stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 29, 2024 16:27:05 GMT
Max
Thanks for clarifying. Will try and cover the points raised. a) So its definitely Nazi-Soviet peace agreement in late Nov, Japan attacking in the Far East roughly OTL, bringing the US into war with Japan and then probably thanks to Hitler being helpful as OTL with Germany, then in about spring 42 Stalin strikes south. - Although it sounds like he might demand a larger share of Iran than the Soviets already control 1st. In this situation Churchill would probably ask the US for political support and if he gets a promise stand firm, leading to a shooting war. Talking initially of political support as the US has no real military forces to send to the region. If FDR says no then Churchill in that situation, probably pressed by the rest of the government and military gives in and actual combat in the region delayed somewhat but no doubt will come soon. Britain will want as you say to keep the SW corner, where important oil sources are and probably also Baluchistan to cover the path to India.
b) Churchill might think about Operation Pike but not until there's open war with Stalin and also extracting heavy bombers from Britain and relocating them to the ME will take time. Both in getting the bomber marshals to agree to this and then the sheer issues to transporting them and the necessary ground staff and other resources, including building suitable airfields. By the time such forces are on the move you would probably find the Soviets are overrunning planned airfields. If Britain can hold Egypt and NW India - OTL Pakistan then later on Britain or US heavy bombers might be used for such attacks. Not sure how effective Soviet defences would be against night attacks but its a bloody long way to Baku over rough terrain.
c) Agree that the Japanese will strike south. By late Nov when the peace deal is signed their already committed with deploying forces south and east and also the clock is ticking on the oil and other reserves being run down. Especially if FDR has moved even a bit earlier on the embargo. In fact if say their a week or two earlier then they might strike just as the Nazi-Soviet peace agreement is achieved. Which many in the western powers will probably see as deliberate rather than a coincidence - which could make some concerns about Stalin's future actions being raised earlier.
d) I meant would FDR talk with the allies before issuing the embargo and if they asked him to delay it for the moment would he listen. Probably not but given a position that is worse for the allies they might be unwilling to go along with it. If so would he threaten to cut L-L to either Britain or the Netherlands? OTL there were some disjointed discussions between the assorted military leaders in SE Asia, especially on the naval side but given the limited forces available and concerns they went nowhere.
e) On the situation in the ME area I was assuming that given the crisis in Europe - especially with one of the few trained divisions in the ME being sent to Britain and no armour from Britain to the ME I was assuming that things would go significantly differently. I.e. i) That Compass would be delayed and only go as far as defeating the Italian border forces. ii) As a result you probably wouldn't get Mussolini doing a 180 and asking for aid in N Africa. I doubt Rommel or any other Germans would turn up, at least that early.
iii) That Britain would have to choose between clearing Italian E Africa and Greece as I doubt they would be able to afford both and that they would choose the 1st. - Because there were demands to clear the Red Sea and parts of Indian Ocean so US merchant shipping could be used in those areas coupled with Churchill's desire to get back British Somalia. I think if the Italians invaded Sudan successfully, which would be logistically different this bias would be reinforced, especially since this seems to be occurring shortly after .
iv) That in that case Italian E Africa would be largely liberated - at this point Mussolini could well ask for aid in Africa but with Barbarossa in full flow its unlikely to be a fully motorised force and as OTL likely to be meant for defensive actions. Given his probably in Russia the leader is unlikely to be Rommel so whoever it was would probably also obey Hitler! v) That the Iraqi uprising occurs and is put down. Whether you get German aid passing through Vichy Syria and a following British intervention could be variable but happy with it not happening.
This was why I was thinking that British forces prior to the Japanese attack would be somewhat stronger in the region. There's no initial invasion of Libya, diversion to Greece with heavy losses, counter attack by Rommel and seize of Tobruk, which then takes two offensives to relieve it, the 2nd occurring just as the crisis in the east occurs. As such a lot of OTL British losses would have been avoided. [Including Commonwealth and Imperial forces under British here]. You would probably have a force being built up towards the end of 41 to try an attack into Libya and/or watch the Caucasus region in case the Soviets collapsed and the Germans were threatening via that route. [This was a concern in late 42 with the Germans advancing toward Baku and - while they were probably less well equipped and trained I did read once that Britain had more forces in Syria/Iraq/Iran to guard against that danger than they had under Monty fighting 2nd El Alamein].
In that scenario British forces would be stronger than OTL at the end of 41 - and actually so would the Italians in Libya since they would have avoided the OTL heavy losses in Compass and have gained at least some of the OTL Italian reinforcements whether or not any German forces are sent to Libya.
However given the events your suggesting their going to be very strained because both Greece and an attack by Rommel [or equivalent] although that's going to be far more difficult here driving us back from the Libyan border to El Alamein would leave the allies in the region much worse strained, even before the Japanese and then the Soviet attacks. I do think that combination of events are unlikely for the reasons stated above. - The reason I suggest a German success here would be a lot more difficult is two fold. For one if the role is on orders from Hitler to be primarily defensive its going to be difficult basing it near the Egyptian border and keeping that secret from both Hitler and the British. The other is that its a markedly longer supply line for the Italians and a much shorter one for the British defenders. Although one aspect of this is that without Cyrenaica being in British hands Malta may have fallen as its a lot more difficult sending reinforcements or supplies from the east with Cyrenaica in hostile rather than friendly hands.
