Bartman
Actually not the total number of warships is all we need: the types of warships are also important. Japan had more AC than US, that should compensate for some lack of battleships.
In any case, the US overall fleet was superior to Japanese, I admit it.
Axis Kast
Within a week we can have a small force of Marines – with light armored vehicles – on the ground in Spain.
That is not enough to stop the invasion, which will be receiving supplies in hours. I don't really think you will manage to cut supply lines at all, and certainly not in a few days. So while you will have a small force with large AFVs, we will be there in full power.
On what grounds? You’re not going to be able to use any of those seaports effectively or reliably given the threat of Coalition A’s air and naval power.
I was not talking about
us launching invasion. I was talking about supply lines. We can cut Spain's supplies fast, and after that no reinforcements will be available.
And the Italians will be tough nuts to crack given the ease with which we can transfer American assets to the Mediterranean.
Should I repeat once more:
ease is NOT
speed,
numbers will be puny.
You really think a soldier on the beach with a few missiles and machine guns is going to survive a full bombardment?
A soldier will not, but no point in bombarding him: and a strategic point will survive that quite easily.
Those “fixed defenses” aren’t going to be too useful.
Why not? Terrain with static defences favors the defender, especially if troops and AFVs are deployed.
You can’t put up whole lines of defenders without severely compromising your own safety in the process.
You suggest we
can't manage our human resources?
We’ll destroy you while you’re still entrenching.
Huh... We'll be entrenched a whole week until your invasion begins (if it ever does: I don't think your strateges are so foolish).
In this case, you need supremacy to launch an invasion given the type of combat vessels you possess.
Of course. That's why invasion of Britain, Japan, US remains nearly impossible.'
In Portugal? I think not.
Well, if you insist, we can capture this one, too.
We are blitzing. And still, it’s taking some time.
It's taking time, obviously. But I don't see you take Iraquis in bags or something like that.
A “matter of hours?” Try days.
France and Germany reinforce in fact, in a matter of hours. Russia will take a few days.
Spain can hold out for a few weeks without reinforcement.
I wonder, can they secure the whole border with their 240.000?
In the form of both American and Royal Marines.
The time of their arrival will be shortly before Spain falls, I think. All they could show: "they can die with honour".
But you’ve still nowhere near the army.
We're not alone. We have the CIS.
We’ll hit you despite the danger.
Let me explain: you will have your planes down until they reach any vital or somewhat important points. You will possibly perform bombardment in hell conditions, suffering enormous loss from AA defences. Do I make myself clear? Bombardment of strategic locations is impossible for you.
Which can be derailed rather easily…
Not in time. And they are also repaired with ease.
phongn
but I don't see how it's going to supply the neccessary material for a multidivision advance across England, Wales and Scotland.
We have to secure the supply line and establish a position with our first strike.
Securing the sea is impossible, for that matter, against the A-Coalition fleet.
Securing the sea
is possible, because fleet takes time to gather.
So the PLA(N) is going to sit in port for the entire war? The Russian Pacific Fleet is going to do nothing? The situation is even worse than it is Europe for the B Coalition in terms of invading.
You know Japan has no agression tendencies. We can deploy the fleet for raider attacks of WWII, but we won't be asking for a major sea battle, you know we will lose that.
Invasion of the UK or Japan is impossible, period, by the B-Coalition.
I agree that it is so. At least we'll need to deploy some all-new attack tricks to invade, otherwise we are screwed by the Fleet.
Indeed, but the US Navy and Royal Navy are very precise and very well trained.
I mean, keeping some fleet operation in secret can give it a chance of success.
Trains and trucks have speed but they don't have bulk
I think in this case you lose: the road net in Europe an Russia will allow to move
very huge resources in little time.
Europe's economy demands the use of the sea.
More than needed, troop deployment can be achieved using ground and air. But you, of course, will have to move through the sea.
On the continent we are the supreme power. Nothing can stop us (except for some freakish accident), just like we can't invade anyone by sea.
What, you're going to send your fleet to hug a coastline?
Descent needs fleet support. Speed is crucial in this case: we will have to make the fastest over-seas transport line ever.
Wartime production rates for WW2-era tanks and modern tanks are not an acceptable comparison!
Of course they are more advanced. But industry is also more powerful. And the industrial capabilities of B are no less than yours, and we don't have them weapons to be transported... Can you see my point?
For holding defense they can get swamped by the enemy naval power as well.
Yes. This is one unsolvable problem, I think. Yet they can hold for the time needed to gather the Fleet.
Yes, you can send of the German and French fleet, neither of which will matter much in major combat.
We will have to avoid major combat by all means. "Weapons of the weak against the strong" we will have to use.
Ignorant twit
The Eurasian thrust throught Pyrenees. One word: Landmines
Don't help much, war proved. You have them planted on all the wide front?
Trucks suck ass for moving equipment, and rail is a weakness.
Trucks don't suck, they
go. Rail is a weakness? Uh, I suppose you will be glad to know it was extensively used as a major war supply line in the past and will be used in the future. It's fast and capable of moving lots.
Can we say sabotage?
It's uneffective. War-proven. Have sabotaged the whole rail networks of the B? Go chew some berries.
Can we say sabotaging the petrol lines?
Another silly thing. Who could do that? Who will do that? Oh, you think you will do that in a second, but we'll take weeks to repair. Exactly the opposite is true. You may not be able to sabotage anything at all, but even if you do, the emergency repairs take a few hours (or, if it's really serious, more than a day).
(through the inevitable minefeild)
Haven't we got examples of mines ineffective? Normandy, perhaps? (yes, I know Allies suffered huge loss: but it was 80% due to AFVs). In fact, mines are overwhelmed by the B ground capabilities.
How long before the USN and RN go in and choke the supply route?
They will need a few days to come: a few to plan: in fact, this time we can adapt to changes, avoiding sea battle at any cost.
Long, long term C-A wins after killing off a significant portion of C-B.
Another
"killing significant". Do you know the attackers of B are not superior in numbers? Do you know they are not superior on ground, nor does ground favor them? At least 2:1 for the A:B must be there for the A to succeed. The B is superior on it's own ground by all means. A will get screwed if it tries to invade. And A can never ultimately win. In fact, it will suffer huge losses (attackers suffer more loss than defenders anyway, and this time ALL favors the defenders), and it's already numerically inferior.
The result will be, I think: two-polar world as with USSR & USA. Eurasia will be occupied by the B, but the A will hold America and the isles (Japan, Britain). Both sides will sign some sort of agreement and the two-polar world will last until one or both Coalitions break apart or a third power rises.
. The age of static defense is over.
