Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by rtrapasso »

A perfect example is the "cavity magnitron" which produced a quantum leap in Radar Technology. The British invented it (as they did pennicillin), but turned it over to the Americans for production...

Not quite true - the cavity magnitron was actually a US invention, but it was the Brits who applied it to radar technology... the US invention just sat on the shelf (so to speak) until the Brits applied it so spectacularly. (See Radar History of WW2)


EDIT: Penicillin was also a discovery, (it is made by a mold), not an invention- and of no real use to anyone until they invented ways to produce it in quantity. This was done in the US by a German born Brit (Ernst Chain, who was actually half Russian, half German) and an Aussie (Howard Florey) from 1939 until they finally started successfully making quantities of the drug starting around 1945 (using mass fermentation methods and purification techniques).

Fleming, who usually gets all the credit, made the observation that a mold contaminant inhbited bacterial growth, and extracted and named Penicillin. He tried to get the drug to work in humans - and could not. He thought the drug wasn't any good for use in humans.

It wasn't until Florey, Chain, and others including Dorothy Hodgkin worked out the structure, manufacturing and purification techiques that Fleming tried using it in patients (without their knowledge, iirc) - that the drug was actually found to be useful.

Fleming, Florey and Chain got the Nobel Prize. Dorothy Hodgkin got a footnote in history for her pioneering efforts.
User avatar
wyrmmy
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:35 am

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by wyrmmy »

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" And we also should keep in mind that the USA were never bombed or invaded during the war.."

Not quite true... Oregon was bombed (I forget which town) by a Japanese sub launched aircraft.

Just saw this recently - they bombed some woods (not a town), trying to start forest fires - but it had rained, and so didn't work.

Of course, there were also balloon bombs (tens of thousands released, and several caused some damage). One of these killed a woman and some boy scouts, but i think that was the extent of casualties for this considerable effort.

Battery Russel at Fort Stevens (Astoria) was also shelled by submarine.
User avatar
niceguy2005
Posts: 12522
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:53 pm
Location: Super secret hidden base

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by niceguy2005 »

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

As for Germany, quality is evident and well known. As for Japan, we can't deny they had an excellent equipment (along with some sh**). If the Allies won, it's basically because they were much more strong (not better) than their counterparts: er... USA + USSR (who could beat this "team" on the 40's?). This is especially true in the Pacific.

This would depend on how you want to qualify better.

There is no doubt that Germany, and to a much lesser extent Japan, had better more technologically advanced weaponry at the start of the war. This is the natural outcome of a country preparing for war years in advance. The US had WWII thrust upon it and it was a nation not at all prepared to go to war. Yet by the end of the war the US had rapidly closed the technological gap and in many areas was surpasing Germany, they had already surpased Japan.

I'm not sure it is always appreciated the rapid social change the US underwent during the war, in which it was transformed from a largely aggrian/frontier society into an industrial nation. IIRC, about 50% of the US population before the war lived on small farms and factories tended to be small and few. Many items were still hand crafted.

To win the war the US not only had to engineer new weaponry, to a large extent it had to build the factories to produce it. In fact, this led to a lot of engineering trade-offs. Rather than designing its dream weapons, the military had to rely on the innovation of manufacturers to produce what they could with the factories they had because their was no time to build new factories for specific weapons. This led to all sorts of innovative weapons that were effective if somewhat bizarre or underwhelming in apperance. It led to a design philosophy of build a weapon that is simple, rugged and gets the job done. The result was weapons such as the M-1, the bangalore torpedo, the higgins boat and the Sherman. The US certainly had the capability to design more superior weaponry, but not the capacity to produce it in any quantity.
Image
Artwork graciously provided by Dixie
Speedysteve
Posts: 15974
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Reading, England

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by Speedysteve »

ORIGINAL: pauk
Castor, please do not go to general disscusion forum with such ideas[;)]. If you bring these arguments you will be acussed for ethnic cleanese or something worse by certain idiot Rudo Fagson or whatever who is hiding behind all mighty paul veber. The reason while i'm telling you that is that even a old Sherman/Tiger, Bismarck sunk/scuttled, Zero/Wildcat didn't introduce such creature. Also didn't know that paul veber is arrogant and ignorant person - that is why i won't go there anymore....

