Could America have won against the rest of the world?

[Lucky13]

Who's taking the bets?

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Who's taking the bets?

I wonder do they both have pics under the member profiles or Dan's mugshot thread?

[Lucky13]

Maybe it's the Police front and profile shots.....

[Soren]

Syscom3 you're having trouble answering back I see.

I'll ask you this though;

What effective methods díd the Allies have against subs in 1941 ?? Thats right, none really - the German Uboats were having a field day.

What fighter did the US have which could effectively oppose the A6M Zero in 1941 ? Thats right, none.

What fighter did the US ever have which could oppose the Me-262 ? Thats right, none.

What destroyer can ever hope to be effective against the Type XXI U-boat which boasted 17.5 - 18 knots submerged and was dead silent on approach with its top modern stealth engine, being nearly undetectable ? Thats right, none.

What tank did the US have which could prove effective against German & USSR tanks of the similar period ? Thats right, none, the German & USSR tanks would have themselves a turkey shoot.

What smallarms did the US have which could match the Stg.44 & MG-42 ? Again, none.

Don't get me wrong, besides these advantages for the EA alliance the fight would still be bitter for both parties but in the end the US will capitulate, the united forces which opposes the US are simply too great.

Btw, with the financial and industrial help of the rest of Europe & Asia you can expect Type XXI subs, Me-262's & V-2's being around much earlier.

And as to production - you'd be astounded to know how much Germany would've built alone if it wasn't for Allied bombing. And since no European or Asian country needs to fear bombing in this scenario the combined production rate of the EA alliance would skyrocket.

[Soren]

How can anyone think that the US could stand against the entire world ?! Its ridiculous - no country could.

[mosquitoman]

The only thing America would have going for it in this situation would be numbers, and even that would be negated by the sheer number of troops against them.
Their navy would be taken out by the sheer numbers of the combined "allied" force

[Lucky13]

No matter what gents.....it would be a slaughterhouse.

[Gnomey]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

No matter what gents.....it would be a slaughterhouse.

That would be for certain. I suspect it would of descended into a nuclear war of some size. However developed the bomb first would of used it on one of the opposites major cities with then the others trying to develop one to retaliate and so on - a very messy outcome.

[k9kiwi]

Short answer to that is....

NO

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Soren

What effective methods díd the Allies have against subs in 1941 ?? Thats right, none really - the German Uboats were having a field day.

None, not untill 1943 when plenty of radar equipped escorts and plentifull air cover decimated the U-Boats.

What fighter did the US have which could effectively oppose the A6M Zero in 1941 ? Thats right, none.

The P38, P40 and F4F at the start of the war more than held their own. Then the F4U and F6F piled in on the fight.

Any more questions?

What fighter did the US ever have which could oppose the Me-262 ? Thats right, none.

And they wouldnt be in quantity untll 1945. But then again, the short range of the -262 precluded it from any meaningfull offensive roles.

What destroyer can ever hope to be effective against the Type XXI U-boat which boasted 17.5 - 18 knots submerged and was dead silent on approach with its top modern stealth engine, being nearly undetectable ? Thats right, none.

They first were deployed in April of 1945?

What tank did the US have which could prove effective against German & USSR tanks of the similar period ? Thats right, none, the German & USSR tanks would have themselves a turkey shoot.

The US could out produce the EA in tank production, so we would always end up winning the fight. The M4 was easy to build and maintain. Plus the Pershing was the best MBT at the end of the war, so the US was more than capable f designing and building a great tank(s)

What smallarms did the US have which could match the Stg.44 & MG-42 ? Again, none.

So the war is going to be decided by small arms?

Btw, with the financial and industrial help of the rest of Europe & Asia you can expect Type XXI subs, Me-262's & V-2's being around much earlier.

You dont look at economic stats from the period do you. By any chance, do you understand what the "GNP is?

And as to production - you'd be astounded to know how much Germany would've built alone if it wasn't for Allied bombing. And since no European or Asian country needs to fear bombing in this scenario the combined production rate of the EA alliance would skyrocket.

The scarey thing about the US industrial strengths during the war was the US economy didn't slow down one bit. In fact, economic figures show that there was still plenty of reserve capacity in the economy to grow even bigger!