I would suggest that even if Britain sends forces to Greece I doubt German forces would be sent to Libya, at least not until 42 after the peace with Stalin. At that point Hitler could insist on it as a way to take the war to British interests. He may also want to get into at least part of the ME before Stalin although whether or not spheres of influence in the region have already been agreed between the two dictators I don't know.
Anyway my initial thoughts on the situation. In the schedule your proposing, even with avoiding the problems of Greece and a German offensive in 41 in Libya things are going to be very bad for the allies regardless. The Japanese attack are likely to draw forces eastwards toward Malaya and Burma, which then leaves the rest exposed to a Soviet and possibly a German/Italian attack from Libya. A lot would depend on the timing and how much concern there is about Stalin. It might force the loss of Egypt, which I think your intending although a practical defence should still be possible, at least from the west as a well defended El Alamein is a very difficult point for a force to drive past. However the Soviet strike could reach the Sinai.
Mind you a Syria/Lebanon under Vichy control would be a complicating issue for Stalin and Hitler here. How much have the two agreed to in their negotiations for Stalin to attack British interests? If Hitler was willing to sacrifice the French colony to the Soviets its not going to go down well in France. Albeit there's relatively little they can do about it.
Anyway help that explains what I was trying to say and have a clearer picture of what your intending. Hopefully removes any confusion I've generated in the previous post and not added any more here. 
Steve
OK, let's go through it.
a. Oh, the Nazis are willing to hand over all of Iran to the Soviets. (It might be that Stalin may hint to the Brits that he'd like to keep it, without telling about his secret diplomacy. Churchill will decline of course, hence killing the chance of handing over Iran so Stalin can say he doesn't need it.) And even if Churchill might want to make war on his traitorous ally, I can't see anyone else in Britain agreeing with this. Keeping a piece of Iran as a face-saving gesture would be the best he could expect.
b. It'd take time indeed, and the Soviets would be faster to move fighters to Baku than the Empire. So I guess some British planes flying there to make recon will be the best, after which Stalin would tell them to "f*** off".
c. Earlier or later, that's the question. If the Japanese worry that Stalin isn't honest about keeping the peace with them, later. If they believe their ally, earlier.
d. Did he IOTL? I had thought he hadn't, and Britain and the Dutch joined the embargo anyway.
e/i. Re: alt-Compass I made a compromise: Balbo (who survived because of butterflies) came as far as Marsa Matruh, but Wavell drove him back to the border. Good thing the Italians overestimated British strength. IOTL they thought you had 200,000 troops there in Egypt. Is it realistic that the 7th Armoured Division would be moved to Britain as well? I hadn't thought so...
e/ii. Don't forget Greece. After all German support was a kind of package deal. And Rommel - it's just one division, and currently Germany has enough troops ready.
e/iii. Priorities, exactly. Originally I had hoped Britain would support Greece at least with one or two symbolic divisions, but maybe I'll have to make a retcon and reduce them to air squadrons.
e/iv. Is moot, since I want Rommel to fight in Africa. Otherwise it wouldn't be a real WW2. Tradition, you know. ;-)
e/v. There is an Iraqi uprising (and why not), but Syria stays under Vichy, and it takes one month longer to defeat it. Also, the old regent dies when his plane crashes.
- Would the Italians have sent reinforcements rather to Libya or to Greece?
- Well, Malta does fall in mid-1941.
- Why shouldn't Germany send troops to Libya? As said, it's not that many, and the Empire is rather weaker, so Germany can afford to.
- No, the Levant is Mussolini's turf, and the Soviets had to acknowledge that in B-L 2. Hence no Soviets in Syria, Palestine, let alone Egypt.
PS: This is the new official logo of this TL.
On various points:- b) I meant that's something the allies would seek to try once the Soviets have attacked. Lack of escort fighters is unlikely to deter them as they operated without them - at least at 1st - against Germany that way, whether going by day or night. However it depends on when they send such forces to the region and how great a distance it would be to Baku. The region with its many oil facilities could be vulnerable to attack with a lot of incendiaries.
c) If it takes Stalin a couple of month to reassure himself Hitler won't attack again, rebuilt strained forces and move them to the Iranian border and I would expect it to be at least that long I can't see Japan not striking 1st, especially if the embargo goes in place a bit earlier. They don't have too long to wait before they run out of oil and their also aware that the US and UK especially are sending reinforcements to the region and also the approach of the monsoon in the region which would considerably affect many activities.
d) As I understand it FDR didn't inform the allies OTL but in TTL things are probably looking distinctly worse so the Dutch especially might consider not complying. Unlikely but a possibility.
e)i - Thanks for clarifying. On armour there was the core of the 7th Armoured Div in Egypt but it was reinforced by a number of tanks shipped from Britain via the Med - about the only time such a mission was attempted before the Axis were cleared from N Africa and Sicily. I think those were the Matilda Infantry tanks that proved effectively invulnerable to Italian AT weapons. that's what I'm referring to and with the loss of not only equipment at Dunkirk most of the men in the region with training in armoured units that is likely to be delayed somewhat here. Hence I wasn't thinking of sending tanks to the UK but of at least a delay in the arrival of tanks from the UK.