LOL.

WiE bud............[:'(]
WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by Nemo121 »

Pauk isn't being cryptic. Paul Vebber is a real Matrix employee IIRC - been a few years since I talked to him last - and I presume Rudo Fagson is someone's nick... I've heard it mentioned several times as an archetype of close-mindedness.
 
 
As to who had the better equipment... Well, generally, the best German equipment was probably the best equipment fielded by any nation in the war ( StG 44, FG 42, MG 42, Panther, FW-190series ( including Ta-152), late-series U-boats, Me-264, Hs-293/SD-1400 etc) but they also fielded a lot of crap by virtue of the fact that ease of production was often not a feature of this best equipment.

When, however, the Germans melded their ability to design excellent equipment with a "good enough is good enough" methodology then they often produced excellent results ( late-series u-boats), Panzerschrecken/Panzerfausten and, particularly, the Hetzer ... Compare the Hetzer to the StuG III ( an inferior weapon which, nonetheless was more difficult to produce) at the low end of the scale and the Jagdpanther and Jagdtigers at the higher end of the scale ( superior individual weapons BUT one could have produced several Hetzers for each Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger.... a more appropriate mix might well have been 25% Jagdpanzer IV mit 7.5cm lang  and 75% Hetzer in order to allow some truly superior jagdpanzers to go to highly experienced crews whilst allowing the homogenous mass to get sufficient Hetzers to make a real difference).
 
So it is a bit more complicated than good/bad. It was certainly possible to produce equipment which was of more than sufficient quality ( and better than almost anything the Western Allies were fielding and still produce 4 or 5 times as much compared to the old superb but difficult to produce equipment) and in 1943/44 the Germans began to try to do just that. If you look at the last generation of their weaponry cycle during the war ( 44 to 45) you can see that the hi-lo mix of early years became much more of a hi- excellent medium and a bit of lo mix. It came too late for them to win though, thankfully.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7678
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" And we also should keep in mind that the USA were never bombed or invaded during the war.."

Not quite true... Oregon was bombed (I forget which town) by a Japanese sub launched aircraft.
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
Just saw this recently - they bombed some woods (not a town), trying to start forest fires - but it had rained, and so didn't work.

Of course, there were also balloon bombs (tens of thousands released, and several caused some damage). One of these killed a woman and some boy scouts, but i think that was the extent of casualties for this considerable effort.

The Japanese high command struggled with the size of the US. In late 1943, they hit upon a plan to burn down the US by starting massive forest fires in the Pacific Northwest. They devised a very original plan to use the jet stream (which was discovered just before the war) to send balloons armed with incindiary bombs over the Northwest.

They launched the first balloons in November 1944, and I believe gave up the program in March or April 1945. If anybody has been to or lives in the Northwest during that part of the year, you know that it usually quite rainy. Not a single bomb started a fire, but one did kill a couple of people in rural Oregon who came across one. Most of the balloons never made it to the US and went down in the Pacific. The Navy found a lot of remains of balloons, but didn't figure out what they were for until after the war.

Even today many Japanese struggle with how big the US is. I have a friend who was a freight forwarder, which is like a travel agent for freight. She was based in Seattle and had cargo shipped in and out of all US ports. She has said that there were times when she would have a problem with something in New Jersey and she'd be trying to work the problem and her customer in Japan would be telling her to just go there in person and deal with it. When she'd explain that it would take most of a day just to get there, she'd be met with incomprehension.

Japanese submarines also launched a few aircraft that flew inland over the West Coast a short ways. There was also some minor shelling of coastal facilities by IJN subs early in the war. One was oil facilities in Santa Barbara.

All these feable efforts ammounted to nothing. The US's war production was never disrupted at all by enemy action, so for all intents and purposes TulliusDetritus' are correct.

Bill
SCW Development Team
User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7678
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: castor troy
while I think this is correct for most of the US equipment compared to the Japanese I don´t think this is true in comparison with the German equipment. There was definetely the factor of quantity but the quality was still very good of German weapons until very late in the war. The problem there wasn´t enough. Not enough of tanks, trucks, fuel,....

