Could America have won against the rest of the world?

[syscom3]

Soren, not so fast....

The largest & most advanced U-boat fleet in the world.

Allied sub hunters when available in quantity took a toll on your U-boats.

The best trained & best equipped soldiers in the world.

The best trained and equiped soldiers sitting 1/2 across the world going to attack an army that could build more trucks and tanks in a month than the combined factories in your alliance?

The best tanks & AFV's in the world.

Agree'd

Combined the best airforce in the world.

We had the P38's and P47's that were the equals of your AF's. BTW, where will your AF fly from in an invasion? Going to send -109's and Spitfires on 6000 mile missions?

A larger and at least as well equipped surface Navy.

Our six carriers would smash your battle fleet before you knew it. Plus the cruisers and destroyers already on hand were more than capable of dishing it out back to you. In fact, the naval philosophy of the USN as opposed to the European Naval thinking, was for the ships of the USN to be able to fight long distances from their bases. The moment your fleet sailed from port, you already had a logistics issue.

The US would be fighting an already lost war.

Thats what Hitler and Tojo said in 1941.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by syscom3

If you dont like a thread, dont add to it.



The actual production figures from WW2 proved that the commonwealth did not have the manpower or industrial capacity to defeat the Germans. I proved my point quite well with facts. You truied to prove your point by emotion.



When you look at the whole production figures from all the combatants, one thing is plainly noticable.... Canada's material contributions were quite few. Even manpower wise, theres only so many people you can supply from a population of 11 million.



I'm still waiting for you to show me where the commonweath would have enough industrial capacity to equip an army large enough to take on the Germans.

LOL not sure if you even noticed......I never sided with the Commonwealth or USA on the other thread b/c I think it is a waste of time to argue either b/c you are argue/debating about unknown factors.

You just ask these theoretical and hypothetical questions that cannot be proven either false or true and you try and word them to make USA the best or always right....blah blah blah or if it is not made in the USA it must be second best (while you say all this you are sticking out your chest).

You know if you ever actually debated Syscom without bias people might actually believe you more.

I never used emotion to prove or disprove anything.....unless rolling my eyes at your posts, from time to time, is emotion.

You are a great debater and you do yourself a disservice by being so bias.

That was my only two points on this thread and on yours.

[pbfoot]

the North half of the continent would be the key to who won for if the "allies " had a foothold in the continent the US would be doomed. i don't believe the US in 1939 had the tools and equipment to neutralize the north quickly . This scenario also is dependent on whether it is a quick buildup to war or not

[renrich]

I am wondering where this 1939 date comes from. The Nazis did not invade Poland until Sept. 1939. There was very little fighting that went on between the Nazis and UK and France until Spring 1940. Then the BOB wasn't over until Fall of 1940 so that might have been when a capitulation might have taken place. Personally even if England had been conquered I see the Nazis getting about as much cooperation from them as they did from the Poles.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by renrich

I am wondering where this 1939 date comes from. The Nazis did not invade Poland until Sept. 1939. There was very little fighting that went on between the Nazis and UK and France until Spring 1940. Then the BOB wasn't over until Fall of 1940 so that might have been when a capitulation might have taken place. Personally even if England had been conquered I see the Nazis getting about as much cooperation from them as they did from the Poles.

I just used the date as no other date had been mentioned could be 1919 for all I know

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

the North half of the continent would be the key to who won for if the "allies " had a foothold in the continent the US would be doomed. i don't believe the US in 1939 had the tools and equipment to neutralize the north quickly . This scenario also is dependent on whether it is a quick buildup to war or not

The US Army in 1939 was pathetically small, so its possible an axis alliance could invade through the north, but then there's the problem of getting them down to the populated area's through the forests that had few if any paved roads.

I would suspect that an invasion through the north was a logistics burden that couldn't have been solved.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Allied sub hunters when available in quantity took a toll on your U-boats.

And vice versa Syscom3 - don't forget the British navy and its contribution.

The best trained and equiped soldiers sitting 1/2 across the world going to attack an army that could build more trucks and tanks in a month than the combined factories in your alliance?

Syscomy you must be dreaming or something if you think the US alone could produce more tanks and trucks than Germany, Britain, USSR and Japan !

We had the P38's and P47's that were the equals of your AF's.

Both are heavy and unmaneuverable Syscom, and on equal numerical terms inferior compared to the Yak-3-9, Bf-109, Spitfire, Ki-84, FW-190 & Ta-152.

