Any pbem invasions of the US West Coast?

[JSBoomer]

Actually there isn't much Coast to cover in British Columbia. One can't lauch amphibious invastions of Coastal Mountains that lead to to nothing. The areas to invade would have been Prince Rupert, Vancouver, and Vancouver Island.
An invasion of Prince Rupert would have been futile. Capturing Prince Rupert would have been pointless, it is in the middle of no-where. There are no beaches to land an invasion and the approach to the port would have been very difficult as PR is a deep water port nestled in the Mountains. Even if the Japanese had succeded in capturing Prince Rupert they would have found it impossible to advance inland due to the terrain. The next inland community of any note was Terrace which then had a population only in the hundreds. THe distance from Prince Rupert to Terrace is about 200 klicks, the Japanese would have had to advance down a road and rail line that was VERY narrow with Impassible mountains on one side, and a LARGE and VERY powerful river on the other with absulutely no room to manouver. Shortly after the attack at Pear Harbour the Cdn Army began to fortify the Terrace area. The town is surrounded by steep mountains and formed a natural kill zone. Arty emplanements were dug into the mountians on the other side of the Skeena river. A very small force could have held off a much greater Army here. And even had the Japanese succeded there, thew would have had to advance over 1700 klicks to get to Vancouver. It would have never worked.
As for landing in Vancouver or Vancouver Island, it would have brought any invasion fleet too close to American forces stationed in Washington State. As the west coast of Vancouver Island was for the most part uninhabited and contained very beach front a landing force would have had to have landed on the eastern side of Vancouver Island or at Victoria. The arguement that there was too much coast to cover is incorrect. The majority of the British Columbia coastline is mountain and didn't require covering at all.
As for the Cdn Army being mostly Europe, that is correct, however there were three infantry divisions that were not sent over seas. The make up of these divsions fluctuated as new elements were raised and others sent overseas. While the Cdn navy presence was very sparce on the west coast, there were sizeable air elements. As well with the Commonwealth Pilot training program in Canada there would have been no shortage of pilots to rush to British Columbia if required.
So Nemo, to add to qgaliana's point, an invasion of Canada historicly would NOT have been doable at all.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

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.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
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.

This is a much more accurat picture. At the height of the depression, the US had about 25% unemployment. That still meant 75% were working. Back then the US imported very little in the way of consumer goods. By the early 1900s the US was the largest exporter in the world and the largest creditor nation by the end of WW I.

It is regarded by many that the Great Depression started with the crash of the US stock market in October 1939. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. Because of the strains of the Versailles Treaty, Germany's economy went under in the early 1920s causing a drag on the world economy. The US economy was able to keep the world economy afloat for another 8 years. When the US economy imploded, the international impact was so large, it took the rest of the world with it.

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
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.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
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.

The handwriting was on the wall for anyone who wanted to read it by the late 1930s. It was obvious that the naval treaties were failing. Japan had laid down super battleships and two large carriers in excess of the treaties. An arms race was on. Roosevelt made his pitch for a 2 Ocean Navy and he got it. First another Yorktown was laid down as a stop gap, which became the Hornet. Plans were made for a super Yorktown which incorporated all the lessons learned from previous carriers. The first Essex carriers were under construction when Pearl Harbor occured. The bulk of Essex carriers to see action were all approved before the US went to war.

Germany was slow to convert their economy to full war production. Hitler was aware of how the deprevations of WW I had led to public unrest and he kept the manufacturing of consumer goods going until 1942. Throughout the Battle of Britain, the UK was producing enough fighters to replace losses. The main shortwage was pilots to fly them. Germany was unable to produce enough aircraft to replace losses and it wasn't until the following spring just before Barbarossa that most air units were back at full strength.

The US was considered backwards in science and technology by many Europeans in the 1930s, but it wasn't. US technology was just different. After WW I, the US became very issolationist. The attitude was that the US got nothing out of WW I and it shouldn't get involved in other people's wars. The US economy became an almost purely consumer based economy. Military budgets were slashed because the thinking was that the US only had to protect its own borders. With a very friendly nation to the north, a weak one to the south, and oceans everywhere else, this was a pretty east mandate to achieve.

The B-17 was developed as a ship killer. It was envisioned as bombing possible invasion fleets into oblivion.

In many civilian technologies, the US led the world. Radio took off in the US in the 1920s. The 1920s radio boom was actually very similar in what it did to the economy as the dot coms of the 1990s. I have seen graphs of the stock value of RCA throughout the 1920s and AOL throughout the 1990s. The curves are almost idenitcal.

