|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Apr 6, 2016 19:48:53 GMT
USA. You guys keep bringing up Canada and Australia, but, as someone who lives right next to the Canadian border, the Canadians would not last more than half a year against the Americans. We pay for most of their defenses while they pay for their healthcare and such. Anything wrong with that? No. But its an issue in this scenario. Its not like the Canadians don't have a military, but compared to the USA it is miniscule. The Aussies are so far away from the action that they would have to be shipped from their homeland to the action, where our strong navy could easily blocakade the Aussie coast. India and Pakistan are much bigger threats, but, if we're not using nukes, then we could definitely starve these countries off due to blockades. They definitely have enough food to last years, but eventually they will submit. Britain, as much as i don't mean to be offensive, are not a major threat. They would be subdued. African countries have large militaries, but our superior technology would pummel them. Do not start getting defensive if i said the US would beat your country, this is how I think it would go down. You can have your own opinion but don't enforce it on others. Many of us here are guilty of this, including Napoleon Bonaparte. Do not tell people they're wrong. Its their opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Horatio Nelson on Apr 6, 2016 19:51:22 GMT
Thank you Albert and Bismarck! Let's just hope the US will never have to unleash on disadvantaged countries such as most of the former commonwealths of the UK.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horatio Nelson on Apr 6, 2016 19:55:33 GMT
USA. You guys keep bringing up Canada and Australia, but, as someone who lives right next to the Canadian border, the Canadians would not last more than half a year against the Americans. We pay for most of their defenses while they pay for their healthcare and such. Anything wrong with that? No. But its an issue in this scenario. Its not like the Canadians don't have a military, but compared to the USA it is miniscule. The Aussies are so far away from the action that they would have to be shipped from their homeland to the action, where our strong navy could easily blocakade the Aussie coast. India and Pakistan are much bigger threats, but, if we're not using nukes, then we could definitely starve these countries off due to blockades. They definitely have enough food to last years, but eventually they will submit. Britain, as much as i don't mean to be offensive, are not a major threat. They would be subdued. African countries have large militaries, but our superior technology would pummel them. Do not start getting defensive if i said the US would beat your country, this is how I think it would go down. You can have your own opinion but don't enforce it on others. Many of us here are guilty of this, including Napoleon Bonaparte. Do not tell people they're wrong. Its their opinion. Wonderful points. And not to mention, in this scenario, the US gets support from say France and Germany. So dealing with Britain would be even easier. |
|
|
|
Post by Moreau on Apr 6, 2016 20:38:52 GMT
America would stand no chance against Britain even with EU as allies
Remember Vietnam? IRAQ? Afghanistan?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Apr 6, 2016 20:52:56 GMT
Part two!
Canada has remained neutral for the most part, but has strong fears for the fall of its ally, Britain. Border issues become common. Severe political tension occurs in America, namely the Democrats against the war and Republicans for the war. The Democrats believe that the war will and has crippled the economy, is unfair to our former ally Britain, and desires to ignore Europe's problems and continue with our own issues. Republicans view that action is neccisary to stop a possible third world war from occuring and to remove such threat, and to do so will establish stronger relations with the powerhouses of Europe, espescially with Germany, hoping to end the ongoing spying and gain the economic benifits from the nation as they have formed a coalition to free France. Largely, America wins any conflicts with Canada. India begins to attack American ships and frees itself from blockade, and captures several American islands, forming a large Navy and Airforce. Britain retalliates by sending its forces on campaign in Scandinavia and wins, decently. Britian annexes coastel territory on the West of the peninsula and begins harrassing ships traviling through the North and Scandinavian Seas, thus crippling the economies of the countries. The southern regions of the sea, espescially around Denmark, are largely ensured by Germany, however the Merkel admimistration pulls many troops from the British Channel and France. Part three soon?
