WesWorld

The effect of a (hypothetical) blockade on Brazil would be related to how heavily tied to overseas trade Brazil was. I would expect the impact of such a blockade to be much less severe than the blockade of WWI Germany, or the attempted submarine blockades of the UK in both World Wars, because Brazil's sea-borne trade is likely less important to the health and well-being of her people. I'm not sure what rail links there were in the 1930s in South America, but I'd be surprised if there were not SOME land links between the South American countries. Also, while Germany's coastline was relatively defensible, it's location also made it quite easy to blockade, something that would be a good deal more difficult to do to Brazil (there's quite a long expanse of coastline from Rio to the mouths of the Amazon, and the Amazon delta in particular is made to order for smuggling or blockade running).

Well, there surely are land links but I doubt the infrastructure is enough for a land war. A railway running cross the mountains will not have the capacity necessary.

You´re right on the long coastline Brazil has and denying it entirely might be impossible but I think coastal traffic and a blockade runner now and then is not enough to ensure enough supply for Brazil to fight a long land war.

I also propose to re-check the map of WesWorld. SAE´s possessions in South America are too large to be overrun within a few days with the technology now at hand and the environmental situation given, IMHO.

I'd be surprised if Brazil needs that much outside supply for a land war. The outside supply lines would be useful for specialist items, but small arms and artillery ammunition is easily within the ability of 1930s Brazil to produce domestically. Brazil has most of the raw materials it needs for such a war, so it is not as import-dependent as some countries (in part because of it's huge size).

I'm not suggesting that the SAE's South American possessions could be overrun at all, that's a matter of how many troops Brazil and any allies can muster versus how many troops the SAE can get in place (and how the populace reacts). What I am saying is that the SAE's dominance of the sea does not necessarily mean that Brazil is helpless.

...also worth noting, if the other 4 part alliance members were draged into the conflict things would escalate rather quickly.

Argentinian participation would drag Nordmark into the fray and possibly Italy if they are commited enough. Bolivian participation could drag in Chile.

Britain, France and the Netherlands (in Suriname IIRC) all would likely be worried as well given the easy label of "Colonialists" due to their colony's to the north of Brazil.

Quoted

Argentinian participation would drag Nordmark into the fray and possibly Italy if they are commited enough.

No chance of that happening. Pre-emptive strike before the situation gets out of hand.

[Apparently I'm the only person that's studied the topology of the land that the SAE occupies, especially the ex-Brazilian section. It's all grassland. That's why the majority of my mechanized forces are concentrated in that area. As it is, I'd have weeks before I had to worry about emergency relief, much less a well-planned operation supplied by a decent trans-oceanic logistics chain. After all, we are talking about 1930. As for those colonies to the north, I have an army sitting on them as well.

Red Admiral: No, Brazil's terrain is not that limited. I was surprised when I hunted down the topological maps. And what is anybody going to see? It's 19-fracking-30, overhead surveilance is at best a gleam in somebody's eye. As for what is jungle, light infantry thrives in that kinda of terrain. I've made three miles an hour with a full loadout during a march; given fourteen hours a day for movement, four hours for breaks, and six for sleep a unit can make forty-two miles a day.]

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Argentinian participation would drag Nordmark into the fray and possibly Italy if they are commited enough.

No chance of that happening. Pre-emptive strike before the situation gets out of hand.

Pre-emptive strikes on who?

[*rolls eyes* Yeah, I love the term pre-emptive strike applied to operations a full decade before Normandy, which took the better part of a year to mass and plan just to move troops forty miles.

Let's see, there's the classic 3:1 ratio for invasion forces:local defending forces to even give your troops a 50:50 chance of winning, assuming all else is equal (and it never is). There's also the fact that intelligence is going to be weeks old. Another few weeks just to do in-depth planning. Probably the better part of a month or two just to whistle up a division.

Oh yeah, pre-emptive strike.]

Did someone say "Brazil" and "mechanised forces" in the same sentence?

Grassland in 1930? I'm not sure and today you're getting into coffee-growing country down there. Its fairly flat on the whole but very exposed to anyone, be it aircraft or burgher with binoculars.

Quoted

Pre-emptive strikes on who?

Anyone who is a threat to Italian world peace [cue evil laugh].

I'm talking more about pre-emptive strike as in destroying the coastal areas of Rio, not a strike against Brazil's army. Maybe someone should invent napalm quickyl....

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Anyone who is a threat to Italian world peace [cue evil laugh].

World peace or world domination?

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I'm talking more about pre-emptive strike as in destroying the coastal areas of Rio, not a strike against Brazil's army. Maybe someone should invent napalm quickly....

So Italy would attack Argentina's ally in Brazil if they attacked SAE interests? I think I missed something.

Quoted

So Italy would attack Argentina's ally in Brazil if they attacked SAE interests? I think I missed something.

The threat to world peace and all that.

[*raises eyebrow* You do realize the irony of that statement, do you not?]

If there is a war with foreign powers in South America now, it will probably be linked to South African arrogance grating on the native's nerves.

I can tell you it grates on the Chilean's nerves how they mess with local affairs in the name of peace, when in fact it is to maintian their own superiority.

(Some claim the British did this as well, including some British book arthors that seems to be insulted that anyone would dare challenge their "right" to be the naval power of the world. I've always found that funny. We Americans are probably getting that way as well.)

Quoted

Maybe someone should invent napalm quickyl....

In a way it already exists... or at least something that is a bit like napalm. Wesworld has Ekitai Hinote (also known as Giriku Faia) used in a modified version of the Prieur rocket: the Prieur Deux rocket.
Read the entry AWNR: September 10, 1927
Next step would be a less flamable plane.

