Could America have won against the rest of the world?

[Soren]

Listen guys, an invasion of the US wouldn't be easy at all, never said that, and the actual conflict which would evolve if an invasion took place would also last longer than the war with the US army - simply because of the amount of guns available to the average citizen, no doubt. The US army would capitulate after not too long in this hypothetical scenario of an invasion, which in effect would turn the US into one large rebel state, one which opposes the occupying European army. Now this will be a problem for the invading force, but no'where near in the same scale as it does these days, simply because in the 1940's there wouldn't be the same human rights restrictions and media coverage restraining any action taken by the occupying army - it would be an old fashion sweep of any resistance - and you as a citizen can't do a whole lot against a well equipped army with tanks and aircraft...


As to Syscom3,

His numbers are very very suspect and he's obviously cherry picking, esp. considering he left out all German pocket battleships & battleship cruisers plus the many destroyers build by Germany.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

The Russians didn't have much of a navy it looks like....was that all they had?

The Soviet navy in 1939 had 3 WWI BB in service (very outdated and outclassed), 2 old pre-WWI cruisers, 2 CL, and 2 CA(with puny 7.1" guns - one of which having only 4). They had 6 old pre-WWI DD, 17 WWI era DD (many completed in the 20's due to disruptions by war and revolution), and a handful of more modern DD.

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Did the USN have better luck with the torpedoes for the subs than those used by their torpedobombers? The type 13 wasn't very good was it? Another thing maybe worth looking into is the technological advantage...
Just stirring things up lads....

Early US Mark 13 and 14 torps had serious problems. Mk 14s would strike targets and fail to detonate. Flaws had been worked out finally by 1943. mark 13s transitioned to British torpex by 1943, and with modifications to the arming mechanisms became powerful weapons. They never outgrew their poor reputations.

[timshatz]

Good point on the Torps, Lucky. They were pathetically bad for the first two years of the Pacific war. More of a case of incompetence, turf protecting and general bull headedness from the US Navy's torpedo design people. Hopefully that would not've happened in this scenario but my guess is that it would.

On another post, Soren asserted that the US Army would capitulate quickly. Why? The US is close to 5000 kilometers wide. Why would the US Army have to capitulate? To put it another way, the distance the Soviet and Germany armies fought over between Moscow and Berlin is roughly the same distance between New York City (on the East Coast of the US) and St. Louis (on the Mississippi River). After you get to St. Louis, there's still another 2/3rds of the country to cover.

The US Army wouldn't have to capitulate, it could do essentially the same thing the Soviet Army did and fall back into the interior. And every mile an enemy advances in the US is another mile of commuincations it has to protect. The British found that out in 1770s (and that was with half the population on their side). Back then, there were only 2-3 million people in the US. By 1940, there were close to 130 million. And most of them are armed in some way, shape or form. In short, a logistical nightmare of the first order for any army.

[Lucky13]

Here's a good link for the German Kriegsmarine... German Naval History plenty of good profiles. I think that the forces attacking and fighting the US armed forces would face almost the same problems as in fierce resistance, as if the invasion of Japan had taken place. Just look at the amount of mountains in the US, the alps in Europe isn't bad, but I think that the "Rockies", "Sierra Nevadas", "Cascades" and the "Bitter Roots" are far worse, they would put up one hell of fight there.

[Soren]

In short, a logistical nightmare of the first order for any army

Not as nightmarish as you would think considering that the European/Asian alliance would be controlling the sea and that not too long within the conflict the European/Asia alliance would establish a complete control of the air - which means the place where logistics is going to be the hardest to manage is within the center of North America.

With control of the air and sea the logistics part for the European/Asian Alliance wouldn't pose nearly as big a problem as it did the Germans later on on the eastern front.

You can't compare 1770 with 1940 Timsatz, logistic-problems were of an entirely different magnitude back then - and lets not forget that the British were fighting the French at that time as-well as others whilst in our hypothetical scenario the US would be facing Europe and Asia alone.

Consider what the US alone would have to face;
A larger and better equipped Army, a larger and better equipped Airforce and finally a larger and better equipped Navy.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Just look at the amount of mountains in the US, the alps in Europe isn't bad, but I think that the "Rockies", "Sierra Nevadas", "Cascades" and the "Bitter Roots" are far worse, they would put up one hell of fight there.

No doubt, the mountains will be a real nightmare as tanks and other heavy material can't go there - it'll be a the European/Asian alliance advancing on foot against entrenched defenders - the advantage however will be that the European/Asian force will have air-cover and can therefore rain down bombs on the defenders. Nonetheless it would be a bitter fight in those places.