My grandfather served over 4 years as a tank commander and told me that they (the German) were always convinced about the "better quality" of their equipment in comparison to Western Allied ground troops while they feared more the equipment of Soviet ground forces. The thing they were really afraid of was the Western Allied Air force. And he never had something better on hand than a late model of the Panzer IV. Don´t want to start the old story about the Sherman vs. the Tiger or Panther again. Of course 10 Shermans are the better choice to produce but the 5 men sitting in a Tiger will be convinced for sure that they´ve got the better tank than those 4 or 5 crews that just were killed in the Shermans when taking on their beast. I bet Wittmann was convinced that he had a better tank than his Western Allied opponents. Though he feared the Eastern tanks that were capable of taken on Tiger.

And all of Hitlers "wonder weapons" were probably years ahead of Allied developments but with the problems with not enough of them and not operational early enough. Besides the fact of stupid decisions like the Schwalbe being a fighter bomber instead of a pure fighter. Producing them in 42 when it would have been possible would have caused more then 100.000 Allied crews lost of German held territory.

German equipment often suffered from reliability problems. Most Tigers were lost due to mechanical breakdown while retreating or in enemy territory. They were able to streamline production for some weapons and were able to produce some cheap and very reliable weapons. All the "super weapons" were tempermental and prone to failure. Many times the super weapons were over engineered and had been built by slave labor who were not exactly motivated to make the best product.

I've also read that Hitler's dithering about putting the Me-262 into production was not the critical path for it's delays. It's true the Me-262 was flying as early as 1942, but it wasn't ready for production until 1944. The biggest problem was the Jumo engines. A few experimental ones were available for the Me-262 prototypes, but the engines were not ready for full production in 1942. Jet engines take new advances in metalurgy and Jumo had a lot of trouble with metal failures in the core. Even when the engines went into production they were tempermental and prone to short lives. The problems were never worked out during the war.

Germany also suffered from raw resource shortages that required redesigns and limited many things. The high quality iron to make armor plate came from Sweden, and as the war progressed, Germany had a tougher and tougher time paying for more of it. Oil was a constant, ciritcal issue for the last couple of years of the war. For av gas, they had two grades 87 octane and 92. During the last 2 years of the war, 100 octane was available on every US and British base, with 140 available too. The B-29's engines ran on 140 octane. My father (who was flying in the Pacific) said that more often than not, they flew B-25s on 140 octane too.

Germany also was very wasteful of trained personnel. The US and Commonwealth rotated all aircrews so the experienced pilots would train the newbies. This had many effects. It kept morale up because crews knew there was an end to their tour. The experienced pilots were able to instill some of that experience on their pupils (though this wasn't fully incorporated until the Top Gun type programs). With plentiful oil, student pilots were able to get enough flying hours in so they felt confident in their mounts when they went into combat. As the war progressed, the quality of Allied green pilots steadily increased and the quality of Germany and Japanese pilots decreased sharply.

Germany was able to produce some spectacular weapons in some areas. Some of these such as the Panzerfaust and MG42 they were able to produce in sufficient quantities. In larger weapons, there were never enough tanks, guns, or planes after 1942.

Comaring one on one, many US weapons were inferior to the German counterparts. The US had two things going for it: quantity and reliability. The humble 2 1/2 ton truck could do something no other army's trucks could do: run almost continuously for more than a year and not wear out. It seems like a minor thing, but it isn't.

When Churchill heard about the Pearl Harbor attack, his first comment was, "so we have won after all". He knew that US manpower and production was going to turn the tide.

Bill
SCW Development Team
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by rtrapasso »

There were also some areas where the Allies had clear-cut advantages that gave decisive advantages in the war - three obvious ones: nuclear fission, radar, and codebreaking.

Codebreaking was no minor thing: it gave the Brits big edges in their battles (esp. Crete and North Africa)... Monty was getting better-than-real-time intelligence: he was getting the orders to the German troops before the German troops were getting them at El Alamein. At Crete, all the German troop movements were known ahead of time, and were able to be intercepted and savaged. Most of the convoys heading for North Africa were known about and could be cut up with air power or subs. The Germans did have some successes with codebreaking, but nothing on the scale the Allies did. A similar advantage was held by the Allies in the PTO throughout most of the war.

Radar (and other electronics, such as Huff-Duff) also gave huge advantages to the Allies as compared to Germany. Nuclear fission never got used against Germany, but if the war had been going badly in 1945, these weapons might have been used in the ETO (remember, the fallout issue wasn't really known about when the first weapons were dropped).