In other areas, the US movie industry was world dominant almost from the start. The US civilian aircraft industry was huge too. Private airplane ownership blossomed in the 1930s as did commercial air travel. The Museum of Flight in Seattle has an exhibit showing how airliner technology evolved in only 8 short years. The Boeing Model 80 was introduced in 1928. It was a fabric covered biplane with an enclosed cabin and room for 18 passengers.

Boeing's next airliner was introduced in 1933, the 247. The 247 had all metal construction and larger passenger capacity. It's sales were virtually wiped out by one of the most famous airliners in world history: the DC-3, which was introduced in 1935.

Articles on all 3:

http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/m80.html
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/m247.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-3

The DC-3 introduces something that British fighters didn't start using until the beginning of the Battle of Britain: the constant speed propeller.

American advances in civilian aviation gave it a leg up when it needed to gear up for war. Many great engines had been developed for airliners which were adapted for military use. Airliners need ultra reliable engines, so the military versions carried over that same legacy. Airliner technology was also applied to bomber designs, leading to some of the finest multiengine bombers of the war.

These technological advances weren't as directly applicable to fighters, and the US lagged behind in fighter development, at least initially. The Seversky P-35 went through a couple of revisions, first becoming the P-43, but when mated with the new Pratt & Whitney 2800 along with a large turbo supercharger, the USAAF had an excellent high altitude fighter in the P-47, which was later found to be an excellent ground attack plane too.

The P-38 was initially conceived of as a bomber interceptor. This was inline with the US military's issolationist mandate of the 1930s. The USAAC needed a fast fighter with a high rate of climb to shoot down any bombers that might encroach on US airspace. A young aeronautical engineer by the name of Kelly Johnson came up with a radical proposal that became the P-38.

The P-51 was proposed by North American when the British were looking for somebody to build P-40s for them to serve in the ground attack role. North American didn't want to build someone else's fighter and proposed their own. The P-51 prototype was flying in record time, but the initial design was done by an engineer working in his spare time before the British came calling. The P-51 was probably the most radical advance in fighters the US did during the war.

When Pearl Harbor occured, the P-38 was starting mass production, the P-47 was in the prototype stage, and the P-51 was under development. On the Navy side, the F4U was in the flight testing phase with plans to start replacing the F4F by mid-1942. When the F4U had so many teething problems, the Navy went to Grumman and asked them to develop a stop gap version of the F4F with more power and landing gear that retracted into the wings. The F6F became the only US aircraft to see significant action that was not conceived of until after Pearl Harbor. The F6F was not as radical looking as the F4U, but it had 95% of the performance with none of the problems.

In Navy bombers, the TBF and SB2C were both well advanced in development by Pearl Harbor. The SB2C had many teething problems, largely due to the Navy's specs which forced Curtiss to make the plane too short and it was unstable. (The Navy requiements included the plane be small enough to fit 2 on a standard carrier elevator.) The TBF was delivered right on schedule. VT-8 was scheduled to be the first unit to reequip with the new TBF. The new bombers arrived at Pearl Harbor in May 1942 and 6 were sent to Midway as a stop gap. The rest were transferred to the Hornet right after the Battle of Midway.

The B-29 program was started during the Battle of Britain when there were concerns that the US might have to strike Nazi occupied Europe from North America. An even more advanced design that became the B-36 was started soon after the B-29, but the design was put on the back burner until after the war when it became apparent that the US was going to have to gear up to produce those planes already in advanced development and put off pie in the sky ideas.

Other major US weapons were also under development before Pearl Harbor. The US realized during the Battle of France that it was badly outclassed in tank technology. The Lee/Grant was a stop gap. The US didn't have the technology to make big turret rings, so they put the big gun in the hull and put a 37mm in the turret. The Sherman was what was planned for mass deployment all along. Up until the late 1930s, the Army built all its own tanks in a factory it owned. It became obvious that the Army didn't have the capacity of knowledge to build the number of tanks needed, so they turned to the car industry and hired some experts on car building to build new factories and gear up for mass tank production.

As someone else said in this thread, the Japanese attacked when they did because even looking down their nose at the US, the realized that the US was going to be too tough to fight once fully mobilized, which was going to happen by mid-1942. The needs of the war in early 1942 slowed down US mobilization because it destroyed a lot of equipment used in penny packets to try and stop the Japanese. Ultimately, US production fully filled out the TOEs of all US units and shortages of military equipment were rare after 1942.

