Is an Invasion of Mainland US feasible

[The New Lowlands]

Then why are you giving me shit about my correcting your numbers?

Also, history seems to bear out quite the opposite of what you're saying. Consider, for example, that example of pursuing quantity over quality. The Germans undoubtedly had superiority not only in terms of the quality of their equipment over the Soviet Union, but also in the quality of experience/training and leadership. The same was true for the Western allies, at least initially, although the disparity there was much less severe. This doesn't mean that the PLAGF is going to pour across the pacific and colonise the West Coast- they don't have the ships to do so, nor would it be in their interest, but it does mean that they could bring their numbers to bear in less distant conflict, for example, an attack on Taiwan.

Not necessarily true. The Germans were overconfident, and overlooked many flaws of their weapons. The Garand was in numerous places superior to the Gewher. The Thompson was definetely superior to the MP 40, lighter, more ammunition capacity. And US tank destroyer divisions had a K/D ratio that more than made up for the lackluster quality of the Sherman.

Meanwhile, the Tiger and Panther suffered from critical design flaws. For example, neither could turn both the tank and the turret. You could do one, but not the other at the same time. And, until the Me262, German airpower was actually becoming outmatched by newer models. The P-47, the P-51, Spitfires, Yak-9s. The allies were, infact, on much more equal playing ground than most people realize. Their success was down to tactics, more than equipment.

Example; the Battle of France. The French, without a doubt, had superior tanks. The only weapon that the Germans had which could kill a Char B1 heavy tank were the Flak 88s. Nothing else could do it. Same with British Matildas. The Germans won through tactical brilliance, moreso than engineering brilliance.

And in the modern world, where weapons are even more advanced, being the top number 1 on that list means you can take out a tank division without a single soldier coming within firing range of said division.

And the fact that the Allies outproduced the Axis in basically every sector was just a coincidence, I suppose…?

…Unless you're using massed nuclear strikes, I don't see that last one happening.

[New Babylonia]

Not necessarily true. The Germans were overconfident, and overlooked many flaws of their weapons. The Garand was in numerous places superior to the Gewher. The Thompson was definetely superior to the MP 40, lighter, more ammunition capacity. And US tank destroyer divisions had a K/D ratio that more than made up for the lackluster quality of the Sherman.

Meanwhile, the Tiger and Panther suffered from critical design flaws. For example, neither could turn both the tank and the turret. You could do one, but not the other at the same time. And, until the Me262, German airpower was actually becoming outmatched by newer models. The P-47, the P-51, Spitfires, Yak-9s. The allies were, infact, on much more equal playing ground than most people realize. Their success was down to tactics, more than equipment.

Example; the Battle of France. The French, without a doubt, had superior tanks. The only weapon that the Germans had which could kill a Char B1 heavy tank were the Flak 88s. Nothing else could do it. Same with British Matildas. The Germans won through tactical brilliance, moreso than engineering brilliance.

And in the modern world, where weapons are even more advanced, being the top number 1 on that list means you can take out a tank division without a single soldier coming within firing range of said division.

And the fact that the Allies outproduced the Axis in basically every sector was just a coincidence, I suppose…?

…Unless you're using massed nuclear strikes, I don't see that last one happening.

Even if they didn't, and the production was equal, they still would've won. Two-front war, exhausted enemy, momentum of victory after victory, exploiting German overconfidence and flaws, and Hitler getting in the way of his generals. And, the constant bombing of Germany would see to it that they had no production, so even then, they still get out produced, but it doesn't really matter.

I guess you've never heard of drones like the MQ-9 or, yknow, cruise missiles, or, the F-22 Raptor which can easily best any other fighter in a dogfight, long or short range, making way for things like the F-35 strike fighter, who then helps with the nuking of said tanks, along with other strike aircraft, like the A-10.

Did you know that we have won a modern war with nothing but airstrikes? Its true. Desert Storm. 80% of enemy forces knocked out by air strikes, the rest surrendered with soiled undergarments when the tanks rolled in.

[Immoren]

The Thompson was definetely superior to the MP 40, lighter, more ammunition capacity.

Thompson wasn't lighter? And larger mag=better isn't always true.

And US tank destroyer divisions had a K/D ratio that more than made up for the lackluster quality of the Sherman.

There wasn't really anything lackluster about Sherman after some flaws were ironed out.

Meanwhile, the Tiger and Panther suffered from critical design flaws. For example, neither could turn both the tank and the turret. You could do one, but not the other at the same time.

