Ok, so they had the numbers of reservists. 50 divisions, most of which were second-grade. Enough to defeat anyone who could land in CONUS, at that time.
The United States should be nearly impossible to conquer
- Thread starter sepoquro
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Even though I agree on most of things you said I can't find any evidence that:
1) In "1936 the US has over 50 divisions it could mobilize quickly"
2) Those divisions/units were at the level of regular divisions or made of untrained poorly armed soldiers.
Do you mind, please, to post some references?
Even if they were second grade they could defeat any other troops who landed. Who had a large regular land force that could be brought to bear in its entirety? Nobody. Who had large enough navy to possibly defeat the USN? The UK. Could they conduct an amphibious invasion even if this was the case? No. Even if by some miracle they can, how many divisions could they land? If they magically increase their amphibious invasion capacity (which in 1936 was practically zero), maybe a few divisions. Also remember in 1936 (even 1939) most people had WWI weaponry or something close to it, so that's really irrelevant in this case. Even though the NG divisions are reservists they are well-trained for reservists (especially at this time, where many of these reservists saw combat in France during WWI), and they have regular army divisions. Enough to easily destroy any force that magically lands.
Organized Reserve divisions are the type of "reservists" that you probably have in mind.
Referenced here:
As for their training, the 14 regular army divisions alone could utterly destroy any forces that miraculously managed to find their way ashore, many of the reservists in the NG divisions had seen combat and all reservists trained regularly (it's not like they sit there until called upon, NG divisions are required to train periodically throughout the year).
As for the equipment, they had standard armament for the time. Most divisions (including UK divisions) were armed mainly with WWI and interwar era weaponry into 1940. Were these divisions poorly armed by 1941 standards or even 1939 German or French standards? Sure, but Germany or France isn't getting close to the coastline, and even then they would be overwhelmed by superior numbers.
Basically to address the reservist point, OR divisions operate much more like traditional reservists, while NG divisions are kind of a mix of regular and reservist divisions. They are made up of "reservists," but these reservists train regularly with the same equipment the regulars use. They just aren't constantly on active duty.
And as I had said, USA army was practically non-existent. It had no money nor leadership to improve itself. It was scattered, obsolete and just skeleton of an army. Pretension and illusion than anything else.
''The National Defense Act of 1920 authorized a Regular Army of 296,000 men, but Congress gradually backed away from that number. As with the Regular Army, the national guard never recruited its authorized 486,000 men, and the organized reserves became merely a pool of reserve officers. The root of the Army's problem was money. Congress yearly appropriated only about half the funds that the General Staff requested. Impoverished in manpower and funds, infantry and cavalry divisions dwindled to skeletal organizations.''
-Wikipedia. It's spectacularly difficult to find information on USA for interwar period. It seems that you do not want to talk about it.
Airforce was similarly pitiful state, lucky not to fall apart. The only thing which USA had was its navy and it also was not spectacular. While it was roughly equal to UK, it was dispersed and thus it could be isolated and destroyed like Japan did and could have done.
If you think that nobody would plausibly attack USA then stop commenting under this threat. No foe would plausibly try to invade USA, I though this was obvious.
Coastal defenses are only good then supported. En mass invasion would destroy entrenchments easily enough. If not, just land nearby and let infantry capture those targets. In addition, mass landing of soldiers will be done by merchant ships of course. Initial landing force is required only to capture ports and from there, military equipment and units could be unloaded. You seem to be under illusion that USA invasion would be from coast to coast, swarming with dozens of thousands of landing ships, thousands of planes attacking and hundreds of various major combat vessels. This might had been true in 1945, but in 1939 situation was completely different.
Well, major industry centers tend to be at the coast due to export and imports. In addition, it's preferable place to start growing. Seeing as major USA cities are at the coast, it's not hard to figure out that those cities should be major centers of industry. And for a last time, submarines are only good then you have massive supply lines. Invasion of USA won't require that. Just put local industry to work. Or even better, assault every harbor in USA and this is it. In a year you completely destroy any chance for USA to strike back at you seriously since it won't have its ports. Where do you think those submarines will go? Their options will be fatally limited and thus we could contain them and force them to retreat or attack.
- 3
but thats about par for the course for most countries at the time thought.
- 1
Yes, but we are talking about fictional scenario and thus we must give one side advantage of preparing for war. We assume that British or entire Axis falls upon USA shores. If Brits decide to invade, they would certainly beef up its military by then. British army had problems with its land force, it's main strength would be navy and concentration of forces. USA needs to split its forces across entire nation, which means that UK have a free reign over USA for a while. Germany on the other hand could offer up to 4 million troops in 1939, but would lack navy to secure landing on USA beaches. Soviets were far to backwards back then and Stalin was one of major causes of that. It became capable fighting force in 1942 or 1943. If we take allies as they were like French and British, we stand better chance then. Or even better, Germany, Italy, Japan, but in this case we need to agree on which scenario we are talking about. It would differ a lot from catching nation off guard and to fighting greatest war in humanity's history...ever.