Radar and codebreaking were not weapons like tanks or aircraft, but, imo, they may have provided the winning edge the Allies. Had the Germans been superior to the Allies in these three fields - would the Allies have one the war? i don't think so.

My point is: Germans had some technological advantages, but not ones in decisive areas, and their lagging in these technologies probably cost them the war.
User avatar
keeferon01
Posts: 334
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:50 pm
Location: North Carolina

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by keeferon01 »

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Ron James

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005



I had no idea the US military was that big at the time. Anybody know how big the Japanese or German military was at its height?

Japan had 51 Divisions and about 60 Ind Brigades in Jan 42

Actually less than 30 Independent Brigades.


It was around 60 my friend, these was Ind Mixed Brigades, Ind Inf Brigades, Ind Inf Groups, Independent Mixed Regiments, Ind Garrison Units and also Ind Mixed Regiments, these was roughly all near Brigade strength.
User avatar
Kereguelen
Posts: 1454
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:08 pm

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by Kereguelen »

ORIGINAL: Ron James

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Ron James




Japan had 51 Divisions and about 60 Ind Brigades in Jan 42

Actually less than 30 Independent Brigades.


It was around 60 my friend, these was Ind Mixed Brigades, Ind Inf Brigades, Ind Inf Groups, Independent Mixed Regiments, Ind Garrison Units and also Ind Mixed Regiments, these was roughly all near Brigade strength.

I count 22 Independent Mixed Brigades, 2 Mixed Regiments (not really brigade strength), 2 Independent Infantry Groups (actually infantry regiments with some artillery attached, South Seas Detachment and 56th "Brigade"), 3 "surplus" regiments (from divisons just converted to triangular format), one Independent Brigade (65th, actually a reserve formation). And the Independent garrison units in Manchuria were only partially mobilized.
Vetamur
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:49 am

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by Vetamur »

Since nit picking seems to be the order of the day in the thread.. why is Sakhalin being thrown in as a "Home Island"??
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by TulliusDetritus »

Nice Guy, by "better" I mean this:

In general, the Axis were as competent as the Allies (militarily speaking, of course). If someone is going to say "hey, what about Nimitz, he was a great commander!". Someone else can easily retort "and what about Yamamoto?". Or "Patton/Zhukov" vs "Rommel/Guderian", etc., etc., you name it (same thing with war material).

Now I think it's obvious that Germany could stand the heat much more than Japan. The technology difference in the Pacific was very evident (especially in 1944-1945). And of course, the "strong" thing too. The Battle of the Philippine Sea is a fight [well, "massacre" is more accurate] between a giant and a dwarf.
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by Mike Scholl »

I agree with your overall viewpoint, but....
ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

This would depend on how you want to qualify better.

There is no doubt that Germany, and to a much lesser extent Japan, had better more technologically advanced weaponry at the start of the war. This is the natural outcome of a country preparing for war years in advance. The US had WWII thrust upon it and it was a nation not at all prepared to go to war. Yet by the end of the war the US had rapidly closed the technological gap and in many areas was surpasing Germany, they had already surpassed Japan. Actually, they were "blowing Japan's doors off" by the end of 1942. Japan had only had "superiority" in a few select areas (fighters, torpedoes) to begin with.

I'm not sure it is always appreciated the rapid social change the US underwent during the war, in which it was transformed from a largely aggrian/frontier society into an industrial nation. IIRC, about 50% of the US population before the war lived on small farms and factories tended to be small and few. Many items were still hand crafted. Sorry, but this is wrong. American factories tended to be large and productive entities. The concentration of production capacity around the Great Lakes exceeded that of the rest of the world even in the 30"s. It was underutilized because of the Depression, but even then was still massive. America INVENTED mass production, and applied it to things nobody else had even though of applying it to. Meat-Packing comes to mind as a perfect example of this. And mass production requires massive plants to gain the "economies of scale" that make it so effective