The F4U-4 is the only a/c which will prove a match when mixing it up with the a/c above.

BTW, where will your AF fly from in an invasion? Going to send -109's and Spitfires on 6000 mile missions?

Carrier's is the word Syscom - besides we would have plenty of long range fighters available.

Our six carriers would smash your battle fleet before you knew it.

Dream on - The US's little fleet of carriers would be decimated by our subs and surface navy including carriers.

Plus the cruisers and destroyers already on hand were more than capable of dishing it out back to you. In fact, the naval philosophy of the USN as opposed to the European Naval thinking, was for the ships of the USN to be able to fight long distances from their bases. The moment your fleet sailed from port, you already had a logistics issue.

I would really like to see you back up that claim - esp. just considering the operational area of the German U-boats - some sailing right along side the US coast.

Thats what Hitler and Tojo said in 1941.

And don't forget how close it got with just these two countries against the entire world ! The USSR, the country which boasted the largest army on earth was nearly defeated by Germany who was simultanously fighting Britain, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand etc etc etc...


Face it, against the rest of the world the US is without chance.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Soren

And vice versa Syscom3 - don't forget the British navy and its contribution.

They needed our destroyers in 1941, which we gave them in the first lend Lease deal.

Syscomy you must be dreaming or something if you think the US alone could produce more tanks and trucks than Germany, Britain, USSR and Japan !

Military Trucks
1. United States = 2,382,311
2. Canada = 815,729
3. United Kingdom = 480,943
4. Germany = 345,914
5. Soviet Union = 197,100
6. Japan = 165,945
7. Italy = 83,000

Tanks and self propelled guns
1. Soviet Union = 105,251 (92,595)
2. United States = 88,410 (71,067)
3. Germany = 46,857 (37,794)
4. United Kingdom = 27,896
5. Canada = 5678

Canadian figures would be included in this scenario. But also note that these figures dont take into account the US wasnt producing a lot of stuff untill 1942.

The production rates for 1944 and 1945 were staggering.

Both are heavy and unmaneuverable Syscom, and on equal numerical terms inferior compared to the Yak-3-9, Bf-109, Spitfire, Ki-84, FW-190 & Ta-152.

Is that why in the real life aerial battles of the war, they more than held their own against the best the axis had to offer?

The F4U-4 is the only a/c which will prove a match when mixing it up with the a/c above.

More than a few P38, P47, P51 and F6F pilots would like to debate you on that.

Carrier's is the word Syscom - besides we would have plenty of long range fighters available.

1) What carrier capable fighters did you have?
2) What long range fighters did you have?
3) How many carriers did you even have?

Dream on - The US's little fleet of carriers would be decimated by our subs and surface navy including carriers.

huh?

I would really like to see you back up that claim - esp. just considering the operational area of the German U-boats - some sailing right along side the US coast.

You are reffering to operation "Drumbeat", a highly successfull offensive right when the USN was unprepared for it.

And don't forget how close it got with just these two countries against the entire world ! The USSR, the country which boasted the largest army on earth was nearly defeated by Germany who was simultanously fighting Britain, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand etc etc etc...

And once the US was in the war, Germany's fate was sealed.

Face it, against the rest of the world the US is without chance.

Face what? An invasion force that would have to land hundreds of divisons against the preeminate industrial power house in the world? And then supply them?

[FLYBOYJ]

Just another thought...

Say "you folks" manage an invasion of the US of A, 1942 or 43, say through Canada. How are you going to face the street fighting when not only you have a defending army, but you have a country where there is a firearm for every man woman and child? (Remember some of our other debuts over gun control?) Even in the 1940s many households had firearms. I'd like to see (even in that era) and invading army march through Harlem or Watts, the "locals" will have a field day!!!!!

BTW I once read a paper written by a former Soviet General who stated that he feared any talk, even hypethical, of Soviet Invasion of the US just because of the the firearms possessed by the common US citizen....

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Just another thought...

Say "you folks" manage an invasion of the US of A, 1942 or 43, say through Canada. How are you going to face the street fighting when not only you have a defending army, but you have a country where there is a firearm for every man woman and child? (Remember some of our other debuts over gun control?) Even in the 1940s many households had firearms. I'd like to see (even in that era) and invading army march through Harlem or Watts, the "locals" will have a field day!!!!!

