[ickysdad]

Ok on another forum it's been postulated about a meeting of the HSF and the USN in a climatic battle which in a "bathtub type scenario" I'm ok with however in this alternate history the scenario is the Germans have driven the UK out of the war because of un-restricted sub warfare. However the US had declared war on the Germans just right before the UK drops out so the Germans devise a strategy of getting to the US through Mexico. Further along the scenario involes the HSF escorting a convoy to Mexico through the Carribean to some Mexican port in the Gulf of Mexico .
The main things I have against this type of scenario are...
1. The HSF has absolutely no expierence in this type of power projection.
2. The logistics issues are extremely daunting to be charitable about it.
3. Unless they can get a base in the Western Hemisphere the HSF will be without the services of all but 2(???) of it's battlecruisers and none of it's DD's/TBD's.
4. Mexico is a mess at this time with no one entity in charge.
Here is the link to the other thread on the other forum. However if you'd rather discuss the main theme without referring to the other thread/forum please feel free to do so. Now moving on if the Entente was knocked out of the war France by Germany's land war against them and the UK by sub warfare then what would be Germany's best strategy against the US be? What would the US's best strategy be? If Germany somehow disposes of the Western Entente where else could she expect trouble other then across the Atlantic with the US?
http://warships1disc....com/topic/9025

This post has been edited by ickysdad: 02 April 2009 - 0124 AM

[Xavier]

IMHO the best strategy for both would be to ignore each other and make peace.
Not nearly as cool as Prussian Guards marching into Texas while the Hochseeflotte is bombarding New York though :D

[ickysdad]

Xavier, on Thu 2 Apr 2009 0929, said:

IMHO the best strategy for both would be to ignore each other and make peace.
Not nearly as cool as Prussian Guards marching into Texas while the Hochseeflotte is bombarding New York though :D

Or as cool as Mr. Kaiser getting himself involved in an insurrection like the US is involved in today in Iraq!!!! LOL !!!! Or the HSF getting it's butt kicked trying to bombard New York because they had to leave their DD's/TBD's behind!!!!! LOL !!!!
However I agree Why put resources into a place like Mexico when the Kaiser can put them to far better use in say Africa to increase his influence there!!!!

[John Dudek]

ickysdad, on Thu 2 Apr 2009 0623, said:

Ok on another forum it's been postulated about a meeting of the HSF and the USN in a climatic battle which in a "bathtub type scenario" I'm ok with however in this alternate history the scenario is the Germans have driven the UK out of the war because of un-restricted sub warfare. However the US had declared war on the Germans just right before the UK drops out so the Germans devise a strategy of getting to the US through Mexico. Further along the scenario involes the HSF escorting a convoy to Mexico through the Carribean to some Mexican port in the Gulf of Mexico .
The main things I have against this type of scenario are...
1. The HSF has absolutely no expierence in this type of power projection.
2. The logistics issues are extremely daunting to be charitable about it.
3. Unless they can get a base in the Western Hemisphere the HSF will be without the services of all but 2(???) of it's battlecruisers and none of it's DD's/TBD's.
4. Mexico is a mess at this time with no one entity in charge.
Here is the link to the other thread on the other forum. However if you'd rather discuss the main theme without referring to the other thread/forum please feel free to do so. Now moving on if the Entente was knocked out of the war France by Germany's land war against them and the UK by sub warfare then what would be Germany's best strategy against the US be? What would the US's best strategy be? If Germany somehow disposes of the Western Entente where else could she expect trouble other then across the Atlantic with the US?
http://warships1disc....com/topic/9025

Logistics would be very daunting. No matter which Mexican port that you land the German Expeditionary Force at, you will have great difficulty just in keeping them supplied in the field. Mexican railroads of that day were single tracked lines with little rolling stock and just enough locomotives to keep the lines viable. The Germans would have to build a European transportation infrastructure of their own, from the ground up, just to keep their troops equipped with bratwurst and bullets.

[FlyingCanOpener]

ickysdad, on Thu 2 Apr 2009 0623, said:

Ok on another forum it's been postulated about a meeting of the HSF and the USN in a climatic battle which in a "bathtub type scenario" I'm ok with however in this alternate history the scenario is the Germans have driven the UK out of the war because of un-restricted sub warfare. However the US had declared war on the Germans just right before the UK drops out so the Germans devise a strategy of getting to the US through Mexico. Further along the scenario involes the HSF escorting a convoy to Mexico through the Carribean to some Mexican port in the Gulf of Mexico .
The main things I have against this type of scenario are...
1. The HSF has absolutely no expierence in this type of power projection.
2. The logistics issues are extremely daunting to be charitable about it.
3. Unless they can get a base in the Western Hemisphere the HSF will be without the services of all but 2(???) of it's battlecruisers and none of it's DD's/TBD's.
4. Mexico is a mess at this time with no one entity in charge.
Here is the link to the other thread on the other forum. However if you'd rather discuss the main theme without referring to the other thread/forum please feel free to do so. Now moving on if the Entente was knocked out of the war France by Germany's land war against them and the UK by sub warfare then what would be Germany's best strategy against the US be? What would the US's best strategy be? If Germany somehow disposes of the Western Entente where else could she expect trouble other then across the Atlantic with the US?
http://warships1disc....com/topic/9025

