Could America have won against the rest of the world? (1 Viewer)

How Long could America have lasted?


  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Naval Ships
Carriers
1. United States = 22 (141)
2. Japan = 16
3. United Kingdom = 14

Battleships
1. United States = 8
2. United Kingdom = 5
3. Italy = 3
4. Japan = 2
5. Germany = 2

Cruisers
1. United States = 48
2. United Kingdom = 32
3. Japan = 9
4. Italy = 6
5. Soviet Union = 2

Destroyers
1. United States = 349
2. United Kingdom = 240
3. Japan = 63
4. Soviet Union = 25

Escorts
1. United States = 498
2. United Kingdom = 413
3. Canada = 191

Subs
1. Germany = 1,337
2. US = 422
3. Japan = 167
4. United Kingdom = 167
5. Soviet Union = 52
6. Italy = 28

Merchant Tonnage
1. United States = 33,993,230
2. United Kingdom = 6,378,899
3. Japan = 4,152,361
4. Commonwealth = 2,702,943
5. Italy = 469,606
 
Flyboy, your point about the people in this country with guns is a good one. I can't think of any country in the world where the citizenry is as well armed as in the US. A would be conquerer would have his work cut out for him trying to subdue this country, especially in the 1940s.

You should see Sweden when the hunting season is for moose/elk? Even the (censored) trees is running around with rifles.....:shock: :lol:
 
Naval Ships
Carriers
1. United States = 22 (141)
2. Japan = 16
3. United Kingdom = 14

Battleships
1. United States = 8
2. United Kingdom = 5
3. Italy = 3
4. Japan = 2
5. Germany = 2

Cruisers
1. United States = 48
2. United Kingdom = 32
3. Japan = 9
4. Italy = 6
5. Soviet Union = 2

Destroyers
1. United States = 349
2. United Kingdom = 240
3. Japan = 63
4. Soviet Union = 25

Escorts
1. United States = 498
2. United Kingdom = 413
3. Canada = 191

Subs
1. Germany = 1,337
2. US = 422
3. Japan = 167
4. United Kingdom = 167
5. Soviet Union = 52
6. Italy = 28

Merchant Tonnage
1. United States = 33,993,230
2. United Kingdom = 6,378,899
3. Japan = 4,152,361
4. Commonwealth = 2,702,943
5. Italy = 469,606

The Russians didn't have much of a navy it looks like....was that all they had?:shock:
 
Just looking at the numbers, the numbers look like they are for the total time of 1939-1945. The number of US subs looks a tad high. Would've guessed it was more in the 2-300 range.

But even 200 is more than enough to devestate a merchant fleet of 13 million metric tons (adding the larger, non-US fleets together). Figure you have 100 subs that are operational at any given time and the average hull is 4000 tons. If each sub sinks 2 ships (on average) per patrol and each patrol is (on average) 30 days (given the US is protecting it's shores and the subs operational areas would be close to shore) you are looking at roughly 800,000 tons per month lost (or 9.6 million tons per year).

Granted, there are a lot of problems with the above idea, but it gives some idea of what a I see as the greatest problem with an attack against the US in the 40s. The supply lines are very long, open to attack and the US knows it. As all supplies to the forces attaking the US would have to come from overseas, it is a main weakness with an attack on the US.

To add to the above analysis, while 60-65% of Japanese shipping was sunk by US Subs, a good 25-30% were sunk by Aircraft. Approaching the US Coastline would allow aircraft as diverse as the B17 to the Catalina to the SBD to the P47 to attack. The closer any ship gets to the US the greater it's chances of attack get.
 
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....:evil4:
 
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.
 
The Russians didn't have much of a navy it looks like....was that all they had?:shock:

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.


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....:evil4:

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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..
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back