e) ii - My point is that Mussolini accepting aid in the Balkans, where Germany has important interests most noticeably in Romania - both its oil and its role on the southern flank of Barbarossa is a different matter to in what he sees as his own back yard - i.e. N Africa, especially if instead of the OTL shattering defeats in the western desert and E Africa Italy has a smaller defeat in the former and initial successes in the latter. Plus if the front line is significantly further east that OTL its a lot more difficult for a German commander to get the OTL surprise and success. Especially if he's not as willing to disobey Hitler as Rommel did. Plus if you have a powerful figure like Balbo in charge of the Italians - unless say he's dismissed because of the latter defeat - Rommel is likely to have much less power over Italian forces.
e)iii - I think that could well be the case. If the Italians are advancing in Sudan and have suffered markedly less in Libya then Britain is likely to be reluctant to send especially a token force to Greece.
e) iv - Its your TL but I think the logic for this would be weak.
e) v - On those points -
If Syria stays Vichy it causes major problems for both sides. Britain has more difficult supporting Iraq and Iran from the west and Stalin - if he respects Vichy control similarly have issues sending forces to Palestine and beyond.
Italy OTL send reinforcements to both. TTL they might send less to Libya as the threat is markedly less and the losses have also been a lot less. Either way I'm not sure it makes a massive difference.
The fall of Malta does fit in with the changed events and it would reduce Axis logistical problems in western Libya. Possibly not a great different in eastern Libya and Egypt as the distances and lack of a railway or good points is a major handicap. In one way it helps Britain as the costly operations to supply Malta are avoided.
Because the same incentive isn't there. Libya isn't important to Germany, especially not compared to the Balkans or Barbarossa and with it looking pretty secure I think its unlikely that Mussolini would feel desperate enough to ask in those circumstances nor Hitler being willing to push the issue. Mussolini took his status and prestige very highly and as you say the Axis had agreed that Egypt and the Levant were in Italy's sphere of desired influence.
However will Stalin accept Italian 'theoretical' control in the region? Apart from anything else it would leave British forces based in Palestine - if they don't seek to occupy Syria or even be invited in by the local French - able to operate freely against his western flank. Also if he's only allowed Iraq and Iran then the USSR has relatively little gain unless they can successfully fight their way into India which could be a big issue, at least in the short term.
Not to mention if he did and assuming Italy gets the region in the peace settlement with the allies that means that Nazi forces have a strong position on the flank of Stalin's new southern gains which would need a significant defensive force.
Its possible that he might accept such a restriction at least in the short term, but I suspect its out of character for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Aug 31, 2024 19:07:18 GMT
Sorry to break this discussion, but I've made a decision.
Calculating the dates for TTL, I found: Yamamoto would already have left the Kuriles on the day the "Eastern Peace" was made. In fact, his fleet would have been closer to Hawaii than the Kuriles now.
Now that'd be an opportunity to make things more chaotic. Not entirely sure, but since the SU has left the war now, the Japanese have a good reason to make yet another conference to consider things. Maybe they'd even go so far to order Yamamoto back, to be on the safe side? But that seems crazy. They'd lose about two weeks like that, and risk being discovered, and waste valuable fuel... also, even if, that'd only work if the fleet didn't have radio silence. Well, let's say that the Japanese leadership will be nervous for some days.
One thing is sure: The strike will have to happen on a Sunday morning in Hawaii, for maximum surprise. So, if not on December 7th, maybe on Dec 14th, or Nov 30th.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 1, 2024 9:53:56 GMT
Sorry to break this discussion, but I've made a decision. Calculating the dates for TTL, I found: Yamamoto would already have left the Kuriles on the day the "Eastern Peace" was made. In fact, his fleet would have been closer to Hawaii than the Kuriles now. Now that'd be an opportunity to make things more chaotic. Not entirely sure, but since the SU has left the war now, the Japanese have a good reason to make yet another conference to consider things. Maybe they'd even go so far to order Yamamoto back, to be on the safe side? But that seems crazy. They'd lose about two weeks like that, and risk being discovered, and waste valuable fuel... also, even if, that'd only work if the fleet didn't have radio silence. Well, let's say that the Japanese leadership will be nervous for some days. One thing is sure: The strike will have to happen on a Sunday morning in Hawaii, for maximum surprise. So, if not on December 7th, maybe on Dec 14th, or Nov 30th.
Assuming that there is surprise and since your mentioned Sarah will be at Pearl that leaves the US not only deeply shocked but also down one CV and possibly a lot of its trained crew.
Agree that the Japanese are extremely unlikely to call back Yamamoto even without the radio silence. - Although that is presumably by KB force itself. Presumably a coded message could be picked up by the force ordering it back because of drastic changes but its doubtful that would happen.
Its not just the KB. Japan has a lot of stuff moving including a good chunk of their merchant fleet taken off assorted trade duties to be ready to carry troops and supplies all over the place. It would be easier to call them back but would cause confusion and a lot of wasted effort.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 1, 2024 10:00:51 GMT
Sorry to break this discussion, but I've made a decision. Calculating the dates for TTL, I found: Yamamoto would already have left the Kuriles on the day the "Eastern Peace" was made. In fact, his fleet would have been closer to Hawaii than the Kuriles now. Now that'd be an opportunity to make things more chaotic. Not entirely sure, but since the SU has left the war now, the Japanese have a good reason to make yet another conference to consider things. Maybe they'd even go so far to order Yamamoto back, to be on the safe side? But that seems crazy. They'd lose about two weeks like that, and risk being discovered, and waste valuable fuel... also, even if, that'd only work if the fleet didn't have radio silence. Well, let's say that the Japanese leadership will be nervous for some days. One thing is sure: The strike will have to happen on a Sunday morning in Hawaii, for maximum surprise. So, if not on December 7th, maybe on Dec 14th, or Nov 30th. Assuming that there is surprise and since your mentioned Sarah will be at Pearl that leaves the US not only deeply shocked but also down one CV and possibly a lot of its trained crew. Agree that the Japanese are extremely unlikely to call back Yamamoto even without the radio silence. - Although that is presumably by KB force itself. Presumably a coded message could be picked up by the force ordering it back because of drastic changes but its doubtful that would happen.
