 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Assuming you get through Canada (highly unlikely) |
We're talking about a Canadian-European-Russian alliance here. Read the posts please. sigh
quote:
I'd like to see an army get through Chicago. It would be like trying to siege St. Petersburg. And that's just ONE strategic area. |
Why on earth would Chicago have to be captured? First a quick blitz destroying an important part of the US' production capacity. Cities are secundary. Chicago can just be bombed, closed off, and then left alone till the whole area is secure. Starving them to death, like what happened to the Germans in Russia.
quote:
The most recent statistics put California alone at like 5th or 6th in the world, in terms of GDP. It was ahead of FRANCE. Los Angeles alone is a super powerhouse of industrial output, and LA County ranks like 12th in the world in GDP if it were its own nation. |
Only 6th? And you are expecting California, which would be ranked #6, to produce as much as Russia and the EU combined? 
quote:
Once the US ramps up the war machine, get the hell out of the way or DIE. |
The US doesn't nearly produce as much as Russia and Europe combined. In fact, the combined EU alone produces more. Add the rest of Europe and Russia and god knows who else to that, and it simply doesn't matter anymore how much the US can produce since it won't make any difference.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Veracitas
|
 |
Berkeley, California (or) Fairfax, Virginia
Jul 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Ideally, combine this with a fake geological expedition to Yellowstone, which sets charges to blow the Yellowstone caldera. The tanks arrive just as a humongous volcanic eruption goes off. Give them US or Canadian markings and English-speaking crews, and they'll soon be all over the central US as part of the rescue effort.
|
IIRC, if you blow hte Yellowstone caldera, not only will you smother most of the U.S. in molten rock, the amount of ash thrown up into the atmosphere will equal the effects of a nuclear winter. So, yah, that would do it, but what would be the point of conquering the u.S. that way if you have no U.S.--nay, earth--left to play with?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:16
|
|
quote:
We're talking about a Canadian-European-Russian alliance here. Read the posts please. |
Dude, I KNOW. And still, you'd NEVER even make it across the border.
MarkL you obviously have never reseached the industrial capacity of Chicago. The Germans couldn't take Soviets without taking Leningrad or Moscow. They failed to do either, and both of those cities served as staging points to beat the Germans back.
You don't take a place like Chicago, you've got all sorts of madness raining down on you, not to mention the industrial capacity you fail to take out.
quote:
Chicago can just be bombed, closed off, and then left alone till the whole area is secure. |
Oh wait, aren't you the one that said US strategic bombing in WW2 didn't do anything to German industrial capacity? But I guess since it's the EU this, it will work. 
quote:
Only 6th? And you are expecting California, which would be ranked #6, to produce as much as Russia and the EU combined? |
Well it's already matched Russia. The point was, that was only ONE state, (although the biggest), there are many more leftover that can more than accomodate any industrial needs.
And as for the rest of the EU, you are once again forgetting about the rest of the US, which will match the EU easily, and not only that, US production would be all coordinated, unlike the EU which has many nations, each of which would have to keep its own interests in mind.
Sorry MarkL, your "unified EU" scenario is far from accurate. Your guys aren't even close to being integrated as an armed forces, and really who is going to be directing the industrial capacity? Okay Germans, you make tanks. Alright French, now you make bullets. Yeah right.
It's convenient to group them all together in scenarios like this, but we all know it's far from being as united as the United States.
You guys don't stand a chance. EU could never get to Canada, and even if they did, they'd never cross the border.
Well maybe about 10 feet. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MORON
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Jun 2001
time: 13:16
|
|
Its hard to convert civilian industries to military ones with the super complexity of modern weapons.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
MarkL, you STILL are not addressing the problem with your Atlantic scenario.
I will certainly grant you that Iceland is an achievable target for the EU. Possibly even Greenland. What you still are not understanding is logistics.
You cannot stack 200 planes on Greenland, dude. This isn't Civ2. You can't just build an airbase in 2 turns and ferry aircraft in.
