Could America have won against the rest of the world?

[pbfoot]

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]

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]

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...

 

[Soren]

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]

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]

Ah, the TA152H, the answer to everything.LOL

8)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.