Why do people claim that the USA wouldn't have been able to single-handedly defeat either the USSR or the Nazis in WW2, 1 on 1?
USA out-produced both of them easily, were much more technology advanced (overall - both Germs/USSR used horses regularly)
I don't see how anyone can justify saying USA would've lost to one of them, even if you believe the retarded stormfag propaganda of master-race shit.
>pic semi-related
What the fuck is your problem with horses
Who would win in a battle
An armored personal carrier/tank/self-propelled artillery tractor, or a guy with a gun on top of a horse?
So you have no idea what Germany used those horses for, good to know.
they wouldnt have lost but they certainly wouldnt have won
Because war is more than just production statistics.
First off, America starts with an enormous handicap when it comes to force projection. Both Germany and the USSR are on the other side of the Atlantic. In real life, it was expensive and troublesome enough (There's a reason that despite a vastly huger economy, U.S. troop levels in the MTO and ETO generally hovered around the same as what the British projected), and that's with friendly states like Britain to use as launching pads, which would not exist in a hypothetical 1v1 scenario.
Secondly, there is the will to fight. The biggest motivation for most people in favor of intervention in Europe before the war started and during the war was to protect Britain. If Britain isn't fighting, that reason evaporates almost instantly. Whomever the Americans are fighting in this hypothetical, they don't need to invade America or outproduce them to win, they simply need to make the war too bloody and too expensive and too time-consuming to be worth the while of the administration to keep fighting. And that is definitely possible.
> Because war is more than just production statistics.
“Amateurs think tactics, experts think logistics”
The U.S. would literally have to go out of its way and try to lose.
> First off, America starts with an enormous handicap when it comes to force projection. Both Germany and the USSR are on the other side of the Atlantic.
Nonsense, it’s the Nazis/Soviets who would be at a disadvantage, as neither had a navy worth mentioning, leaving the U.S. in complete control of the worlds oceans.
The Germans were incapable of invading the UK across the 20 mile wide English Channel and later, both the Germans and Italians couldn’t keep Rommel supported on the other side of the Mediterranean. Meanwhile, the Soviets were even worse off and only able to reoccupy Sakhalin Island from the Japanese, because the U.S. literally gave them a navy.
> Secondly, there is the will to fight.
The U.S. is fundamentally European in nature and Americans aren’t going to sit around and watch the Nazis/Soviets conquer the world and once they step up, the U.S. will eventually win.
>“Amateurs think tactics, experts think logistics”
Do you not understand what logistics means? I don't think you do.
>onsense, it’s the Nazis/Soviets who would be at a disadvantage, as neither had a navy worth mentioning, leaving the U.S. in complete control of the worlds oceans.
Irrelevant without a friendly port to land in and the surrounding infrastructure to move things from the port.
>
The Germans were incapable of invading the UK across the 20 mile wide English Channel and later, both the Germans and Italians couldn’t keep Rommel supported on the other side of the Mediterranean. Meanwhile, the Soviets were even worse off and only able to reoccupy Sakhalin Island from the Japanese, because the U.S. literally gave them a navy.
None of this is relevant. In your bizarre hypothetical, neither the Germans nor the Soviets are attempting to invade America. (This is part of that "logistics" thing that you're invoking without knowing what the fuck you're talking about).
>Americans aren’t going to sit around and watch the Nazis/Soviets conquer the world and once they step up, the U.S. will eventually win.
[citation needed] As I recall, they only got involved once already attacked.
During the war, the US produced 70-80% of the total war materiel produced by the Allies in WW2, and an even greater percentage of critical and fine manufactured materiel, as well as transport and shipping. Absent US support, neither the krauts or subhuman Sovs alone could withstand determined assault from the US.
Well, nukes.
>Nonsense, it’s the Nazis/Soviets who would be at a disadvantage, as neither had a navy worth mentioning, leaving the U.S. in complete control of the worlds oceans.
so? if you're not trying to cross the ocean who gives a fuck
>During the war, the US produced 70-80% of the total war materiel produced by the Allies in WW2
[citation seriously needed]
Do your own research, lad. I might suggest since you appear uneducated in these matters, that you start with GDP of each.
>First off, America starts with an enormous handicap when it comes to force projection. Both Germany and the USSR are on the other side of the Atlantic.
This x1000. D-Day was a bloodbath and took some strokes of good fortune to pull off, and that was with the combined efforts of numerous countries, a massive reinforcement and supply dump (the UK) near the beaches and facing shitty reserve units while the bulk of enemy strength was fighting on another front. With the entire German military freed up to converge on any landing zone, it would've been impossible.