What you would have to do is strongly develop Iceland as a strategic base. Even then, though, you still couldn't base that many fighters off of Iceland - unless of course you want your fighters parked wingtip to wingtip across the airfield. Iceland simply can't support that many aircraft. And even if it could, what would you say to about 8 688i submarines surfacing, launching 12 Tomahawks apiece at the airfields, and departing? I'd say we'd have a new Big Bang. I guarantee that you aren't gonna be able to defend the entire Icelandic coastline from attack. That is ridiculous. All you have in Europe and Russia are basically a bunch of destroyers and frigates, with a coupla guided missile cruisers (probably rusting and inoperable) from Russia, and under 10 V/STOL carriers carrying about 12 Harriers apiece. If you want to station all that around Iceland - fine. Maybe if you use your ENTIRE navy, you could secure Iceland. Maybe.
But while you are occupying Iceland, the US is occupying Greenland. I guarantee you can't do a simultaneous operation - you don't have the assets, and without Iceland as a base you couldn't hit Greenland anyway. So basically you have Greenland developed into a base by the US. I'd estimate that you could reasonably assume at least a Marine brigade, with Air Force security personnel as well, on Greenland, along with possibly a couple of tank battalions, and a few dozen fighters. Probably an E-3A as well, and jamming and tanker assets. That basically gives the US a counter to Iceland. You can't bypass Greenland by any means, you have to attack it head-on. Unfortunately, Europe/Russia don't really have that many modern amphibious assault ships. Your best one is the HMS Ocean, in the Royal Navy, nor do you have a high-quality integrated amphibious assault force, such as the US Marine Corps.
But you'd have to hit Greenland anyway, no way around that.
Let me digress from that battle for a moment, and tell you once more about Canada.
Canada has an inventory of approximately 85 modified F-18s, and some support aircraft. The US inventory is in the thousands. I guarantee you the CAF would cease to be a viable fighting force on the first day of the conflict.
The US would then hit the Canadian grain fields - the breadbasket of the nation - with possibly three army divisions. The best ones for the job, IMO, would be 1st Armored, 24th Mechanized, and 1st Infantry. We'd also have two airborne divisions that could intervene if necessary. The Canadian Army would have to fight for this area, clearly. The Canadian Army also has no standing divisions, and only, IIRC, 3 combat brigades, stationed all across the country. Unfortunately, they would be unable to move troops from the East Coast of Canada, because the 10th Mountain Division from Ft. Dix in New York would demonstrate against Eastern Canada, tying the Eastern Canadian forces in place. Also, with unchallenged air superiority over Canada - and you can't challenge this fact - the US could interdict Canadian reinforcements and supplies. Finally, the area the US would be moving into is good tank country - and the Canadians don't have anything in their inventory that can stand up to a US Armored Division. Not a chance.
So, we can reasonably assume a complete defeat of the Canadian Army and Air Force within a month - probably before you can even get set up in Iceland.
This is important, because it gives the US free reign to deploy the navy anywhere in the Western Atlantic with no possible threat, and it knocks Canada out of the war - unless Canada feels like starving to death.
But let's pretend that Canada stays in the war, by some fluke. Let's assume Europe/Russia still plan on landing troops in Canada and moving down through the US. This is just not possible.
In response to Euro/Russian moves into Iceland, the US moves into Greenland with the forces I mentioned earlier, and moves 5 carriers into the NorthWest Atlantic area. Sure, if the US fleet ventures under air cover from Europe, it will have some major problems. But there is no reason for it to. The Europeans and Russians have to come HERE, not the other way around.
To get here, they have to leave their air cover, except fighters from Iceland supporting attacks on Greenland, and any remaining Russian heavy bombers from the Kola Peninsula. The first move that MUST be done is the occupation - not just neutralization - of US forces in Greenland. Again, all you have for this are the Harriers from your V/STOL carriers and, at best, several dozen fighters from Iceland. Opposing this are, conservatively 3-4 dozen US fighters on Greenland (most likely F-15Cs), backed up by E-3A Sentries and jamming aircraft operating from Greenland, plus the combined air wings of 5 aircraft carriers (we would definitely beef up the air wings, I'd guesstimate we could put 2 squadrons each of Superhornets and Tomcats on each carrier, in addition to support aircraft). This means we are looking at around 300 US fighters, with plenty of Hawkeye and Sentry support, along with jamming aircraft. I would also guess that the US would deploy such F-22As as are available to Greenland, giving a HUGE advantage.