Its not just the KB. Japan has a lot of stuff moving including a good chunk of their merchant fleet taken off assorted trade duties to be ready to carry troops and supplies all over the place. It would be easier to call them back but would cause confusion and a lot of wasted effort.
I assume the carrier planes will be on the ground and not on the carrier. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 1, 2024 11:25:29 GMT
Assuming that there is surprise and since your mentioned Sarah will be at Pearl that leaves the US not only deeply shocked but also down one CV and possibly a lot of its trained crew. Agree that the Japanese are extremely unlikely to call back Yamamoto even without the radio silence. - Although that is presumably by KB force itself. Presumably a coded message could be picked up by the force ordering it back because of drastic changes but its doubtful that would happen.
Its not just the KB. Japan has a lot of stuff moving including a good chunk of their merchant fleet taken off assorted trade duties to be ready to carry troops and supplies all over the place. It would be easier to call them back but would cause confusion and a lot of wasted effort.
I assume the carrier planes will be on the ground and not on the carrier.
I would have assumed otherwise but not an expert on the issue. However either way their likely to take major losses but if their on land bases a lot of the crews - both air and ground based are likely to survive.
If Saratoga is at all prepared for any mission with fuel and munitions on board then its likely to end up an inferno!
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 4, 2024 19:47:55 GMT
Since I mentioned Midway, this is interesting: Some fellow on that other forum wrote a pretty detailed TL where Japan strikes against Midway. Also, someone mentioned this: Seems to me that Japan had a good opportunity to actually take the island. Or at least destroy anything there which can be destroyed. But I'm no naval expert. For the record of TTL: The Japanese will strike on November 30th, with or without Midway (and spoil FDR's Thanksgiving). The Nazis got their peace with Stalin signed on November 28th, after which the "führer" ordered one week of celebrations - why not. Germany will still declare war on the US on December 7th. |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 8, 2024 1:18:16 GMT
Japan and its war are just the second-most important Axis power/big theater of this WW2, so I'm not putting that much work into it. Now however I had to think about its expansion phase and got this:
10 December: Invasion of Brunei begins.
15 December: Hong Kong capitulates.
17 December: Brunei capitulates.
End of December: Manila taken.
Start of January: Sabah capitulates.
January: Invasion in Birma.
25 January: Malaya lost.
End of January: Labuan occupied.
3 Februar: Invasion of Singapore.
9 Februar: Singapore capitulates.
Start of March: Capitulation of Dutch on Java.
End of March: Borneo lost.
Early April: Landing on New Guinea.
May: Indian border reached. Kohima and Imphal taken. Afterwards, the monsoon stops attacks for both sides.
Besides of the possible divergences mentioned in earlier posts, there might be these ones:
- Japanese try to crush Corregidor and/or Bataan before they use their troops in other places (originally they had planned to take the Philippines in 50 days)
- MacArthur stays in Bataan, or dies on his flight when it is shot down or so. No more "I shall return".
- A different strategy for the Indies. IOTL they divided their force in three - one for the west, one for the center (starting in Borneo), one for the East. Might be the best one - but why not two or four?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 8, 2024 22:39:36 GMT
Japan and its war are just the second-most important Axis power/big theater of this WW2, so I'm not putting that much work into it. Now however I had to think about its expansion phase and got this: 10 December: Invasion of Brunei begins. 15 December: Hong Kong capitulates. 17 December: Brunei capitulates. End of December: Manila taken. Start of January: Sabah capitulates. January: Invasion in Birma. 25 January: Malaya lost. End of January: Labuan occupied. 3 Februar: Invasion of Singapore. 9 Februar: Singapore capitulates. Start of March: Capitulation of Dutch on Java. End of March: Borneo lost. Early April: Landing on New Guinea. May: Indian border reached. Kohima and Imphal taken. Afterwards, the monsoon stops attacks for both sides. Besides of the possible divergences mentioned in earlier posts, there might be these ones: - Japanese try to crush Corregidor and/or Bataan before they use their troops in other places (originally they had planned to take the Philippines in 50 days) - MacArthur stays in Bataan, or dies on his flight when it is shot down or so. No more "I shall return". - A different strategy for the Indies. IOTL they divided their force in three - one for the west, one for the center (starting in Borneo), one for the East. Might be the best one - but why not two or four?
Sorry been busy today so failed to respond earlier.
