy, Mark Oliphant did for uranium enrichment industrial processes what Enrico Fermi did for plutonium. 














The British would have beaten the Germans to the bomb. As for the sub war in the North Atlantic, all things being equal the US contribution was not major (10%?) before 1943. (Kaiser shipbuilding didn't kick in until 1943 for example) That war was mainly won by the British and Canadians, no matter what US propaganda says. Britain would have to tighten her belt a bit.     














Herald 





































I'll have to take your word on the nuclear question because I don't know enough about it but I still think the sub war could have gone against Britain, even if it was after 1943 (for instance, what would they have done about the air gap without the advent of ASW B-24's?). You can't rule out the impact of the bigger challenge upon other theatres like North Africa and the Middle East either.  










1. Divert Lancaster production and introduce the Lincoln earlier?

 

That would reduce the impact of bombing on German industry to even lower than it would have been without the USAF contributiong. That means more submarines, tanks and aircraft to deal with. All bad either way.



2. Less help from Britain, means more help needed from Australia into Egypt for 8th Army?

 

True but we could only have provided one extra corp, at least to begin with, not much given the scale of the conflict. It might have freed up a fair few British and Indian units from the Far East though.
<
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       2/19/2009 6:26:03 AM


1. Divert Lancaster production and introduce the Lincoln earlier?
 
That would reduce the impact of bombing on German industry to even lower than it would have been without the USAF contributing. That means more submarines, tanks and aircraft to deal with. All bad either way.
 
Agreed but then the US contribution doesn't show up until 1942, and really doesn't pile the weight on until mid 1943. Like the Pacific War submarine campaign against Japanese merchant shipping, you don't see the Luftwaffe taken down until the USAAF gets its act together in Europe; which is around January 1944 when the long range fighters finally start to do their work in earnest. Until then, the Luftwaffe was having a jolly time splashing  8th Air Force fighters. We have to be careful to separate Hollywood from reality. It took a while for America to get her shots in-a couple of years at least.
 
 
2. Less help from Britain, means more help needed from Australia into Egypt for 8th Army?
 
True but we could only have provided one extra division, at least to begin with, not much given the scale of the conflict. It might have freed up a fair few British and Indian units from the Far East though.
 
An extra division worth of Diggers would have been more help than you could possibly guess. I suspect that a corps of them, would have been a solid nucleus for victory at either the Cauldron or Crusader. And given the pending shortage of Shermans (no Americans yet) it was either Rams (Canadians with them) or Sentinels (Australians with them) at Al Alamein. Either bunch would have a very rough crowd for Panzer Lehr. 

3. The big problem is that I see the RAF taking an early war hit in bomber production but not in later war efforts.

 See point 1.
 
Ibid. It wouldn't make that much difference actually, early war, since the RAF did 70% of the bombing 1941-1943. It did the wrong kind of bombing, but that is not in our parvenue here-just how much effect the USAAF actually had at that point in the war.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

strat-T21C    Further to Harold's last..   2/19/2009 11:20:34 AM
Most of "Britans bomber production" were actually made in Canada, along with fighters, arty/tank and ammo.
 
Quote    Reply

strat-T21C    and   2/19/2009 11:43:31 AM

Most of "Britans bomber production" were actually made in Canada, along with fighters, arty/tank and ammo.


not to mention all the US kit towed across the US/CAN border and 4 stack destroyers destined for the UK
 
Quote    Reply

strat-T21C    Herald, sorry for the mis-spelling of your name,Dave   2/19/2009 12:46:03 PM

Most of "Britans bomber production" were actually made in Canada, along with fighters, arty/tank and ammo.


 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics