WesWorld

Why does everyone think I'm going to start an agressive war against a stronger power? I've been stating again and again that this scenario is only if AANM and FAR start fighting each other.

Quoted

You are planning the same folly that Germany tried against England- you are attacking a secure, island target solely by air in an attempt to force surrender without touching that island's primary manufacturing facilities, which are an ocean away. You are also expecting airpower alone to do a job that nothing short of combat infantry on the ground can accomplish- forcing the enemy to surrender and loose territory to you.

And the Germans came, oh so close to victory... Tis true that the manufacturing facilities are across the ocean, but fortunately Atlatis (FAR) is so conviniently placed.

Quoted

You are also underestimating the amount of external support that Iberia might be able to rally in it's own defense. Cuba is very close to a much larger, more powerful nation that shares a common border with you and would likely desire that the status quo be maintained as much as possible.

Iberia would at this time be embroiled in a war in Europe. Would they care about Cuba? And the US does not particularly like Iberia.


Patton? *thinking* Ah yes Pancho Villa! *thinking* Battle of Celaya...

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Of course, this could all just be posturing to distract the Americans, while the Mexican Army masses in Chihuahua. My Armor columns will be in St Louis before the Americans even notice. Mwhahahah!!! And no I do not want Texas.

"Chihuahua" makes me think of small bug eyed dogs and an old joke :
Q: What do you call 5,000 Chihuahuas ?
A: "Land Piranha"

Ok, so it's not a good joke, but I like it.

As for Texas... aww, please?


As for Patton, he had his flaws, I would have found it interesting if he had been put in a defensive situation, with inferior resources.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
As for Patton, he had his flaws, I would have found it interesting if he had been put in a defensive situation, with inferior resources.

I would love to see a situation where the US, Russians, and Germans are fighting side by side, with Patton commanding one flank, Rommel commanding the other flank, and Zhukov commanding the centre. That would be frickin' awesome.

Rommel is overrated too. This from the man who beat him twice.

"Rommel was a very aggresive and thrusting General, energetic, always on the ball. He drove his troops hard and he was impatient. He was ambitious and inclined to be spectacular personally and militarily, and there was a great deal of the politician in him. I would say that his military knowledge was not very profound. There were 2 principles which he clung to: Counterattack quickly and exploit every success. He overdid both"

Leslie Morshead 11 June 1947
GOC 9th Australian Infantry Division
Tobruk & El Alamein

Cheers,

Cancun is the only base on operational range of Cuba, so you know the Iberians also know that. Most likely a target of any large operations. Mexico lacks the resources to even move a regiment over the Gulf, and I doubt with a company of commandos they will conquer Cuba. I doubt Mexico can outproduce Iberia and they will be waging a war at extreme ranges with aircrafts carrying extra fuel tanks (not helping them to be in the easily to maneuver category)

The only way Mexico can do anything to Cuba will be with a lot of resources from Atlantis and/or another Nato country doing the invasion with Mexico as a hanger on. In Central America maybe, to cross the Gulf I doubt it. Any fleet stationed in Cuba will be used to defeat exactly that, a seaborne invasion. You count that Iberia will sat down and do nothing. After France is defeated in a FAR vs GB/AANM the remaining partners will be pressed to protect themselves. In a FAR vs AANM scenario the story is very different IMO. On regard to the end result, not the capabilities of Mexico to launch an invasion of Cuba.

Probable outcomes IMO:

Far vs AANM: victory FAR.

Nato vs AANM: victory Nato

SEAR vs Satsuma: victory SEAR but very bloody

SAE vs AB Powers: On sea SAE, on land the AB Powers.

FAR vs GB/AANM: victory the GB/AANM

SEAR vs SAE/Satsuma: still SEAR but even bloodier. Likely winner of all of this the AANM but most likely they will join in late on the war anyway.

US vs Mexico: US after they get their stuff together.

US vs Canada: Still US after they get their stuff together again.

Mexico vs Iberia: Iberia hands down.

Germany vs. Czechs: Germany after they get their stuff together.

FAR vs Germany/Nordmark: Bloody but I go with FAR.

Germany/Nordmark vs PRJ: Should I have to said it?

Yugoslavia vs the AANM: Come on!

Quoted

Mexico vs Iberia: Iberia hands down.

Only if it's Mexico (alone) vs all of AANM and Peru. Even then, if the Mexican Fleet refuses to fight, what will AANM do? Mexico can't be blockaded and I doubt AANM can pull of a succesful invasion. Its alot like SAE vs AB.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox

Quoted

Mexico vs Iberia: Iberia hands down.

Only if it's Mexico (alone) vs all of AANM and Peru. Even then, if the Mexican Fleet refuses to fight, what will AANM do? Mexico can't be blockaded and I doubt AANM can pull of a succesful invasion. Its alot like SAE vs AB.

Iberia can either launch a land invasion from Central America and they do have the amphibious capabilities to launch an invasion of Mexico ( Check their fleet in the encyclopedia). Capturing or damaging Tampico oil production facilities will put a dent in Mexican operations. Also any attack that damage the construction of the Canal have to be taken into consideration. War is not invasion and domination thing, is to force Mexico to the table. And that could be achieved leaving 75% of the country free of Iberian occupation.

Would that force Mexico to the negotiating table? The US had to take Mexico City and set up a puppet government to end the Mexican-American War. France also repeated that and still did not pacify Mexico.

Iberia might have the ships, but will they have air superority over the beaches? That was key both at D-Day and Operation Sealion. Only at Yucatan might AANM be able to achive air superority.

BTW the Iberian Encylopedia badly needs an update. An OOB would also be nice.

*Is amused at how Foxy's digging himself into a neat little Mexico-shaped hole.*

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Would that force Mexico to the negotiating table? The US had to take Mexico City and set up a puppet government to end the Mexican-American War. France also repeated that and still did not pacify Mexico.

Iberia might have the ships, but will they have air superority over the beaches? That was key both at D-Day and Operation Sealion. Only at Yucatan might AANM be able to achive air superority.

BTW the Iberian Encylopedia badly needs an update. An OOB would also be nice.

And after Yucatan is takenyou have land bases to achieve air superiority over any beaches in the Atlantic. Taking Tampico will crimp the Mexican capabilities to wage modern warfare on the long run. Aircrafts need fuel as so do tanks. All Iberia have to do is hold Veracruz, Tampico and Acapulco from Mexican counterattacks and Mexico will turn into a 19th Century force.

Quoted

*Is amused at how Foxy's digging himself into a neat little Mexico-shaped hole.*

He, he, he... it's all part of the plan. Once Mexico announces its latest purchase of several hundred landing crafts and planes, Iberia will be so worried that it will launch a preemtive attack, which will in turn draw in NATO. And since this is all OOC, NATO will not be able to blame the attack on Mexican bombast.

Quoted

And after Yucatan is takenyou have land bases to achieve air superiority over any beaches in the Atlantic. Taking Tampico will crimp the Mexican capabilities to wage modern warfare on the long run. Aircrafts need fuel as so do tanks. All Iberia have to do is hold Veracruz, Tampico and Acapulco from Mexican counterattacks and Mexico will turn into a 19th Century force.

Yucatan -> Tampico = Yucatan -> Santiago. So while Mexico is totaly unable to mantain air superority over half the distance, AANM is quite capable of doing it over twice the distance?

So you are saying that AANM is going to launch three separate invasions agianst determined opposition, on two separate oceans? The logistics alone will kill you. Tampico maybe, Veracruz really?, Acapulco no way. Is the US helping? Cause there is no other way for AANM to pull that one off.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
Probable outcomes IMO:

Far vs AANM: victory FAR.

Nato vs AANM: victory Nato

SEAR vs Satsuma: victory SEAR but very bloody

SAE vs AB Powers: On sea SAE, on land the AB Powers.

FAR vs GB/AANM: victory the GB/AANM

SEAR vs SAE/Satsuma: still SEAR but even bloodier. Likely winner of all of this the AANM but most likely they will join in late on the war anyway.