As I said, the art is not in defeating USA if it's caught by surprise. Art is at pretending that you are greater foe than you actually are and dividing USA. Forcing it to accept strategically crippling peace agreements which would occupy them for decades to come. Destroying USA was very similar like Hitler's attempt to destroy USSR. His intuition was fantastic and he got very lucky to get as far as he got. In reality, it would had been a terrible grind from a day 1. Heck, even collapsing Red army managed to inflict about 23% looses on the Germans and to dry up its reserves before most important battles.
As I said, the art is not in defeating USA if it's caught by surprise. Art is at pretending that you are greater foe than you actually are and dividing USA. Forcing it to accept strategically crippling peace agreements which would occupy them for decades to come. Destroying USA was very similar like Hitler's attempt to destroy USSR. His intuition was fantastic and he got very lucky to get as far as he got. In reality, it would had been a terrible grind from a day 1. Heck, even collapsing Red army managed to inflict about 23% looses on the Germans and to dry up its reserves before most important battles.
Last edited:
- 2
Japan barely touched a fraction of the USN other than battleships at Pearl Harbor, and most of those were repaired rather quickly. I find it funny that you continue to make these absurd statements without any facts to back them up.
No. Look at the thread title. I'm arguing "yes" to that proposition.
How many men? With what ships? In what year? Supported by what? Where will these people be supplied from assuming they even get ashore?
Tell that to the guys that captured Cherbourg lol. They didn't finish fixing the harbor until August 1944. And how will these ships get there without being sunk?
Name one amphibious invasion that happened like this.
We're talking about 1939? The US was in much better shape then, I thought we were talking about 1936 lol. Maybe you shouldn't cite Wikipedia sources on 1920 forces when we're talking about 1939 forces
This is a joke, right? First off, which coast? The US has 3. Second, Chicago is on the ocean? Pittsburgh? Cleveland? Cincinnati? Detroit? These are all major industrial centers. Your lack of knowledge is astounding, really. Even the German industry wasn't on the coast, it was in the Ruhr valley. Soviet industry was far inland as well.
This is a joke, right? Just like how the Germans were able to put Russian industry to work building T-34s?
Where will the food come from? Ammo? Equipment? Unless you capture a port with your small landing force that apparently went totally unnoticed and captured a major US port with no resistance (note the absurdity here), your men will starve.Again, name me one amphibious invasion (or invasion of any type for that matter) where the initial beachheads had enough farms, industry, workers, and machinery to manufacture equipment, weapons, ammunition, and food to sustain an invasion force. I'll save you some time: there isn't one.
Please do tell, how will this happen? Even with the entire combined might of the world at your disposal, there is not enough amphibious capacity to assault every single US port in 1939. The largest amphibious operation ever conducted assaulted a small strip of beaches in Normandy with several divisions, and that was in 1944!
Seriously. This is beyond absurd.
Look, you're honestly embarrassing yourself at this point. You've made utterly outlandish claims with zero evidence to back you up. You wave your hand and say "capture ALL the ports!" without providing any sort of plan as to how that can be done. Pure rubbish.
Until you actually provide any (and I mean any) sources, evidence, or even plausible plans rooted in real capabilities, you're just talking to yourself in magic fairy land.
- 6
Say in 1940 with the fall of France imagine the whole French Navy was captured, this along with the Italians would give the Axis control of the waves and say they successfuly invaded Great Britain. Then assume the whole Royal Navy was also captured. This would give the Axis along with Japan control over the Seven Seas. A full scale invasion of America would never have happened and wouldn't need to. But in this scenario America really would have been screwed.
- 1
Also a fun way to screw the Americans could have been to scuttle cargo ships in the Deleware and in Norfolk to trap most of the American Atlantic Fleet in harbor for some time on the on set of war
Last edited:
No country should be "nearly impossible" to conquer, depending on who you're playing US could be anything from averagely hard to extremely hard to conquer, it's just a matter of organization, numbers, equipment and of course logistics
In the context to the game, the question how difficult it should be to invade the US is directly tied into what constituates a victory.
I am not even sure, if the sandbox-mode should even feature a game-sanctioned ´victory´. Sure: The AI needs some goals, but the human player(s) is (are) supposed to set his (their) own in a sandbox (kind of by -an albeit tight- definition). Therefore invading the US may be next to impossible - if only to provide a possible goal for very skilled players.
