Should an invasion of the US be very difficult to outright impossible in HOI4?

[Mav12]

Is a south American invasion of some kind not feasible to create a jumping point or a base of power for air superiority?

Yes, South and Central America do not have the adequate infrastructure to support an army prepping for invasion, also you'd see US intervention before you'd be able to build up the necessary infustructure

 

[hkrommel]

Nukes will fall once B-29s can reach Berlin. I'm unsure what that will do without continental front.

I'm guessing some sort of Doolittle raid if worst comes to worst, but there would also probably be no shortage of resistance fighters in Europe and the Asian USSR who could temporarily take control of an airfield or two.

 

[Krafty]

Couple points.

- Detroit alone outproduced the entire Axis alliance
- Dday across the Channel took 6,900 ships
- The US built 160 aircraft carriers including escort carriers that could carry 90 planes
- The US was going to finish 52 more carriers in 1946
- The US had 141 million people in 1946
- The US had built 295,000 Aircraft by 1946
- The US sunk 55% of Japan's entire civilian/transport shipping
- The Allies had over 440 Submarines
- The US could finish a Submarine every 17 hours

In real life I find an invasion to be impossible, and might still be impossible today in the neo modern era.

That said, in a game, it might not be very fun if there was no way to conquer the US.

 

[Alex_brunius]

- Detroit alone outproduced the entire Axis alliance

No

- The US built 160 aircraft carriers including escort carriers that could carry 90 planes

No

- The US was going to finish 52 more carriers in 1946

No

If your going to post things as if they are facts please either research them more or be more specific about what you mean.

 

[Rommel41]

It's hard for us, with the real history that dominates our minds, to imagine how close the Axis powers came to victory. How a few slightly different choices by a handful of people on either side could have resulted in a world of Nazi successes, the likes of which games like the new Wolfenstein, books like SSGB and movies like "It Happened Here" now lampoon as "far fetched".

Hindsight has revealed the "writing on the wall" for the Axis as early as Mussolini and Hitler's first sneeze. How Stalin and Churchill had divided Germany on January 30th, 1933 and two atomic bombs fell on Japan on December 7th, 1941.

When I rush carriers as Germany and conquer the British Isles in 1940 and have Russia subdued by winter of '41... should the US be more afraid and less positioned to hurt Germany? What if Italy swept through Africa quickly in 1940-1941, Spain and Portugal join the Axis after the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe sweeps away the Royal Navy and seizes Gibraltar, Malta, Crete and Cyprus and Japan has captured India and defeated China by 1942? Would America have the massive material lead if Eurasian industry was guided, unfettered by any strategic threat, towards a unified goal of extinguishing American democracy by the three greatest conquering empires of all time?

Just a few decisions could have led us down a path of unfathomable horror. Let us not dismiss the greatest threats to freedom of modern history because it all ended the way it did.

I play these games to fix the mistakes. I know it's not entirely real, but if I have a scenario where John Wayne's character becomes the officer in the bunker (somewhere along the US east coast instead of Normandy), yelling about how Germany seems to have the 5k ships "everybody knew they couldn't have". I'm happy. I've done my job.

"On to the Mississippi!"
-FM Erwin Rommel July 4, 1945 Just after flag-raising ceremony at the White House, Washington D.C

 

[Krafty]

No

No

No

If your going to post things as if they are facts please either research them more or be more specific about what you mean.

Yup. Every single one of those are easily verified.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-aircraft-carriers-did-the-USA-build-during-World-War-2

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/05/michigan_honors_10_facts_about.html

https://news.usni.org/2014/08/18/sunk-sold-scraped-saved-fate-americas-aircraft-carriers

Including escort carriers, the US was turning out something that could launch planes at sea every 7 days. Theyd finish another 8 CVs in 1946 if the war didnt end, along with the CVEs and CVLs. Only 4 were finished.

Its absolutely mathematically impossible for the US to lose a naval war of attrition against the Axis even if they owned the UK and the USSR, in the timeframe of the game in real life.

Ontop of this, we were pumping out every other type of ship, and supply england with thousands of ships.

Ontop of giving more Trucks to the soviets than the entire Axis would ever produce until the 50s.

Oh and 55,000 tanks.

11 million men in the army...16 million total service members..