Who would've done that in era of-prestabilization anyway?

being the top number 1 on that list means you can take out a tank division without a single soldier coming within firing range of said division.

What?

[Roski]

And the fact that the Allies outproduced the Axis in basically every sector was just a coincidence, I suppose…?

…Unless you're using massed nuclear strikes, I don't see that last one happening.

Even if they didn't, and the production was equal, they still would've won. Two-front war, exhausted enemy, momentum of victory after victory, exploiting German overconfidence and flaws, and Hitler getting in the way of his generals. And, the constant bombing of Germany would see to it that they had no production, so even then, they still get out produced, but it doesn't really matter.

I guess you've never heard of drones like the MQ-9 or, yknow, cruise missiles, or, the F-22 Raptor which can easily best any other fighter in a dogfight, long or short range, making way for things like the F-35 strike fighter, who then helps with the nuking of said tanks, along with other strike aircraft, like the A-10.

Did you know that we have won a modern war with nothing but airstrikes? Its true. Desert Storm. 80% of enemy forces knocked out by air strikes, the rest surrendered with soiled undergarments when the tanks rolled in.

Right, and Russia and China, the only ones even capable of even ATTEMPTING to reach US Soil, are shitty terrorists who are incompetent and don't have access to any form of modern weaponry.

[Immoren]

Did you know that we have won a modern war with nothing but airstrikes? Its true. Desert Storm. 80% of enemy forces knocked out by air strikes, the rest surrendered with soiled undergarments when the tanks rolled in.

Desert storm wasn't war, it was a live fire exercise.

[New Babylonia]

The Thompson was definetely superior to the MP 40, lighter, more ammunition capacity.

Thompson wasn't lighter? And larger mag=better isn't always true.

And US tank destroyer divisions had a K/D ratio that more than made up for the lackluster quality of the Sherman.

There wasn't really anything lackluster about Sherman after some flaws were ironed out.

Meanwhile, the Tiger and Panther suffered from critical design flaws. For example, neither could turn both the tank and the turret. You could do one, but not the other at the same time.

Who would've done that in era of-prestabilization anyway?

being the top number 1 on that list means you can take out a tank division without a single soldier coming within firing range of said division.

What?

Right, 2 lbs more for twice the ammo load before having to reload. For effectiveness, the Thompson was lighter for the work it could do. And, when it comes to SMGs of WW2 era, ROF and mag size is whats important. They were used for close combat, not long range, accuracy was a secondary concern.

What, made both tank and turret traverse possible at the same time? Everyone else. The Russians did, the French did, the Brits did, the Americans did. Germany was the hold out.

Modern tech makes taking out entire divisions, or in the case of some wars, entire armies possible to the point of surrender before your ground troops even move in.

[New Babylonia]

Even if they didn't, and the production was equal, they still would've won. Two-front war, exhausted enemy, momentum of victory after victory, exploiting German overconfidence and flaws, and Hitler getting in the way of his generals. And, the constant bombing of Germany would see to it that they had no production, so even then, they still get out produced, but it doesn't really matter.

I guess you've never heard of drones like the MQ-9 or, yknow, cruise missiles, or, the F-22 Raptor which can easily best any other fighter in a dogfight, long or short range, making way for things like the F-35 strike fighter, who then helps with the nuking of said tanks, along with other strike aircraft, like the A-10.

Did you know that we have won a modern war with nothing but airstrikes? Its true. Desert Storm. 80% of enemy forces knocked out by air strikes, the rest surrendered with soiled undergarments when the tanks rolled in.

Right, and Russia and China, the only ones even capable of even ATTEMPTING to reach US Soil, are shitty terrorists who are incompetent and don't have access to any form of modern weaponry.

China is in the process of updating. Russia is US closest military competitor, and is still outmatched. The Abrams is superior to the T-90, the F-22 is superior even to the SU-47, and the M4 has always been one nice rifle. Also, nice strawman, because i totally said just that.

Did you know that we have won a modern war with nothing but airstrikes? Its true. Desert Storm. 80% of enemy forces knocked out by air strikes, the rest surrendered with soiled undergarments when the tanks rolled in.

Desert storm wasn't war, it was a live fire exercise.

Technically, it was a war too, apparently
I guess, because politicians were involved. Damned politicians.

[Roski]

Right, and Russia and China, the only ones even capable of even ATTEMPTING to reach US Soil, are shitty terrorists who are incompetent and don't have access to any form of modern weaponry.

China is in the process of updating. Russia is US closest military competitor, and is still outmatched. The Abrams is superior to the T-90, the F-22 is superior even to the SU-47, and the M4 has always been one nice rifle.