Bill

[tabpub]

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?

tm.asp?m=911310&mpage=1&key=

[Dive Bomber1]

ORIGINAL: tabpub

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?

tm.asp?m=911310&mpage=1&key=

Thanks. (Actually, Cuttlefish posted the same link early in the thread, but the thought is still appreciated.)

[keeferon01]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Ron James

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen




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.

Im talking real life ,real 1942 not the game, none of the garrison units are present , thats just one instance there are more.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Ron James

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Ron James





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.

Im talking real life ,real 1942 not the game, none of the garrison units are present , thats just one instance there are more.

I was counting Japanese real life formations, not those found in the game OOB (the game is indeed missing some units of the Kwantung Army but gives the Southern Army some additional strength)

[Feinder]

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.

OT - I don't think it's just Japan. I've know many Europeans with a similar perspective (including when I traveled there). I also knew somebody from France who was going to take 2 weeks, rent and RV and see:
a. Statue of Liberty
b. Smithsonian
c. Disney World
d. New Orleans
e. Alamo
f. Yellowstone
g. Grand Canyon
h. Los Vegas
i. San Francisco

I’m not sure if that was it. But needless to say, he didn’t really have a concept of how far distant many of those landmarks are. I don’t blame him. In Europe, you can ride your bike to another country.

I figure the Ozzies have a pretty good estimate of driving distances, maybe even better than us. That’s pretty impressive when you can say you own the whole frickin’ -continent-.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: 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.

With all due respect what in the world are you talking about? The United States the first Industrial power? [&:] The industrial era began before the US was even a country. Most of Europe was thoroughly industrialized, at least around major cities before the US had even expanded half way to the west coast. A major reason for the formation of the Colonies in the first place was the explotation of raw materials to send back to mother England.

Now it is true that the US's industrial power had grown significantly and it may well have had more production capacity than any other country in Europe. However, don't confuse the ability to produce basic consumer goods with the ability to make weapons. The US's capability to produce weapons by and large was inferior to nations that had been mass producing armies and navies for a couple of decades.

As to the population demographics prior to WWII I will look them up and post them as soon as I have a chance.

[TulliusDetritus]

Not to mention the Russians... 10,000 km from west to east (er, 11 time zones). Atlas (or geography for that matter) are for "something".

Anyway, it is curious. Here in Eurotrashland there is a sort of saying: "Americans don't know anything about geography, we do". I don't like these kind of generalizations though [;)]

[TulliusDetritus]

Nice Guy, yes, that's what I said. On 1900 the USA and Germany were the first and second industrial powers: production of steel, coal, etc., etc.

"Consumer goods" => Light industry. But both the USA and Germany HAD a very powerful Heavy Industry (or strategic industry): the machines which make other machines, etc.

[Mike Scholl]

"Now it is true that the US's industrial power had grown significantly and it may well have had more production capacity than any other country in Europe. However, don't confuse the ability to produce basic consumer goods with the ability to make weapons. The US's capability to produce weapons by and large was inferior to nations that had been mass producing armies and navies for a couple of decades. "


If they were doing it for 20 years, they weren't "mass producing" squat...., or they would have been buried up to their rooftops in armaments. Yes, the US had the largest consumer market and the largest consumer goods production in the world. She also had the largest heavy industrial and machine tools industries in the world. You want "heavy industry"? Look no farther than Rail Roads..., the US was so far ahead of the rest of the world in trackage and ton-miles of cargo shipped comparisons weren't even meaningful. Locomotives aren't "consumer goods" The "tank" was designed around the American Holt Tractor (catapillar). US Steel Corporation produced more steel than any other nation did. The US capacity to produce weapons in 1939 WAS inferior to other nations---because the US Government wasn't buying them so there was no reason to build them. 5 years later one single US Aircraft Plant was producing over 50% of the Airframe Weight as all of Germany---and the US had dozens of Aircraft Plants by then. America built more Sherman's in a year than Germany had built tanks in a decade. And more trucks and ships to supply them with. You relly need to check your figures Niceguy. US Industrial capacity in ALL forms was truely amazing.

[bradfordkay]

" In Europe, you can ride your bike to another country."

As someone who has cycled west to east across the US, and south to north into Canada, I can verify that in North America you can do the same - it just takes longer. And yes, I have cycled from country to country in Europe as well. Luxembourg took just half a day to cross.