War Plan Black: http://www.globalsec...-plan-black.htm
Results of gaming said War Plan: http://books.google.......p;cad=0#PPP1,M1

[Grant Whitley]

John Dudek, on Thu 2 Apr 2009 1422, said:

Logistics would be very daunting. No matter which Mexican port that you land the German Expeditionary Force at, you will have great difficulty just in keeping them supplied in the field. Mexican railroads of that day were single tracked lines with little rolling stock and just enough locomotives to keep the lines viable. The Germans would have to build a European transportation infrastructure of their own, from the ground up, just to keep their troops equipped with bratwurst and bullets.

Not to take away from the general ridiculousness of the scenario, but the Mexican rail net was sufficient to supply the various revolutionary and federal forces, which often numbered in the range of 15-30,000 in a single concentration(each side). That's not much compared to Europe, but it's a hell of a lot more than I could see the Germans ever getting into Mexico.

This post has been edited by Grant Whitley: 01 May 2009 - 0934 AM

[ickysdad]

Bump....

In regards to this former thread of mine I also posted it on the Axis History forum basically asking the same question. If the UK would have collapsed(even if highly unlikely) due to Germany's unrestricted sub warfare in 1917 (economically/politically/militarily) and her empire would have came up for grabs who would get what or rather who would take what? Who would gain the most from this alternative ending? What of the answers in this other forum?

http://forum.axishis...p?f=11&t=161954

This post has been edited by ickysdad: 17 January 2010 - 2132 PM

[RETAC21]

ickysdad, on Mon 18 Jan 2010 0328, said:

Bump....

In regards to this former thread of mine I also posted it on the Axis History forum basically asking the same question. If the UK would have collapsed(even if highly unlikely) due to Germany's unrestricted sub warfare in 1917 (economically/politically/militarily) and her empire would have came up for grabs who would get what or rather who would take what? Who would gain the most from this alternative ending? What of the answers in this other forum?

http://forum.axishis...p?f=11&t=161954

There's little to be shared at the end of the day:

India, Australia/NZ, Canada, Ireland, Rhodesia, Egypt and probably a couple of places more will become independent, Caribbean islands will either fall to the US or become independent, Belize may be taken over by Honduras and the Falklands by Argentina, while African colonies are as likely as not to be part of the French empire. Malaya may or may not be taken over the Japanese, while the same are likely to take over the CW parts of Borneo.

[swerve]

RETAC21, on Mon 18 Jan 2010 0916, said:

There's little to be shared at the end of the day:

India, Australia/NZ, Canada, Ireland, Rhodesia, Egypt and probably a couple of places more will become independent, Caribbean islands will either fall to the US or become independent, Belize may be taken over by Honduras and the Falklands by Argentina, while African colonies are as likely as not to be part of the French empire. Malaya may or may not be taken over the Japanese, while the same are likely to take over the CW parts of Borneo.

Belize by Guatemala, Ireland the only place not to become independent (a shattered UK turned in on itself could hold Ireland even if nowhere else: it needed only men & rifles), Rhodesia most likely part of an extended South Africa. Canada might assume responsibility for the Caribbean islands. Given US racial attitudes at the time, they'd probably seek that, to avoid a US takeover.

I think a united, independent India would be most likely to assume control of Malaya & Singapore, along with Burma & Ceylon, with either the Dutch or Americans possibly taking over the north Borneo states.

This post has been edited by swerve: 18 January 2010 - 1008 AM

[RETAC21]

swerve, on Mon 18 Jan 2010 1606, said:

Belize by Guatemala, Ireland the only place not to become independent (a shattered UK turned in on itself could hold Ireland even if nowhere else: it needed only men & rifles), Rhodesia most likely part of an extended South Africa. Canada might assume responsibility for the Caribbean islands. Given US racial attitudes at the time, they'd probably seek that, to avoid a US takeover.

I think a united, independent India would be most likely to assume control of Malaya & Singapore, along with Burma & Ceylon, with either the Dutch or Americans possibly taking over the north Borneo states.

I wonder about the last, they would need a Navy and the RN would be mostly untouched if the UK folds up from losses to submarines and wariness in the Western front.

[ickysdad]

RETAC21, on Mon 18 Jan 2010 0923, said:

I wonder about the last, they would need a Navy and the RN would be mostly untouched if the UK folds up from losses to submarines and wariness in the Western front.

Not necessarily if the UK is knocked out of the war by subs her navy maynot have the logistical assets to do much power projection.

[swerve]

BTW, although the Dominions would be de facto independent, that would be no change from their pre-war status, in which they were self-governing entities with their own armed forces. The relationship would doubtless tilt more in their favour, but with the possible exception of South Africa, I'd see them standing by the UK, & hanging on to (or protecting from predatory foreigners, depending on ones point of view) those colonies within their reach.