Yes, but the US, the most powerful military force in history, is not capable of knocking out all Russian resistance before they make it to US Soldiers.

[New Babylonia]

China is in the process of updating. Russia is US closest military competitor, and is still outmatched. The Abrams is superior to the T-90, the F-22 is superior even to the SU-47, and the M4 has always been one nice rifle.

Yes, but the US, the most powerful military force in history, is not capable of knocking out all Russian resistance before they make it to US Soldiers.

Are you sure about that? Let's be honest here, if you can take on the US Navy and win to get to our shores, i don't think you have anything to be concerned about. But, they can't, no one can. So, yes, infact, we can strike them down before they make it to us. Airdrops? That's what the Air Force is for. F-22s and F-15s vs SU-37s. My money is on America, because Gen 5 fighter.

[Len Hyet]

China is in the process of updating. Russia is US closest military competitor, and is still outmatched. The Abrams is superior to the T-90, the F-22 is superior even to the SU-47, and the M4 has always been one nice rifle.

Yes, but the US, the most powerful military force in history, is not capable of knocking out all Russian resistance before they make it to US Soldiers.

Yes, yes they are. They are entirely capable of doing so should the Russian Federation launch an offensive aimed at the US Mainland. The US Navy is one of the most terrifying forces on Earth if you understand anything at all about military power. It has firepower that could reach out and tap a polar bear on the head, or drop a five hundred pound laser guided bomb on its ice floe. From Norfolk. If you honestly think that any modern power has even a chance in hell of getting a serious force onto the US Mainland you're more deluded than a North Korean conscript.

[Immoren]

Right, 2 lbs more for twice the ammo load before having to reload. For effectiveness, the Thompson was lighter for the work it could do. And, when it comes to SMGs of WW2 era, ROF and mag size is whats important. They were used for close combat, not long range, accuracy was a secondary concern.

Yet to my knowledge, majority of thompson users still used 30-round caskets.
30-rounder is lighter than 60-75 rounder, making it manouvreable in close combat. But I guess it comes to how you intend to use it. And I know.

Modern tech makes taking out entire divisions, or in the case of some wars, entire armies possible to the point of surrender before your ground troops even move in.

Only if you've shitty troops with shitty morale accompanied with shitty doctrine and possibly accompanied with subpar tech.

[New Babylonia]

Yes, but the US, the most powerful military force in history, is not capable of knocking out all Russian resistance before they make it to US Soldiers.

Yes, yes they are. They are entirely capable of doing so should the Russian Federation launch an offensive aimed at the US Mainland. The US Navy is one of the most terrifying forces on Earth if you understand anything at all about military power. It has firepower that could reach out and tap a polar bear on the head, or drop a five hundred pound laser guided bomb on its ice floe. From Norfolk. If you honestly think that any modern power has even a chance in hell of getting a serious force onto the US Mainland you're more deluded than a North Korean conscript.

Is that last sentence even possible? I hope to whatever deity you who are reading this believes in its not.

[The New Lowlands]

And the fact that the Allies outproduced the Axis in basically every sector was just a coincidence, I suppose…?

…Unless you're using massed nuclear strikes, I don't see that last one happening.

Even if they didn't, and the production was equal, they still would've won. Two-front war, exhausted enemy, momentum of victory after victory, exploiting German overconfidence and flaws, and Hitler getting in the way of his generals. And, the constant bombing of Germany would see to it that they had no production, so even then, they still get out produced, but it doesn't really matter.

I guess you've never heard of drones like the MQ-9 or, yknow, cruise missiles, or, the F-22 Raptor which can easily best any other fighter in a dogfight, long or short range, making way for things like the F-35 strike fighter, who then helps with the nuking of said tanks, along with other strike aircraft, like the A-10.

Did you know that we have won a modern war with nothing but airstrikes? Its true. Desert Storm. 80% of enemy forces knocked out by air strikes, the rest surrendered with soiled undergarments when the tanks rolled in.

No, not really. Much of the Allies' equipment and men had two fairly significant bodies of water to cross; remember, after all, that the second front was only opened in 1944, after the Battle of Stalingrad had been won by the Soviet Union overwhelming the Nazi's armies numerically.

MQ-9 doesn't give air superiority. The former Eastern Bloc has extensive experience in the use of missile technology, and they also have invested heavily in the development of new radar systems specifically to counter the F-22.

Dogfights are somewhat irrelevant with the introduction of beyond visual range missiles, which non-stealth fighters can carry more of.

