American Invasion - Page 2

Slipdigit · #26 (**permalink**) June 4th, 2007, 12:35 AM

VonP, looking at my family alone, weapons of all size and caliber abound. And this is replicated many, many times over in every community throughout the South, Midwest and West.
I have neighbors who have full auto AR-15s and AK-47s. They're all legal.
One has an Uzi. It's not my favorite weapon. I really could not hit the broad side of barn with it. It handles like a boat anchor (about as heavy too) and is very hard to hold on target. After about the third round, I'm shooting the sky with it.

Carl W Schwamberger · #27 (**permalink**) June 4th, 2007, 06:14 AM

I'd recomend a look at Ellis's book 'Brute Force' summarizes and provides a bit of guidance for analyzing the production of the various principles of WWII, and their combat power. One crtical point Ellis makes is that US production exceeded the the peak capacity of all the Axis nation combined, by a large margin.

Ellis extrapolates to a limited extent the additional capacity Germany may have gained through increasing effciency and exploitation of conquored territory in Europe and Africa. This still does not challenge the capacity of the US. Tooze in his book 'Wages of Destruction' anayzes the multipule failures and problems of German industrial policy and ability. From these and other sources it becomes clear that Germany in 1942 was unable to support the vast army & airforce it had attempted to create. Slave labor and forced production from conquored territorys was insuffcient to make up the difference. And, it seems that some of Germanys gains cost more to keep than they returned.

German use of Latin America is problematic. While there many Germans and decendants of German immigrants living in those nations they were balanced by similar immigrants from Britian, France, ect... From 1939 the British had been waging a underground war against the German diplomats and agents in Latin America, and in 1940 the US joined this. Even in 1941 the Germans were losing this diplomatic & 'agent' war.

US ground strength in the US by mid 1941 consisted of 30+ divsions. By the spring of 1942 there were appox fifty with manpower for another thirty in the training pipeline. Most of these remained in the US in 1942 and the bulk did not leave until the latter half of 1943. Even in 1944 there werre well over one million US Army personnel remaining in the US in various capacitys

In 1941 the US Army conducted a study that outlined three stratigic plans. the first assumed both the USSR and Britian would remain in the war vs Germany. The second assumed either one would be knocked out, the third that both would be conquored. In the first case the resources for a ground army of 100 divsions and 100 airwings were identified, in the second case resources for 200 divsions and proportional airforces were identified, and in the third a 300 divsion force was proposed.

As it was the US Army activated approx 89 divsions, and sustained another 20 to 25 divsions of US Marines Free French, Chinese under Stillwells command, and a few others. Enough additional equipment and supply was sent to the USSR and China to supply a dozen more divsions. So it does not seem difficult for the US, without the need to maintain vast supply lines, to provide up to 200 divsions for continental defense.

However the offensive strength of the US was in its navy and airforces. To defeat the Axis it might not be necessary to expand the ground forces beyond 150 divsions, with the balance placed in building a even larger fleet and airforce.

von_noobie · #28 (**permalink**) June 4th, 2007, 10:27 AM

Ok, America would probaly have the best armed Partisans in the world but i can tell you know no one wants to ever attempt an invasion of Australia, We may not have lots of guns but we sure can improvise and still KICK ASS

Hell, me and me mates already have several plans in place to deal with an invasion. hehehehehehehe.

Za Rodinu · #29 (**permalink**) June 4th, 2007, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slipdigit

I see no way the Axis Powers could have EVER landed troops on the North American continent, much less conquer the US and Canada. They simply did not have the naval power and, more importantly, shipping to accomplish it.

Can we agree that this thread doesn't have a leg to stand on?

Slipdigit · #30 (**permalink**) June 4th, 2007, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Can we agree that this thread doesn't have a leg to stand on?

Za Rodinu, you'll get no argument from me.

Quote:

Ok, America would probaly have the best armed Partisans in the world but i can tell you know no one wants to ever attempt an invasion of Australia, We may not have lots of guns but we sure can improvise and still KICK ASS

I couldn't help but notice that the Japanese Empire passed on invading Australia when most of your army was in North Africa. They KNEW better.