Even without throwing US strike aircraft into the fray, the US would enjoy heavy air superiority over the naval battlefield. Further, submarine superiority would belong to the US. Most of the European submarines are short-range diesal boats, many of them good for coastal operations only. The British have by far the best European sub fleet, with their Trafalgars and new Astutes, but are heavily outnumbered by US submarines. The Russians would not be a major factor, because of the appalling state of their fleet in general, especially submarines.
However, I'm predicting that even BEFORE the naval battle would begin, US B-52H Stratofortresses would stage out of the Continental US, and strike at Iceland with stand-off cruise missiles, protecting by the US aircraft in Greenland. This would be virtually an even air battle, between the US aircraft on Greenland and Euro/Russian ones on Iceland, with possibly a slight advantage to the Euro/Russians. However, the mission of the US aircraft from Greenland is not to defeat the enemy air force, it is simply to allow the B-52s to launch their missiles at Keflavik AFB - and any other bases that get developed - on Iceland. Enough missiles impact, and stuff like tank farms/fuel dumps, communications sites, munitions storage facilities, etc., start to go up, and eventually Europe/Russia can't support as many aircraft on Iceland - it slowly gets whittled down. Also, as I described above, US submarines could stage strikes against any bases on Iceland without much trouble, that would cause major problems. US submarines could also hit the Kola Peninsula - the Russian bomber bases - and knock out some of your long range bombing capability as well.
Mark, face it, there really is no way you could win the Battle of the Atlantic in a US vs. the world scenario. You would have to be very good, very lucky, and have everything go right, and conversely, for the US, we'd have to be very stupid, very unlucky, and have absolutely NOTHING go right for y'all to have a prayer of winning. Even then, don't count on it. Balance of forces are against you. Remember, your Euro/Russian airforce, which would outnumber the USAF, only plays a part if you can bring it to bear at the decisive location. 2000 aircraft sitting in Central Europe aren't gonna do you a bit of good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Canada has an inventory of approximately 85 modified F-18s, and some support aircraft. The US inventory is in the thousands. I guarantee you the CAF would cease to be a viable fighting force on the first day of the conflict |
No sh1t. I thought we had 110 CF-18s, though. And it's RCAF, you ignorant Yank. We won't stand for any lèse-majesté here.
quote:
The US would then hit the Canadian grain fields - the breadbasket of the nation - with possibly three army divisions. The best ones for the job, IMO, would be 1st Armored, 24th Mechanized, and 1st Infantry. We'd also have two airborne divisions that could intervene if necessary. The Canadian Army would have to fight for this area, clearly. The Canadian Army also has no standing divisions, and only, IIRC, 3 combat brigades, stationed all across the country. Unfortunately, they would be unable to move troops from the East Coast of Canada, because the 10th Mountain Division from Ft. Dix in New York would demonstrate against Eastern Canada, tying the Eastern Canadian forces in place. Also, with unchallenged air superiority over Canada - and you can't challenge this fact - the US could interdict Canadian reinforcements and supplies. Finally, the area the US would be moving into is good tank country - and the Canadians don't have anything in their inventory that can stand up to a US Armored Division. Not a chance |
I don't understand why you don't invade the East Coast immediately. To do so secures your back while you're busy reducing the West. Windsor-Quebec corridor should be the first to go; at a stroke you've got 2/5 of the population, 2/3 of the manufacturing potential, the administrative capital of the country and the capitals of the two largest provinces. That falls and all that's left is the oil-fields in Alberta, the pop on the West Coast, a few hundred million acres of wheat and a few billion acres of ice up north. It could probably be accomplished in less than a week.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
I don't understand why you don't invade the East Coast immediately. To do so secures your back while you're busy reducing the West. Windsor-Quebec corridor should be the first to go; at a stroke you've got 2/5 of the population, 2/3 of the manufacturing potential, the administrative capital of the country and the capitals of the two largest provinces. That falls and all that's left is the oil-fields in Alberta, the pop on the West Coast, a few hundred million acres of wheat and a few billion acres of ice up north. It could probably be accomplished in less than a week. |
If you're being sarcastic, I'm not suggested the US would occupy Canada, or even could occupy the whole nation effectively. I'm suggesting that all the US would have to do is to defeat the Canadian military, and occupy or severely disrupt the flow of food to Canadians. When Canada is starving, I doubt they will offer much resistance, and drop out of the war forthwith, don't you agree?
