Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Which country could defeat America in a war?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Voldemort9 (U3489036) on Friday, 31st March 2006
I know this queston is similar to "which country has the best army today?" but who cares. Which country do you think, could invade and occupy todays America?
Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 2
Posted by wyn8126 (U2577714) on Friday, 31st March 2006
Nobody, tho' not a Yank, I never underestimate them....besides if they are in trouble, we'll come down from north of the border and sort things out.
Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 3
Posted by craigd1973 (U2853338) on Friday, 31st March 2006
In response to your first question I suppose it would depend on where any war was fought. Several countries may have the potential to defeat America.
In terms of invading and occupying todays America, I would say this would be virtually impossible for any country.Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 4
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 31st March 2006
Like any country, the way it's populous, not necessarily it's armed forces respond is all important.
Taking consideration the sheer number of armed civilians in the country, and given the attitude of the average Yank (Like most Mancs, seeing their land as the best thing since chips and gravy) resistance could be suspected as being high, although as there has been no direct invasion (Dubiously you could say since the army of Northern Virginia) since the war of 1812, there's no way of knowing.
Many passive occupations, i.e. Japan and Germany, have come after long and costly wars with a war ravaged populous, so another variable would be under what circumstances was the invasion.
In the same way that if the US invaded many countries, they would loose, or at best it would be a pyrrhic victory, the same could be said about invading the US.Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 5
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Friday, 31st March 2006
Which country do you think, could invade and occupy todays America? Ìý
My first reaction is - Why the hell would anyone want to?
Actually if you want to destroy the US you should simply encourage them to keep voting for right wing Republicans who will throw billions of dollars into unwinnable wars against terror, drugs, communists etc and so make America universally hated.
OK, rant overLink to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 6
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Friday, 31st March 2006
I know the question was 'today's' America but I reckon China will be able to soon.
Of course, we could always use the nuclear option - Russia or China could possibly prepare themselves to have enough forces following a surprise launch.Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 7
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Friday, 31st March 2006
I reckon Cuba could whip Yankee butt - they did it at baseball, after all...
Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 8
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 31st March 2006
There is a more simple way to bring down both the U. S., and the U. K. The U Ss balance of debt is in the trillions. Most of this debt is owned by friendly countries. I E Japan. But what would happen if those countries stopped being friendly, and called in the loans. The mighty doller would be just toilet paper, as would the pound if it happened here. In the shortb term imports, goods that both of countries have because we have stopped making them would dry up. Inflation would go through the roof. The same thing that happened in Post Great War Germany would happen here. Spending on the armed forces would stop, and the country would be wide open.
Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 9
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 31st March 2006
I reckon Cuba could whip Yankee butt - they did it at baseball, after all...Ìý
They already occupy Florida.Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 10
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 31st March 2006
Grumpy,
Every country bar I think Romania has foreign debt. We in the west have it in Govt bonds. The foreign debt of the Uk and US is not relavent given the countrys assets. In the 70's the Saudies tried to cash in their bonds during their oil embargo. We just ignored them.
Matt.Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 11
Posted by LittleHill (U3038272) on Friday, 31st March 2006
Voldemort
If the whole world( except America )in Canada and Mexcico and invaded from there i thinnk that they the allies would win but The North American contienent would be in taters.
LHillLink to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 12
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Friday, 31st March 2006
If America attacked a major nation possibly a European one, I think that if the European powers allied against America they could certainly defend their countries against conventional american military might. However, there would be no chance of taking over the entire US.
Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 13
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 31st March 2006
So that the answer one cigar store at a time! I reckon Cuba could whip Yankee butt - they did it at baseball, after all...Ìý
They already occupy Florida.ÌýLink to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 14
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 31st March 2006
Canada.
(Sorry, in an odd mood).
Cheers AA.Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 15
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 31st March 2006
The only country that can defeat America, is America.
Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 16
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Monday, 3rd April 2006
your question made me thing of an old joke, China goes to war agains the US, on the first day of fighting the US military take 10 million Chineses prisoner, second day of fighting they take 10 million more, 3rd day of fighting another 10 million Chinese surrender to the US, 4th day of fighting the US surrenders to China as it can no longer feed all those POW's
Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 17
Posted by somnii4 (U3424705) on Monday, 3rd April 2006
Im am American ,Im no Yank either, and I think Russia and China if they were Allied would decimate the States, plus Canada. I have a sneaky suspicion that Canada is seroiusly underestimated when it comes to War...
Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 18
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 3rd April 2006
Any country in the world. So long as they are prepared to spend the time, at least 20 to thirty years building and training an army navy and air force , money, well, we're talking lots, and with the national will to enter into a war that is likley to take at least 50 years to settle. Ohh and you'd better ban birth control or your going to run out of infantry.
Unless someone sits down and comes up with a technological leap that out dates everything we know about warfare over night, and the only people that are throwing that sort of money at R+D are the Americans, then there isnt one.Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 19
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 3rd April 2006
I have to agree that there isn't any country on this planet strong enough to militarily defeat the US. I could name a few countries with the possible strength and determination to repel a US invasion -Russia and China using conventional weapons, and the UK and (I hate to say it) France, but we little nations would have to resort to nuking most of the US's major population centres, and no doubt they'd respond in kind, so not much point really.
The Russians would have to resort to the old tactics of giving up ground in order to survive, and the Chinese would just have to hope that they have more conscripts than the US has bullets! The only way to take on the US is by using unconventional guerrilla means (as in Vietnam and now Iraq). In a stand up fight, they're just too powerful, with too many hi-tech toys, and there's too many of em!.Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 20
Posted by LittleHill (U3038272) on Monday, 3rd April 2006
Really, if China and Russia unite, the ratio will be 1:7 or 1 American to every 7 Russian and Chinese, so if they just keep making nukes from now ,which is 2006, to 2106, they will have far more nukes , tanks, troops etc... from the U.S.A
Cheers LHill
Former (Doc50, Bloodz)Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 21
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Monday, 3rd April 2006
I know the question was 'today's' America but I reckon China will be able to soon.
Of course, we could always use the nuclear option - Russia or China could possibly prepare themselves to have enough forces following a surprise launch.Ìý
Mahros: There is a huge difference between invading and defending. There is no nation or group of nations in the world that could successfully invade the U.S. at this point in history.
IMO the day of invasion and conquering are pretty much over. Vietnam and Afghanstan have indicated that. I am afraid that Iraq may add to that belief.Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 22
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Monday, 3rd April 2006
I have to agree that there isn't any country on this planet strong enough to militarily defeat the US. I could name a few countries with the possible strength and determination to repel a US invasion -Russia and China using conventional weapons, and the UK and (I hate to say it) France, but we little nations would have to resort to nuking most of the US's major population centres, and no doubt they'd respond in kind, so not much point really.
The Russians would have to resort to the old tactics of giving up ground in order to survive, and the Chinese would just have to hope that they have more conscripts than the US has bullets! The only way to take on the US is by using unconventional guerrilla means (as in Vietnam and now Iraq). In a stand up fight, they're just too powerful, with too many hi-tech toys, and there's too many of em!.
Ìý
all the military might of europe, including even us mighty men, the brits
would avail to nought unless we negated america's total air superiority and the star-wars lasers and nukes theyve got on all their fox satellites 
Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 23
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Monday, 3rd April 2006
although if we set off a HUGE electromagnetic and psyhchological bomd that destroyed all military technology more advanced than the x-bow and lance, and the knowledge needed to maker them, we'd be in with a chance-longbows away! give the gormless french aristocracy (that materialises from nowhere) their big destriers and plate-mail armor back! big up the teutonic knights, let scot have kilts and really big swords! we could win then!
Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 24
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 4th April 2006
Ahh, but it takes years of training to establish the skills for using the Long bow.
Shall we concentrate our efforts on big spiky sticks with nails through?Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 25
Posted by Disgruntled_Renegade (U530059) on Tuesday, 4th April 2006
What are the US chances though should its comm/spy/control satalites be destroyed and readily available were tactical EMP weapons which could fry the more hi-tech vehicles and equipment of the US Army?
