Possibly the simplest and most straightforward image is just “mate” two U.S. maps together in a mirror image. Imagine Canada as another U.S., just upside down (magically having the same latitude/climate.)
Chicago/Chicago becomes a major military objective! California and Texas are reserve areas. Big battles in New England/New England, but the real tank-battle terrain is the border east of Chicago.
At least this interpretation is easy to war-game.
Yeah, that’ll do.
What are the win conditions? Is this just a war of endless attrition until one side is utterly wiped out? Are there specific things one side wants?
Since nuclear weapons were ruled out by the hypothetical, seems that victory should be pretty obvious. One side takes a handful of major cities and holds 'em, the other side fails to dislodge the incursion, a handful of big battles and a bunch of small ones, mostly going badly for one side…
WWI didn’t end with the invasion and occupation of Berlin: one side just wasn’t winning, and it was all over.
I’m still seeing a “tipping point” scenario. One side just gets lucky, wins a battle, and it’s all downhill from there. It would be hard to reverse an ebbing tide of misfortune. Also, public opinion. Once the population of America I feels that America II is winning, there’d be a call for negotiations.
(Why fight in the first place? They both have extremely skilled diplomatic corps… But, hey, it’s the premise. They fight.)
“There can be only one!”
To be serious, I agree with your point. It would seem like two different versions of the United States would be natural allies rather than enemies. But I’m not fighting the premise. We’re here to debate how the war would be fought not question if it would occur.
Huge happy grin! If that isn’t worth fighting for, what is?
If the Army tried to fight the Navy, they’d drown pretty quick.
I also thought it would be about one service fighting another. That’s happened in several civil conflicts in South America, most pretty short, where various services entirely or mainly lined up on opposite sides. For example the Chliean Naval Mutiny in 1931. Basically the whole navy joined, and Chile had a significant navy, so no intra-naval combat like the 1891 civil war. The army remained loyal to the govt and seized the main naval repair facility at Talcahuano. Then loyal air units attacked the anchored fleet in what might have become a more famous incident presaging air attacks on ships in WWII, except all bombs missed. But these actions broke the morale of the mutineers and negotiations followed.
In the 1950’s to early 60’s the Argentine Navy was the center of anti-Peromism and this led to some armed conflict between the services. The failed coup of 1963 included an incident where an army tank column (ex US M4 tanks) overcame naval a/c attacks (by ex-USN F9F jet fighters) to threaten the navy air base and force the naval air units to fly to Uruguay. Part of the process of ‘taming’ the navy after that included reducing the size of the marine corps so it couldn’t hope to defend naval bases against the army.
Is there a way the US Navy or Air Force wouldn’t lose against the US Army? It seems like the land component is less reliant on static bases than the air and naval components. It seems doubtful the Marines would be able to hold against the entire Army.
That’s definitely interesting, particularly if each side keeps its contemporary industrial capacity to keep churning out equipment. I think today’s navy would wipe the floor with 1945’s (quick Google says that the US has more aircraft carriers now than in 1945), but not sure how quickly we can build them now vs. back then. For ground forces you have to think modern technology doesn’t give enough edge over the number superiority of the WW2 era force, but I’m not sure if ground engagements would be all that likely.
From the U.S. Navy’s Naval History and Heritage Command, in August of 1945 the U.S.N. had 28 fleet carriers and another 71 escort carriers. The U.S.N. in September 2016 had 10 aircraft carriers (CVN); if we’re counting everything from 1945–fleet carriers and escort carriers–then from 2016 the LHA and LHD types certainly look a lot like some form of aircraft carrier (“helicopter carriers”) and there were another 9 of those. So, 28 (1945) vs. 10 (2016) for full carriers; 99 (1945) vs. 19 (2016) for various aircraft-carrier-like ships.
The 21st century vessels are vastly more capable: At least some of them are nuclear powered; their sensors and communications are enormously better; they’re just flat out bigger (a Nimitz class carrier weighs in at over 100,000 tons whereas the Essex class fleet carriers were less than half that), and size directly affects how many aircraft an aircraft carrier can carry, and also how big and capable those aircraft are–21st century American warplanes are massively more capable than American warplanes from 1945 in terms of speed, sensors, and firepower.
But the fleet from 1945 would definitely outclass the 21st century fleet in terms of sheer numbers of hulls it could put in the water. They’d probably just be targets, but there would be a lot of them.
Are you a writer, MichaelEmouse? Because this could make an interesting book! (Or even series if you wanted to go full Harry Turtledove with it.)
I think your source is incorrect. The United States Navy had twenty-seven fleet carriers, eleven light carriers, and around a hundred escort carriers in 1945. The United States Navy has eleven fleet carriers and nine helicopter carriers in 2020.
Yes I was reading too hastily - I skimmed a paragraph stating that there were 44 aircraft carriers in 2020 and assumed that was how many the US navy had, not recognizing that was the total number globally :smack:
Thanks as well MEBuckner for the breakdown.
I think as RickJay said in post 7, there would be a very short violent part of the war where each side tries to wipe out all of the other sides air, naval, command and control assets. The side that gets ahead first will be better able to inflict causalities on the other side, so I wouldn’t be surprised if at the end one side still has a fairly significant portion (say 50%) of its assets still intact by the time the other side is pretty well spent.
The question is what to do after that. The US military can barely hold Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no way that even with superior air and naval power, that the US would have the ability to occupy and hold the united states against a dug in US army, national guard and armed citizenry. The US doesn’t really go in for total war of cities with mass civilian casualties, these days. So while I think life will be pretty miserable for the losing side for a number of years/decades I don’t imagine it will even be totally defeated. Eventually the “winning” side will decide its just not worth it and go home.
Convention military wisdom is you should have a three to one advantage to attack a defending force. If the other earth were attacked our earth, tie goes to us, the defenders
I’m thinking of making a near-futuristic game based on electronic warfare.
Presuming both USAs went into total war mode (let’s say they had some time to prepare), what would be the production bottlenecks, aside from training?