On the last bit, as I understand it although some commanders who stayed in the Philippines kept up the pressure once the allied forces had retreated into Bataan the Japanese had been content to let them starve there as they had what they needed, i.e. to remove the Philippines as a US base. It appears that the US forces thought the Japanese placed a high priority on using Manila harbour, hence the idea of holding out in Bataan for as long as possible to deny them it but the Japanese, with control of so many other bases in the region didn't consider it as important as sending forces south to hit the locations with resources they desired. Hence the transfer of forces from the Philippines to elsewhere and then moving some back for the final stages of forcing the surrender of the forces in Bataan. As such I think it would be unlikely for this to change, nor particularly in their interest to try and overwhelm the defenders earlier.
If MacArthur died in Bataan or trying to escape - I think there was nearly a nasty air crash after he reached Australia so that could be an alternative. Without his domineering character and desire to return to the Philippines it could be that after the path to Australia is secured by winning the Solomon's campaign that less fighting occurs in the SW Pacific and the US concentrates on the USN plan for an advance across the central Pacific, although that won't really be that practical to start until at least mid/late-43 as numbers of the Essex class CVs enter service, especially with the loss of a carrier at Pearl further giving the Japanese an initial superiority.
In terms of the DEI it might have been partly geography. As I understand it they needed Sumatra for the oil there and also as the defence of the western flank of the position and I think - but could be wrong - that some of the forces involved in that operation came from occupied Malaya. Similarly from their mandated territories as well as operations against Wake and Guam they wished to secure New Guinea and points south to protect their eastern flank and also be able to push south to threat communications between Australia and the US. The centre of Dutch power was in Java, which was also the most developed of the islands but that was shielded by the Philippines and Borneo from the north so that was attacked and occupied somewhat later by 3rd force.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 11, 2024 22:50:03 GMT
stevep, what you say makes definite sense. I might decide to happen things different from OTL - but why? I don't have a plausible idea either, and don't want to change things just for the sake of it. I wouldn't mind MacArthur dying, because I also consider him overrated, but somehow he belongs into a WW2 story, you get what I mean. Hopefully he won't become POTUS... OTOH, I had the Menzies government survive so far because of butterflies. After the fall of Singapore however, his position might become shaky. Then again, after B-L2 (late 11/41), he may well defend himself by red-baiting.
The small Pacific islands really aren't my main interest in this story, and there's not much to write about them - but after all, they matter for this theater, so I had to consider them. There didn't change much compared to OTL, except that the Japanese attack on Midway after PH causes more destruction, and the whole thing happened one week earlier. Re: aircraft carriers: The Allies have lost the Saratoga in PH, and the HMS Indomitable (R92) didn't have its OTL accident, so it was in SE Asia when the Japanese striked... OTOH, since the US were a bit more worried about the Axis than IOTL, they decided to build one Essex carrier more than IOTL. So, in the long run, you can expect the WAllies to strike back harder. However, I haven't decided yet on whether the German subs might sink the one or other CV.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 12, 2024 0:05:12 GMT
Here's a bit I wrote a while earlier, set after the "Eastern Peace" was signed. Now's the time to post it.
Churchill again proves that he has his finger on the pulse of the British people when he makes another one of his famous speeches, some days after the treaty is signed: "Our world has become grim and dark. For the near future, there is nothing but war. And yet: Let us once again prefer war to humiliation. Because this enemy does not want a compromise. This enemy does not want coexistence. This enemy wants the whole world. Let us show him how British hold up their honor. Let us show him how British fight for their honor. Let us show him how British die for their honor."
But in recent times, there is a nagging doubt that doesn't leave Churchill even under the influence of gin: What if the days of the Empire and the old world order were truly over? What if the totalitarian states of Germany, Russia, and Japan really managed to sweep Eurasia and North Africa from British and American influence? What if the values of the Anglosphere - freedom, liberty, democracy, participation, free trade/market/enterprise - will survive only on the other continents?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 12, 2024 15:17:13 GMT
stevep , what you say makes definite sense. I might decide to happen things different from OTL - but why? I don't have a plausible idea either, and don't want to change things just for the sake of it. I wouldn't mind MacArthur dying, because I also consider him overrated, but somehow he belongs into a WW2 story, you get what I mean. Hopefully he won't become POTUS... OTOH, I had the Menzies government survive so far because of butterflies. After the fall of Singapore however, his position might become shaky. Then again, after B-L2 (late 11/41), he may well defend himself by red-baiting.
The small Pacific islands really aren't my main interest in this story, and there's not much to write about them - but after all, they matter for this theater, so I had to consider them. There didn't change much compared to OTL, except that the Japanese attack on Midway after PH causes more destruction, and the whole thing happened one week earlier. Re: aircraft carriers: The Allies have lost the Saratoga in PH, and the HMS Indomitable (R92) didn't have its OTL accident, so it was in SE Asia when the Japanese striked... OTOH, since the US were a bit more worried about the Axis than IOTL, they decided to build one Essex carrier more than IOTL. So, in the long run, you can expect the WAllies to strike back harder. However, I haven't decided yet on whether the German subs might sink the one or other CV.
From what I've seen on various naval discussion sites the idea that the grounding of Indomitable prevented it being with Force Z is something of a myth. It delayed her deployment but she wouldn't have reached the Far East until early 42 anyway.
In this situation with greater problems in both the European and Pacific theatres I could see the US ordering a fair number more Essex class although it would depend on the priorities given to other construction, both in naval, other military and elsewhere. Even the US has limits, especially this early before its really tooled up massively.