How would the US Army cope should it essentially be forced to fight in a more conventional ww2 style of war albeit with better guns and more powerful munitions etc.
I suspect that the British Army would weather the loss of use of its shiny hi-tech a lot easier than the US Army. Not a critisism of the US at all - its just that they do seem over-reliant on hi tech wizardery, perhaps a reason why they are getting it so bad in the regions of iraq they control, instant communications to missile silo's in kentucky, or tanks that can see in the dark and shoot down an enemy helicopter 4 miles away arent much use in a civil uprising, as they are finding out, to be fair though the regular US Army units which survive tours of duty over there and have learned to cope without so much hi-tech in fighting a war are going to be pretty mean to come up against!Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 26
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Tuesday, 4th April 2006
Ahh, but it takes years of training to establish the skills for using the Long bow.
Shall we concentrate our efforts on big spiky sticks with nails through?Ìý
why, us britons south of the border would obviously possess a cartesian innate knowledge of how to use them! and the northerners wouldnt need to cos theyd have their "running round in nothing but their birth-day suits and blue paint with big swords" style of fightingLink to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 27
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 4th April 2006
What are the US chances though should its comm/spy/control satalites be destroyed and readily available were tactical EMP weapons which could fry the more hi-tech vehicles and equipment of the US Army?
How would the US Army cope should it essentially be forced to fight in a more conventional ww2 style of war albeit with better guns and more powerful munitions etc.
I suspect that the British Army would weather the loss of use of its shiny hi-tech a lot easier than the US Army. Not a critisism of the US at all - its just that they do seem over-reliant on hi tech wizardery, perhaps a reason why they are getting it so bad in the regions of iraq they control, instant communications to missile silo's in kentucky, or tanks that can see in the dark and shoot down an enemy helicopter 4 miles away arent much use in a civil uprising, as they are finding out, to be fair though the regular US Army units which survive tours of duty over there and have learned to cope without so much hi-tech in fighting a war are going to be pretty mean to come up against!Ìý
DG,
The US military is not all a bunch of high tech and special forces. For starters we have an infantry mountain division, an entire chopper infantry division, an entire Para division, Several Brigades of infantry Rangers. Not to mention several more straight leg infantry divisions. Two divisions of marine infantry, and several million inactive reserves. The basic criterion for infantry to be effective is the ability to 1/ Move. 2/ Shoot. 3/ Communicate. Every satellite is shielded and defended with at least one back up. An electromagnetic device can do very little. Not to mention countless aircraft. Also, there are hundreds of missiles with satellites cocked and ready for deployment. It is easier to disrupt conventional communications than what a satellite can deal with. What appears high tech today is old hat tomorrow, and on it goes.
Cheers, Matt.Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 28
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Tuesday, 4th April 2006
ah, but what if all the satellites got screwed up, like in independance day?
Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 29
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Tuesday, 4th April 2006
anyway bs, what dya think of the news regarding politics in s.a?
Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 30
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 5th April 2006
But Ive brought a spikey stick and a big bag of nails!
Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 31
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Wednesday, 5th April 2006
But Ive brought a spikey stick and a big bag of nails!
Ìý
So you've got the spikey stick and the bag of nails?
Pass it to the MOD and in 15 years they'll give you back a spikey stick with some nails in the wrong place that cost £10m and falls apart when you try to use it!Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 32
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 5th April 2006
But Ive brought a spikey stick and a big bag of nails!
Ìý
So you've got the spikey stick and the bag of nails?
Pass it to the MOD and in 15 years they'll give you back a spikey stick with some nails in the wrong place that cost £10m and falls apart when you try to use it!Ìý
15 years? That quick!Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 33
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Wednesday, 5th April 2006
But Ive brought a spikey stick and a big bag of nails!
Ìý
So you've got the spikey stick and the bag of nails?
