renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I fail to see any connection between the US and the middle east and east asia.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I fail to see any connection between the US and the middle east and east asia.
There isn't one ever since Pangea broke up 180 million years ago.
Ok, bad joke but I couldn't help it.
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.
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?
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....
In short, a logistical nightmare of the first order for any army
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.
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.
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.
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.