Desert Storm is a really shitty example of a modern war. Fighting unmotivated conscripts in monkey models with no air conflict does not a Taiwanese victory make.

[Immoren]

"The fever dream of airpower advocates the world over. The truth is that air forces are the least decisive of branches because they cannot hold ground. Navies can control sea lanes and armies land routes of communication, but air forces control nothing [yet]."

[Imperializt Russia]

Then why are you giving me shit about my correcting your numbers?

Also, history seems to bear out quite the opposite of what you're saying. Consider, for example, that example of pursuing quantity over quality. The Germans undoubtedly had superiority not only in terms of the quality of their equipment over the Soviet Union, but also in the quality of experience/training and leadership. The same was true for the Western allies, at least initially, although the disparity there was much less severe. This doesn't mean that the PLAGF is going to pour across the pacific and colonise the West Coast- they don't have the ships to do so, nor would it be in their interest, but it does mean that they could bring their numbers to bear in less distant conflict, for example, an attack on Taiwan.

Not necessarily true. The Germans were overconfident, and overlooked many flaws of their weapons. The Garand was in numerous places superior to the Gewher. The Thompson was definetely superior to the MP 40, lighter, more ammunition capacity. And US tank destroyer divisions had a K/D ratio that more than made up for the lackluster quality of the Sherman.

Meanwhile, the Tiger and Panther suffered from critical design flaws. For example, neither could turn both the tank and the turret. You could do one, but not the other at the same time. And, until the Me262, German airpower was actually becoming outmatched by newer models. The P-47, the P-51, Spitfires, Yak-9s. The allies were, infact, on much more equal playing ground than most people realize. Their success was down to tactics, more than equipment.

Example; the Battle of France. The French, without a doubt, had superior tanks. The only weapon that the Germans had which could kill a Char B1 heavy tank were the Flak 88s. Nothing else could do it. Same with British Matildas. The Germans won through tactical brilliance, moreso than engineering brilliance.

And in the modern world, where weapons are even more advanced, being the top number 1 on that list means you can take out a tank division without a single soldier coming within firing range of said division.

Since tanks were mostly unable to fire on the move for some decades after European Scuffle Volume Two, being unable to turn and traverse at the same time isn't the "critical design flaw" you make it out to be.
The (very postwar) S-103 tank was not fitted with a turret at all, because at the time tanks were still without decent ability to fire on the move.

Even units staffed entirely with aces (JV-44) and equipped with the Me-262 failed to achieve significantly better kill ratios against allied aircraft than they had done with any previous combat fighter aircraft. It was not the game-changer it is commonly claimed to be. This is likely due to a catastrophic pileup of the waning availability of German fighter pilots with combat experience or decent training, the changing mission of the Luftwaffe at the end of the war (due to both Hitler's mismanagement and general reorganisation of resources), Hitler's changing vision of the Me-262 (converting it from a fighter to a fighter-bomber role) and the inevitable crushing defeat of Nazi Germany anyway.

And also because warfare has never been able to be boiled down to a "1v1 me irl" deathmatch of paper stats.

[Rifty]

Let's take a page from Fallout 3 DLC...

China will get Alaska...and It'll only take one person to get rid of them!

[New Babylonia]

Right, 2 lbs more for twice the ammo load before having to reload. For effectiveness, the Thompson was lighter for the work it could do. And, when it comes to SMGs of WW2 era, ROF and mag size is whats important. They were used for close combat, not long range, accuracy was a secondary concern.

Yet to my knowledge, majority of thompson users still used 30-round caskets.
30-rounder is lighter than 60-75 rounder, making it manouvreable in close combat. But I guess it comes to how you intend to use it. And I know.

Modern tech makes taking out entire divisions, or in the case of some wars, entire armies possible to the point of surrender before your ground troops even move in.

Only if you've shitty troops with shitty morale accompanied with shitty doctrine and possibly accompanied with subpar tech.

Hold, on, i'm going to check the ROF of both of them. That's the biggest thing in city fights.

Fair enough, the Iraqis were pretty shit. The only good, actual professional soldiers they had got turned into charred barbecue. Which is what i was referencing. But, still, seeing your entire division get wiped out by airstrikes that can't be stopped because of enemy air superiority is pretty demoralizing. No matter how disciplined you are, we don't have anything like Spartans or whoever you want to reference with seemingly unbreakable morale these days.

[Albion Rhodesia]

China is in the process of updating. Russia is US closest military competitor, and is still outmatched. The Abrams is superior to the T-90, the F-22 is superior even to the SU-47, and the M4 has always been one nice rifle.