Pass it to the MOD and in 15 years they'll give you back a spikey stick with some nails in the wrong place that cost £10m and falls apart when you try to use it!Ìý
15 years? That quick!Ìý
That's just their initial estimate, not allowing for slippage.Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 34
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 5th April 2006
Any invasion of the US would fail for the same reason that Germany failed to invade the UK in 1940. Having millions of men at arms is no good if you can't deliver them to the target. I think the Germans could get something like 60,000 men ashore before estimates say they would be cut off and slaughtered. If some beligerent China/Russia axis started sending over their armies, even via Mexico, the US may well do something about it before the necessary numbers could be sent.
I vote we keep the US as an ally. For now.Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 35
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Wednesday, 5th April 2006
China could have a massive impact on the US without even attacking the CONUS - all it has to do if Iran is held under UN sanctions is to buy Iranian oil for $10 a barrel less than world -market prices and this would IMO force oil prices down as the world would know it can't sell full price oil to China (or would it force it up as OPEC countries would have to offset loses?) but in anycase it could have a massive impact on US economy.
Also China could be party to sinking US flagged merchant ships in the PACFLT theatre of operations - if nobody knew what sunk them then the US overseas trade fleet might decide not to sail in certain areas - this IMO would have again a major impact of US economy.Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 36
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 5th April 2006
I know the question was 'today's' America but I reckon China will be able to soon.
Of course, we could always use the nuclear option - Russia or China could possibly prepare themselves to have enough forces following a surprise launch.Ìý
Mahros: There is a huge difference between invading and defending. There is no nation or group of nations in the world that could successfully invade the U.S. at this point in history.
IMO the day of invasion and conquering are pretty much over. Vietnam and Afghanstan have indicated that. I am afraid that Iraq may add to that belief.Ìý
JEWS1962
Arent the mexicans doing that already ??
how can you be sure this not part of a plot - today Los Angeles - tomorrow ??Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 37
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 5th April 2006
Any invasion of the US would fail for the same reason that Germany failed to invade the UK in 1940. Having millions of men at arms is no good if you can't deliver them to the target. I think the Germans could get something like 60,000 men ashore before estimates say they would be cut off and slaughtered.Ìý
Tim,
Tell me your kidding?
Matt.Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 38
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Wednesday, 5th April 2006
yeah, the krauts failed cos they realised (a little late) that they were at war with the brits and shouldnt bother (although they didnt realise they should sue for peace forthwith)
gentleman, the queen!
of course you know im not being serious!
Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 39
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 5th April 2006
damn that slippage. still the good thing it when it comes back it will probably have a built in gps system
Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 40
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 6th April 2006
Any invasion of the US would fail for the same reason that Germany failed to invade the UK in 1940. Having millions of men at arms is no good if you can't deliver them to the target. I think the Germans could get something like 60,000 men ashore before estimates say they would be cut off and slaughtered.Ìý
Tim,
Tell me your kidding?
Matt.Ìý
No, I am not. Which part do you think is wrong ?Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 41
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Thursday, 6th April 2006
Any invasion of the US would fail for the same reason that Germany failed to invade the UK in 1940. Having millions of men at arms is no good if you can't deliver them to the target. I think the Germans could get something like 60,000 men ashore before estimates say they would be cut off and slaughtered.Ìý
Tim,
Tell me your kidding?
Matt.Ìý
No, I am not. Which part do you think is wrong ?Ìý
This part.
Germany failed to invade the UK in 1940. Having millions of men at arms is no good if you can't deliver them to the target. I think the Germans could get something like 60,000 men ashore before estimates say they would be cut off and slaughtered.ÌýLink to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 42
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 6th April 2006
Buckskinz,
The point is that the UK was in much better shape in 1940 than popular history suggests.
The Germans had a massive army, but not enough sea or air transportation. Presuming they could have launched an invasion at all, it would have been with inadequate shipping. Converted barges, that sort of thing. This would mean a very reduced number of Germans getting ashore. Casualties would be high from the start. The 60,000 figure was from memory, so it might not be exactly right, but the British had prepared defences and numerical superiority. They would also have had huge re-supply problems.
In the 1970s they had a war game of the invasion of Britain scenario played between old British and old German staff officers from WW2. The German side lost inside two weeks (or thereabouts) with very heavy losses and no one seemed to doubt that this was correct.