Even better for the US military/industrial machine was not much would need to be shared or wasted on Russian or GB.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by mosquitoman

The only thing America would have going for it in this situation would be numbers, and even that would be negated by the sheer number of troops against them.
Their navy would be taken out by the sheer numbers of the combined "allied" force

What makes you assume you could build and supply a navy that would need to invade a country of 130 million, that was the largest and most productive industrial base in the world, backed up by huge cadres of technical, managerial and scientific personel.

[syscom3]

I would say an invasion year would be unlikely untill mid 1943.

I figure the EA would not come together until spring 1940. It would take at least 3 years to build enough carriers to at least provide escort for the grand fleets. Whether enough carriers could be thrown together to provide offensive operations is remote, and unlikely.

In the mean time, the US begins its armourment programs in earnest in summer 1940 instead of in multiple stages as what happened in 1940 and 1941. By not having to worry about lend Lease, the US military can rearm at a far faster rate than what actually happened.

My estimates would be the US to have a solid army defensive foundation by mid 1941, with the AF beginning to get exponentialy stronger by late 1941, early 1942. The navy would begin receiving its warships from the 1940 shipbuilding program by fall 1942.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by syscom3

None, not untill 1943 when plenty of radar equipped escorts and plentifull air cover decimated the U-Boats.

Decimated ? Syscom3 don't you forget how many took part in fighting the U-boats besides the US ! Don't forget how huge and crucial a part Britain played in the war of the Atlantic ! Without that help the US navy would've needed alot of life-rafts !

The P38, P40 and F4F at the start of the war more than held their own.

Sure

Wake up man ! In 1941 the A6M Zero swepped all opposition and forced the US fighters to rely on dangerous hit and run tactics.

Then the F4U and F6F piled in on the fight.

By which time Germany & Britain produced equal or superior fighters. The FW-190 and Bf-109 could easily be made carrier capable, just as the Spitfire was.

Any more questions?

Plenty ! For example why not cut the lies and actually think for a while ?

And they wouldnt be in quantity untll 1945.

Very ignorant of you again Syscom3 - By help of German funding alone the Me-262 could've been ready as early as 1943, Hitler however again slowed down the process by not wanting to finance the project, which I will again point out would not have been the case in this EA alliance where funds are plentiful.

But then again, the short range of the -262 precluded it from any meaningfull offensive roles.

Short range ??? Do you even know how far the Me-262A-1 could go on internal fuel alone ?? Put a few drop tanks on a *voila !* one long range Jet at your disposal ! The US a/c would have no alternate other than stay on the ground or get shot down.

They first were deployed in April of 1945?

Again you don't read very well so I'll repeat it for you in bold letters this time: With the financial and industrial help of the rest of Europe & Asia you can expect Type XXI subs, Me-262's & V-2's being around much earlier.
- as early as 1943 for sure !

The US could out produce the EA in tank production,

Stop lying Syscom3, the US could not and did not even out-produce the Soviets in tanks, and thats a fact.

so we would always end up winning the fight.

Hahaha ! why don't you just cover up your eyes and ears and yell *tralalalalala!* when'ever you've seen our posts and then respond ? The result would be the same anyways.

The truth is that the US wouldn't stand the slightest chance.

The M4 was easy to build and maintain.

The M4 was easy getting blown to itty bitty pieces as-well - real good infact !

Plus the Pershing was the best MBT at the end of the war, so the US was more than capable f designing and building a great tank(s)

Again you're lying your pants off Syscom3... The Pershing was nowhere near the best MBT by wars end, thats just another one of your lies.. Even the Tiger Ausf.E was superior in every sense but armor protection !

At the Aberdeen proving grounds in the US the Pershing's gun was found inferior compared to the 75mm Kwk42, 8.8cm Kwk36 L/56 & 88mm Kwk43 in terms of accuracy and penetrative performance (Below). And the Pershing itself was plagued with serious reliability issues throughout its service life, breaking down even more frequently than the Tiger Ausf.B - and that alone says quite abit.


Range table in meters:


8.8cm Kwk43 L/71 APCBC penetration result at Aberdeen proving grounds USA against 240 BHN RHA armor plate:

7.5cm Kwk42 L/70 APCBC penetration result at Aberdeen proving grounds USA against 240 BHN RHA armor plate:

8.8cm Kwk36 L/56 APCBC penetration result at Aberdeen proving grounds USA against 240 BHN RHA armor plate:

9.0cm M3 L/52 APCBC penetration result at Aberdeen proving grounds USA against 240 BHN RHA armor plate:


- From Lorrin Rexford Bird and Robert D. Livingston's, "World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery".