US vs Mexico: US after they get their stuff together.

US vs Canada: Still US after they get their stuff together again.

Mexico vs Iberia: Iberia hands down.

Germany vs. Czechs: Germany after they get their stuff together.

FAR vs Germany/Nordmark: Bloody but I go with FAR.

Germany/Nordmark vs PRJ: Should I have to said it?

Yugoslavia vs the AANM: Come on!

I think you underestimate FAR and drastically over estimate SATSUMA. SEAR would dominate SATSUMA.

In reguards to SEAR vs SAE/Satsuma FAR would benifit too and could also join in on the fun.

Also if the AANM and Peru really wanted to shoot themselves in the foot in a war with Mexico, they'd attack the Canal. That would bring in NATO, effectively sealing the AANM's fate.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
US vs Canada: Still US after they get their stuff together again.

Yes, yes....exactly what we want them to think...

And you are overestimating the power of SEAR. They will not dominate Satsuma but will win at the end. Long supply lines, the main ground forces, except for Russia, are on the other side of the world and easily to blockade areas. The real reason Satsuma will not attack is how fragile the oil production facilites are to be taken out early on the war. The ground war will be hell. China has being noted by swallowing and tying large quantities of troops. There is more than ships involved in the equations. The largest ground armies on the world and SEAR will dominate?

is Russia's, although we recognize that China and Bharat can mobilize far more eventually. That's the reason for the 10 Fortified Regions on the RF/China border.

I know is Russia but they have to kept part of their manpower in Europe, while China and Bharat can bring their full potential into the fray.

I don't know about predictions but I've just finished my Q1/36 report for GB and its so scary I've scared myself!

By spending only 41,000 tons there is more ships being built than by probably most of SATSUMA combined (5 BB, 3 CV, 8 CL, 8 DD, 8 escorts, 20 subs and 8 MTBs).

Why would GB join with AANM? I thought GB Italian relations had been lessened?

What if GB joined with Nordmark and Germany? [such talks happened in July and might or might not have been successful!] This means GB has fingers in many pies.

If the USA decided to join SEAR operations then SATSUMA will be crushed regardless of land armies. With their navies destroyed Satsuma would be forced to the diplomatic table.

Maybe we get to the point like George Orwell's 1984 where three huge powers constanly fight across the globe in a war no-one wins...

I'm not saying Satsuma will win, but will not be a picnic that some say it will be. It will be bloody.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I don't know about predictions but I've just finished my Q1/36 report for GB and its so scary I've scared myself!

Not as scary as when they had Canada and Australias factorys at their disposal!

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
By spending only 41,000 tons there is more ships being built than by probably most of SATSUMA combined (5 BB, 3 CV, 8 CL, 8 DD, 8 escorts, 20 subs and 8 MTBs).

Thats also more than what I can produce if I devote my entire factory production to warship materials.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Why would GB join with AANM? I thought GB Italian relations had been lessened?

That was my thought too, though some decided to do a play by play of their wet dreams.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
What if GB joined with Nordmark and Germany? [such talks happened in July and might or might not have been successful!] This means GB has fingers in many pies.

Then that would mean Hrolfs deserves an oscar for acting like he didn't know!

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
If the USA decided to join SEAR operations then SATSUMA will be crushed regardless of land armies. With their navies destroyed Satsuma would be forced to the diplomatic table.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Maybe we get to the point like George Orwell's 1984 where three huge powers constanly fight across the globe in a war no-one wins...

Now thats just odd!

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
And you are overestimating the power of SEAR. They will not dominate Satsuma but will win at the end. Long supply lines, the main ground forces, except for Russia, are on the other side of the world and easily to blockade areas. The real reason Satsuma will not attack is how fragile the oil production facilites are to be taken out early on the war. The ground war will be hell. China has being noted by swallowing and tying large quantities of troops. There is more than ships involved in the equations. The largest ground armies on the world and SEAR will dominate?

China also sent massive amounts of troops into Korea, only to be slaughtered in large groups.