To win the war the US not only had to engineer new weaponry, to a large extent it had to build the factories to produce it. In fact, this led to a lot of engineering trade-offs. Rather than designing its dream weapons, the military had to rely on the innovation of manufacturers to produce what they could with the factories they had because their was no time to build new factories for specific weapons. This led to all sorts of innovative weapons that were effective if somewhat bizarre or underwhelming in apperance. It led to a design philosophy of build a weapon that is simple, rugged and gets the job done. The result was weapons such as the M-1, the bangalore torpedo, the higgins boat and the Sherman. The US certainly had the capability to design more superior weaponry, but not the capacity to produce it in any quantity.
[/quote]
Rocco
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:59 pm
Location: IL, USA

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by Rocco »

What was the old saying about invading the US?  There would be a gun behind every blade of grass? [;)]
 
Rocco
Image
User avatar
niceguy2005
Posts: 12522
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:53 pm
Location: Super secret hidden base

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by niceguy2005 »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I agree with your overall viewpoint, but....
ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

This would depend on how you want to qualify better.

There is no doubt that Germany, and to a much lesser extent Japan, had better more technologically advanced weaponry at the start of the war. This is the natural outcome of a country preparing for war years in advance. The US had WWII thrust upon it and it was a nation not at all prepared to go to war. Yet by the end of the war the US had rapidly closed the technological gap and in many areas was surpasing Germany, they had already surpassed Japan. Actually, they were "blowing Japan's doors off" by the end of 1942. Japan had only had "superiority" in a few select areas (fighters, torpedoes) to begin with.

I'm not sure it is always appreciated the rapid social change the US underwent during the war, in which it was transformed from a largely aggrian/frontier society into an industrial nation. IIRC, about 50% of the US population before the war lived on small farms and factories tended to be small and few. Many items were still hand crafted. Sorry, but this is wrong. American factories tended to be large and productive entities. The concentration of production capacity around the Great Lakes exceeded that of the rest of the world even in the 30"s. It was underutilized because of the Depression, but even then was still massive. America INVENTED mass production, and applied it to things nobody else had even though of applying it to. Meat-Packing comes to mind as a perfect example of this. And mass production requires massive plants to gain the "economies of scale" that make it so effective

To win the war the US not only had to engineer new weaponry, to a large extent it had to build the factories to produce it. In fact, this led to a lot of engineering trade-offs. Rather than designing its dream weapons, the military had to rely on the innovation of manufacturers to produce what they could with the factories they had because their was no time to build new factories for specific weapons. This led to all sorts of innovative weapons that were effective if somewhat bizarre or underwhelming in apperance. It led to a design philosophy of build a weapon that is simple, rugged and gets the job done. The result was weapons such as the M-1, the bangalore torpedo, the higgins boat and the Sherman. The US certainly had the capability to design more superior weaponry, but not the capacity to produce it in any quantity.

[/quote]
It is true that America invented mass production and that regionally there were some large factories for autos and other items. Also, America was blessed with a large number of factories for converting raw materials into building material. However, as you say many of the factories had fallen silent during the Great Depression, as America had started to revert from the industrial nation it was becoming in the 1910s and 1920s back toward a farming nation. While the US was still a mighty industrial power compared to smaller or less developed countries, it had lost a fair amount of its former production capacity.

Added to this was the fact that the US military had fallen into disrepair and was poorly equipped at the start of the war. The amount of weaponry and equipment that needed to be produced was astounding. This meant a refit of existing factories. My statement about factories being small and few referred to the equipment and weaponry needed to make an army. Germany and Japan had a big head start in production capabilities of weapons.
Image
Artwork graciously provided by Dixie
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by TulliusDetritus »

Nice Guy, although a lot of people don't know this, the United States became the First Industrial power on 1900. The second industrial power: Germany. They had the economic, industrial power, not the political power though (the British and French Empires were ruling). They had to wait for the end of WW2 (so almost half of a century). Then this "industrial power" (along with a very developed agriculture) became a "political (and military) power". The very solid base was already there, I mean, early on the 1900's.

As for the US being an "agrarian/frontier society", humm, this image is not accurate on 1900. It depends. The NE was highly industrialized. Now the Middle West is another story. But industry needs agriculture, and vice-versa.
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I agree with your overall viewpoint, but....
ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

This would depend on how you want to qualify better.