Im not seeing a scenario where the US is successfully invaded other than in someones dreams.

When comparing US production and manpower, the two most important factors in world war two with regards to winning the war, I dont see how you get across the Atlantic or Pacific with enough men to conquer the US.

The US was having a heck of a time trying to figure out how to get 800k men on to the shores of Japan, and wasnt sure it could be done for years after the war actually ended, and doubted that would be enough to actually conquer Japan's home islands in a reasonable amount of time with less than a million casualties.

There is absolutely no way that the Axis who had basically ZERO force projection around the world unless the target was across the med or channel, and even then failed miserably at both, invades the US.

Japan had enough problems invading the Indies and Philippines against relatively no resistance.

Taking Corregidor was a nightmare for the Japanese and we didnt even have AT to fight their light tanks.

How a bunch of Chi Nus land in LA and roll down Hollywood Blvd is beyond me.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Yup. Every single one of those are easily verified.

In that case your verification is very sloppy.

Could you please show us a picture of how an escort carrier that can carry 90 airplanes looked like, or how Detroit managed to outproduce all of the Axis in for example ship production?

 

[Krafty]

In that case your verification is very sloppy.

Could you please show us a picture of how an escort carrier that can carry 90 airplanes looked like, or how Detroit managed to outproduce all of the Axis in for example ship production?

Ah you read that wrong or I typed it wrong, 160 carriers, including escort carries, 24 of which were Essex class that could carry 90 or more planes. Six were cancelled before construction in 1946, two under construction, along with 46 more CVLs and CVEs that could carry 12-60 planes depending on the class. Some of which were planned conversions. That were all cancelled.

As for Detroit, Chrysler alone produced 25,000 tanks, half of all the tanks every built by Germany, total production by Detroit is at 61,000, out of 90,000, vs 50,000 for Germany. Add in the rest of the Axis you still dont get to 61,000.

It produced 200,000 mobile units and half a million trucks. 4 million engines. More engines than the entire Axis alliance produced.

It produced 120,000 artillery pieces, while Germany produced only 159,000, however, Detroit started in 42 and Germany started in 39.

http://wwii.detroithistorical.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/War_Productsv2.pdf

So keep in mind, Detroit was THREE YEARS behind Germany, and still outproduced it in most areas. Including the rest of the Axis, including Japan.

Meanwhile, there were 17 other major production centers in America, besides the dock facilities churning out thousands of ships a year.

Given even no production efficiency increase between 45 and 46, Detroit was smashing the entire Axis production base, and going into 47, or 48, it just gets worse, and Detroit is producing considerably more per year.

US War production didnt really kick off until mid 41 and wasnt tooled up until 43. After that...it went to space....

 

[Alex_brunius]

Another fun "fact" of yours.

- The US could finish a Submarine every 17 hours

So this means they would build 515 submarines per year? No, not even close.

During the entire war they built a grand total of 273 submarines (including 28 of which were cancelled) according to this source:

http://shipbuildinghistory.com/navalships/submarines2.htm

As for Detroit, Chrysler alone produced 25,000 tanks, half of all the tanks every built by Germany

How did "half of all the tanks built by Germany" become more then the entire Axis I wonder? And surely all Axis minors + Japan + Italy must have managed to build more then 11000 tanks combined?

 

[Krafty]

Another fun "fact" of yours.



So this means they would build 515 submarines per year? No, not even close.

During the entire war they built a grand total of 273 submarines (including 28 of which were cancelled) according to this source:

http://shipbuildinghistory.com/navalships/submarines2.htm

https://www.quora.com/How-much-did-it-cost-to-build-a-U-boat-during-WW2

By extrapolating cost, tonnage produced, workers needed, materials needed, and dockyard production, the US COULD finish a submarine every 17 hours, if its costs and labor inputs were comparable to Uboats, which sadly, I cant find information on exact costs of US submarines, but simple math shows the US capable of producing around 519 Submarines in a year, without drastically impacting other areas of production, and siphoning a small amount from different classes.

Thats half of the entire production of German uboats during the entire war and prewar period, in a year.

If the US had a need for Subs, and was seriously threatened with an invasion that took the allies and US 3 solid years to plan and execute, it could have over 1500 submarines in the water by the time that invasion was ready.

