Could America have won against the rest of the world?

[Soren]

Originally Posted by syscom3

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

So ?

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.

Err, Syscom3 you just disproved yourself - the USSR alone produced more tanks than the US. Only in trucks is the US producing more, something I doubt would be the case if Europe and Asia united.

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?

Sorry Syscom3 but they didn't, the Allies won the day because of superior numbers, pure and simple.

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

Ofcourse they would, cause each of their rides were ofourse the best in their mind.

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

1) Early in the war toward 1943 lots of the very best in the world (A6M Zero) - later on the Yak-3-9, Bf-109, Fw-190, Spitfire, Ta-152H could probably be used as carrier fighters. (The Spitfire did for example)
2) Early in the war and toward 1943 the A6M Zero - later on the Ta-152H if it was made carrier capable.
3) With Europe & Asia combined - lots.

huh?

Yep. What are your six carriers going to do against plenty more U-boats ??

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

I wasn't referring to anything actually.

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

Agreed, you can only fight so many..

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?

The US wasn't going to be the preeminate industrial power house in the world when faced with the entire world mate, and guess what lies close to Alaska - Russia.

You might as-well face it Syscom3, the US alone couldn't hope to stand against Europe and Asia combined, to think so is ludacris.

Also in an alliance you've got to factor in that technology is shared, which means lots and lots of German, British, Japanese and Russian high tech equipment being produced in numbers. What for example was the US going to do against Jets, assault rifles, superior tanks, superior U-boats etc etc ?? Sure the US made high tech designs during WWII as-well, but Germany alone made far more and combined with Britain, Japan and Russia and their industry it leads to a massive lead in technology for Europe & Asia.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Soren

So ? Err, Syscom3 you just disproved yourself - the USSR alone produced more tanks than the US. Only in trucks is the US producing more, something I doubt would be the case if Europe and Asia united.

1) Asia didnt have any large manufacturing capability untill the 1960's, so forget about it. Their contributions would be next to nothing.
2) The USSR produced more tanks than the US because they had a 4 year head start building them in volume.
3) The US didnt need to build as many tanks as the shipping available to get them to Europe dictated the production rates.
4) Look at the US production totals and then add up everyone else. We not only built more, but MANY more.

Sorry Syscom3 but they didn't, the Allies won the day because of superior numbers, pure and simple.

The allies had plenty of weapons that were superior to the Germans, so forget about trying to say that they won battles solely by numbers.

Of course they would, cause each of their rides were ofourse the best in their mind.

Youre right. Those P38, P47, P51 and Spitfire pilots shot down the LW aircraft with deadly efficiency.

1) Early in the war toward 1943 lots of the very best in the world (A6M Zero) - later on the Yak-3-9, Bf-109, Fw-190, Spitfire, Ta-152H could probably be used as carrier fighters. (The Spitfire did for example)

The Zero was the only true carrier fighter out there. The Spitfire variant was not a successful design and wasn't used after the Hellcats and Corsairs became available. The others? Hehehehehe, you do have a sense of humor don't you.

2) Early in the war and toward 1943 the A6M Zero - later on the Ta-152H if it was made carrier capable.

The Zero was outclassed by the end of 1942. Ta-152 carrier fighter? hehehehehehhehe

3) With Europe & Asia combined - lots.

And as events unfolded in the real world, the UK was the only one to add carriers to the fleet in any appreciable numbers (and only a few at that). Sorry, your hypothetical alliance will need years to build a carrier force, equip it with aircraft with trained pilots.

Yep. What are your six carriers going to do against plenty more U-boats ??

The destroyer and aircraft screens will keep your u-boats down and out of the way. Just like what happened in 1943 with the "jeep" carriers.

The US wasn't going to be the preeminate industrial power house in the world when faced with the entire world mate, and guess what lies close to Alaska - Russia.

The US industrial potential was so huge, the rest of the world combined couldn't quite match it. And what about Russia being next to Alaska? I don't see any railroads or highways leading up to the Bering straight, or from Alaska down to the lower 48 (and Canada).

You might as-well face it Syscom3, the US alone couldn't hope to stand against Europe and Asia combined, to think so is ludacris.

I dont see anything from Asia adding to the equation. Look at actual production statistics from Japan and not your foolish "wishes". As for Europe and Russia, they sure didnt build as much as what was necessary.

Also in an alliance you've got to factor in that technology is shared, which means lots and lots of German, British, Japanese and Russian high tech equipment being produced in numbers.

Japanese high tech? Russian hi tech? Name some of them that was available in 1939-1942

US also had scientific, industrial and manufacturing technolgies that would not have been available for your alliance to use.

What for example was the US going to do against Jets, assault rifles, superior tanks, superior U-boats etc etc ??

