Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Elfeater]

It is a scenario involving US invading an united europe and switzerland fighting in the war. Realistic alliances have no power here.

You could justify most anything using that logic, and it does invalidate DJ's point about Russia joining the war to get rid of their nemesis. I say that leaving Russia out is a fine decision since we're being pretty arbitrary anyway.

Though while we're on this point how viable would a invasion via eastern Siberia be? Supply lines would be atrocious but it would pretty much remove the difficulty of launching an amphibious assault on Europe itself.

If they cut the trans Siberian line youre done

[andrea]

yes, what I am tyring to say is that saying "no, that wouldn't happen because reason X" has little weight in this discussion, since it is entirely based on 'what ifs'. We can run scenarios with Russia on either side or with it staying neutral without worrying too much about what it would do.

About landing in eastern Siberia, the landing itself would be really easy but moving westward across all russia is going to be a tremendous effort. Especially if russians decide to burn infrasttructure on their retreat, a tactc that is not unknown to them. By the time soldiers , supply lines and air bases get close enough to start invading populated areas, the war is over. ( well, maybe exageration, but it is going to tie a lot of manpower and resources in just getting the army across and if Russia doesn't try to defend the shore, the european block has a lot of time to prepare.)

edit:

If they cut the trans Siberian line you're done

Exactly.

[MonkeyHead]

It is a scenario involving US invading an united europe and switzerland fighting in the war. Realistic alliances have no power here.

You could justify most anything using that logic, and it does invalidate DJ's point about Russia joining the war to get rid of their nemesis. I say that leaving Russia out is a fine decision since we're being pretty arbitrary anyway.

Though while we're on this point how viable would a invasion via eastern Siberia be? Supply lines would be atrocious but it would pretty much remove the difficulty of launching an amphibious assault on Europe itself.

I think an amphib assault on mainland EU is less of an issue logistically than an overland push over thousands of Km of Arctic tundra - either way the US would have long supply lines. I know the US military has good logistics, but supplying a fighting force of the size needed to take on the substantial obstacle provided hypothetical combined EU force over the Atlantic or over most of Russia (which however the advance took place would leave a huge vulnerable flank somewhere to be exploited) is pushing it too far to assume it would be able to cope.

[Elfeater]

If the us would invade Europe, would the Europeans, saying they lose the UK to the US, re-purpose whats left of Hitlers Atlantic wall?

[MonkeyHead]

If the us would invade Europe, would the Europeans, saying they lose the UK to the US, re-purpose whats left of Hitlers Atlantic wall?

Probably. If nothing else it is a good starting point for a new system of forts etc.

[Elfeater]

Which would mean either a heavily contested landing into France or Spain, or pushing though Denmark or past Gibraltar. But if they did fight through Gibraltar, the Mediterranean Island would fall and make good supply points.

[MonkeyHead]

Which would mean either a heavily contested landing into France or Spain, or pushing though Denmark or past Gibraltar. But if they did fight through Gibraltar, the Mediterranean Island would fall and make good supply points.

Gibraltar would be a fucking horrible place to assault. The straights between Spain and Morocco are a natural bottleneck for ships that would be a lovely kill-zone to mine as soon as you saw the enemy steaming over the horizon or even drop loads of missiles, shells and bombs onto, and the Rock is a ready made fort - handily overlooking the only decent landing site of the sheltered bay.

[Elfeater]

Which would mean either a heavily contested landing into France or Spain, or pushing though Denmark or past Gibraltar. But if they did fight through Gibraltar, the Mediterranean Island would fall and make good supply points.

Gibraltar would be a fucking horrible place to assault. The straights between Spain and Morocco are a natural bottleneck for ships that would be a lovely kill-zone to mine as soon as you saw the enemy steaming over the horizon or even drop loads of missiles, shells and bombs onto, and the Rock is a ready made fort - handily overlooking the only decent landing site of the sheltered bay.

Not necessarily take, if they damaged the EU fleet to take England, they may be able to force through the straight, not take the rock though.

[Zangi]

Which would mean either a heavily contested landing into France or Spain, or pushing though Denmark or past Gibraltar. But if they did fight through Gibraltar, the Mediterranean Island would fall and make good supply points.

Gibraltar would be a fucking horrible place to assault. The straights between Spain and Morocco are a natural bottleneck for ships that would be a lovely kill-zone to mine as soon as you saw the enemy steaming over the horizon or even drop loads of missiles, shells and bombs onto, and the Rock is a ready made fort - handily overlooking the only decent landing site of the sheltered bay.

Not necessarily take, if they damaged the EU fleet to take England, they may be able to force through the straight, not take the rock though.

Force through the strait?  How many times?  Just once?  Or everytime they need to send/receive supply/reinforcements?

[Elfeater]

Which would mean either a heavily contested landing into France or Spain, or pushing though Denmark or past Gibraltar. But if they did fight through Gibraltar, the Mediterranean Island would fall and make good supply points.

Gibraltar would be a fucking horrible place to assault. The straights between Spain and Morocco are a natural bottleneck for ships that would be a lovely kill-zone to mine as soon as you saw the enemy steaming over the horizon or even drop loads of missiles, shells and bombs onto, and the Rock is a ready made fort - handily overlooking the only decent landing site of the sheltered bay.

Not necessarily take, if they damaged the EU fleet to take England, they may be able to force through the straight, not take the rock though.

Force through the strait?  How many times?  Just once?  Or everytime they need to send/receive supply/reinforcements?

If you force the strait once, you have probably dealt with their fleet, and can set up a blockade of the Rock while it wont fall because of Spanish support, you will have fairly free access to the Mediterranean.

[DJ]

Well Russians consider themselves European, so you can't just count them out. Not any more than Ukraine, at least.

[Glloyd]

New scenario! How would WWII been different if Hitler hadn't turned to bombing UK cities, and instead kept bombing strategic targets, and followed it up with an amphibious invasion of England?

[Jopax]

Probably not too differently since the brits were rather prepared for an invasion across the channel. So instead of wasting resources and manpower on ineffectual bombing the jerries would waste it on an amphibious invasion doomed to fail.

Unless they somehow got in trough Ireland. That would prove a tad trickier to deal with, since most of the fortifications were facing east.

[Elfeater]

That would arguably be the end of Britain. With Ireland under German control, American supplies reaching Britain would be nearly impossible, while a ground invasion might be impossible, their forces in Africa would be cut off and on their own to face good 'ole Rommel, and the Lion would be de-clawed.

[Digital Hellhound]

I don't see how an amphibious invasion of Ireland is going to work any better than one of Britain. You've still got the Royal Navy blocking your way, and preventing supply and reinforcement if you by miracle land a force.