The United States should be nearly impossible to conquer

[Axe99]

Edit: Any chance of keeping this on topic instead of debating the greatest country on earth? Given it's clearly Australia, seems out of place in this thread . (No, not a serious comment )

Part of said preperation should include manipulation of the US-political scene. I think the one major obstacle would be the self-perception of the americans of being a free people, who are determined to fight for said freedom. Take that away, and you got a much easier game. You somehow got to manage your plan of conquest in a way, that when it gets executed, many americans will welcome you as liberators.

TLDR: The USA can only be liberated from outside, not conquered.

This is a good point - if a player can trigger a US civil war, then come in on one side, it's a whole different ballgame.

EDIT - About close-quarter fighting: It´s usually much more intense than distant-nickel-fighting (for obvious reasons).... ;P

lol, love it .

If you give a total victory for the japanese in midway the war would have lasted much longer, Hawaii would likely be lost to the japanese in those 12 months giving the US a much harder time in the whole pacific theater. That could have given a shot on taking Hawaii and Linen islands.

From there its 4000km to california. A distance too big for a viable land invasion (They would just bomb the citys and docks to delay the production of ships), but this also works as a advantage for the japanese as re-taking Hawaii would not be so easy. Even with new carriers (managed by inexperienced people, the experienced commanders and pilots would all be dead at midway).

No question that a Japanese victory at Midway pushes the war in the Pacific out, probably by a couple of years, but you're arguing for the feasibility of invading the CONUS, not of Japan pushing the war out to 1947 or 1948. On the pilots issue, US pilot training was very good, and they were able to put a lot of well-trained pilots in the air very quickly (I don't have the numbers to hand, but from very rough recollection, better than any other nation by some margin), so from a historical theorycrafting perspective it wouldn't be an issue, and in-game there is no pilot training, so no issue there.

i can only see germany, UK, France, japan and Russia taking US! And all of them have tons of problem and limitations before they can even think starting the plan. Being possible only because the game start at 36 and goes to 48-50.

Any other country would need to rely on exploits.

Depends a lot on the AI - give us naval AI like HoI3, and Italy could probably wipe out the USN without too much trouble (and without using exploits either). I'm hoping this'll be the case though. In-game, it'd take an alliance if Japan, the UK and one other with a decent fleet (preferably France or Italy) to make a go of it. We'll see, either way

 

[steve213]

As much as I know, there is no 'greatest country' in the world and never has been, since the beginning of the history of sapient humans.

that would be the perfect country I believe America is the closest to that that has ever existed but not that it is perfect. while far from perfect it is the greatest country on earth.

 

[Will Steel]

A Japanese victory in the Pacific will allow them to bomb western coast of north America, though. That said Germany will still have to win against Soviet Union and Britons, but if it can do that the eastern coast of northern America can be threatened as well, at least until Germany builds a fleet of it's own.

that would be the perfect country I believe America is the closest to that that has ever existed but not that it is perfect. while far from perfect it is the greatest country on earth.

But oh well, please, carry on. Discussion is pointless so I won't go further in it.

 

[steve213]

you have your opinion I have mine.

 

[Opanashc]

you have your opinion I have mine.

Yes, yes, we get it. We asked you to move on.

 

[tommylotto]

YAY! Another Hurr Durr 'Murrica Stronk thread as if there weren't millions of America fanboys flooding the forum to arbitrarily make their country invincible and godly already!!

Hey, I understand your frustration, if I grew up in a world thoroughly dominated militarily, economically and culturally by another country, I would want to see it knocked down a peg or two, even if just in fantasy. It has to be even more agrivating to know that this tragic world war was started in Europe and Asia by evil regimes of varying degrees of evil but finished by the reluctant American nation that put an end to the rampant evil in the world like a frustrated parent separating quaralsome children. IMHO WW2 ended just like it should have, with the one good nation striding the globe like a colossus.

 

[Hagen67483]

In my opinion the USA has done many good and some bad things in its history. And about any "greatest" discussions, here is a short vid that covers the matter very good, again just my personal opinion:

 

[Opanashc]

Hey, I understand your frustration, if I grew up in a world thoroughly dominated militarily, economically and culturally by another country, I would want to see it knocked down a peg or two, even if just in fantasy. It has to be even more agrivating to know that this tragic world war was started in Europe and Asia by evil regimes of varying degrees of evil but finished by the reluctant American nation that put an end to the rampant evil in the world like a frustrated parent separating quaralsome children. IMHO WW2 ended just like it should have, with the one good nation striding the globe like a colossus.

"Good" nation? You are making my slippers laugh!
But we digress from main topic.

 

[Rubidium]

A Japanese victory in the Pacific will allow them to bomb western coast of north America, though. That said Germany will still have to win against Soviet Union and Britons, but if it can do that the eastern coast of northern America can be threatened as well, at least until Germany builds a fleet of it's own.

It really doesn't; any base within range to bomb the Continental US is also within range to be bombed by the continental US, and the US is certainly capable of sending out more bombers than any Japanese/German carrier (to say nothing of submarines). Same reason the US didn't send carriers to hang out in the Baltic or off the coast of Japan.

