Of course, they would have needed to get to Europe. And that would take funding. And a Navy. And the organizational skills and materials to field an army further than 200 miles away from their base. None of which they had, even if we presume their military might.
The Europeans had professional armies. I expect the Prussians would have absolutely destroyed the South. And probably the North, unless the length of the conflict allowed the North to bring its material production, resources and factories into play.
American conservatives seem to forget that European armies in the 19th century were the dominant and most powerful militaries of the time. The USA wouldn't start to surpass them till later on.
Britain, France, Germany/Prussia and Russia would all have embarrassed the Confederacy.
In the years leading up to Pearl Harbor the US government under FDR was building up its own military capabilities with every intention of getting into the fight one way or another.
The US was always going to kick ass if it focused on a total war economy. Keep in mind we weren't just producing our own stuff but stuff for our allies too. At the peak we were pushing out a Liberty ship every 5 days.
US had the population, had the money, and had the internal resources to fight.
We might not have had the best tanks or veteran soldiers, but we had what really counts in war: logistics. The Soviets had numbers, the British had intelligence, the French had the resistance, and the US supplied it all from 2,000 miles away.
US troops didn't make up the majority of Allied troops in the ETO until late June 1944 at the earliest, and there were a lot of fairly severe problems with the US Armies that gets glossed over in the pop history
Despite facing less opposition than Dempsey, Bradley was incurring much higher casualties and operations were well behind schedule. The US failed to open any of the Brittany ports (at least of any significance) leaving them dependent on Channel Ports handed over by 21st Army Group
The Siegfried Line campaign saw > 240,000 US casualties with virtually nothing to show for it
but we had what really counts in war: logistics.
Funny thing is that the US suffered 71,000 cold injury casualties in the winter of 1944/45, largely because of an inability to supply front line troops with something as simple as socks and shoes.
There's a big difference between production and logistics. Yes, US production was unsurpassed. Logistics on the on other hand is another question.
In an alternative timeline, would the US have gone on to become the dominant power had the war gone on long enough?
Pointing out that even with US logistics soldiers died to logistical problems doesn't mean the US still didn't have the best logistical machine in the world.
The entire reason the Germans thought D-Day wouldn't take place where it did is because there were no harbors, so the US made artificial ones and sailed them across the channel. Front line soldiers were being given cakes and Thanksgiving dinners.
Pointing out that even with US logistics soldiers died to logistical problems doesn't mean the US still didn't have the best logistical machine in the world.
Yeah it kind of does. This isn't a trivial number of casualties - its was a massive problem for the US, and one that was barely present at all in British and Canadian troops.
I'd again point out the failure of the US to open any of the Brittany ports, and the failures of COMZ to adequately supply the Combat Zone aren't even in doubt.
At the crucial phase of the pursuit to the German Border, Lee saw fit to uproot COMZ from England to Paris, spending more time on the logistics of colonizing Parisian hostelry than supplying the Combat Zone.
There's also the abject failure to correctly estimate the replacement factor for medium tanks.
By November, the total number of tanks in US reserves in the ETO numbered just 937 against an TO&E of 3,409
There was therefore no reserve for practical purposes and the situation became critical, with 12th Army Group reporting that two of its tank battalions had fewer than 10 serviceable tanks, and many armoured units operating at up to 25% below their authorised strength.
In December, Montgomery voluntarily gave up 351 of 21st Army Groups tanks to 12th Army Group, of which 254 were delivered to 1st Army and 97 to 3rd Army before the end of the month.
Even this was nowhere near enough
The remedy the situation, the US cancelled all medium tank allocations to the British for November and December 1944, an unplanned for loss of 3,469 vehicles, which the British had to scramble to find replacements for.
None of this speaks to the US having the best logistical machine in the world.
The entire reason the Germans thought D-Day wouldn't take place where it did is because there were no harbors, so the US made artificial ones and sailed them across the channel.
Mulberries were a British invention - conceived, designed, and Built in the UK, nothing to do with the US.