German or Japanese subs might sink or at least damage more CVs. Although IIRC Malta falls earlier so that could save a fair amount of British/Imperial shipping in the Med, at least in the early term as there's no need to fight through convoys to Malta. Of course if the ME falls any ships in the eastern Med could suffer heavy casualties trying to escape and once Suez is blocked their likely to be lost.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 12, 2024 15:19:25 GMT
Here's a bit I wrote a while earlier, set after the "Eastern Peace" was signed. Now's the time to post it. Churchill again proves that he has his finger on the pulse of the British people when he makes another one of his famous speeches, some days after the treaty is signed: "Our world has become grim and dark. For the near future, there is nothing but war. And yet: Let us once again prefer war to humiliation. Because this enemy does not want a compromise. This enemy does not want coexistence. This enemy wants the whole world. Let us show him how British hold up their honor. Let us show him how British fight for their honor. Let us show him how British die for their honor." But in recent times, there is a nagging doubt that doesn't leave Churchill even under the influence of gin: What if the days of the Empire and the old world order were truly over? What if the totalitarian states of Germany, Russia, and Japan really managed to sweep Eurasia and North Africa from British and American influence? What if the values of the Anglosphere - freedom, liberty, democracy, participation, free trade/market/enterprise - will survive only on the other continents?
Possibly my own interests but that 2nd paragraph gives me vibes of the decline of Denethor in LotRs. I don't know if he would go as far as suicide but sounds like a level of despair could set in and if it hits him it would hit a lot of the rest of the population as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 13, 2024 23:45:54 GMT
stevep , what you say makes definite sense. I might decide to happen things different from OTL - but why? I don't have a plausible idea either, and don't want to change things just for the sake of it. I wouldn't mind MacArthur dying, because I also consider him overrated, but somehow he belongs into a WW2 story, you get what I mean. Hopefully he won't become POTUS... OTOH, I had the Menzies government survive so far because of butterflies. After the fall of Singapore however, his position might become shaky. Then again, after B-L2 (late 11/41), he may well defend himself by red-baiting.
The small Pacific islands really aren't my main interest in this story, and there's not much to write about them - but after all, they matter for this theater, so I had to consider them. There didn't change much compared to OTL, except that the Japanese attack on Midway after PH causes more destruction, and the whole thing happened one week earlier. Re: aircraft carriers: The Allies have lost the Saratoga in PH, and the HMS Indomitable (R92) didn't have its OTL accident, so it was in SE Asia when the Japanese striked... OTOH, since the US were a bit more worried about the Axis than IOTL, they decided to build one Essex carrier more than IOTL. So, in the long run, you can expect the WAllies to strike back harder. However, I haven't decided yet on whether the German subs might sink the one or other CV.
From what I've seen on various naval discussion sites the idea that the grounding of Indomitable prevented it being with Force Z is something of a myth. It delayed her deployment but she wouldn't have reached the Far East until early 42 anyway.
In this situation with greater problems in both the European and Pacific theatres I could see the US ordering a fair number more Essex class although it would depend on the priorities given to other construction, both in naval, other military and elsewhere. Even the US has limits, especially this early before its really tooled up massively.
German or Japanese subs might sink or at least damage more CVs. Although IIRC Malta falls earlier so that could save a fair amount of British/Imperial shipping in the Med, at least in the early term as there's no need to fight through convoys to Malta. Of course if the ME falls any ships in the eastern Med could suffer heavy casualties trying to escape and once Suez is blocked their likely to be lost.
Indomitable wouldn't have been there? The accident in the Caribbean was on November 3rd. I'm no expert, but if the Japanese carriers could cross the Pacific in eleven days, Indomitable should be able to do it as well. Do you know some detail I don't? ITTL the Pacific War starts one week earlier, but OTOH the Indomitable might have been rushed somewhat. (Which admittedly makes the chance of an accident bigger, not smaller, but exceptions may always happen.)
Yes, I will have to put some thoughts into that. Especially soon when I'll start to really deal with the Battle of the Atlantic. I do think that with the given improvements (better Enigma, Dönitz replacing Raeder, more steel left to build subs after B-L2, more oil as well) the nazis do have a chance to win it as well. But then again, the US built a hell of a lot of Liberty ships... some claim, IOTL(!) the subs just made a dent, even if "millions of BRTs sunk" sounds very impressive in propaganda.
Here's a bit I wrote a while earlier, set after the "Eastern Peace" was signed. Now's the time to post it. Churchill again proves that he has his finger on the pulse of the British people when he makes another one of his famous speeches, some days after the treaty is signed: "Our world has become grim and dark. For the near future, there is nothing but war. And yet: Let us once again prefer war to humiliation. Because this enemy does not want a compromise. This enemy does not want coexistence. This enemy wants the whole world. Let us show him how British hold up their honor. Let us show him how British fight for their honor. Let us show him how British die for their honor." But in recent times, there is a nagging doubt that doesn't leave Churchill even under the influence of gin: What if the days of the Empire and the old world order were truly over? What if the totalitarian states of Germany, Russia, and Japan really managed to sweep Eurasia and North Africa from British and American influence? What if the values of the Anglosphere - freedom, liberty, democracy, participation, free trade/market/enterprise - will survive only on the other continents?
Possibly my own interests but that 2nd paragraph gives me vibes of the decline of Denethor in LotRs. I don't know if he would go as far as suicide but sounds like a level of despair could set in and if it hits him it would hit a lot of the rest of the population as well.