For ´historic´-mode the conditions of victory should simply not include an invasion of the USA for anyone. It´s so far out of realsitic possibilities for the timeline in question, that it simply cannot serve as a goal for a gamemode that´s called ´historical´. I would tend to think, that the more generic and dynamic nature of the faction-system (in-gane faction-forming!) also means very generic victory conditions, as in, for example, a simple tally of victory points at the game´s enddate (something like: VP held by yourself count as one, while those held by other members of your faction count half towards your country or whatnot, maybe with a fixed bonus for each member of the faction with the 1st, 2nd... most points, so that in the end we have a ranking of factions with a strong impact on a seperate ranking of nations). So an invasion of the US - if it turns out to be possible due to special circumstances in the game - would go a long way towards victory for any opposing faction and country, but it should not be a requirement for it, if the needed vicotry points can be gained (and held) elsewhere, which would seem most likely in a ´historic´ game, outside an AFK-US-player.
TLDR: If victory conditions are set up alright, there is no reason to nerf the US to the point of being invadable, any half-way competent US-player provided.
EDIT: And think about it: If you are going to change game-mechanics (the only other way of making it possible outside a massive nerf to the US), then, most likely, also any other invasion will become unrealistically easy. One common major complaint about HoI3 was that invasions were too easy (hence the ´thick´ channel between england and france)...
I am not even sure, if the sandbox-mode should even feature a game-sanctioned ´victory´. Sure: The AI needs some goals, but the human player(s) is (are) supposed to set his (their) own in a sandbox (kind of by -an albeit tight- definition). Therefore invading the US may be next to impossible - if only to provide a possible goal for very skilled players.
For ´historic´-mode the conditions of victory should simply not include an invasion of the USA for anyone. It´s so far out of realsitic possibilities for the timeline in question, that it simply cannot serve as a goal for a gamemode that´s called ´historical´. I would tend to think, that the more generic and dynamic nature of the faction-system (in-gane faction-forming!) also means very generic victory conditions, as in, for example, a simple tally of victory points at the game´s enddate (something like: VP held by yourself count as one, while those held by other members of your faction count half towards your country or whatnot, maybe with a fixed bonus for each member of the faction with the 1st, 2nd... most points, so that in the end we have a ranking of factions with a strong impact on a seperate ranking of nations). So an invasion of the US - if it turns out to be possible due to special circumstances in the game - would go a long way towards victory for any opposing faction and country, but it should not be a requirement for it, if the needed vicotry points can be gained (and held) elsewhere, which would seem most likely in a ´historic´ game, outside an AFK-US-player.
TLDR: If victory conditions are set up alright, there is no reason to nerf the US to the point of being invadable, any half-way competent US-player provided.
EDIT: And think about it: If you are going to change game-mechanics (the only other way of making it possible outside a massive nerf to the US), then, most likely, also any other invasion will become unrealistically easy. One common major complaint about HoI3 was that invasions were too easy (hence the ´thick´ channel between england and france)...
Last edited:
- 1
Japan barely touched a fraction of the USN other than battleships at Pearl Harbor, and most of those were repaired rather quickly. I find it funny that you continue to make these absurd statements without any facts to back them up.
No. Look at the thread title. I'm arguing "yes" to that proposition.
How many men? With what ships? In what year? Supported by what? Where will these people be supplied from assuming they even get ashore?
Tell that to the guys that captured Cherbourg lol. They didn't finish fixing the harbor until August 1944. And how will these ships get there without being sunk?
Name one amphibious invasion that happened like this.
We're talking about 1939? The US was in much better shape then, I thought we were talking about 1936 lol. Maybe you shouldn't cite Wikipedia sources on 1920 forces when we're talking about 1939 forces
This is a joke, right? First off, which coast? The US has 3. Second, Chicago is on the ocean? Pittsburgh? Cleveland? Cincinnati? Detroit? These are all major industrial centers. Your lack of knowledge is astounding, really. Even the German industry wasn't on the coast, it was in the Ruhr valley. Soviet industry was far inland as well.
This is a joke, right? Just like how the Germans were able to put Russian industry to work building T-34s?
Again, name me one amphibious invasion (or invasion of any type for that matter) where the initial beachheads had enough farms, industry, workers, and machinery to manufacture equipment, weapons, ammunition, and food to sustain an invasion force. I'll save you some time: there isn't one.
Please do tell, how will this happen? Even with the entire combined might of the world at your disposal, there is not enough amphibious capacity to assault every single US port in 1939. The largest amphibious operation ever conducted assaulted a small strip of beaches in Normandy with several divisions, and that was in 1944!