Quote:

I'd recomend a look at Ellis's book 'Brute Force'

Brute Force is a very good book, that I have read several times. I referenced it in my way too long post yesterday. I get something out if it every time I read every time that I missed before. One fact from it that amazies me was that the city of Pittsburgh alone produced more iron and steel that Japan, Italy and Germany combined. I highly recommend the book.

Hawkerace · #31 (**permalink**) June 4th, 2007, 01:03 PM

Its always interesting to see the experts at there work, :P

FramerT · #32 (**permalink**) June 4th, 2007, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by von_noobie

FramerT, If Japan or Germany were to attempt an invasion with outh build up of forces on a fairly close location they would fail, To build the necessary ships to do such an operation would take a good 10 years for Germany.

Yes the axis airtime over the U.S would be a big problem but would you really go and invade a country with out doing some sort of damage to the invasion area wether it be destroying bunkers, naval facilities, or air fields etc.

Uhn?? You talking to me? Re-read my post. I was quoting someone else. And I said, for every year Germany spends building up, like wise the U.S. would. They were'nt about to stand idly by letting Germany mass 10-20 divisions without doing the same.

The whole invasion thing does'nt have a plan. Do they capture Washingon DC or maybe NY? What is the plan?

T. A. Gardner · #33 (**permalink**) June 5th, 2007, 04:09 AM

What I would like to see on this thread is:

1. When is the proposed start date of the scenario? About the beginning of 1942? 1943?

2. The proposed means by which the Germans will move their forces to the Americas and where the initial landings will occur. Or, the alternatives to this.

These are basic to the whole issue. Right now just some vague notion of these two items has been presented in the finest traditional use of lots of PFM! (see board acryomyms for explaination)....

~~Roddoss72~~ · #34 (**permalink**) June 5th, 2007, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by von_noobie

Ok, America would probaly have the best armed Partisans in the world but i can tell you know no one wants to ever attempt an invasion of Australia, We may not have lots of guns but we sure can improvise and still KICK ASS

Hell, me and me mates already have several plans in place to deal with an invasion. hehehehehehehe.

If i was to invade Aussie i would do it at the time of the Melbourne Cup, many would be to p1ssed to fight.

von_noobie · #35 (**permalink**) June 5th, 2007, 09:43 AM

One problem there, I haven proven with my mates that i am a much better fighter when im pissed.....

.....good luck with invading your self anyway.

tinmanl19 · #36 (**permalink**) January 22nd, 2008, 02:32 AM

ok I am going to think about this one tonight, I will post my answer tomorrow with out reading any previous answers. I will say this however. The answer lies in Germany beating England in 1940, and either the Japanese holding off on bombing Pearl Harbor until 1942 or Germany not declaring war on the USA on Dec8th 1941.

mikebatzel · #37 (**permalink**) January 22nd, 2008, 05:29 PM

Given this extremly unlikely scenario taking place in mid to late 43 in place of Barbarossa

Quote:

Originally Posted by von_noobie

Ok, for germany to invade America they would have to work VERY VERY VERY closely with Japan.

A joint operation would have to be launched to take the Panama Cannal, The U.S may be able to defend it from Japan or German but not both in a simultaneous attack.

Japan would have to take and secure the Hawaiin and Aleution Islands and build up a STRONG naval presence at both locations. Even better for Japan would be to go across to Alaska and secure the area from Skagway down to Ketchikan, this would give lots of room for a build up of troops and the shortest fly time for Japanese planes to the American mainland.

Also there are some ports in the area that could allow for continues submarine activity.

As for Germany well they would have to secure Iceland and Greenland, Bermuda and all of the American and British Islands in the Caribbian and St. Pierre and Miquelon. Germany would have to spend several years building up her forces on these locations as would Japan.

The only real way this could succeed is with Mexico which could get Materials from Germany and Japan, Japan and Germany could supply Mexico with Tanks, Planes, Ships, Trucks, Artillary, Fuel etc......the list goes on.

Mexico could probally amass an army of about 450-500,000 men.

Japan and Germany would have to start launching air raids as early as possible. Japan's invasion targets would have to be Seattle and Portland. Germany's invasion targets would have to be Boston (via St. Pierre, Miquelon and Bermuda), and Ne Orleans (via the Caribbian Islands). Yes alot of targets but with careful planning, it just may work.