And thats without adding in any esoteric, though id argue real, see: The Soviet Union, effect on production from having a truly threatened homeland.

The basic fact is that the Axis was outproduced by LEAPS AND BOUNDS and was never in a political or economic situation to match US production, let alone Soviet production, OR manpower, OR shipping, making an invasion, completely impossible.

Germany was still using a Contract System to develop new technologies and prototypes, even though Hitler mingled in these from time to time, whereas the Soviet Union had given total control to its design bureaus. While profts from a company like Messerschmidt went to "The Party" it wasnt a truly nationalized industry. Shipping was even LESS controlled by the Nazi Party, still operating as a private industry, that produced very slowly and inefficiently, and competed with each other over captured assets like what few French dockyards remained.

Where as in America, while saying industries werent nationalized, many industries were essentially nationalized where a Bidding System created competition to build the cheapest and easier produced material that met qualifications set forth by congress and the joint chiefs of staff, was in place. Huge sums of government money went into transforming places like Detroit into industrial centers for war material production.

Money that the Axis didnt have, and couldnt print, without risking a total economic collapse.

Theres no scenario where they can out produce the US.

 

[Alex_brunius]

if its costs and labor inputs were comparable to Uboats, which sadly, I cant find information on exact costs of US submarines

"but simple math shows the US capable of ..."

None of your links or your posts contain any such "simple maths". Why do you keep posting unverified and unscientific opinions of yours as if they were fact?

 

[Krafty]

Because they ARE facts, whether or not you want to agree with them.

I can sit here for the next 80 days teaching you I guess, its kind of hard to unfold 30 years of knowledge in a forum in 15 minutes.

The US defense budget was, in 1996 dollars, 962 billion, of which 35% roughly went to naval production, with German Uboats at a median of 3 million, adjusted to 7.1 million for inflation in the same ratio to match 1996 dollars, thats oh 47,422 Submarines.

So we know they can afford them.

Then its simply a matter of how many dockyard could build subs were available, how many workers, and how much material, since clearly the US could afford a near infinite amount of Submarines.

That comes out to 519.

Leaving you with still, an absolutely fantastical amount of money, material, workers, and dockspace for other ships.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Because they ARE facts, whether or not you want to agree with them.

If USA wanted to build 1500 submarines it would come at a steep price. Just using the simple $ cost of them (your own $3 million) the bill would land at around 375 escort Carriers or 45 Iowa class Battleships.

That's not really "without drastically impacting other areas of production"... ( to be clear about which of your opinions which I refute here, because it's a mess of many opinions, some of them more right then others )


To claim that USA could realistically have build 47422 submarines and that the defense budget in 1996 dollars somehow has anything to do with WW2 ship production to do proves how little you know what your talking about perfectly.

 

[Krafty]

Of course they cant build that many, nor did I say so. Thats how many they could afford. The could build, 519.

Is there a language barrier? Because I said that clearly imho.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Shipbuilding_program#The_program_grows_as_war_nears

The cost of most ships is not hard to look up, though I dont have the time nor the inclination do all of this a second time for one persons benefit. Maybe youll pay me?

But looking at the ratio of increase, the cost of ships produced, and the available funding of the US, along with total shipbuilding capabilities, workers and materials available to actually build them, the US was looking at around 1700 ships being finished in 1946. This included 8 more Essex Class carriers at 68 million a piece thing, or around 1 billion in 2011 dollors, or around 918 million in 1996 dollars.

Lets cut out two of those.

That leaves us with around 136 million to use on subs. Clearly the subs cost less material, take less workers to build. The real bottleneck isnt cost, its space. Space to produce them.

So if youll glance down to the bottom you'll get a very basic listing of companies, locations, and slipways.

Im absolutely confident if you run the math yourself, youll come to the same conclusion I have.

 

[Rommel41]

I really think people forget that Germany was not on a full war economy until 1942 and that, overall, their industries were severely hampered by the US strategic air campaign.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombing_Survey

If you add in the UK and Afro-Asia (not just Russia's) industrial base and present them as early total-war footing (like players represent for Germany,) Germany can become the mythical giant that American propagandists predicted at the time.

 

[Alex_brunius]

That leaves us with around 136 million to use on subs.