Seriously. This is beyond absurd.
Look, you're honestly embarrassing yourself at this point. You've made utterly outlandish claims with zero evidence to back you up. You wave your hand and say "capture ALL the ports!" without providing any sort of plan as to how that can be done. Pure rubbish.
Until you actually provide any (and I mean any) sources, evidence, or even plausible plans rooted in real capabilities, you're just talking to yourself in magic fairy land.
I did posted numbers for you. USA had terrible army, underfunded and extremely small by international standards. You can stick fingers to your ear and shout that you want, but I did provided info on that and it does say that army and avation was heavily underfuned, obsolete and chattered. Defeating USA navy is the only thing that matters and Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor did exactly that even if it was 2 years late. Personally, I do not know to that absuridity do you want me proving things to you? Are your blind patriotism blinds you to the fact that Pearl Harbor essentially allowed small island nation to dictate war for USA for half a year or so? Even more, to quite possibly win it?
Land invasion is of course done with landing craft, tanks and hundreds of infantry. From then, you can use merchant shipping to transport men and material over seas. That's so hard to grasp about that? Normandy landings were done in similar fashion. You get coast on which you can deploy and from there you spill out. If a fort is too heavily fortified like you mentioned, then go around it. Attack from different direction from which they do not expect.
In addition, which scenario you want to talk about specifically? 1939 UK vs USA is completely different than Japan vs USA in 1942.
USA build up started at 1939, but it's still was nothing compared to that it grew to be later or was any major threat to competent force. Maybe instead of arguing on useless little details you should just admit the fact that you are running from?
I'm also surprised at how shocked you are that maritime powers focus their industries at the coast. China does that. Japan does that. Even in India, you could capture tons of GDP just by taking coasts. Russia and Germany on the other hand is not maritime powers. Heck, Russia and Germany for a long time did not even were countries, so there was little choice of city development and possibilities for it.
Using civilian factories for your own goals was done widely by Germany, Japanese and any other force really which had to stay and occupy the zone. Allies did not needed that, because their war was short and second, they were liberating France. In addition, supplies are not just planes and tanks. They are food, ammo, trucks, spare parts. Any industry which falls into our hands can be quickly turned to produce goods for local troops thus considerably decreasing supply chain. That's left is finished products from homeland to be sent with escorts like planes, tanks. In addition, you in the port god damn it. City who is full of goodies to requisition. Just take private business and government's property for your own consumption. Problem solved, I'm a genius!
Look, take a deep breath and decide that you want to talk about. Capturing USA cities is quite easy task since they will not be heavily defended. You deal with garrisons and that's it. Or even more, you just send troops there before the war and then time comes, they just capture city from within. How many men would be required for such a task? Millions. That force had that potential? UK mainly due to its navy primary, but Germany + Japan could already accomplish such a task if their goals and environment would be different. Lets say, from fighting with Soviet union going for USA. Or after Germany uniting Europe, entire Europe is going to attack USA. There are many scenarios, in late war situation would be as you had described, but in interwar period, USA is a pushover.
In the end, why you are even here? You are talking about invasion of USA as it would had been a real thing. Nobody ever planned such a thing, so nobody prepared for it. Political goals and moves were different, nations focused on different fronts. If we are talking about invading USA, we must base it partly on fictional scenario on which you cannot make your mind.
You know, you sound a lot like Brits before WW2. Arrogant, proud, stuck, close-minded. Fortunately Axis proved how wrong they were. I especially liked how at Singapore Brits were humiliated by tactics which are still completely alien to this forum. Speed and surprise, essential virtues for war for some nations are completely ignored here. This brings me back to Sun Tzu since I finally can understand his saying. It's not a mastery of war to fight and win against the enemy. The true mastery comes from then you defeat your foe without even fighting.
- 7
Well, USA needed nerfs before too and only in HoI4 nations are properly portrayed. Before USA could build up like crazy even if it was unrealistic, but now it will be restricted by its policies and stances. USA should be allowed to build up only then war starts at 1939 with world tension rise and at limited pace and only being capable to fully mobilize for war in 1942 or Pearl Harbor event. I have hope that HoI4 will finally balance nations accordingly to its historical settings and we wont have super strong Germany, USSR, USA if they are controlled by human player.
@Ernestas a simple perusal of http://www.history.army.mil/books/amh-v2/amh v2/chapter2.htm which is a .mil site mind you shows that from 1921 to 1936 the army was about 150K plus 7000 in the Philippines. That's the regular army minus national guard and or. So please tell me how that is under strength for the time? and as was pointed out no one could launch the kind of amphibious operation your implying they could in 1936 it is beyond the realm of possibility to move that many troops across the ocean.