BTW I once read a paper written by a former Soviet General who stated that he feared any talk, even hypethical, of Soviet Invasion of the US just because of the the firearms possessed by the common US citizen....

LOL

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Just another thought...

Say "you folks" manage an invasion of the US of A, 1942 or 43, say through Canada. How are you going to face the street fighting when not only you have a defending army, but you have a country where there is a firearm for every man woman and child? (Remember some of our other debuts over gun control?) Even in the 1940s many households had firearms. I'd like to see (even in that era) and invading army march through Harlem or Watts, the "locals" will have a field day!!!!!

BTW I once read a paper written by a former Soviet General who stated that he feared any talk, even hypethical, of Soviet Invasion of the US just because of the the firearms possessed by the common US citizen....

good point

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Soren

Dream on - The US's little fleet of carriers would be decimated by our subs and surface navy including carriers.

In terms of naval assets -

You always have very good points soren... but come on. The RN would hardly be seized intact in port. The output of US DDs, SC, DE would soon enough counter the "uboat threat." What carriers, then, would this supposed fleet have? The not close to completed Aquila and Graf Zep - both of which were utter crap.

In terms of heavy surface units - the USN BBs are more than sufficient to dispatch the combined USSR, German, and Italian heavies. Not to mention, their BB's wouldn't get close until sent to the bottom by SBDs. CA's - same fate. Those same fleets all had the absolute worst AA armaments for countering A/C.

Are you counting Japanese assets??? Maybe the whole british fleet takes down their ensign and puts up the KM? Other than that - your fleet of dinghies doesn't have an icicles chance in hell.

[rogthedodge]

Originally Posted by renrich

I am wondering where this 1939 date comes from. The Nazis did not invade Poland until Sept. 1939. There was very little fighting that went on between the Nazis and UK and France until Spring 1940. Then the BOB wasn't over until Fall of 1940 so that might have been when a capitulation might have taken place. Personally even if England had been conquered I see the Nazis getting about as much cooperation from them as they did from the Poles.

Me too!

I started this in jest and (offered to have it pulled) and thus put no date on it but as it's going somewhere debate-wise let's say;

Since '39 the UK has had a non-aggression pact with the Germans, Germany overwhelms France in '40, UK sees its chance joins in a full alliance against France. The alliance seizes most of France's air and naval asssets intact, Vichy France happens so we have a UK/Germany/France alliance by Jan 1 '41.

renrich UK is not 'conquered' but joins gradually an alliance - 3+ years of 'fellow anglo-saxons' / 'remember Waterloo' etc propaganda has encouraged much co-operation

This alliance has Russia under control via the German-Russian non-aggression treaty and decides, bizarely, to attack the US in early '41. Leaving the Russians as suppliers / non-aggressors - but in need of money so possibly offering production resources

The Empire splits; Canada sides with the US (little choice), ANZAC stays out of it - (ignores 'call to arms' & no jap threat), India makes some contribution but is mostly diverted by the internal independence, 'white' Africa makes the contribution it did in WW2 in terms of pilots, materials, and training facilities.

The US by '41 has had two years to see this massive alliance developing and so has been building / training like crazy for 2 years (01.01.39-01.01.41)

Japan, having had its oil & raw material supplies secured via this alliance, still decides to take on the US in early '41 anyway.

We then have the UK/Germany/France alliance (Italians have joined as minor partners) and Japan as co-belligerents


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On the nuke aspect, Tube Alloys plus the German effort (with no interuption to heavy water production) makes it a very close-run thing. Although the empire scenario above makes uranium sourcing very tricky

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Syscom3 the 50xWW1 4 stacker destroyer deal was not lend-lease - it was a swap in return for 99 year leases on UK bases such as Ascension.

In this scenario it wouldn't have happened as the RN would have been securing resources from non-US sources and not having to protect them from U-boat attacks. The RN + alliance may have been defending convoys from Africa / S America against USN sub attack but as their numbers and tactics weren't upto German standards I doubt the shortage would have been so acute

-----------------------------------------------------------------

As we're taking this much more seriously than I ever imagined this alliance needs a name - 'The European Union' (TEU)????

[renrich]

Somehow I don't see the British lining up with Germany voluntarily. The memories of WW1 are too fresh. Remember the Somme? I believe there was a general distrust and dislike of Germany at that time in Europe that precuded any detente.

[FLYBOYJ]

And I don't see this alliance restraining Hitler from going after the USSR...