" With all due respect what in the world are you talking about? The United States the first Industrial power? "


What he meant by that is that by 1900 the US had become the premier industrial power in the world at the time, not that it was the first nation to become an industrial power.

[TulliusDetritus]

Thanks for that correction, Bradfordkay. And sorry if I was confusing (after all, I am using a foreign language) [:)]

EDIT: obviously the British had started the Industrial Revolution on the 1700's [8D]

[qgaliana]

ORIGINAL: J Boomer

The arguement that there was too much coast to cover is incorrect. The majority of the British Columbia coastline is mountain and didn't require covering at all.
As for the Cdn Army being mostly Europe, that is correct, however there were three infantry divisions that were not sent over seas. The make up of these divsions fluctuated as new elements were raised and others sent overseas. While the Cdn navy presence was very sparce on the west coast, there were sizeable air elements. As well with the Commonwealth Pilot training program in Canada there would have been no shortage of pilots to rush to British Columbia if required.
So Nemo, to add to qgaliana's point, an invasion of Canada historicly would NOT have been doable at all.

Actually agree with you - I was including the US coast when I say there's a lot to cover. Militarily I couldn't imagine anything other than Vancouver/Victoria being useful on the Canadian coast - which is why I imagined more than token US response. I can see the Canadian army at the time being able to block up a landing given the terrain, but not evict one without major US support. Your explanation was considerably more coherent than mine.[&o]

More on topic, I like the fact some players try these home territory invasions. It'd be nice if the game did a better job of representing the available forces (esp for allies). I suspect the restricted HQ will probably hamstring Japanese defensive efforts quite a bit. I always get the impression people are too willing to strip the home front because "it couldn't happen in RL" but what they are really doing is removing the reason it didn't happen.

[pauk]

actually, the real industrialization didn't occurs in the 1700s...some inventions were introduced in late 18th century, but this proces started in 19th century....


Tullius is right, btw...

[KDonovan]

OT - I don't think it's just Japan. I've know many Europeans with a similar perspective (including when I traveled there). I also knew somebody from France who was going to take 2 weeks, rent and RV and see:
a. Statue of Liberty
b. Smithsonian
c. Disney World
d. New Orleans
e. Alamo
f. Yellowstone
g. Grand Canyon
h. Los Vegas
i. San Francisco

I’m not sure if that was it. But needless to say, he didn’t really have a concept of how far distant many of those landmarks are. I don’t blame him. In Europe, you can ride your bike to another country.

I figure the Ozzies have a pretty good estimate of driving distances, maybe even better than us. That’s pretty impressive when you can say you own the whole frickin’ -continent-.

i wonder if that has something to due with the average person looking at a flat projection map instead of a real world map. Since the European nations are in the northern latitudes, the distortion created by a projection map causes their geography to appear larger, when compared to the united states, thereby skewing their view of how big the united states is.

[TulliusDetritus]

Pauk, well, according to Eric Hobsbawm and other historians we may say it started on the 1780's. We are not going to fight for that, of course [:)] I get your point though. We can see the "classic" industrialization on the XIX century. That is the Industrialization Century par excellence.

[Feinder]

Since the European nations are in the northern latitudes, the distortion created by a projection map causes their geography to appear larger, when compared to the united states, thereby skewing their view of how big the united states is.

Next you'll be telling me that Greenland isn't a mega-island the size of all of South America. Say it ain't so!

[;)]

-F-

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Pauk, well, according to Eric Hobsbawm and other historians we may say it started on the 1780's. We are not going to fight for that, of course [:)] I get your point though. We can see the "classic" industrialization on the XIX century. That is the Industrialization Century par excellence.

Yeah, I like Eric Hobsbawn too.... he is my source as well and i think that you recall he claims that "real" /or as you ve mentioned "classic" industrialization started no earlier than 19th century......[;)][:)]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Pauk, well, according to Eric Hobsbawm and other historians we may say it started on the 1780's. We are not going to fight for that, of course [:)] I get your point though. We can see the "classic" industrialization on the XIX century. That is the Industrialization Century par excellence.

Yeah, I like Eric Hobsbawn too.... he is my source as well and i think that you recall he claims that "real" /or as you ve mentioned "classic" industrialization started no earlier than 19th century......[;)][:)]

Historians debate quite often the start of the industrial revolution but almost everyone would agree it occured somewhere between 1760 and 1830, long before 1900.