Could America have won against the rest of the world?

[Soren]

Like Adler pointed out this is a very unrealistic scenario indeed, however I'll play along.

Th answer to the question is a no-brainer, the US fails miserably.

Here's what the US would be up against:

The largest most advanced U-boat fleet in the world.
The best trained best equipped soldiers in the world.
The best tanks AFV's in the world.
Combined the best airforce in the world.
A larger and atleast as well equipped surface Navy.

The US would be fighting an already lost war.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'll play too...

In this scenrio who gets the Atomic bomb first - Germany or the US?

 

[Hunter368]

I'll play too...

In this scenrio who gets the Atomic bomb first - Germany or the US?

Whoever is alive last.

 

[mkloby]

Maybe I'm not understanding this fictitious scenario - but why would the RN be fighting against the US? I'm baffled. As far as the KM, USSR, and Regia - the US would crush all three combined EASILY if this scenario took place in the early 40's. US naval aviation had the the Lex, Saratoga, Ranger, Yorktown, and Enterprise all in service before 1940! These ships combined carried far more A/C than the fleet carriers that the RN even had in service prior to 1940. RN aside - the US fleet would pound a combined German, Italian, Soviet, and captured french units into nothing. There's no possible way any invasion could be sustained. The ONLY thing going for that fleet would be it's undersea arm... which a few years of experience with would have made impotent, just as the Germany's U-boat ultimately was (after it's spurts of success).

 

[Hunter368]

It was a thread made to show how Syscom's other thread is just as dumb and impossable to prove.

It was made in jest towards Syscom.

Seems others then just me get frustrated with Syscom's red,white and blue flag waving, it is made even worse when he asks you to prove him wrong when all the factors are unknown thus it is impossable to prove anything.

But it is in the same breath impossable for him to prove.....funny how he would not comment on my posts on the other thread. B/c he knows I am right.....conveniently he never responded to my post.

He knew when he made the thread it was impossable to prove him wrong.....but at the same time it is impossable for him to prove himself right. Funny how he dodges that issue.

 

[pbfoot]

In my world the first thing the US would have to do is take both the East and West coasts of Canada to prevent the Allies from gaining a greater footprint in North America now after saying this in 1939 this would have been a fairly tough task . The reason being is the vast distances to move men and the lack of equipment the US military had . Allies in 3 years just because I believe the US was behind in the technology curve with their equipment

 

[Soren]

I'll play too...

In this scenrio who gets the Atomic bomb first - Germany or the US?

In this scenario Germany/Europe would, and much earlier.

If Germany and the rest of Europa were going to get along with each other then there'd be no prosecution of jews, which means an A-bomb for the Germans.

Don't forget how quickly the USSR got the bomb after WWII..

 

[renrich]

The scenario I would see if England had capitulated to the Nazis in 1940 is that many of the Commonwealth countries would have opted out including Australia, NZ, SA and Canada. The RN would have scuttled most of the major units ( as the High Seas Fleet did in 1918) or more likely would have steamed into US ports. The anti semitism of the Nazis had already started well before 1939 and would not have been curbed so no joy there. No invasion of the western hemisphere would have taken place. A shaky peace between the US and whatever you want to call the Europe thing. Possibly the use of the nuclear option by the US if peace was not maintained.

 

[syscom3]

In my world the first thing the US would have to do is take both the East and West coasts of Canada to prevent the Allies from gaining a greater footprint in North America now after saying this in 1939 this would have been a fairly tough task . The reason being is the vast distances to move men and the lack of equipment the US military had . Allies in 3 years just because I believe the US was behind in the technology curve with their equipment

I dont think that was necessary. Canada would not have joined a European alliance period. It would be one thing for a Canadian to go and fight against a foe of the UK if it was a traditional enemy. But to back a German and Russian dominated fascist alliance? No way.

In addition, the coastlines of both sides of Canada are hardly conducive to invasion or conversion to staging area's. Poor weather is the norm, and vast forests have to be penetrated before you come up to population and industrial area's.

I would say if a UK/German/Russian alliance was formed in 1940, then nothing could have been done till 1941.

At this time, the USN was in better shape material wise as compared to the 30's. The US army and air corps would have begun a buildup several months sooner than as what actually happened, with the result being the ground forces being in far better shape in summer 1941.

As for the Japanese? They still could run amok throughout the western pacific, but nothing else. They didnt have the shipping to support an invasion of Hawaii, let alone the mainland of North America.

As for the axis alliance staging through the south? Forget it. The US would have preememptively seized the islands and airbases needed.

 

[syscom3]

It was a thread made to show how Syscom's other thread is just as dumb and impossable to prove.

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

Seems others then just me get frustrated with Syscom's red,white and blue flag waving, it is made even worse when he asks you to prove him wrong when all the factors are unknown thus it is impossable to prove anything.

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.

But it is in the same breath impossable for him to prove.....funny how he would not comment on my posts on the other thread. B/c he knows I am right.....conveniently he never responded to my post.

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.

He knew when he made the thread it was impossable to prove him wrong.....but at the same time it is impossable for him to prove himself right. Funny how he dodges that issue.

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.

 

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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