The big If would be India. Would Indian politicians declare outright independence (thus possibly triggering a war) or use the situation to negotiate a new status akin to those of Australia, Canada et al?

[ickysdad]

swerve, on Tue 19 Jan 2010 0745, said:

BTW, although the Dominions would be de facto independent, that would be no change from their pre-war status, in which they were self-governing entities with their own armed forces. The relationship would doubtless tilt more in their favour, but with the possible exception of South Africa, I'd see them standing by the UK, & hanging on to (or protecting from predatory foreigners, depending on ones point of view) those colonies within their reach.

The big If would be India. Would Indian politicians declare outright independence (thus possibly triggering a war) or use the situation to negotiate a new status akin to those of Australia, Canada et al?

I agree they might just stick with the UK in this but say as in Canada's case in this scenario how do they defend themselves if their army is still on the Western Front in France? I don't know just how much of Australia's army was in Europe in WW1. I think the most troublesome nations for seizing former British territories to be Japan & the US at least in the Caribbean area for the US & South Pacific/S. E. Asia for both of those nations.

This post has been edited by ickysdad: 19 January 2010 - 1230 PM

[swerve]

Defend themselves against who? You think the USA would launch a massive land grab, & invade Canada? Or Japan would try steaming past the recently conquered US territories in the Western Pacific & E. Asia to invade Sarawak, Sabah, Malaya, Singapore, Australia & New Zealand? An interesting hypothesis, but I think unrealistic. The latter course could have led to a US-Japanese war, methinks. The USA would not have been happy with the establishment of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere in 1917, surrounding their new colonies.

This post has been edited by swerve: 19 January 2010 - 1417 PM

[ickysdad]

swerve, on Tue 19 Jan 2010 1316, said:

Defend themselves against who? You think the USA would launch a massive land grab, & invade Canada? Or Japan would try steaming past the recently conquered US territories in the Western Pacific & E. Asia to invade Sarawak, Sabah, Malaya, Singapore, Australia & New Zealand? An interesting hypothesis, but I think unrealistic. The latter course could have led to a US-Japanese war, methinks. The USA would not have been happy with the establishment of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere in 1917, surrounding their new colonies.

No I don't think the US would need to invade Canada , I should have left that country out of it. However that would be something interesting to postulate ,a US-Japan war in S.E. Asia over who gets former British territories.

[Nobu]

swerve, on Wed 20 Jan 2010 0416, said:

Defend themselves against who? You think the USA would launch a massive land grab, & invade Canada? Or Japan would try steaming past the recently conquered US territories in the Western Pacific & E. Asia to invade Sarawak, Sabah, Malaya, Singapore, Australia & New Zealand? An interesting hypothesis, but I think unrealistic. The latter course could have led to a US-Japanese war, methinks. The USA would not have been happy with the establishment of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere in 1917, surrounding their new colonies.

If British possessions are being abandoned and left for the picking, Japan would likely have first right of occupation and administration by a Major Power as per the spirit of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.

If British possessions are being seized uncontested or threatened with occupation by any Power, Japan is obligated to intervene on behalf of British interests as per the terms of the Alliance.

Any US interference in the consolidation of Japanese interests in Asia in this scenario, before US entry into WW1, is highly unlikely, for reasons that should be obvious.

[ickysdad]

Nobu, on Tue 19 Jan 2010 2353, said:

If British possessions are being abandoned and left for the picking, Japan would likely have first right of occupation and administration by a Major Power as per the spirit of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.

If British possessions are being seized uncontested or threatened with occupation by any Power, Japan is obligated to intervene on behalf of British interests as per the terms of the Alliance.

Any US interference in the consolidation of Japanese interests in Asia in this scenario, before US entry into WW1, is highly unlikely, for reasons that should be obvious.

Actually the US is done in the war as per the scenario ,iee. the US enters the war in April,1917 the UK then falls out of the war around June,1017.

[Nobu]

ickysdad, on Wed 20 Jan 2010 1502, said:

Actually the US is done in the war as per the scenario ,iee. the US enters the war in April,1917 the UK then falls out of the war around June,1017.

If Japan remains at war with Germany in the scenario and a US-Japanese war breaks out, Britain is obligated to enter on the side of Japan.

[capt_starlight]

If the UK goes because of the U-Boat war then France is gone as well - Welsh coal kept a lot of French industries going and the RN protected French overseas trade....

[ickysdad]

Nobu, on Wed 20 Jan 2010 0015, said:

If Japan remains at war with Germany in the scenario and a US-Japanese war breaks out, Britain is obligated to enter on the side of Japan.

Don't know about that it seems the British meant for that treaty to exclude involvement with the US at least that's some posters on other forums thought about it however in this scenario if so many merchant ships,British & neutral, are sunk as to force the UK out of the war then the UK will lack the logistical support to help Japan very much.