I still don't follow how you get 515 submarines per year at $3 million a piece from 136 millions.

So if youll glance down to the bottom you'll get a very basic listing of companies, locations, and slipways.

For civilian cargo shipyards yes... not in any way shape or form related to submarine production.

Instead of skipping directly to the bottom perhaps you should start with reading the first line of your own link?

"The Emergency Shipbuilding Program (late 1940-September 1945) was a United States government effort to quickly build simple cargo ships to carry troops and material to allies and foreign theatres during World War II."

Maybe youll pay me?

Making yourself look like a fool is free

Theres no scenario where they can out produce the US.

There is many scenarios where the Axis can outproduce the USA. Mainly a scenario where the Axis never attacks them directly which means USA has to declare and initiate an overseas war which very few of their voters want, and that any president or congressman that approves lots of military funding quickly has too look around for another job.

If you want to see how great fighting an unpopular overseas war went for USA you can look at Vietnam.

 

[Krafty]

How does Hitler switch to that footing and retain political power?

US production methods placed real hardship on skilled laborers and their families through scrap drives, empty store shelves, union riots, etc. We did that because "there was a war to win we didnt start". We had an emotional reason to tolerate that kind of hardship and re elect our leadership, we certainly were not going to throw off democracy as a whole and try a "new way" because of some hardship.

Germany was a different beast. After the depression hit them extremely hard, Hitler rose to power via a populist message of restoring the armed forces and improving the lives of German Workers.

I mean...they were the German workers party.

If German workers started having hardships right at the start of the war, or in a war they were WINNING, I dont think that faired well for Hitler, who was already as early as 1938, having people plotting to kill him and over throw him. See: Wilhelm Canaris and the Abwehr.

Hitler barely had a grasp on his country and his economy. If he started putting hardships on German workers to achieve the kind of production the US did, I dont think the Workers Party would have been Partying till the AM if you know what I mean.

It was implicit that Hitler keep "life a cabaret" for Germans, and thats why it took him so long to mobilize labor and the economy in the first place. He realistically couldnt have done it any sooner. It was a political imperative to NOT have scrap drives, or rationing, or hire unskilled laborers to replace skilled laborers, or create competition among work forces, lower workers rights, bring in women and minorities, etc. Hitler COULDNT do those things. It would have been political suicide at a point where ACTUAL suicide was what political suicide meant.

 

[Krafty]

I still don't follow how you get 515 submarines per year at $3 million a piece from 136 millions.



Making yourself look like a fool is free



There is many scenarios where the Axis can outproduce the USA. Mainly a scenario where the Axis never attacks them directly which means USA has to declare and initiate an overseas war which very few of their voters want, and that any president or congressman that approves lots of military funding quickly has too look around for another job.

If you want to see how great fighting an unpopular overseas war went for USA you can look at Vietnam.

Well nothing was going to stop Japan from attacking Pearl Harbor. Everyone with a strong grasp on reality told them not to. Germany. Yamamoto. Etc. Despite all rational advice, they did it anyways. Thats not a historical hinge. That was happening no matter what. We cut off their oil, they were going to die as an empire. There was no other option.

As for the equation, start taking away other ships from the 1700 we were going to produce.

I cant hold your hand through this entire thing.

Ask yourself these questions, could the United States:

Afford it
Have space to build it
Have workers to build it
Have materials to build it

The answer to those is all yes. As I showed you. You are being obtuse for whatever reason.

I guess you're having a problem with a realistic hypothetical?

Your contention is that the US couldnt build 519 Submarines in a year. At a cost of only 3 billion, or around 3.3% of the entire defense budget, a return time of 49 days, and using only one slip way and 1200 workers, the US could build 519 subs in one year.

I showed you everything you need to double check me.

If you're not going to ... well...then what are you complaining about?

You have yet to do anything to actually refute it other than just say its not true, while I post a litany of facts and figures.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Well nothing was going to stop Japan from attacking Pearl Harbor.

Again with your opinions stated as facts. Sorry I can't take this any more.

 

[Rommel41]

I like how you think the plots to kill Hitler started in 1938.

Anyway. Thank God this game transcends the minutia of what exactly the tipping point for a tyrannical dictator's hold on power is.

I mean. How would things play out if the Allies always stop Germany at the Rhineland?