Could Britain have won WW2 without America?

#1
I hope I don't get called all sorts of profane names for this, but its something I'd like Arrse members views on.

You hear all over the net of Americans claiming they won the second world war and Britain helped a little, but what is the view of some of you more informed people?

With the likes of ULTRA, the Battle of Britain, Bomber command, and British victories in the Atlantic and Africa.
Could they have pulled it off?
 
#3
If, but, maybe.

Ummm... I'm actually tempted towards a "yes, at some point"

In regard to materials, frankly we had access to more than the nazis.
 
#4
No we didn't have the Materials that the yanks sold us or the production capacity.
Unless you are talking about stockings, it's materiel.

<<Pedantic head off>>
 
#5
Unless you are talking about stockings, it's materiel.

<<Pedantic head off>>
If your talking about raw materials, the stuff you make tanks out of it's material.
Tanks on the other hand are materiel.

<<pedantic head cannot be unmounted, no other file system available>>
 
#6
Of course we could, but it wouldn't have been so much fun without them.
 

Attachments

#7
I hope I don't get called all sorts of profane names for this, but its something I'd like Arrse members views on.

You hear all over the net of Americans claiming they won the second world war and Britain helped a little, but what is the view of some of you more informed people?

With the likes of ULTRA, the Battle of Britain, Bomber command, and British victories in the Atlantic and Africa.
Could they have pulled it off?
Which part of America? The part north of 49° pulled your biscuits out of the fire a few times over the last 100+ years, and has not danced about the campfire a great deal in celebration of the fact.
 
#8
Just wondering, and this includes the USAAF but did Bomber Command and the 8th & 15th USAAF really destroy german production badly enough to warrant the loss of US/Allied Lives among the aircrews? IIRC even the first Dam buster raid only put those dams out of commission a short time. Was it value for lives lost?
 
#9
If your talking about raw materials, the stuff you make tanks out of it's material.
Tanks on the other hand are materiel.

<<pedantic head cannot be unmounted, no other file system available>>
ma·te·ri·el or ma·té·ri·el (m-tîr-l)
n.
The equipment, apparatus, and supplies of a military force or other organization.
It's a French word anyway.

Materiel (from the French "matériel" for equipment or hardware, related to the word material) is a term used in English to refer to the equipment and supplies in military and commercial supply chain management.

In a military context, materiel relates to the specific needs of a force to complete a specific mission. The term is also often used in a general sense ("men and materiel") to describe the needs of a functioning army. Materiel management consists of continuing actions relating to planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, controlling, and evaluating the application of resources to ensure the effective and economical support of military forces. It includes provisioning, cataloging, requirements determination, acquisition, distribution, maintenance, and disposal. The terms "materiel management", "materiel control", "inventory control", "inventory management", and "supply management" are synonymous.[1]

Materiel in the commercial distribution context comprises the items being moved by the services of or as the products of the business, as distinct from those involved in operating the business itself.
<<Google head off>>
 
#10
Just wondering, and this includes the USAAF but did Bomber Command and the 8th & 15th USAAF really destroy german production badly enough to warrant the loss of US/Allied Lives among the aircrews? IIRC even the first Dam buster raid only put those dams out of commission a short time. Was it value for lives lost?
The Strategic Bombing Survey attempts to answer that question, it runs to 208 volumes for the European Theatre.
 
#11
It's a French word anyway.



<<Google head off>>
The noun material refers to a substance out of which something can be made. As an adjective, material means relevant and consequential.
Note- this includes the substances used to make tanks.

The noun materiel (also spelled matériel) refers to supplies and equipment used by an organization, especially a military unit.
Note- This includes tanks.


Therefor....

No we didn't have the Materials that the yanks sold us or the production capacity.
Is grammatically correct, even if not referring to stockings. And as the Yanks sold us both materials and materiel is historically correct also, if not entirely inclusive.

Do?
 
#12
Britain didn't win the war alone, we won it with the help of our allies. The Americans were a very large part of that, but I can't quote figures. We had Canadians, Austrailans and some Europeans, some Irish too, and no doubt I've missed out a great many others. The American contribution to the war was so huge that we could not have managed without it. We certainly could never have mounted a sucessful invasion like we did on D day without them.
 