Invading the USSR would have similar problems, in that the Western amphibious invasion sites are predictable, few in number, and along a narrow enough stretch that they could keep large concentrations of troops at the ready. There's also no way the US could slip a massive invasion fleet through the Danish straits without getting spotted hours before hitting the beaches, and the Soviets had amazing spy networks. Going from the East, there are few areas with good landing zones + ports and infrastructure to support an invasion, and maintaining momentum and supply lines across thousands of miles of Siberian taiga and tundra would be hell.
Well, what do you know? I almost have a file with that on hand. In 1990 Billions of dollars, the total American combined GDP from 1938-1945 is 9.313. The combined Allied for the same time period (and please note that Mark Harrison is only counting the UK proper, not the entire empire) is 15,886. Unless they do math differently where you live, that's about 58%, not 70-80%. Add in the British Dominions and Empire to the total, using 1938 as a representative year www2.warwick.ac.uk
This of course is a stupid comparison anyway, because not all economies were equally mobilized for war. When you look at things like ammunition production www2.warwick.ac.uk
Having done my research, are you prepared to admit that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about?
> > “Amateurs think tactics, experts think logistics”
> Do you not understand what logistics means?
Do you not understand the premise of the thread; that the U.S. could defeat both the Nazis or the the Soviets in WWII on its own (and it could) and it would do so thru it’s massive manufacturing and logistics advantage (just as happened in WWII).
> > neither had a navy worth mentioning, leaving the U.S. in complete control of the worlds oceans.
> Irrelevant without a friendly port to land in and the surrounding infrastructure to move things from the port.
Normandy didn’t have a friendly port, Anzio didn’t have a friendly port, Sicily didn’t have a friendly port, none of the islands in the Pacific had a friendly port.
The lack of even a barely effective navy, means the U.S. can attack the Nazis/Soviets at will from anywhere, meanwhile the Nazis/Soviets are wholly incapable of attacking the U.S. in any way.
> > The Germans were incapable of invading the UK
> None of this is relevant. In your bizarre hypothetical, neither the Germans nor the Soviets are attempting to invade America.
Ahh, so you don’t know this thread is about.
> > Americans aren’t going to sit around and watch the Nazis/Soviets conquer the world and once they step up, the U.S. will eventually win.
> [citation needed]
WWII.
> As I recall, they only got involved once already attacked.
The U.S. was involved long before Pearl Harbor and in this hypothetical, the U.S. is the only remaining power that will stand up to the Nazis/Soviets.
GDP is the start, lad. The 70-80% figure given is for war materiel. Now that you've started you can look up the definition for that and seek out the data on its production. Good luck, some day you might not be an uneducated dolt, if you keep it up.
/thread
Not that user but if you're OP you mighthave explained your premises a little better.
To me it reads like the US would invade either a Nazi controlled Western Europe or the Soviet Union and win. And that wouldn't happen, no matter how much they control the waves.
Western Europe would have been a fortress. The US wouldn't find old men, teenagers and weak reserve troops but the bulk of the Nazi forces in that scenario. The US do not land without having a base nearby and full allied support. The US field inexperienced troops, the US have to satisfy the public back home by not losing millions of men on some beach nobody cares for. In that invasion scenario they don't even have air superiority.
For the USSR it's either land in the West which is the same as with the Nazi scenario or in the East and would have to support their troops across half the planet through the shittiest imaginable infrastructure.
Won't happen no matter how much you worm around with your precious almighty US.
>Do you not understand the premise of the thread; that the U.S. could defeat both the Nazis or the the Soviets in WWII on its own (and it could) and it would do so thru it’s massive manufacturing and logistics advantage
See, this is you using the term "logistics" incorrectly, AGAIN, which supports MY premise, namely that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. The U.S. would have a hell of a logistical inferiority trying to project force across the Atlantic in absence of any sort of friendly polity to unload in. Manufacturing they would have, but without the ability to get across the ocean in the necessary force, it doesn't mean a damn thing.
>Normandy didn’t have a friendly port,
Normandy took a month to be able to break out. And that's with
A) Total control of the skies
B) Shipping from a distance of 20 miles instead of about 3,000 miles.
C) No meaningful ability of the Germans to counterattack in that time owing to things like the Transport Plan fucking up their rail lines.
None of those exist in your hypothetical.
>Anzio didn’t have a friendly port
Anzio failed
> Sicily didn’t have a friendly port
They captured Licata and Sogtini (sp?) before the landings even began.
>Ahh, so you don’t know this thread is about.
It is about you asserting that the Americans could have invaded either the Germans or the USSR in a WW2ish timeframe without having the faintest clue what would be involved.
>The lack of even a barely effective navy, means the U.S. can attack the Nazis/Soviets at will from anywhere, meanwhile the Nazis/Soviets are wholly incapable of attacking the U.S. in any way.