The US, of course, is in much better shape to resist invasion than Britain in 1940.Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 43
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Thursday, 6th April 2006
Buckskinz,
The point is that the UK was in much better shape in 1940 than popular history suggests.
The Germans had a massive army, but not enough sea or air transportation. Presuming they could have launched an invasion at all, it would have been with inadequate shipping. Converted barges, that sort of thing. This would mean a very reduced number of Germans getting ashore. Casualties would be high from the start. The 60,000 figure was from memory, so it might not be exactly right, but the British had prepared defences and numerical superiority. They would also have had huge re-supply problems.
In the 1970s they had a war game of the invasion of Britain scenario played between old British and old German staff officers from WW2. The German side lost inside two weeks (or thereabouts) with very heavy losses and no one seemed to doubt that this was correct.
The US, of course, is in much better shape to resist invasion than Britain in 1940.Ìý
Would any of you care to add your unbiased opinions to this before I do?
Matt.Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 44
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 6th April 2006
No,no, don't delay go for it !
Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 45
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 6th April 2006
Matt, please no. I mean it I'm still feeling fragile from the last time. At least give him directions to the last 3 theads dealing with this before you cut loose.
Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 46
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Thursday, 6th April 2006
Well Tim,
Where to begin. Lets take a cold look at things. The British Army had just been kicked into the English channel. This took all of about three weeks for the Wermacht to get done. Does that mean the BEF fought without valor? Never. These were new tactics and the krauts were on a roll. By every concept of basic warfare and common sense, the BEF should have been in the bag, but they were not. When they arrived in England, the majority had dumped their weapons and equipment. In many cases they were perhaps ordered to do so, but the fact remains, the British Army was in dire straights. It’s no secret that for a successful invasion Hitler needed air superiority. This was promised him by Goring. He almost pulled it off. Through a screw up by a Luftwaffe air crew London was bombed. Churchill had no intention of letting that pass unanswered. He ordered the same in kind to I believe Berlin, or it may have been Hamburg. Anyway Hitler went ballistic and had the Luftwaffe start bombing civilian targets in the UK instead of continuing to hammer the RAF bases. Had he continued hammering British air bases for another three weeks, instead of switching to civilian targets, it would have been all over. With air superiority even the best or biggest navy going could not hide in the English Channel. There is only one major thing missing from WW2 war games years later. That of course is the major German players. Even Goring had no real power. It was Hitlers way or the highway, and as a General he may have made a decent squad leader or messenger. I should think the Germans would have gone for the Airports and not harbors anyway. As in Crete, bear in mind his para’s were still relatively intact at this juncture. I’m not sure what the problem is with barges? They are not the ideal amphibious craft but y’aal landed thousands by rowing boat at Gallipoli during WW1. In any event many of the barges had been converted to open up front and discharge tanks, vehicles, 88's etc. A walkover? No way, but very doable.
Cheers, Matt.Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 47
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 6th April 2006
ive got one!
the one country in the world that could conquer america is
.....................................................................................................................san marino!Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 48
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 6th April 2006
Well Tim,
Where to begin. Lets take a cold look at things. The British Army had just been kicked into the English channel. This took all of about three weeks for the Wermacht to get done. Does that mean the BEF fought without valor? Never. These were new tactics and the krauts were on a roll. By every concept of basic warfare and common sense, the BEF should have been in the bag, but they were not. When they arrived in England, the majority had dumped their weapons and equipment. In many cases they were perhaps ordered to do so, but the fact remains, the British Army was in dire straights. It’s no secret that for a successful invasion Hitler needed air superiority. This was promised him by Goring. He almost pulled it off. Through a screw up by a Luftwaffe air crew London was bombed. Churchill had no intention of letting that pass unanswered. He ordered the same in kind to I believe Berlin, or it may have been Hamburg. Anyway Hitler went ballistic and had the Luftwaffe start bombing civilian targets in the UK instead of continuing to hammer the RAF bases. Had he continued hammering British air bases for another three weeks, instead of switching to civilian targets, it would have been all over. With air superiority even the best or biggest navy going could not hide in the English Channel. There is only one major thing missing from WW2 war games years later. That of course is the major German players. Even Goring had no real power. It was Hitlers way or the highway, and as a General he may have made a decent squad leader or messenger. I should think the Germans would have gone for the Airports and not harbors anyway. As in Crete, bear in mind his para’s were still relatively intact at this juncture. I’m not sure what the problem is with barges? They are not the ideal amphibious craft but y’aal landed thousands by rowing boat at Gallipoli during WW1. In any event many of the barges had been converted to open up front and discharge tanks, vehicles, 88's etc. A walkover? No way, but very doable.