And fittingly, Tolkien wrote LotR during this time. (As mentioned elsewhere, ITTL it'd be a very different book.) Even if it sounds improbable for people who know how the Anglosphere outproduced the Axis, both FDR and Churchill sometimes worried the latter might actually win. IOTL!
Suicide for Churchill... I don't really want that. It'd look too much like a mirror version of OTL: Churchill the meddling amateur strategist and hobby painter, who made big speeches while others did the fight, removing generals for having failed to win against impossible odds, and then that as well?
Of course he's in an unenviable situation: ITTL he'll be made responsible for the biggest defeat of the Empire since the colonials ;-) got their independence - if not since the loss of France! Twice as bad since he actually wanted to preserve the Empire, not destroy it.
So or so: If the Japanese would attack Midway on their return (that is, with more than two destroyers as IOTL), they may send one or two carriers. Theoretically, so I've read, Midway has enough space for 100 warplanes.
Edit: Just found a scientific thesis, "An Unsinkable Carrier: The Midway-based Forces...". Mostly about the battle, but the first chapters have some valuable info too. They had planned to build it in 1938, invested 60 million bucks, and the base in its 1941 state was able to fuel up three planes at the same time, and had accomodations for 25 crews. IOTL 18 Vindicators were there.
According to the chart, it took their fleet about three days from Midway to Hawaii. ITTL, they might strike on December 3rd.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Sept 14, 2024 8:49:23 GMT
From what I've seen on various naval discussion sites the idea that the grounding of Indomitable prevented it being with Force Z is something of a myth. It delayed her deployment but she wouldn't have reached the Far East until early 42 anyway.
In this situation with greater problems in both the European and Pacific theatres I could see the US ordering a fair number more Essex class although it would depend on the priorities given to other construction, both in naval, other military and elsewhere. Even the US has limits, especially this early before its really tooled up massively.
German or Japanese subs might sink or at least damage more CVs. Although IIRC Malta falls earlier so that could save a fair amount of British/Imperial shipping in the Med, at least in the early term as there's no need to fight through convoys to Malta. Of course if the ME falls any ships in the eastern Med could suffer heavy casualties trying to escape and once Suez is blocked their likely to be lost.
Indomitable wouldn't have been there? The accident in the Caribbean was on November 3rd. I'm no expert, but if the Japanese carriers could cross the Pacific in eleven days, Indomitable should be able to do it as well. Do you know some detail I don't? ITTL the Pacific War starts one week earlier, but OTOH the Indomitable might have been rushed somewhat. (Which admittedly makes the chance of an accident bigger, not smaller, but exceptions may always happen.)
Yes, I will have to put some thoughts into that. Especially soon when I'll start to really deal with the Battle of the Atlantic. I do think that with the given improvements (better Enigma, Dönitz replacing Raeder, more steel left to build subs after B-L2, more oil as well) the nazis do have a chance to win it as well. But then again, the US built a hell of a lot of Liberty ships... some claim, IOTL(!) the subs just made a dent, even if "millions of BRTs sunk" sounds very impressive in propaganda.
Possibly my own interests but that 2nd paragraph gives me vibes of the decline of Denethor in LotRs. I don't know if he would go as far as suicide but sounds like a level of despair could set in and if it hits him it would hit a lot of the rest of the population as well.
And fittingly, Tolkien wrote LotR during this time. (As mentioned elsewhere, ITTL it'd be a very different book.) Even if it sounds improbable for people who know how the Anglosphere outproduced the Axis, both FDR and Churchill sometimes worried the latter might actually win. IOTL!
Suicide for Churchill... I don't really want that. It'd look too much like a mirror version of OTL: Churchill the meddling amateur strategist and hobby painter, who made big speeches while others did the fight, removing generals for having failed to win against impossible odds, and then that as well?
Of course he's in an unenviable situation: ITTL he'll be made responsible for the biggest defeat of the Empire since the colonials ;-) got their independence - if not since the loss of France! Twice as bad since he actually wanted to preserve the Empire, not destroy it.
So or so: If the Japanese would attack Midway on their return (that is, with more than two destroyers as IOTL), they may send one or two carriers. Theoretically, so I've read, Midway has enough space for 100 warplanes.
Edit: Just found a scientific thesis, "An Unsinkable Carrier: The Midway-based Forces...". Mostly about the battle, but the first chapters have some valuable info too. They had planned to build it in 1938, invested 60 million bucks, and the base in its 1941 state was able to fuel up three planes at the same time, and had accomodations for 25 crews. IOTL 18 Vindicators were there.
According to the chart, it took their fleet about three days from Midway to Hawaii. ITTL, they might strike on December 3rd.
On Indomitable it was working up in the relatively safe - at the time - waters of the Caribbean. That process involved training the crew in the new ship and making sure the equipment was properly operating and can take some time. It was far from complete and it wasn't expected to be ready for service and sent east until the following spring. In this scenario you might get the war occurring before the accident in which case there would be a desire, especially by the politicians to rush things - just as with PoW during the Bismarck operation when she was sent into action with workmen aboard but your still got to arrange the trip, where they refuel and get supplies and all that sort of details. Also would they go west through Panama and across the Pacific or east across the Atlantic, round the Cape and across the Indian Ocean. I would assume the latter as that's where British bases that could support her were. That's different from crossing half the Pacific on a well planned single operation with all the details sorted out beforehand.
