The United States should be nearly impossible to conquer

[Opanashc]

Question - how much does knowing how to drive a tractor/shoot a gun help create effective units?
Does driving a tractor help shoot a gun from the tank? No.
Does knowing how to shoot a gun help in knowing how to defend against an artillery barrage? No.
Do any of those things help in knowing how to organize a battalion-size assault on the enemy? No.
How to fly a combat plane? No.
How to use a mortar or artillery gun? No.
How many soldiers in WW2 died of rifle fire, vs everything else?
All it does, is help shorten the training cycle by about 2 weeks for basic infantryman and tank driver, that's it. It matters little how well you shoot - organization trumps quality, everything else being equal. Try shooting after running for a 500m at full sprint when your breathing is jacked up, when you are trembling with fear under artillery barrage, when you don't have time to aim, because the enemy is shooting back! Those "hicks with guns" didn't have targets that fired back.
Sure, they can shoot better - on the range. They would do well in ambushing, but not in a stand-up fight, when the enemy KNOWS they are there.

 

[Thanik]

So I see no reason to play a game, when everything is nearly impossible (beating USA, Soviet, China, UK, nuke technology) for Axis, and everything is possible for Allies.

 

[phantomrider]

So I see no reason to play a game, when everything is nearly impossible (beating USA, Soviet, China, UK, nuke technology) for Axis, and everything is possible for Allies.

We shall see in HOI4, but in HOI 3, beating the Soviets was If not totally easy it was unrealistically so. Similarly, invading England was also too "easy". Nuclear technology in HOI3 for Germany was possible (maybe too easy also) and we shall see about HOI4. Part of the potential "fun" of these games in single player mode is to see if you can do better for your chosen country than they did historically and you do not have to conquer the whole world in 2 years as Albania to make that claim. The more "realistic" the challenge the better.

 

[Harrigarno]

There is a 'was sealion possible' thread in which no one could find a good reason for sealion to have worked

In the timeframe (September 1940) there was a slim chance it would have worked, but a year later, even less, as long as they didn't attack the Soviets, they would have had greater odds. German pilots were very good, many having gained battle experience from the Spanish Civil War to the Norwegian Occupation, flying what was arguably the best fighter aircraft up to that time, the ME 109. If they secured air superiority during the Battle of Britain, all Axis bomber pilots needed was better training in bombing naval targets and you are looking at a very good possibility that with continued blockade of the UK Operation Sealion would have been launched regardless of the outcome, but we are not taking into account the leadership qualities of Hitler, who kept changing tacts and started Operation Barbarossa and switched the Luftwaffe's target to bombing civilian targets in Britain and not in gaining full air superiority.

But this is alternate history, this is why we shouldn't be arguing about the feasibility of a military operation, because frankly we don't know, you can "what-if" all day but that's all it's going to be, "what-if". There is always a chance you will be wrong.

 

[ringhloth]

The United States is massive, and unless Canada is doing the invading, there would need to be a massive naval convoy system in place to supply the troops (and even then there would sitll need to be significant naval convoys resupplying the millions of men garrisoning the country. Hell, they would probably need 10-15x the amount of fuel going to the convoys, land and sea, than what the army itself needed, and the army would still find itself poorly supplied and constantly harangued by partisons. The railroad system in the United States was much more sparse than the railroad system in Europe, too, especially in the west, so the vast majority of the troops would need to be supplied by an enormous amount of trucks. Yes, the United States could be conquered. By a coalition of every major power in the entire world, and they would have a devil of a time of it.

 

[ggsimmonds]

Impossible?
Germany wins in europe, japan in pacific, argentina and brasil get pulled into axis. Germany invades thru canada on the east coast, japan from alasca and west coast, argentina and brasil from panama/south (with enough lendlease of weapons fron ger.)... now tell me america stronk gets away with that scenario... (extremely unlikely to achieve, but possible)

Just like in games, in RL everything is/was possible at some point! If someone tells you anything different, hes lying to you bro !

This would require the US government to be brain dead.
Sure, that is possible in game, but real life?
The USA would not allow any European power to gain any kind of foothold in the Americas. Remember the Cuban missile crisis? Brasil and Argentina would probably not join the aixs because they would know full well what would follow. America would view that as nothing more than training before sending troops to Europe. And how would Germany even be able to stage an invasion from Canada? You think it is even remotely plausible that the US would allow German soldiers to reach Canada?

Japan is the one nation that could have attempted an invasion, but they didn't have the manpower to commit to it.

Invading the US is probably the hardest military operation possible. The Atlantic and Pacific oceans, along with America's hegemony in the area made invasion impractical.

 

[Opanashc]

The United States is massive, and unless Canada is doing the invading, there would need to be a massive naval convoy system in place to supply the troops (and even then there would sitll need to be significant naval convoys resupplying the millions of men garrisoning the country. Hell, they would probably need 10-15x the amount of fuel going to the convoys, land and sea, than what the army itself needed, and the army would still find itself poorly supplied and constantly harangued by partisons. The railroad system in the United States was much more sparse than the railroad system in Europe, too, especially in the west, so the vast majority of the troops would need to be supplied by an enormous amount of trucks. Yes, the United States could be conquered. By a coalition of every major power in the entire world, and they would have a devil of a time of it.