Yes, but the US, the most powerful military force in history, is not capable of knocking out all Russian resistance before they make it to US Soldiers.

The Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union, and her blue water naval capabilities are highly questionable in this day and age. I mean hell, when the Russian Naval Infantry were in action in Crimea they were still using the outdated PT-76 (see in some AP photographs).

The Russians could possibly mount a small organized raiding operation against Alaska, but as per mounting an attack against the CONUS...totally impossible!

[Imperializt Russia]

Modern tech makes taking out entire divisions, or in the case of some wars, entire armies possible to the point of surrender before your ground troops even move in.

No it doesn't. It makes it incredibly difficult.
The Gulf War is an excellent example of when your (Saddam's) brash bollocks suddenly fails and you have to slug it out against the world's greatest power, with an already-decimated military only ever designed for Round Two of the Iran-Iraq War.

[Immoren]

Hold, on, i'm going to check the ROF of both of them. That's the biggest thing in city fights.

You still want to fire short controlled bursts, so ROF is merely academic difference.

[Len Hyet]

Hold, on, i'm going to check the ROF of both of them. That's the biggest thing in city fights.

You still want to fire short controlled bursts, so ROF is merely academic difference.

Bullshit. The difference between taking a second to fire a three round burst and half a second is hugely important in combat.

[Imperializt Russia]

You still want to fire short controlled bursts, so ROF is merely academic difference.

Bullshit. The difference between taking a second to fire a three round burst and half a second is hugely important in combat.

It absolutely is not.

[New Babylonia]

Even if they didn't, and the production was equal, they still would've won. Two-front war, exhausted enemy, momentum of victory after victory, exploiting German overconfidence and flaws, and Hitler getting in the way of his generals. And, the constant bombing of Germany would see to it that they had no production, so even then, they still get out produced, but it doesn't really matter.

I guess you've never heard of drones like the MQ-9 or, yknow, cruise missiles, or, the F-22 Raptor which can easily best any other fighter in a dogfight, long or short range, making way for things like the F-35 strike fighter, who then helps with the nuking of said tanks, along with other strike aircraft, like the A-10.

Did you know that we have won a modern war with nothing but airstrikes? Its true. Desert Storm. 80% of enemy forces knocked out by air strikes, the rest surrendered with soiled undergarments when the tanks rolled in.

No, not really. Much of the Allies' equipment and men had two fairly significant bodies of water to cross; remember, after all, that the second front was only opened in 1944, after the Battle of Stalingrad had been won by the Soviet Union overwhelming the Nazi's armies numerically.

MQ-9 doesn't give air superiority. The former Eastern Bloc has extensive experience in the use of missile technology, and they also have invested heavily in the development of new radar systems specifically to counter the F-22.

Dogfights are somewhat irrelevant with the introduction of beyond visual range missiles, which non-stealth fighters can carry more of.

Desert Storm is a really shitty example of a modern war. Fighting unmotivated conscripts in monkey models with no air conflict does not a Taiwanese victory make.

That has nothing to do with the quality of their equipment against the Germans. Nothing at all. And Normandy took care of issue, they'd been stockpiling for a couple years at that point. Operation Barbossa was an epic failure. Scorched Earth, Harsh Winters, incompetent leader (Hitler) who controlled everything. Honestly, if Hitler had shutup and stayed out, they probably could've taken Moscow.

No, but they put missiles on them. And that can kill your tanks. That's nice and all, but again, that's what cruise missiles and drones are for. You kill that shit before you go in.

The simulations have been done numerous times. The F-22 has a longer engagement range. The stealth characteristic reduces the range of enemy engagement while the F-22 retains its full range. A flight of F-22s has been simulated in taking down an entire squadron of Gen 4 aircraft.

[New Babylonia]

Bullshit. The difference between taking a second to fire a three round burst and half a second is hugely important in combat.

It absolutely is not.

Actually, it kinda is. That half second could make you dead or alive. Unless you think you know better than the innumerable veterans i've met and talked to. When you're running from house to house, at that close range, its all about who's finger is the fastest.

[Len Hyet]

Bullshit. The difference between taking a second to fire a three round burst and half a second is hugely important in combat.

It absolutely is not.

Well lets take a moment and think about that shall we?

I stand up, I shoot three rounds at a target. For that time, I am exposed to return fire. That return fire can be a second, or a half second. Considering that, for example, an AK-47 has a muzzle velocity of roughly 715 meters per second, and you're between thirty and a hundred meters away, that half a second can be the difference between a bullet to the face and not.