Quoted

Anyone who is a threat to Italian world peace [cue evil laugh].

Well, guess what? There is no bigger threat to Italian world peace than Colonel Oonishi Manzo.
Japan informs the Italians that they are authorised to shoot first and ask questions later should the menace of the sky be sighted.
:-)

Why do I get the subtile feeling that all this degenerates into something that has little to do with my question how a blockade of Brazil would affect a war in South America. So far I´ve only seen a few lines about armies already at the borders and ready to march - whatever that means.

[Btw, do I have mentioned the South African Expedition Corps of 2,500,000 men yet - holding the SAE borders in South America against Brazilean and Argentinean aggressors? May have missed it...]

We can all claim to have LARGE armies everywhere, all fully mechanized etc. *shrugs* So what?

I really love to quote RA here:"Did someone say "Brazil" and "mechanised forces" in the same sentence?"

I also wonder how quick an intelligence service (may it be South African or Brazilean) will notice the other sides evil plans - or gathering of troops.

I also question the statement that a standard army man with full equipment can make it 42 miles (that´s 68km) into enemy territory. I served the army myself and I know what such stress would make out of an armies soldiers. And how much is 42 miles in the region we´re talking about? And how many days is an army supposed to march that way?

It is my opinion that such discussion will lead us to nowhere. Hence I again propose to focus on the original question which I may specifya little bit: Do you think a navy like the RSAN can install a sucessful blockade of the Brazilean coastline (quite long)? What would that mean for the people in Brazil and their ability to fight a full scale war?

Thanks for your input.

Quoted

I really love to quote RA here:"Did someone say "Brazil" and "mechanised forces" in the same sentence?"

*Speeds up the transport of tanks and trucks to Brazil* :-)

Quoted

I also wonder how quick an intelligence service (may it be South African or Brazilean) will notice the other sides evil plans - or gathering of troops.

I guess that depends on how fast the money flows to those opponents who will be bribed.

Quoted

I also question the statement that a standard army man with full equipment can make it 42 miles (that´s 68km) into enemy territory.

That's Stonewall Jackson's Way. :-)

Quoted

I served the army myself and I know what such stress would make out of an armies soldiers.

Yeah. Good thing I had a job behind the radio.

Regarding your original point Hooman, it might be possible due to the size of the RSAN, but I would think that quite a few South African ships would be tied down along the Brazilian coast for such a blockade.

Quoted

It is my opinion that such discussion will lead us to nowhere. Hence I again propose to focus on the original question which I may specifya little bit: Do you think a navy like the RSAN can install a sucessful blockade of the Brazilean coastline (quite long)? What would that mean for the people in Brazil and their ability to fight a full scale war?

It would probably hurt SA more than Brazil. Brazil exports lots of rubber, this goes out through the north of the country or simply overland then out through Guyana or somewhere similar. SA depends more on ocean-going trade and as such would probably prefer to have lots of hassle-free traffic on the waves around South America.

1) I never claimed that all my armies were large and/or mechanized. The three largest happen to be those that are most likely to see immediate action in a war against a foreign (that is, not South American) force. The majority of my fighting force is actually light infantry, obviously because of the dense jungle.

2) Intelligence on troops movement of foreign elements would depend primarily on "special forces" units attached to the corp or army, special forces referring to units whose primary job is small unit actions (i.e. raiding, etc.) Penetration of the SAE government bureaucracy is most likely to happen at the "local" level, where sympathies and ethnicities would run towards the "real" South American nations.

3) 42 miles unopposed. Not likely to happen in any war where South American troops are in SAE territory, given that your troops literally couldn't trade space for time.

4) A blockade would be pointless. You'd have to blockade the entire South American coast and cut off access to Central and North America. I don't think any ten nations could manage that.

Should the Quadruple Alliance kick in (if is still exists at the time of this hypothetical blockade), the SAE would need to blockade both Brazil and Argentina's coastlines. However such a blockade, even the smaller one around Brazil, would tax the African Navy beyond its capacity. Sure you could do it, but your other forces and patrol areas would be depleted, allowing for an opportunist nation to capitalize on your reduced forces (or see an heavy increase in piracy). Unless relations improve somehow, Chile will not assist the South African Navy in a blockade of Argentina. The exception to this case being if Chile was at war with Argentina at the time. And if Argentina is out of the picture, but Chile is friendly with Brazil somehow, the SAE would have to blockade the Chilean coastline as well, and that would split up your forces to the point were ships will slip through and perhaps even be able to engage and destroy element of your fleet. While the African Navy is large, it is not the British Navy. And if the SAE uses German style submarine warfare, I'd image they would draw other nations into the fighting eventually, just as the German's unrestricted submarine warfare did in the Great War. I really don't see the United States just sitting back and doing nothing while there is an intercontinental war going on in their extended backyard.

Finally, it the blockade probably wouldn't effect the South American nations like it would effect an island or geographically issolated nation would.

A South African blockade of Brazil's naval industry is relatively possible: that's fairly concentrated in coastal cities and can be blockaded reasonably easily. A general blockade of Brazil as a whole, not very possible and not very effective. Brazil at this time period is an exporter, not an importer, of foodstuffs, and most all of her other needs can be met domestically or by trading with her non-blockaded neighbots.

Oil might be the most limited strategic resource for Brazil at this time, but I'm not sure where it's being sourced at this time. If it's the US, then does the SAE want to forbid US ships passage on the high seas?

As to the distances an infantryman can hike, 30-40 miles per day was fairly common for the German infantry (and their horse-drawn artillery and supply wagons) during the early days of the invasion of Russia in 1941. Enemy territory, at least nominally, though by no means all of it was contested.