Although it might be beneficial to flatten some of the industry, you are correct in that, but I don't want to get the US Army bogged down in city fighting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
|
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
If you're being sarcastic, I'm not suggested the US would occupy Canada, or even could occupy the whole nation effectively. I'm suggesting that all the US would have to do is to defeat the Canadian military, and occupy or severely disrupt the flow of food to Canadians. When Canada is starving, I doubt they will offer much resistance, and drop out of the war forthwith, don't you agree?
Although it might be beneficial to flatten some of the industry, you are correct in that, but I don't want to get the US Army bogged down in city fighting. |
Oh, and starving canada doesn't work if the Russians are willing to airlift food over the pole.
Actually, even our urban strip of land produces food in sufficient quantity to feed itself. No grains, but plenty of meat, eggs, milk, fruit&vegetables.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Oh, and starving canada doesn't work if the Russians are willing to airlift food over the pole.
Actually, even our urban strip of land produces food in sufficient quantity to feed itself. No grains, but plenty of meat, eggs, milk, fruit&vegetables. |
Russians airlifted Canada food over the pole
As to the other, I was not really aware of that, however, I would point out that my original point stands. The defeat of the Canadian military - easily accomplished - and the subsequent occupation of Greenland - also easily done - prevent any world alliance from either invading the US East Coast or landing in Canada.
Finally, I'd like to point out that the US and Canada are major suppliers of grain to various nations - nations against the US. When the US stops shipping grain, and Canada is unable to ship grain, how are these people getting grain? Argentina wouldn't be a viable source either, as we can simply close the Atlantic. Australia is a possibility, as is the Ukraine, but those are the last two remaining LARGE grain producers in the world that I'm aware of.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Eliminator
|
|
Eliminatorville
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
Ah-ha! You Yanks are so quick to forget your history! it wasn't just a few years ago - I believe around 1995 - 98 that Canada almost conquered the entire continental US!
The spread of the Canadian Football League into Baltimore, Texas, California, and Nevada almost spelled the end of you American hucksters. Somehow, somehow.. you figured out a way to thwart our advances; but mark my words... the CFL shall return!
-----------
Anyhoo.. occupation in our time is impossible - unless you are France. We have come too far in the last 50 years, the underground forces in North America would be immense, and would put up a hell of a fight. The enemy would have to raze all cities, or their forces would be completely decimated.
On a side note, ain't the French cowards? How do they live knowing about their Vichy history? How embarassing! And that was less than 60 years ago!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Eliminator, I agree occupation of Canada would be stupid. But the destruction of the Canadian Army and Air Force would be a relatively simplistic manner. Then just beef up the border guard a bit on the US-Canadian border, establish a few no-fly zones and enforce them, and bingo Canada poses no threat in the US vs. World war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Eliminator
|
|
Eliminatorville
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
David, all you guys would have to do is look at our armed forces and you'd destroy them. I am so incredibly embarassed by the Canadian military; all I can do is live vicariously through you guys and the Brits.
I think only 22 of our CF-18's are operational, and the most modern equipment on them is radar from 1986. During Kosovo, the Americans wouldn't fly with us because we didn't (and still don't) have the proper encryption for radio transmissions.