So the war is going to be decided by small arms?

Go ask the coalition forces currently in Iraq how much the smallarm matters please! By doing so you'll only get alot wiser.

You dont look at economic stats from the period do you. By any chance, do you understand what the "GNP is?

I do, you don't.

The scarey thing about the US industrial strengths during the war was the US economy didn't slow down one bit. In fact, economic figures show that there was still plenty of reserve capacity in the economy to grow even bigger!

Even better for the US military/industrial machine was not much would need to be shared or wasted on Russian or GB.

You're clueless.

[Soren]

No lone country could stand against the entire world!

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Soren

Decimated ? Syscom3 don't you forget how many took part in fighting the U-boats besides the US ! Don't forget how huge and crucial a part Britain played in the war of the Atlantic ! Without that help the US navy would've needed alot of life-rafts !

Good point. Without convoys going to Europe, we wouldn't need to worry about the U Boats outside of land based patrol bomber coverage. All we need to do is keep the convoys going between US ports close to shore where our aircraft and escorts can concentrate, and then sink you en mass.

Wake up man ! In 1941 the A6M Zero swepped all opposition and forced the US fighters to rely on dangerous hit and run tactics.

As Flyboy and others have provided evidence, the Zero was not as dominating as you suspect and in fact, obsolescent by the end of 1942.

By which time Germany & Britain produced equal or superior fighters. The FW-190 and Bf-109 could easily be made carrier capable, just as the Spitfire was.

And of course you knew that the landing gear design for the Spit and the -109 made them highly prone to landing mishaps on the carriers, not to mention their short range hurt them in operations. And then you must be the only one in the world to think the -190 was carrier capable.

Still, what fighters do you intend to build that had the 3000 mile radius needed to fight over N America from European bases?

Very ignorant of you again Syscom3 - By help of German funding alone the Me-262 could've been ready as early as 1943, Hitler however again slowed down the process by not wanting to finance the project, which I will again point out would not have been the case in this EA alliance where funds are plentiful.

You cant rush technology and the -262 would not have been reliable enough for operations until well into 1944.

Short range ??? Do you even know how far the Me-262A-1 could go on internal fuel alone ?? Put a few drop tanks on a *voila !* one long range Jet at your disposal ! The US a/c would have no alternate other than stay on the ground or get shot down.

So now your jet is flying at 300 mile radius? But then by the time you figure out the inevitable bugs in your 262, we will have the P80 to tangle with you.

Again you don't read very well so I'll repeat it for you in bold letters this time: [b]With the financial and industrial help of the rest of Europe & Asia you can expect Type XXI subs, Me-262's & V-2's being around much earlier.

So you're now conveniently pushing your technological breakthroughs up a year or tow? Well I counter yours with US proximity fuses available in 1942, US jet engines in 1944 and US developed "TV" guided bombs as early as 1943.

And what part of economics 101 class did you sleep in where they said Asia's economy was small untill the 60's?

Stop lying Syscom3, the US could not and did not even out-produce the Soviets in tanks, and thats a fact.

Monthly tank production figures were pretty much equal. In fact, without having to build so much stuff for the UK and Russia, we could convert more of our factories to other weapons. I'm even verifying some figures showing that the US had a monthly production advantage over the Russians, with a good number of those tanks being sent to the Russians (and UK)

The M4 was easy getting blown to itty bitty pieces as-well - real good infact !

It took three Shermans to defeat a single Tiger tank. And we were building 4 or 5 of them compared to one Tiger.

Again you're lying your pants off Syscom3... The Pershing was nowhere near the best MBT by wars end, thats just another one of your lies.. Even the Tiger Ausf.E was superior in every sense but armor protection !

Yet the M26 more than proved itself in the few tank encounters it had. The 90mm gun made all the difference in the world.

Go ask the coalition forces currently in Iraq how much the smallarm matters please! By doing so you'll only get alot wiser.

No modern war was ever won or lost because the "other" side had a slight advantage over the other in side arms.

You're clueless.

More than a few comments of yours belong in the world of make believe.