Jets? we were behind the curve, but had the resources to catch up in a hurry! Assault rifles? Copy the concept of course. Superior tanks? How about the Pershing tank. Superior U-Boats? Sink them with superior anti sub tactics and eqmt.

Sure the US made high tech designs during WWII as-well, but Germany alone made far more and combined with Britain, Japan and Russia and their industry it leads to a massive lead in technology for Europe & Asia.

Germany had the lead in the technologies in some area's and was far short in others. The US had a vast lead over everyone else for what really mattered.... mass production of nearly everything with the ability to change production mid stream without disrupting the lines.

[k9kiwi]

By Syscom

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

Rodger, out.

[renrich]

Ah, the TA152H, the answer to everything.LOL

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by renrich

Ah, the TA152H, the answer to everything.LOL

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

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?

Dont take me wrong, I agree with you fully that a European Alliance would not have been able to invade the US. However I also dont believe that a US force would be able to invade with a staging point in England which in this scenerio is not happening.

Going to send P38s and P47s on 6000 mile missions?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Dont take me wrong, I agree with you fully that a European Alliance would not have been able to invade the US. However I also dont believe that a US force would be able to invade with a staging point in England which in this scenerio is not happening.

Agree, that's why I think this whole silly scenerio will wind up in a stalemate.

1. I don't see Hitler restraining himself from the Russians. That would be like putting a vampire in a blood bank.

2. I don't see this European alliance crossing the Atlantic for an invasion. Even if sided with the Japanese, it would be a logistical nightmare to bring their forces into the Pacific.

3. I believe the US would of still developed an atomic bomb before Germany. Who ever gets the bomb first takes it all....

4. With all comparisons with tanks and aircraft, I'd still like to see someone address an invading army walking through a major US city with some of our "unsavory" armed citizens....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed FBJ.

I think both of these threads are just plain stupid, because I dont really see anything being proven except these points:

1. German could not defeat the combined powers of the allies.

2. The allies could not defeat Germany without the US.

3. The allies could not defeat Germany without Russia.

4. The US could not defeat Germany without England, Russia, Canada, New Zealand, Australia (and everyone else that I am not going to name because the list would be too long).

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Agreed FBJ.

I think both of these threads are just plain stupid, because I dont really see anything being proven except these points:

1. German could not defeat the combined powers of the allies.

2. The allies could not defeat Germany without the US.

3. The allies could not defeat Germany without Russia.

4. The US could not defeat Germany without England, Russia, Canada, New Zealand, Australia (and everyone else that I am not going to name because the list would be too long).

Hmmmmm that is just what I have been telling our proud American friend, who I will not name.

Cough

Cough

Cough


SYSCOM

[Lucky13]

Royal Navy in September 1939:

Battleships 15
Carriers 7
Cruisers 66
Destroyers 184
Submarines 60

Total: 332

Royal Navy August 1945:

Battleships 20
Carriers 65
Cruisers 101
Destroyers 461
Submarines 238

Total: 885

Also Syscom3, remember that Royal Navy had ARMORED aircraft carrier decks, something that USN did NOT have...

Another thing fellow forum travellers, WHY would the "axis" invade the US??

This is a great place to learn!

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Going to send P38s and P47s on 6000 mile missions?

I was pointing out to him that the ranges were so great, his (axis alliance) AF would need fighters with that range. Impossible to do then, and probably just as impossible now.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

I was pointing out to him that the ranges were so great, his (axis alliance) AF would need fighters with that range. Impossible to do then, and probably just as impossible now.

I know what you were implying. I am telling you that neither side could do that...

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Hmmmmm that is just what I have been telling our proud American friend, who I will not name.

Cough

Cough

Cough


SYSCOM

Obviously you dont read my posts because I never claimed the US could defeat Hitler on its own.

Point for me, loss for you because you misread it all.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Obviously you dont read my posts because I never claimed the US could defeat Hitler on its own.

Point for me, loss for you because you misread it all.

No you cleverly dance around saying it actually, kinda like a lawyer or a politian.

What you do say is that Europe owes US graditude for saving it in WW2. Plus you are argueing in this thread which, by using just this title alone shows what you believe (I know you never made it), you believe the USA could of won vs the world, if you didn't believe that you would not be argueing on this thread.

Don't be shy Syscom, admit it....stop walking the fence. You worried you might be proven wrong?

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Royal Navy in September 1939:

Battleships 15
Carriers 7
Cruisers 66
Destroyers 184
Submarines 60

Total: 332

Royal Navy August 1945:

Battleships 20
Carriers 65
Cruisers 101
Destroyers 461
Submarines 238

Total: 885

Also Syscom3, remember that Royal Navy had ARMORED aircraft carrier decks, something that USN did NOT have...

Another thing fellow forum travellers, WHY would the "axis" invade the US??

This is a great place to learn!

Syscom lets hear US navy in 1939? and in 1945?

I am sure you have it hand.