No it doesn't you utter retard. THINK for a goddamn minute. How logistical limitations matter is insofar as they prevent you from bringing your entire force to bear at once. That is a VERY real constraint even with unchallenged U.S. control of the sea.
1/3?
Pretend for a second that the U.S. is trying to do an invasion of Occupied France across the Atlantic. For an invasion to succeed, they will need more force and firepower on hand than the Germans have to repel them. When you're storming off of a beach ,and using very shallow drafted boats, you cannot bring in artillery, which is the prime source of firepower in a WW2 battlefield. The defender, meanwhile can stick in lots and lots of guns if they want.
To compensate for this, usually you'll see the attacker try to use planes as flying artillery. That's why, for instance, the Allies invaded Normandy, where planes from Britain could cover the invasion force, and not say jump into Kiel directly, because it's too far away. It's why they didn't attack Sicily until securing Tunisia, again, to have a platform to send planes from. This is another one of those logistical limitations, the limit of your fighters' fuel tanks.
2/3
YOU want the Americans to invade across the entire breadth of the Atlantic ocean. Since there are 0 planes that can cover that distance in flight, you'll need to cover your entire force with CVP. This of course runs you up against the limitation of what your carriers can carry. combinedfleet.com
This is, to anyone with a lick of sense, impossible. Your premise is not supported by evidence.
>WWII.
That's not citing anything. CITE your shit.
>The U.S. was involved long before Pearl Harbor and in this hypothetical, the U.S. is the only remaining power that will stand up to the Nazis/Soviets.
But they were not willing to actually fight, just sell (and later give) stuff to people who were. That doesn't speak well for unlimited commitment, no matter the cost.
3/3 Fin
>The 70-80% figure given is for war materiel
And you have not actually supported it. Please demonstrate how the U.S. produced 70-80% of the war material while having only about 47% of the combined GDP. Please demonstrate why they have in fact roughly that level of proportion to the Allied total when it comes to important benchmarks like ammunition.
>Now that you've started you can look up the definition for that and seek out the data on its production.
I have a better idea. You make a stupid claim, you back it up. I am going to say that no such evidence exists, and that in no figure I've ever looked at do the Americans come to 70% of Allied production of anything, let alone war material of an aggregate.
I just want to add in one other thing about the ports. In each of the invasions you mentioned, the Americans/Allies had a friendly port nearby, in places like England, Tunisia,and later Italy itself, to stockpile supplies in. They didn't directly ship in all the stuff to support D-Day in one go from the U.S., they built up in England for well over a year. Without a friendly port to stockpile in to use as a launchpad, you have to do all of this in one go form somewhere on the East Coast, which is orders of magnitude harder.
>Being this autistic
The USA did have an overwhelming lead in naval production. For all other areas during 1942-45 however, the highest share they had among the UK and USSR was machine guns, which was only 56%. Note that it's only the UK and USSR, not the Empire and other allied countries.
What you may not understand is that some months after D-Day, largely a US operation, the US executed a much larger operation in invading Okinawa, on the other side of the world, and not from occupied Bongistan a few miles away. Think about that for a minute.
>Invading an island = invading a continent
The fact that literally anybody had any issues stopping Germany at any point should be a hilarious embarrassment. They weren't more advanced, they didn't have resources on par with anyone important, and they didn't have a manpower surplus. They had nothing and the allies had to make up a bunch of bullshit myths about how badass or advanced or efficient Germans were when really they just dropped the ball absurdly hard.
The US outnumbered the Japanese 8 to 1 at Okinawa, had nearby islands for resupply, and it still took them three months of constant combat to take the island from an Imperial Japanese force so depleted that they were resorting to conscripting prepubescent children as frontline infantry and carving bamboo spears for weaponry. Opposed amphibious invasions are difficult even against severely degraded enemies with no defensive depth, armor, air support or resupply to speak of.
Instead of remnants, the amphibious invasion would be against millions of soldiers in full strength German and Soviet armies. We're talking about forces that maintained and coordinated offensives and counteroffensives with millions of troops for years across frontlines thousands of miles long.
>“Amateurs think tactics, experts think logistics”
Precisely. Logistics are a HUGE issue when you're trying to attack someone on the other side of an ocean.
Ah, so you're just fucking retarded. Please kill yourself ASAP.
american civilians never really had such a taste for empire building, it takes EXTREME manipulation and falseflags to mobilise that nation
>Giving an exhaustive response and giving sources backing your claims is now autistic
I think so too. Because the flagwaving retard you're answering thought the Wehrmacht would rely on cavalry and completely forgot about air superiority. That means he's an idiot and you're an autist to invest so much for a little yankee turd.
Firtst of all, I'm not the one who wrote that 3 part response, though I wholly agree with it.
