Canada loses through attrition. Even if every one of those Leos took out about 4 dozen U.S. tanks before going down to a lucky shot, they still would lose in the end. Same with the ships, and the APCs and all the rest. Canada would kill a hell of a lot more men than they’d lose, but in that scenario they’d have no chance, just by sheer weight of numbers.
Wouldn’t the real key be air power? How long could 100 CF-18s last against the ~41000 combat planes of the U.S. Army Air Force, circa 1945, plus whatever the Navy had?
For that matter, if a single CF-18 was determined to get a Yorktown-class carrier, is there anything the carrier could do?
No, there is nothing it could do. However, this war isn’t won in the air, or at sea. It’s won on the ground (that long, long U.S. Canada border). The 1945 GIs grind down the 2008 Canucks with their blood and guts. Actually, pretty much the same thing would happen in the air. 100 Hornets aren’t going to be able to defend 3000 miles of border, some will be caught on the ground, some will be hit by flack, some with just break down mechanically. Sure they might take out 1000 or even 5000 U.S. planes…but the U.S. has twice that many, or more, to spend. Same thing with the Navies, although they are not very important in a U.S./Canada war. (unless one side or the other is dependent on overseas goods…more Leos from Germany, perhaps?) Still, pretty much the same story as in the air.
What about when 5 CF-18s zip down to Washington and smoke the Capitol and the White House, while the rest plink down the B-29s lumbering toward Ottawa?
You’re right, though - the Canadians would run out of bullets and missiles before the Americans ran out of planes and tanks. Maybe the best bet for the Canadians is to attack oil refineries and rail yards and whatnot, try to make the American war machine grind to a halt. Put mines and IEDs along the major roads, slow down the American advance as much as possible. Meanwhile, the CF18s continue to destroy major symbolic targets (sinking a carrier with one plane is pretty compelling, not to mention taking out major buildings and the Statue of Liberty and Hoover Dam and pretty much every high-profile target) and we’ll see whose spirit breaks first.
This is the only scenario where I could see the '45s pulling off a win - a shared land border that they can rush in numbes, and from what I recall pretty much all the infrastructure and population of Canada is within relatively easy striking distance of the US.
It would be a bloodbath, and given approximately equal economic resources might still not work - but with a force disparity like that, it probably is possible to overcome the technological disadvantage.
But it would be truly messy. Aside from the Leopards (again, the kill limit here is pretty much going to be how much ammunition is available), even a LAV III APC is going to blow up a WW2 tank pretty easily, and will have the optics and crew training to do it from a distance. Likewise for pretty much everything else - technology and fighting on the defensive would let the Canadians inflict truly enormous casualties. Think Soviets in WW2 and Chinese in Korea, but worse - the US would need to be pretty PO’d to sustain those kinds of casualties for even a week or two.
The thing with the shared border scenario is that '08 Canada will see everything the '45 Americans are doing. America won’t be able to hide its gathering troops. In which case Canada can attack and demolish them. Canada will also destroy major logistical arteries. How is America going going to project significant land power into Canada when all its useful rail and roads are twisted metal and crumbly bits? March?
Still, if the Americas end up actually occupying Canadian air fields then things get interesting. Those planes have to land and be serviced somewhere.
Pretty much. There would probably be enough logging roads and tracks that you could filter significant forces around destroyed bridges/tunnels and other chokepoints. You’d be reliant on there being so many targets scattered over the terrain that the Canadians couldn’t hit them all quickly enough. Like I said, very very bloody but probably feasible with a huge enough force disparity. As far as the CAF goes, running out of fuel/ordnance and pilots who can keep their eyes open, or having the airfield swarmed by hundreds of suicidal B-25s, would probably be a bigger issue than actual airfield capture.
Don’t forget that the 1945 guys have Edward R. Murrow and ernie Pyle, that’s gotta count for something.
and Truman, Patton, Churchill (maybe), Stillwell, Audey Murphy, Halsey, McArthur, Spruance, Nimitz, Bradley, and many more, guys who were masters at thinking on their feet and reacting to changing situations, don’t count them out just because they don’t have digital watches.