Know for Mexico's targets, There armed forces would not have the men or resources for a two way attack, they would have to choose between either German in New Orleans or Japan in Portland/Seattle. Since New Orrleans is closer i would choose Germany, They would have to secure several areas on the way thoe, Including San Antonio, and Houston along with several other key area's. But just couse they cant reach Japan yet dosn't mean they cant launch a small attack in that direction with the aim of taking a city by the name of San Diego. Would open up a good port of supply for Mexico.

Even once the bridge heads are made and secured it would still mean several months of supply build ups. Mexico could probaly launch small offensives with Japanese/German help to capture area's like Los Angeles and Phoenix etc but thats about it.

Mexico/Japan/Germany could probaly launch a large offesive 6 months after the attack with the aim of capturing all the area from the Mississippi river upto the Arkansas river across to Lake Powell and across to San Francisco. From there they could launch another offensive to link up with the Japanese forces at Portland/Seattle.

By this time the forces in Boston would be ready to launch an offensive to secure Maine, New Hampshire Rhode Island and either all or areas of Vermont Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Becouse of the size of America the only real way to advance across it safely would be to take out one state ata a time with Japan going across the North and Germany going across the South while Mexico could be used as a security force for the captured areas.

Has anyone ever watched Red Dawn? Here in Pa. every year 1.5 miilion hunters enter the woods for opening day. That's just ONE state

There a far to many gun owners in the US. Any Invasion attempt would be hit with casualties faster than they can come across the ocean. Without German or Japanese assistance Mexico crumbles and become the 51st state

Quote:

VonP, looking at my family alone, weapons of all size and caliber abound. And this is replicated many, many times over in every community throughout the South, Midwest and West.
I have neighbors who have full auto AR-15s and AK-47s. They're all legal.

You too huh. As most weapons owned by civilians are for hunting purposses I would say that the Germans would be in for the worst snipping activity known to man

T. A. Gardner · #38 (**permalink**) January 22nd, 2008, 07:30 PM

While I don't know the numbers in 1940, today in the US there are just shy of a quarter million privately owned machineguns not to mention automatic weapons, artillery, mortars, and even armored vehicles running around the country.
Back then it was still possible to buy antitank rifles like the Solothurn, BARs, Thompsons, and many other purely military firearms with little effort. And, many did (and do) exist in the US then and now. Aside from that, the US was the most motorized nation on the planet. The US civil population was better equipped with motor vehicles than the German military was!
As for invading from Mexico, the "front" is nearly 1500 miles long. It is almost totally devoid of roads (in the 40's), suitable rail systems (eg., north-south versus east-west), towns and cities, and anything else necessary to support the movement of large armies. I could just see the Germans trying to cross the lower Sonorian desert between Yuma and Nogales AZ or East of El Paso TX back then. Southern Arizona is perfect ground for defenders. The small mountian ranges make perfect locations for defenders to direct air strikes and artillery onto any unit trying to move through the relatively flat valleys between them. The whole area is criss-crossed with arroyos that would work just like an anti tank ditch along virtually their entire lengths. With next to no roads and no usable rail net to speak of just trying to keep the advance supplied would be a nightmare.
A US invasion is just not in the cards.

Joe · #39 (**permalink**) January 22nd, 2008, 08:05 PM

I have something to add. What is Stalin going to do while Hitler is occupied across the Atlantic?

skunk works · #40 (**permalink**) January 22nd, 2008, 08:11 PM

What if "Superman" flew for the Germans?

"Es ist ein Vogel, es ist ein Flache, es ist UBER-MAN !!

Sloniksp · #41 (**permalink**) January 22nd, 2008, 08:58 PM

I think its pretty safe to say, that the United States of America is pretty safe.

Slipdigit · #42 (**permalink**) January 22nd, 2008, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sloniksp

I think its pretty safe to say, that the United States of America is pretty safe.

At least from invasion from without. Now, from within...

Sloniksp · #43 (**permalink**) January 22nd, 2008, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slipdigit

At least from invasion from without. Now, from within...

Ah ha! Now there is something to think about

I was only referring to after December 24, 1814