You say the Japanese defeated the US navy at pearl harbor? No they didn't even come close, they have knocked the US on the defensive but that's about it. and that was for something like 6 months before Coral sea and midway, when the US hammered the Japanese so horribly they didn't recover from it. Look at the difference in caliber of Japanese pilots from coral sea and midway to later in the war. The US only spent 20% of all the war supplies it produced to defeat the Japanese empire, the other 80% went towards Europe.
Well England and japan have a lot of coastal production, and major industry in coastal regions, maybe its because there island nations, hmm.... American production has been centered around the great lakes and Pennsylvania due to an abundance of coal and steel in the region. well there were most certainly other production regions those were the biggest.
And you honestly think an invading force could turn the factories around and produce the goods necessary to drive there own supplies you have completely gone off the rails. One were are you getting the raw materials to produce? workers? and as you are acquiring what you need by force majeur you think the civilian population is going to sit ideally by?
and i found plenty on the interwar American army from the above link.
You say the Japanese defeated the US navy at pearl harbor? No they didn't even come close, they have knocked the US on the defensive but that's about it. and that was for something like 6 months before Coral sea and midway, when the US hammered the Japanese so horribly they didn't recover from it. Look at the difference in caliber of Japanese pilots from coral sea and midway to later in the war. The US only spent 20% of all the war supplies it produced to defeat the Japanese empire, the other 80% went towards Europe.
Well England and japan have a lot of coastal production, and major industry in coastal regions, maybe its because there island nations, hmm.... American production has been centered around the great lakes and Pennsylvania due to an abundance of coal and steel in the region. well there were most certainly other production regions those were the biggest.
And you honestly think an invading force could turn the factories around and produce the goods necessary to drive there own supplies you have completely gone off the rails. One were are you getting the raw materials to produce? workers? and as you are acquiring what you need by force majeur you think the civilian population is going to sit ideally by?
and i found plenty on the interwar American army from the above link.
- 6
I can't understand all this discussion. In order to defeat a country it is not necessary to invade it. For example the USA made a draw in Korea and was beaten in Vietnam.
I agree normally you are correct, but the HOI games almost made it mandatory to invade USA to win the war, short of that you couldnt knock them out of the war, even after dropping Nukes on them In HOI3 they still wouldnt surrender. I hope they work on that mechanic, i mean i had all of the english isle's and england still refused to surrender
This is what I said in a earlier post: the game should be able to stop the fight after a certain level of losses. A war in Europe or in Asia for Americans cannot be understood (and vice versa) as it is too far away. Instead I am pretty sure that a foreign invasion would be very easily understood and fought until the last stance.
im not sure why it would crash, but its a book written on the history of the army by the army hence the .mil prefix
You are making several wrong assumptions about this plan:
1) I'm not planning to place million men in landing crafts. They will be transported via merchant shipping and any other ship over time as reserves and reinforcements. Initial invasion force would require only to secure any harbor in which ships could disembark its cargo. It's quite easy to do so with USA since it has shitloads of harbors. If one is too defended, just land nearby and attack via land.
2) No military on the planet actually think about invading USA. They were not preparing for it nor they put themselves politically to do so. In order to even consider such situation, we must use fictional scenario. With Axis ruling entire Europe, it's rather apocalyptic battles, before WW2 it's test of speed, surprise and cunning. You have to use shock and awe in order to make impression about yourself greater than reality and to force USA to sign peace treaty. Preferably with occupied zones becoming puppets thus enabling further conquest of USA later down the line with its own hands.
3) I said that Japanese got free reign to act. This means that USA was unable to act and was forced to respond. Japanese had an initiative to force terms of battle to USA. This means that it had initiative and USA was not strong enough to pick a fight themselves. Furthermore, midway could have as well ended in USA loss, luck and Japanese incompetence played quite a part of it. If Japanese would had been more aggressive and decisive, damage done to USA would had been far greater and cost of defeating Japan would grow significantly.
You have illusions that civilian population would go into open revolt then enemy would capture one of its cities. There was nothing to indicate that USA civilians would fight more actively than ones of any other nation. It would be business as usual for most of them. From German experience, you can see that turning local industry to work for you is an easy matter, the most difficult would be imports of production materials. For some time you can consume local goods, but importing essentials is tricky matter. It largely depends on USA submarines capability to intercept trade routes. This is why one of very favorable invasion directions are to those lakes, to take out USA automobile industry and basic materials.
You forget that China and India for some reason has significant part of its production on the shores? How about that?
Last edited:
- 1
- Status