 

[Jazumir]

Hmm. Midway is a bit of an oddball, isnt it? I mean: It held little strategic value for the japanese outside of being a possible forward base for defence of the home islands. It´s way too small to base an invasion of hawaii and it´s not cutting any strategic lines except the one going straight from San Francisco to Tokio. The US could have lost it, without much consequence. Yet, the battle was planed as a lure and the americans, despite the odds, took the bait - and won. So:
1. The japanese chose a poor target, imho. They should have opted to cut the lines between the US and australia / new zealand (pretty much like they attempted at the coral sea). Not only would that have given them a prospect of increasing the pressure on the allies, it would also have made any surprises by the US that much more unlikely - whatever they would send, there are not going to reinforce it anytime soon, some thousands of miles away from their main bases.
2. The americans knew what was coming for them, and that they were going to be outnumbered in a fight over a non-vital target - yet they chose to engage with all they had, exactly as the japanese had wished for (albeit sooner than they had expected them to)...
3. ...and won decicively at the last roll of the dies.
It´s almost as if the two sides had agreed on: "Hey, let´s forget about all that tactics and strategy crap and just meet somewhere in the middle of the ocean with all our fleets and slug it out, okay?" and the americans replied: "No way, we have less carriers than you do, still!" - "Okay, fine then, pick some small islands that are suitable to replace, say, 2 or 3 carriers... okay?" - "Deal!"

(EDIT: It´s great hollywood-material, i think - if it shows both sides - and no romance crap, please)

 

[Ernestas]

Doesn't this all require the U.S to somehow not know this is all coming until it's too late?

It does not matter that enemy knows. It only matters that they are willing to do. Those weak willed people will not ever take a serious action against an upcoming invasion since in their head it would be impossible. They simply will refuse to believe that Brits are launching a major war against them. If it's Europe vs USA then it's all simple numbers games. You know that they are coming, but you do not have more time to prepare. Your pacifistic policies had done immense harm to your nation through the decades. Your army, air force is non-existent. Your navy far from adequate to deal with upcoming threat. Just force USA to trade ships with you and later use your initial numeric advantage in pushing for strategic objectives. Secure panama, destroy allies resupply bases, assault their major production centers. You will get a year or two of easy victories until USA kicks fully into total war mode and builds up its military to face you. Then you have to realize that you are not as stupid as Hitler and do not demand total extermination of USSR just a peace treaty is enough.

 

[Liquid Sky]

The axis could barely supply a handful of divisions in Africa across a very short distance of water (compared to the Atlantic). It does beggar belief that they would be able to supply any divisions whatsoever across a very wide ocean crawling with allied submarines.

Now of course you can argue that the axis would build the necessary logistics required for a trans-oceanic adventure, but you neglect the fact that the US will also be building. So sure...if the US decides to forgo any/all military expenditures, the axis should be able to invade the US ohhh...sometime around 1946.

 

[Czert]

actualy, if someone have enough capacity to invade usa, as matter of fact due to how industry is distibuted in country, infastructure..etc it should be easier to conquer usa than soviets .
lets face it, no us worker will be willing to endure what soviet workers did to save thier motherland (and i dont only speak about moving of industry to siberia).

 

[Ernestas]

Oh, be careful here. Americans still think that they thought total war with all its horrors on equal footing as other participants...

 

[Will Steel]

Too many Hurr Durr 'Murrica fanboys in the thread...and the forums...

 

[steve213]

whether you like us or not we balance you out with your eurocentric historical perspective and super socialist political views.

 

[Magnus Imperator Rex]

whether you like us or not we balance you out with your eurocentric historical perspective and super socialist political views.

get out of here steve with that bs. we have enough of your kind wandering through the forums already.

enjoy hoi4 though!

and get back on topic.

 

[FOARP]

To bring things back on topic:

One thing that made the US such a formidable contender, aside from its already overwhelming manufacturing base, was that those "hicks with guns" needed a lot less training to be combat-ready, and were more often than not already as competent with a rifle as many European regular infantrymen. Of course, it still took time and effort to provide them with discipline and tactical training, etc.

Along the same lines, driving a tractor is at least a large step toward being able to drive a tank, whereas many Soviet conscripts would be lucky to have ever seen a tractor or motor vehicle other than a train before being drafted. The typical American farmer was already somewhat familiar with various types of heavy equipment.

1) US infantrymen took just as long as the soldiers of other countries to reach combat proficiency. US Marine boot camp was 12 weeks pre-war, shortened to 6 weeks after the outbreak of war. Compare this with a British Army Infantryman's wartime training of 6 weeks basic training followed by 6 weeks of specific infantry training. Mere familiarity with firearms in general taught people little about the specific firearms they were to use in combat and how to properly maintain them.

2) Again, mere familiarity with machines in general (which a kolkhoz-working Soviet would certainly be familiar with as well, since most large collective farms had at least one tractor/car) taught people little about maintaining and using the specific tools that they had to use.​

The US was certainly a formidable adversary, but the idea that individual US military personnel were markedly superior to those of other countries because of greater familiarity with firearms and machinery doesn't really bear analysis.

The real dividing line you see in performance was between the thoroughly indoctrinated (or even brainwashed) German/Soviet/Japanese soldier and the product of democratic societies such as the UK and the US. The former was capable of fighting with a fanaticism that the latter happily lacked.

 

[parkerg12]

Who has the best equipment , best training , most motivation is of little importance in an invasion of the USA...

an invasion of USA I all about the Logistics and frankly there is no possible way that even with all of the major powers working together would they be able to achieve a logistical superiority in order to maintain an army that can take ground In the USA.

 

[Axe99]

Who has the best equipment , best training , most motivation is of little importance in an invasion of the USA...

an invasion of USA I all about the Logistics and frankly there is no possible way that even with all of the major powers working together would they be able to achieve a logistical superiority in order to maintain an army that can take ground In the USA.

I'm not sure about this, "all the major powers working together" would probably have a pretty decent chance (although it'd still be a hard slog early). The US was huge, but combine the forces of the UK, Japan (so we've split the US navy over two oceans), German, France, Italy and the USSR, and that's a starting navy larger than the US, and resources and manpower to burn.