[drgondog]

I'm on the side of standstill depending on whether or not we develop nucs first. First, Britain and France capitulating probably doesn't mean whole hearted 'co-operation' from the Empire or even England. Second USSR won't be joining Hitler - it will be VERY busy trying to build up for the other shoe to drop. Even if Hitler attacked USSR to take them out I'm not convinced that the new Alliance could defeat them

The combined fleets are interesting but don't believe there is any possiblity -logistics wise of getting and keeping a toe hold in the Americas. The bad guys have to take (not destroy) the Panama Canal to achieve relative mobility of sea power. We can build subs at an alarming rate to neutralize off shore combined navies - alnding in SA and proceeding North gets pretty grisly when you reach Central America - looking a lot like New Guinea.

US manufacturing capability higher than all the ones you mentioned combined and pretty self sufficent in raw materials.

There is no place close enough to base airpower that is out of reach from US airpower.

Can't defeat US w/o invading and occupying - can't occupy w/o overwhelming air and seapower advantage, and can't get that w/o airpower close enough to destroy industry (West Coast and Central US) that in turn is close enough for US to destroy that.

And have to gear up for that invasion within say 12 months of the Grand Alliance.

Just opinion on a really wierd thread..

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Soren

Not as nightmarish as you would think considering that the European/Asian alliance would be controlling the sea and that not too long within the conflict the European/Asia alliance would establish a complete control of the air - which means the place where logistics is going to be the hardest to manage is within the center of North America.

With control of the air and sea the logistics part for the European/Asian Alliance wouldn't pose nearly as big a problem as it did the Germans later on on the eastern front.

Why do you keep this silly planning model on the supposition that you will gain control of the from shore to shore. You couldnt build carriers fast enough or in quatity to gain control over a contiental airspace. Land based airpower will defeat sea based air power every single time.

Consider what the US alone would have to face;
A larger and better equipped Army, a larger and better equipped Airforce and finally a larger and better equipped Navy.

Your AF would be 3000 miles away, so drop it out of the equation.
Your Navy would be subject to attack from thousands of land based medium and heavy bombers, before it even gets into range of the single engine types

The US economy was the largest in the world with the best manufacturing and production methods. There is no evidence your combined alliance could match the US in any field once the US mobilizes its industry.

As for the US Army? It only needed a year to mobilize into getting several dozen divisions equiped and ready. Not needing a vast number of soldiers in the supply corps would free up even more for combat duty. A couple of years would give the US a huge manpower advantage when looked at in way that takes into account the firepower/interior logistics/air supremecy aspects.

[Lucky13]

Another thing gentlemen, how many militias was it around in the US in the 40's compared to today? I'm sure that they'd be a force to reckon with. If Canada was with the brits, the AF wouldn't be 3000 miles away more likely next door, and Soviet Union isn't even 100 miles from Alaska.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Another thing gentlemen, how many militias was it around in the US in the 40's compared to today? I'm sure that they'd be a force to reckon with. If Canada was with the brits, the AF wouldn't be 3000 miles away more likely next door, and Soviet Union isn't even 100 miles from Alaska.

Canada would be with the US, or occupied by the US.

[Lucky13]

I think they would side with the Brits, commonwealth and all that.... So the US would probably have to move in...

Anyhoo, I'm off to the local pick up joint, beer anyone?

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Canada would be with the US, or occupied by the US.

I don't like the sound of that!!

During the 40's the average Canadian also owned many firearms.....I would love to see those Yanks trying to deal with Canadian gorilla fighters. I lived in the north......all those Yankie fisher men that came up there to catch their jackfish.....I know their measure......they would not survive long. My Dad and I acted as guides to them during fishing trips.

In urban areas it would be the same as any country, snipers, bombs etc. But in any rural area.......those yanks better keep their heads down or a Canadian sniper/farmer is going blow his head off.

I have have to agree with drgdog, whoever had the nuke first and able to deliver it to the target would win.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by drgondog

I'm on the side of standstill depending on whether or not we develop nucs first. First, Britain and France capitulating probably doesn't mean whole hearted 'co-operation' from the Empire or even England. Second USSR won't be joining Hitler - it will be VERY busy trying to build up for the other shoe to drop. Even if Hitler attacked USSR to take them out I'm not convinced that the new Alliance could defeat them

I think we all agree that this total European/Asian Alliance is very very unrealistic, but this is the scenario which we are discussing so lets stick to it.

The combined fleets are interesting but don't believe there is any possiblity -logistics wise of getting and keeping a toe hold in the Americas. The bad guys have to take (not destroy) the Panama Canal to achieve relative mobility of sea power. We can build subs at an alarming rate to neutralize off shore combined navies - alnding in SA and proceeding North gets pretty grisly when you reach Central America - looking a lot like New Guinea.