|
|
|
|
Post by Horatio Nelson on Apr 6, 2016 20:53:06 GMT
America would stand no chance against Britain even with EU as allies Remember Vietnam? IRAQ? Afghanistan? We had to tip toe around civilians and fought combatants that dresses like normal civilians in Vietnam and Afghanistan. We erased the Iraqi army in a matter of weeks so I don't see your point. Focus on our past of fighting armies that had the balls to not try and confuse their own civilians with their soldiers, risking civilian lives. Edit: It's a fool proof method that no army has ever defeated. Resistance in the form of guerilla warfare is a daunting task to beat for a regular army. Hey, ask the Britsih #1776 |
|
|
|
Post by Moreau on Apr 6, 2016 21:24:17 GMT
America would stand no chance against Britain even with EU as allies Remember Vietnam? IRAQ? Afghanistan? We had to tip toe around civilians and fought combatants that dresses like normal civilians in Vietnam and Afghanistan. We erased the Iraqi army in a matter of weeks so I don't see your point. Focus on our past of fighting armies that had the balls to not try and confuse their own civilians with their soldiers, risking civilian lives. Edit: It's a fool proof method that no army has ever defeated. Resistance in the form of guerilla warfare is a daunting task to beat for a regular army. Hey, ask the Britsih #1776 The Iraqi army was defeated quicky,very true but the american army got defeated by Resisitance fighters |
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Apr 6, 2016 21:28:07 GMT
America would stand no chance against Britain even with EU as allies Remember Vietnam? IRAQ? Afghanistan? We had to tip toe around civilians and fought combatants that dresses like normal civilians in Vietnam and Afghanistan. We erased the Iraqi army in a matter of weeks so I don't see your point. Focus on our past of fighting armies that had the balls to not try and confuse their own civilians with their soldiers, risking civilian lives. Edit: It's a fool proof method that no army has ever defeated. Resistance in the form of guerilla warfare is a daunting task to beat for a regular army. Hey, ask the Britsih #1776 And thats why the "Britsih" are losing in the timeline I am creatin! #AmericanIndependance #1776 #Winning |
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Apr 6, 2016 21:30:23 GMT
I just had an idea! What if I started posting alternate history timelines as a way to entertain me and everyone else? Stuff like this British war and maybe stuff like if the Korean War continued or if the Republic of China beat the Peoples Republic of China.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horatio Nelson on Apr 6, 2016 21:48:06 GMT
We had to tip toe around civilians and fought combatants that dresses like normal civilians in Vietnam and Afghanistan. We erased the Iraqi army in a matter of weeks so I don't see your point. Focus on our past of fighting armies that had the balls to not try and confuse their own civilians with their soldiers, risking civilian lives. Edit: It's a fool proof method that no army has ever defeated. Resistance in the form of guerilla warfare is a daunting task to beat for a regular army. Hey, ask the Britsih #1776 The Iraqi army was defeated quicky,very true but the american army got defeated by Resisitance fighters We didn't fight the regular Afghani army. We fought insurgents dressed like the population. In Vietnam, we beat the regular military in almost every instance, yet the Viet Cong dressed like civilians very highly effective against us. That is my point, no one can overcome a guerilla style resistance. Not the US, not the British, not your home country... |
|
|
|
Post by Horatio Nelson on Apr 6, 2016 21:49:46 GMT
I just had an idea! What if I started posting alternate history timelines as a way to entertain me and everyone else? Stuff like this British war and maybe stuff like if the Korean War continued or if the Republic of China beat the Peoples Republic of China. Great idea! I vote in favor for a thread like this. |
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Apr 6, 2016 22:39:35 GMT
You keep saying the US has such a strong navy (which it does) but many of the comonwealth has strong and well trained navies and the US would have to split its forces to efectivly fight off all of the commonwealth so they wouldn't be as strong on any one front as they would be if they were fighting just a few countries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horatio Nelson on Apr 6, 2016 23:59:45 GMT
You keep saying the US has such a strong navy (which it does) but many of the comonwealth has strong and well trained navies and the US would have to split its forces to efectivly fight off all of the commonwealth so they wouldn't be as strong on any one front as they would be if they were fighting just a few countries. Just like WW2 but much easier... Atlantic fleet only has England and west Africa to deal with. Pacific Fleet has a cluster of poor Asian countries to deal with then India. India will be a the only threat. India has 2 aircraft carriers and 1 is currently short range aircraft only. The US has 12 with 3 in reserve. I'd imagine a somewhat even split of carrier strength between the Atlantic, Pacific, and Mediterranean. So about 5 of the best carriers vs 2 of India's. Australia's navy is basically the US navy. New Zealand....Shouldn't have to explain that one unless you need me to. When it comes to Egypt, differ to my comments on New Zealand. This website has updated numbers for each country. This should help future points in this thread. www.globalfirepower.com |
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Apr 7, 2016 0:24:14 GMT
Australia's navy is most certinly not the US navy! We have our own ships including 2 helicopter carriers and numerous ships, many of which are advanced
|
|
|
|
Post by Horatio Nelson on Apr 7, 2016 0:32:16 GMT
Australia's navy is most certinly not the US navy! We have our own ships including 2 helicopter carriers and numerous ships, many of which are advanced Australia cut naval spending because of the friendly US naval presence. In the event of an invasion aimed at Australia, US ships would be the bulk of the defense. |
|