Second, he did not invest it for the 'yankee', as much as for any clueless bastard that colud've got the wrong idea.
also
>implying world will be less autistic if we stop correcting people who are obviously wrong
>for the 'yankee', as much as for any clueless bastard
In a head to head fight, no prior fighting, just in theory, id say that Germany would win most engagements, they WERE the Nazi war machine, after all
But even then a full invasion of the US would be damn near impossible
Theres just too many gun owners, especially then
Presumably we're all on this board because we find this stuff interesting. If writing a lot about history seems "autistic" to you, the exit's that way.
Personally I think writing such complete responses was generous as hell. I would have written that guy off as a waste of time the second I realized he was trying to talk about military history while having no idea what the word "logistics" meant.
>An army using horses means it uses cavalry as regular formation
It was a US operation, required more resources than D-Day, and took place on the other side of the world, not from occupied UK, faggot.
see , faggot
Nazi Europe was a fortress, and the US invaded it in at least 3 different locations, faggot.
The US would have invaded the subhuman Sovs in any of 4 different locations.
The U.S. at no point attempted to invade Nazi-occupied Europe without a protective umbrella of land based air support in overwhelming force. Such a thing would be impossible under OP's premises against either Germany or the USSR.
Still it was done several times. And by now their level of, err, being informed matches the geostrategic needs of the US.
>Nazi Europe a fortress
>over extended on every front
First, lad, it's war materiel, not material. You'll first have to understand what that word means. I've put you on the road to understanding what it means, starting with GDP, but you have a ways to go. Continue on with your education and I'll try to help you as you go.
You mean, like the US did in Okinawa, a much larger operation?
Very good, you've moved on from GDP and are discussing armaments. Also an important indicator, but we're talking war materiel. The GDP and armaments figures should give you an idea as to where the war materiel numbers will line up. Carry on.
The US provided its own protective cover of air support in the invasion of Okinawa, a much larger operation than D-Day, on the other side of the world, and facing an enemy with precision guided missiles for defense. What you're claiming is impossible is not only possible, but actually happened as we know historically.
It was the other faggot who called it a fortress, faggot. The US called it a target.
Okinawa was launched from Saipan and the Phillipines, and to a very lesser extent Kerama Retto and Kamiyama. They were not attempting to project force across the entire Pacific in one jump. Your comparison is nonsensical. It is also very misleading; absolute amounts of force are less important than relative amounts of force. How many men do you need to mount a successful invasion is hinged entirely on how tough the defenses are. Trying to crack an Atlantic Wall or wherever you want to put your fist against the Soviets is going to be much tougher than what the Japanese could scrape together by April 1945.
>The US provided its own protective cover of air support in the invasion of Okinawa,
Against a Japanese "air force" that numbered less than 1,500 barely trained and mostly suicide planes. That is a far cry from trying to deal with an embedded land-based air defense who will have planes that are likely superior to what your carriers can bring and will number in the tens of thousands.
Oh, and by the way, they used land based air at Okinawa. You can't launch guys like the 41st bombardment group from a carrier.
> on the other side of the world
With basing areas relatively nearby and an interdiction against an island, which would not be possible against France or Germany or wherever you're envisioning hitting.
>and facing an enemy with precision guided missiles for defense.
A kamikaze is a precision guided missile? That's an amusing notion.
Err, the given scenario is a 1:1 situation, not a 2 front war for Germany, thus the glorious military of the USA! USA! USA! wouldn't face pensioners and teenagers but regular battleready troops without air superiority.
You are wrong and your constant posturing is more than a little funny.
>The U.S. is fundamentally European in nature and Americans aren’t going to sit around and watch the Nazis/Soviets conquer the world and once they step up, the U.S. will eventually win.
I miss the >80% times
Some people in this thread seem to be very stupid and need to learn how to admit they were wrong about a point they made on a chinese cartoon image board
Which people fall into that category? It's very important that we know your opinion.
Don't know about nazis, but Russia and USSR is literally unbeatable 1x1. Logistical hell to invaders+unbreakable will to sacrifice themselves for Motherland will never allow to lose.
90% sure you are being sarcastic, but anyway
people who present a statistic they have obviously made up on the spot(often shown by using an arbitrary range on an arbitrary near unmeasurable statistic, e.g. 70-80% of total war effort), who then get defensive when some similar metrics(that actually exist and are measurable) provide very differing results
in short, american education gives to many brainlets here confidence to post 'facts'
>armaments aren't war materiel
You are a fucking retard who can't accept when he's wrong.
I would just like to point out that as the guy who posted the following
I am myself American. It's not a nationality problem. It's an idiocy problem.
What are you smoking? At beginning of WW2, america thought cavalry was the best way on beating trenches.
That and even after the war, where was the USSR inferior? Where was the USA superior at any given time in WW2?