There is no doubt that Germany, and to a much lesser extent Japan, had better more technologically advanced weaponry at the start of the war. This is the natural outcome of a country preparing for war years in advance. The US had WWII thrust upon it and it was a nation not at all prepared to go to war. Yet by the end of the war the US had rapidly closed the technological gap and in many areas was surpasing Germany, they had already surpassed Japan. Actually, they were "blowing Japan's doors off" by the end of 1942. Japan had only had "superiority" in a few select areas (fighters, torpedoes) to begin with.

I'm not sure it is always appreciated the rapid social change the US underwent during the war, in which it was transformed from a largely aggrian/frontier society into an industrial nation. IIRC, about 50% of the US population before the war lived on small farms and factories tended to be small and few. Many items were still hand crafted. Sorry, but this is wrong. American factories tended to be large and productive entities. The concentration of production capacity around the Great Lakes exceeded that of the rest of the world even in the 30"s. It was underutilized because of the Depression, but even then was still massive. America INVENTED mass production, and applied it to things nobody else had even though of applying it to. Meat-Packing comes to mind as a perfect example of this. And mass production requires massive plants to gain the "economies of scale" that make it so effective

To win the war the US not only had to engineer new weaponry, to a large extent it had to build the factories to produce it. In fact, this led to a lot of engineering trade-offs. Rather than designing its dream weapons, the military had to rely on the innovation of manufacturers to produce what they could with the factories they had because their was no time to build new factories for specific weapons. This led to all sorts of innovative weapons that were effective if somewhat bizarre or underwhelming in apperance. It led to a design philosophy of build a weapon that is simple, rugged and gets the job done. The result was weapons such as the M-1, the bangalore torpedo, the higgins boat and the Sherman. The US certainly had the capability to design more superior weaponry, but not the capacity to produce it in any quantity.
It is true that America invented mass production and that regionally there were some large factories for autos and other items. Also, America was blessed with a large number of factories for converting raw materials into building material. However, as you say many of the factories had fallen silent during the Great Depression, as America had started to revert from the industrial nation it was becoming in the 1910s and 1920s back toward a farming nation. While the US was still a mighty industrial power compared to smaller or less developed countries, it had lost a fair amount of its former production capacity. Sorry, you're still Wrong. "Underutilized" does not mean "unused" or "closed". It means not being used to it's full capacity, such as a GM or Ford plant only running one 8-hour shift 5 days a week instead of 3 shifts a day, 6 or 7 days a week which would be "maximum production". You need to remember that even at the height of the Depression, the USA was still the largest "consumer market" in the world, and the output of either Ford or GM was greater than the rest of the world's automotive output combined.

Added to this was the fact that the US military had fallen into disrepair and was poorly equipped at the start of the war. The amount of weaponry and equipment that needed to be produced was astounding. This meant a refit of existing factories. My statement about factories being small and few referred to the equipment and weaponry needed to make an army. Germany and Japan had a big head start in production capabilities of weapons. Here your points are more valid, although the revitalization of the US Military was well underway in the late 1930's. The Navy was laying down the fleet that would force Japan to go to war by 1942 or give up and go home forever. The Army was being enlarged, and the Air Corps was recieving new facilities and equipment. Roosevelt used the notion of Helping the Allies and later "Lend Lease" to authorize huge expenditures in new plants and equipment as well as large growth for the US Military. His call for 50,000 Aircraft a year came well before December 7th. US Aircraft Production exceeded that of Germany by 1940, and more than doubled it in 1941..., before America was in the war. The American Military may not have been quite ready yet on December 7th, but it was well on it's way.[/quote]
stljeffbb
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:02 pm

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by stljeffbb »

OK, this thread has strayed from its original question (although the discussion is quite interesting).....(have) any Japanese players have been able to invade the US West Coast, or even Canada during a pbem game? If so, how did it go, and was an AAR posted?
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: stljeffbb

OK, this thread has strayed from its original question (although the discussion is quite interesting).....(have) any Japanese players have been able to invade the US West Coast, or even Canada during a pbem game? If so, how did it go, and was an AAR posted?


That's what keeps this forum interesting. You never know where a thread is going to end up... But I see your point.
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

Post by Nemo121 »

If you count Kodiak as part of Canada then, I've done it and things are going pretty good so far. Wrecked three divisions doing it but they will recover and in the meantime a priceless strategic bombing centre is now part of my arsenal.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”