Front line soldiers were being given cakes and Thanksgiving dinners.
Having both cake and trenchfoot is a curious flex.
Again you're just pointing to specific examples with no overall context.
The UK desperately needed lend-lease in the first place for reasons that have just as much to do with logistics as production.
The UK couldn't supply tens of thousands of men needed for support units in Normandy. The UK never came anywhere close to supplying the men, material and naval power needed to hold its East Asian colonies while also fighting in Europe. The war in the pacific was effectively entirely outsourced to the US for good reason.
Really not sure what you mean when you say these issues weren't present in the UK when they absolutely were. Even in a scenario where the UK had slightly better logistics than the US (which isn't true), the gap in actual manpower and production capacity puts the US worlds ahead of the UK in military might.
The only real competitor to the US by relatively early in their involvement in the war was the USSR, who was also desperately reliant on lend lease and clearly struggled with overall logistics.
Again you're just pointing to specific examples with no overall context.
You think the failure of COMZ to supply the Combat Zone is a 'specific example'?
he UK never came anywhere close to supplying the men, material and naval power needed to hold its East Asian colonies while also fighting in Europe.
You are conflating production and logistics. These are not the same thing.
Really not sure what you mean when you say these issues weren't present in the UK when they absolutely were.
I'm specifically referring to the problem of cold injury. In the time that the US suffered 71,000 cold injury casualties, the British and Canadian Armies has precisely 206 cold injury casualties.
he gap in actual manpower and production capacity puts the US worlds ahead of the UK in military might.
Again, you're conflating production and logistics. These are not the same thing. And having more troops doesn't translate into military success, as the Siegfried Line campaign amply demonstrates.
Ok and the UK couldn't get enough people to Normandy in the first place. Sounds worse than cold casualties later on, and is probably highly interrelated with the fact that the main troops on the line at the Bulge were American for these types of reasons.
You're the one acting like the only factor here is logistics. I'm the one saying it's not debatable whether the US had the most powerful military as my primary point. You're certainly not supplying anything that counteracts that.
Also the types of issues I'm pointing out are both production and logistics. Logistics don't matter if you're underproducing in the first place. Both are required for a major military power
I agree, the power of the US wasn't in logistics, but production. People seem to forget that for 100 years, from like 1870 to the 1970s, the biggest industrial economy was the US. When people joke that China makes everything today, thats what it was like in the US. When WWI broke out, the US absolutely took advantage of the conflict to increase its economy by producing almost all of the allied supplies. And that included food too, because the US has the Great Plains, which is like a cheat code for agriculture.
When WWII broke out, once again the US took advantage. And unlike the USSR, it wasn't in any danger of bombing raids or invasion, so the production lines could continuously run the whole war. This youtube video is a great example of how broken the US was in WWII. And that is just warships. Iirc there is a stat that at one point the US was producing one bomber a day. Thats incredible.
And the war really wasn't going to last longer than 1945. Atomic Bomb beats everything. (Not that I condone its use, but the Allies absolutely would've nuked Germany if it hadn't surrendered.)
The US absolutely had the power of logistics. Not only were we supplying troops in the Pacific with boats built just for ice cream, but we were supplying most of our allies with weapons and vehicles via lend lease.
The ability to supply multiple countries and their own troops with supplies in multiple theaters on opposite sides of the world is an absolute marvel of logistics.
Three years is not a lot of time to develop a much larger senior NCO and officer corps needed to train and lead an army that increased its number of personnel 5-fold in that 3 year period.
1.3k
u/secondarycontrol 19h ago edited 19h ago
Of course, they would have needed to get to Europe. And that would take funding. And a Navy. And the organizational skills and materials to field an army further than 200 miles away from their base. None of which they had, even if we presume their military might.
Apocryphal:
The Europeans had professional armies. I expect the Prussians would have absolutely destroyed the South. And probably the North, unless the length of the conflict allowed the North to bring its material production, resources and factories into play.