Cheers, Matt.Ìý Well Tim,
Where to begin. Lets take a cold look at things. The British Army had just been kicked into the English channel. This took all of about three weeks for the Wermacht to get done. Does that mean the BEF fought without valor? Never. These were new tactics and the krauts were on a roll. By every concept of basic warfare and common sense, the BEF should have been in the bag, but they were not. When they arrived in England, the majority had dumped their weapons and equipment. In many cases they were perhaps ordered to do so, but the fact remains, the British Army was in dire straights. It’s no secret that for a successful invasion Hitler needed air superiority. This was promised him by Goring. He almost pulled it off. Through a screw up by a Luftwaffe air crew London was bombed. Churchill had no intention of letting that pass unanswered. He ordered the same in kind to I believe Berlin, or it may have been Hamburg. Anyway Hitler went ballistic and had the Luftwaffe start bombing civilian targets in the UK instead of continuing to hammer the RAF bases. Had he continued hammering British air bases for another three weeks, instead of switching to civilian targets, it would have been all over. With air superiority even the best or biggest navy going could not hide in the English Channel. There is only one major thing missing from WW2 war games years later. That of course is the major German players. Even Goring had no real power. It was Hitlers way or the highway, and as a General he may have made a decent squad leader or messenger. I should think the Germans would have gone for the Airports and not harbors anyway. As in Crete, bear in mind his para’s were still relatively intact at this juncture. I’m not sure what the problem is with barges? They are not the ideal amphibious craft but y’aal landed thousands by rowing boat at Gallipoli during WW1. In any event many of the barges had been converted to open up front and discharge tanks, vehicles, 88's etc. A walkover? No way, but very doable.
Cheers, Matt.Ìý
bs = wonderful - I do believe that u r a Brit in this thread- ur mistaken - there is no way the hun could have invaded england at that time Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 49
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Friday, 7th April 2006
Buckskinz,
I agree with you on the run up to the would be invasion, after that I feel you have missed a few things. I think I have at least some serious historians on my side (two links provided for reference).
1) The Ggermans could not have gone straight from their victory at Dunkirk to invasion. They had to stop and re-group. This gave Britain the opportunity to re-equip, specially with lighter weapons. According to the first link below Germany could not hope to invade before mid-September
2) I agree the German army could have got ashore, presuming the RAF and RN were dealt with sufficiently. The problems occur after that.
3) The invasion of Normandy took 3 years to plan. The Germans had a couple of months. The barges may have been OK in the original invasion, but they would have suffered horrendous losses (the RAF or RN would be able to attack to some degree, plus they were river vessels, not suited to the open sea).
4) Re-supply and re-inforcement is crucial to this argument. This means that the level to which the RAF and RN could operate in the channel is crucial. if they were both entirely elimated, things swing to Germany's favour.
5) von Runstedt seems to have agreed with my side on this debate, this from the Â鶹ԼÅÄ site :
"...As it happened, Von Runstedt had little faith in Halder's Sealion plan. He observed that Napoleon had failed to invade and the difficulties that confounded him did not appear to have been solved by the Sealion planners..."
From link two below.
Link to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
-
Message 50
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 7th April 2006
Their rock hard.
ive got one!
the one country in the world that could conquer america is
.....................................................................................................................san marino!ÌýLink to this forum: Which country could defeat America in a war?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.