The US can build subs fast yes, but so can Europe and better ones at that - the German subs would prove an absolute nightmare for the US navy, esp. the later Type XXI's.

Taking the Panama Canal is very plausible when you consider that the EA alliance will have complete command of the sea, and with plenty of carriers to atleast equal the concentration of the US airforce - the EA subs would help protect the logistic connection across the Atlantic. This would enable the EA to carry out a naval bombardment of the US coasts and have have a/c to clear the surrounding airspace. The landbased invasion could be initiated in the northern part of South America, that would give plenty of time to fully assemble a large enough force to pose a threat from that side. Meanwhile a huge invasion force crossing the Bering Sea would open up a front in Canada using Alaska as a base.

US manufacturing capability higher than all the ones you mentioned combined and pretty self sufficent in raw materials.

In an Alliance between Europe and Asia, no. Look at what force the USSR could assemble alone - they built more tanks than the US alone.

There is no place close enough to base airpower that is out of reach from US airpower.

Correct, there will be a confrontation between the EA and US airforce - the EA however can muster more and better a/c - in 1940 - 1942 the E/A will have the A6M Zero with its extreme range, something which will help any invasion force alot - later on when the EA has gained ground there will be bases from which landbased fighters can operate, and that will act as a real boost to the invasion of North America, esp. when the Me-262 can be delivered in numbers - it would sweep away any resistance in the air.

Can't defeat US w/o invading and occupying - can't occupy w/o overwhelming air and seapower advantage, and can't get that w/o airpower close enough to destroy industry (West Coast and Central US) that in turn is close enough for US to destroy that.

The US can't destroy the E/A Navy however, as trying to do so would end with a direct confrontation - one which the E/A alliance will most surely win. Early in the war the range of the A6M Zero will prove decisive, as it will allow the EA alliance to establish a foothold on North America from which landbased a/c can be launched as-well as troops.

And have to gear up for that invasion within say 12 months of the Grand Alliance.

Again the sheer manpower and resources of Europa and Asia united combined with most namely the German advances in technology would be enough to ensure the completion of the most modern and largest military force on the planet within 12 months.

No doubt this hypothetical war would be a giant bloodbath however, the losses on both sides would be enormous.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Soren

The US can build subs fast yes, but so can Europe and better ones at that - the German subs would prove an absolute nightmare for the US navy, esp. the later Type XXI's.

As shown in actual conditions in the war, radar, sufficent escorts and air patrol can radically blunt the sub's perfromance. The type XXI's would not appear untill 1945, so they would not even be a factor at all.

Taking the Panama Canal is very plausible when you consider that the EA alliance will have complete command of the sea, and with plenty of carriers to atleast equal the concentration of the US airforce - the EA subs would help protect the logistic connection across the Atlantic.

And how many hundreds of carriers are you going to build to offset the land based aircraft of the US? And how will you protect your forces that would have to travel through the choke points of the Gulf to get there? A Panama invasion is completely implausable situation.

This would enable the EA to carry out a naval bombardment of the US coasts and have have a/c to clear the surrounding airspace. The landbased invasion could be initiated in the northern part of South America, that would give plenty of time to fully assemble a large enough force to pose a threat from that side.

Youre joking right?

Meanwhile a huge invasion force crossing the Bering Sea would open up a front in Canada using Alaska as a base.

Another joke?

Do you actually look at a map to see if there is even any infastructure availble to perform these grandiose plans of yours?

In an Alliance between Europe and Asia, no. Look at what force the USSR could assemble alone - they built more tanks than the US alone.

In a 1944 and 1945 monthly basis, the US was producing equal to, or in some cases more than the USSR.

Correct, there will be a confrontation between the EA and US airforce - the EA however can muster more and better a/c - in 1940 - 1942 the E/A will have the A6M Zero with its extreme range, something which will help any invasion force alot - later on when the EA has gained ground there will be bases from which landbased fighters can operate, and that will act as a real boost to the invasion of North America, esp. when the Me-262 can be delivered in numbers - it would sweep away any resistance in the air.

heheheheheheh.

The US can't destroy the E/A Navy however, as trying to do so would end with a direct confrontation - one which the E/A alliance will most surely win. Early in the war the range of the A6M Zero will prove decisive, as it will allow the EA alliance to establish a foothold on North America from which landbased a/c can be launched as-well as troops.

And why cant the US destroy the EA navy? Why cant the US destroy any toehold you get on north america? Why do you have this bizarre obsession with the Zero?

Again the sheer manpower and resources of Europa and Asia united combined with most namely the German advances in technology would be enough to ensure the completion of the most modern and largest military force on the planet within 12 months.

heheheheheh

[Hunter368]

I say we put Soren and Syscom in the cage, bare knuckle fight. Five, three minute rounds.

Last man standing wins.