Take the East/West coast, and US loses 75% of its population and its industry. Only have to go 300-400 miles inland in the East, and 50-60 miles in the West.
But logistical tail for such an invasion would be nigh impossible with resources of 1930s-40s.

 

[keynes2.0]

German pilots were very good, many having gained battle experience from the Spanish Civil War to the Norwegian Occupation, flying what was arguably the best fighter aircraft up to that time, the ME 109.

Oh, let me guess, based on their self reporting of enemies shot down versus losses?

 

[ringhloth]

Take the East/West coast, and US loses 75% of its population and its industry. Only have to go 300-400 miles inland in the East, and 50-60 miles in the West.
But logistical tail for such an invasion would be nigh impossible with resources of 1930s-40s.

Like how Russia or China was defeated when they lost the land where, before they were invaded, the vast bulk of their population and industry was located?

 

[Harrigarno]

Oh, let me guess, based on their self reporting of enemies shot down versus losses?

No, rather the mechanical differences between Allied and Axis aircraft. The ME 109 was more manoeuvrable then the Hurricane, however the Spitfire was an equal match and it came down to pilot skill and numbers of aircraft. Also, the British had a small air force at the beginning of the war so most RAF pilots were trained post-1939, whereas the Germans had been training since Hitler took power. So if you don't use the typical stereotype of a Luftwaffe pilot, largely due to the German propaganda machine (which posted higher losses of RAF pilots and machines to increase morale), and take with a pinch of salt their self reporting, and the larger numbers of Hurricanes in the sky against Spitfires, and the larger number of Luftwaffe aircraft, you'd have to assume that they did at least shoot down more RAF aircraft then what they lost in the Battle of Britain.

 

[keynes2.0]

That would be an interesting (as in "of interest") argument if not for the fact that both sides were keeping records of their own losses.

 

[Opanashc]

Like how Russia or China was defeated when they lost the land where, before they were invaded, the vast bulk of their population and industry was located?

Did I say USA would be defeated? I said, they would lose industry and population.

 

[ringhloth]

Did I say USA would be defeated? I said, they would lose industry and population.

Not really. Industry and population both can be moved, just like Russia's and China's was. There's no way a naval invasion from so far away could take so much land so fast that more than half the industry couldn't be moved in time. Hell, industry would probably start being moved before the invasion even set foot on American soil.

 

[Axe99]

One thing to keep in mind about the whole 'can we invade the US in-game' thing is that HoI's AI, more than any other PDS series, has struggled to keep up with the gameplay. As it improves, it will get harder to do things that were straightforward in past HoIs because garrisons would be insufficient (Japan anyone?) or the naval AI really, really bad (everyone!) If naval warfare and AI are better, invading the US will be a good deal more difficult than in HoI 1-3 even if the balancing is unchanged (or tipped against the US), and I would expect the AI to be improved, which means that while I'm sure it will be possible, we might need to work a little harder for it this time around .

On the by, I agree with most here that IRL an invasion would be nigh-on-impossible unless there was some kind alliance between Japan, the UK and one more of the other majors (France'd probably be best, but Italy would also be alright, Germany the least-best option). Even then, supporting a cross-Pacific or cross-Atlantic invasion should be mighty difficult, and if the US is allowed to gear up, impossible (the US' naval production during WW2 was insane - without the terrible naval AI of the past, defeating it would be tough ).

 

[Opanashc]

Not really. Industry and population both can be moved, just like Russia's and China's was. There's no way a naval invasion from so far away could take so much land so fast that more than half the industry couldn't be moved in time. Hell, industry would probably start being moved before the invasion even set foot on American soil.

That's why I mentioned it was nigh impossible.
However, you are forgetting that US industry was privatized, not government-owned. It would be a LOT harder to move it, organizationally, than in USSR.

 

[ringhloth]

That's why I mentioned it was nigh impossible.
However, you are forgetting that US industry was privatized, not government-owned. It would be a LOT harder to move it, organizationally, than in USSR.

The president has wide leeway on what he can order private industry to do in times of national crisis. If the US was on the eve of invasion, he could order any industry to do anything he wanted and no one would blink an eye.

 

[Opanashc]

The president has wide leeway on what he can order private industry to do in times of national crisis. If the US was on the eve of invasion, he could order any industry to do anything he wanted and no one would blink an eye.

Sure. But - would the move be prepared? Soviet industry evacuation was planned and prepped through late 30s, after all.

 

[Caesar15]

That's why I mentioned it was nigh impossible.
However, you are forgetting that US industry was privatized, not government-owned. It would be a LOT harder to move it, organizationally, than in USSR.

If the very existentence of the U.S is threatened then I am sure everyone would bow down to the will of the government, especially the president. Afterall in the Civil War Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in some places, declared martial law in Maryland, and even nationalized the railroads, all of this went through because of the crisis at hand, and I am sure it would all be done again if the need arised.

 

[griffor]

i dont think anything should be impossible in a paradox game hard yes but nothing should be beyond the player's ability to complete i mean i love hre ottoman empire

 

[Caesar15]

i dont think anything should be impossible in a paradox game hard yes but nothing should be beyond the player's ability to complete i mean i love hre ottoman empire

You're right. It is a game after all. I mean things like world conquest with Albania maybe shouldn't be possible but those are extreme.