#13
As said, possibly, at some point, if material and materiel aid still came through. But it would have lead to a much longer and bloodier war, since I believe that it would take bigger, possibly SOE/similar controlled risings by the people in all of the occupied countries due to less manpower available for the Overlord equivalent(s), cue a hundred Oradour-sur-Glanes and Warszavas all over western Europe, Denmark and Norway.

Also, taken into considerations the fatigue and caution/measures due to the fatigue in the British forces on the continent in late 44/45, the Russians could have ended up either with all of Germany or their own base areas very close to what became the western GDR border inside western territory.
 
#16
I hope I don't get called all sorts of profane names for this, but its something I'd like Arrse members views on.

You hear all over the net of Americans claiming they won the second world war and Britain helped a little, but what is the view of some of you more informed people?

With the likes of ULTRA, the Battle of Britain, Bomber command, and British victories in the Atlantic and Africa.
Could they have pulled it off?
No, it took the combined strength of USSR, USA and the British Commonwealth to defeat the axis powers.

Amazing that nobody has mentioned the Russians yet, I reckon if Hitler had not tried to invade them the end result would have been very different.
 
#17
It sort of depends on the time frame you're talking about though, had the question been "could Britain have won WWII by 1945 without America?" then the answer, barring perhaps a UK equivalent of Trinity having a lucky break is certainly no.

Extend it to 1965 though and.... If, but, maybe. You've all sorts of impoderables, not least the Russians, to consider.
 
#18
Which part of America? The part north of 49° pulled your biscuits out of the fire a few times over the last 100+ years, and has not danced about the campfire a great deal in celebration of the fact.
Lots came from the bits south of 49North as nost of the Ontario and Quebec population are well south of the 49th parallel. :smile:
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
I think it depends on a numkber of factors.

Hitler dosen't invade Russia and Japan dosen't attack Pearl Harbor.

Once Germay attacked Russia it was game over
Russia was never going to return to the pre invasion status they would have fought until they over run Germany as they did.

If Hitler and Germany dosen't attack Russia then we enter into a stalemate where by we alone even with Commonwealth allies cannot hope to invade mainland Europe.
America will sell us the materials and equipment but we'll simply run out of men and ships.
Same as Bomber Comand we can develop beter bombers etc but will simply run out of men.
I think the war in Europe will simply come down to whoever develops the Atom Bomb first and drops it on the other.

Japan dosen't attack Pearl or any American interests - then I don't think we'd have won against them without the Americans.
Again we simpy didn't have the manpower.

Regardless how much equipment the yanks sold us the one thing they did do was bring thousands of men to the party.
Therre's no way we could have massed enough men to have fought in the theatres which Anglo Commonwealth American soldiers fought.

What you would have ended up with is a Europe where Germay was the strongest and most dominent country.
 
#20
One question is what the effect would be if US had provided material and materiel (as well as stockings) but did not provide combatants. The father of one of my friend joined the USN when he graduated Harvard in 1942 and spent the war going from Halifax, NS and Cape Breton, NS to Liverpool with occasional excursions to Archangel. I gather that not much would have gotten across the pond. I heard the same sort of thing form a former co-worker who spent the war in the USCG escorting convoys from Norfolk across. I am not sure if RN, RCN and other navies could have provided the convoy support needed.In addition, lots of the merchant vessels involved were American bottoms, not available if US were neutral.


Edited to add: In a town halfway from where I live and Boston, Hingham, MA the US built a shipyard from scratch, starting in December of 1941. The Hingham Shipyard started building DE's for both the US and allies. Later in the war they started making LST's for use in invading Europe. In 3 and 1/2 years they built 227 warships. Towards the end of DE production it took 23 days from firt steel laid down to completed ship.

For naval spotter types Hingham Shipyard was next to the Hingham Naval Ammunition Depot which provided materiel to all naval vessels leaving Boston, usually lightered out to President's Roads in the outer harbour. Just north of Hingham was Quincy Fore River shipyard that made larger ships: BB's, CA's CL's and DD's
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top