What makes it worse is that Canada is the only nation in the world that borders 3 oceans. Do you have any idea how crappy our navy is? We have 3 subs - one for each ocean, I guess.. - and they are all second hand diesel ones from England, circa 1960.
I think it would be nice if Canada could pull their own weight in international conflicts, I think the problem is that our big brother and our Mom take care of all of the problems. They should force Canada to upgrade their military on a massive scale.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Hehe, well thank you for the backup for my analysis on the US vs. world conflict - I think (hope) that even MarkL will admit that without Canada his scenario for an invasion of the US is hopeless.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
|
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:16
|
|
Just a short reply, the rest will follow later.
quote:
V/STOL carriers carrying about 12 Harriers apiece |
The total of Harriers on VSTOL Carriers is 2 to 3 times as high.
quote:
You don't take a place like Chicago, you've got all sorts of madness raining down on you, not to mention the industrial capacity you fail to take out. |
You don't have to take a city to take out it's industrial capacity.
quote:
Even then, though, you still couldn't base that many fighters off of Iceland. |
Iceland has many military facilities, especcially for aircraft. These aren't for the Icelandic military (which doesn't really exist) but for foreign (read NATO) forces. It was a key location back in the Cold War, and NATO realised that. The island can certain support quite a number of aircraft.
quote:
Maybe if you use your ENTIRE navy, you could secure Iceland. Maybe. |
Considering the combined EU navy is about 20% bigger than that of the US, I find this rather hard to believe, since the US has to fight on two fronts.
quote:
All you have in Europe and Russia are basically a bunch of destroyers and frigates, with a coupla guided missile cruisers |
What happened to the subs?
quote:
But while you are occupying Iceland, the US is occupying Greenland. |
Oh yeah, while the US is surrounded by enemies they go off invading Greenland, which is miles away and right in between Canadian and European forces.
And who needs to occupy Iceland? They are basically our allies.
I'll post more later. Just three last things for now.
A. Nobody takes into account the number of people/troops the US has. They will run out quite quickly. The US has only about 270 million people. The Rest of the World has about 6 billion. The US will run out of (experienced) troops quite quickly.
B. Oil. The US quite simple doesn't have enough oil to keep it's war effort going. It will have to import, and nobody is going to give that oil to the US.
C. Global economy. Without access to foreign markets (for both imports and exports) the US economy will collapse within weeks. Other countries will suffer a lot too, but still far less since relatively (that means, in %) the US trades more with the ROW than the ROW with the US.
Nice technology, but not enough oil and people. In a war for nutricion, the US will loose. 6 billion vs 270 million....and expecting the 270 million to win? Get real!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
|
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:16
|
|
quote:
Nobody takes into account the number of people/troops the US has. They will run out quite quickly. The US has only about 270 million people. The Rest of the World has about 6 billion. The US will run out of (experienced) troops quite quickly. |
I thought this was the EU/Russia vs. the US? You can't just throw in the rest of the world when it's convenient...
quote:
Oil. The US quite simple doesn't have enough oil to keep it's war effort going. It will have to import, and nobody is going to give that oil to the US. |
We have a strategic oil reserve for just that purpose. Along with numerous untapped resources. Most of the imported oil comes from Mexico and South America anyway.
quote:
Global economy. Without access to foreign markets (for both imports and exports) the US economy will collapse within weeks. Other countries will suffer a lot too, but still far less since relatively (that means, in %) the US trades more with the ROW than the ROW with the US. |
Nope. The rest of the world would suffer also. Not to mention, once the economy switches over to a war-time mode, those integrated trading routes become alot less important.
quote:
6 billion vs 270 million....and expecting the 270 million to win? |
A coordinated, entrenched 270 million, leading in technology. To take the US, you'd have to take the skies, and the seas. Not a chance in hell of that happening.
And even IF you get to the mainland, good luck in not getting your asses kicked. 6 billion? Just means a higher death toll.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-12-2001 04:02
|