With Churchill it is probably unlikely but the comparison just came to my mind.
In terms of the Battle of the Atlantic its going to be a hell of a lot tougher here, especially if the USN drags its feet as OTL in defending its coastal shipping. An Operation Drumbeat here with a few more subs would be even more devastating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Sept 14, 2024 16:15:40 GMT
Indomitable wouldn't have been there? The accident in the Caribbean was on November 3rd. I'm no expert, but if the Japanese carriers could cross the Pacific in eleven days, Indomitable should be able to do it as well. Do you know some detail I don't? ITTL the Pacific War starts one week earlier, but OTOH the Indomitable might have been rushed somewhat. (Which admittedly makes the chance of an accident bigger, not smaller, but exceptions may always happen.)
Yes, I will have to put some thoughts into that. Especially soon when I'll start to really deal with the Battle of the Atlantic. I do think that with the given improvements (better Enigma, Dönitz replacing Raeder, more steel left to build subs after B-L2, more oil as well) the nazis do have a chance to win it as well. But then again, the US built a hell of a lot of Liberty ships... some claim, IOTL(!) the subs just made a dent, even if "millions of BRTs sunk" sounds very impressive in propaganda.
And fittingly, Tolkien wrote LotR during this time. (As mentioned elsewhere, ITTL it'd be a very different book.) Even if it sounds improbable for people who know how the Anglosphere outproduced the Axis, both FDR and Churchill sometimes worried the latter might actually win. IOTL!
Suicide for Churchill... I don't really want that. It'd look too much like a mirror version of OTL: Churchill the meddling amateur strategist and hobby painter, who made big speeches while others did the fight, removing generals for having failed to win against impossible odds, and then that as well?
Of course he's in an unenviable situation: ITTL he'll be made responsible for the biggest defeat of the Empire since the colonials ;-) got their independence - if not since the loss of France! Twice as bad since he actually wanted to preserve the Empire, not destroy it.
So or so: If the Japanese would attack Midway on their return (that is, with more than two destroyers as IOTL), they may send one or two carriers. Theoretically, so I've read, Midway has enough space for 100 warplanes.
Edit: Just found a scientific thesis, "An Unsinkable Carrier: The Midway-based Forces...". Mostly about the battle, but the first chapters have some valuable info too. They had planned to build it in 1938, invested 60 million bucks, and the base in its 1941 state was able to fuel up three planes at the same time, and had accomodations for 25 crews. IOTL 18 Vindicators were there.
According to the chart, it took their fleet about three days from Midway to Hawaii. ITTL, they might strike on December 3rd.
On Indomitable it was working up in the relatively safe - at the time - waters of the Caribbean. That process involved training the crew in the new ship and making sure the equipment was properly operating and can take some time. It was far from complete and it wasn't expected to be ready for service and sent east until the following spring. In this scenario you might get the war occurring before the accident in which case there would be a desire, especially by the politicians to rush things - just as with PoW during the Bismarck operation when she was sent into action with workmen aboard but your still got to arrange the trip, where they refuel and get supplies and all that sort of details. Also would they go west through Panama and across the Pacific or east across the Atlantic, round the Cape and across the Indian Ocean. I would assume the latter as that's where British bases that could support her were. That's different from crossing half the Pacific on a well planned single operation with all the details sorted out beforehand.
With Churchill it is probably unlikely but the comparison just came to my mind.
In terms of the Battle of the Atlantic its going to be a hell of a lot tougher here, especially if the USN drags its feet as OTL in defending its coastal shipping. An Operation Drumbeat here with a few more subs would be even more devastating.
WP doesn't know the details you mentioned. Hm. Could well be, that'd change things. But why do you imply that Britain had no bases to support her in the Pacific? What about Fiji, the Solomones, Tonga, Australia? And couldn't they use bases of friendly states (US, Dutch) either?
Other than that, I'm tweaking details about a possible Midway attack during the return from PH. Is one carrier enough, or would two be better? The Americans would have up to 20 planes, albeit older ones. (The good stuff went to Europe.) How many other ships should accompany them? I do think though that until the equivalent of the Midway battle, the destruction they'd cause would have been repaired - no "tipping point" reached here.
Furthermore, I'm thinking about the Near/Middle East. Let's say that Stalin will occupy Iran in January 1942. Secret diplomacy with the Brits follows. Bandar Shah renamed Kaliningrad. Iran gets a pro-Soviet puppet regime, with the Tudeh party and Mossadegh involved.
In Turkey, the winters tend to be rainy. Hence, an eventual attack might well start around March.
Oh, another tidbit: Since Arthur Percival became a German PoW at Dunkirk, in Singapore Lionel Bond has to stay a few months more at his post instead of retiring. Which has consequences for the spy literature: After the defeat, calling a spy hero "James Bond" is out. Whether Ian Fleming discovers this ornithologist or not.
(Unless you think the Brits would fly Percival and other generals out. But is this realistic? My first idea was only to evacuate Lord Gort and Edmund Ironside. - The latter didn't get around with Churchill, so this wouldn't necessarily be a win for Britain.)
Edit: I'll have to think what Bose will do ITTL either. I wouldn't mind him dying quickly or rotting in a British prison - but many things are possible. Maybe Bengal will become a state of its own? A three-way split of India somehow'd fit the three-way Cold War of TTL...
|
|
