PDA

View Full Version : Conquer America!



ondonaflash
2009-10-14, 02:13 AM
Okay so this is a bit of a strategy conundrum. I present a situation.

Your primary troop buildup is in England, You have approximately 1,500,000 men in your army. You have already expended forces to destroy the American Navy, which is now virtually non-existant. You are in possession of Mexico, which is currently occupied by 300,000 men. You want to proceed to invade America with your ground forces and secure the nation for yourself. Canada remains hostile. South American is also hostile but chivalrously only attacks from across the panama canal.

Disregard the existence of nuclear missiles, and the threat of a final strike. Eurasia is irrelevant. How would you wage a ground war to conquer America. Say you have a strong navy, where would you direct your ships? If you want to post maps, post maps.

Lets just ignore the tangle of socio-political issues that such an invasion would bring up.

Dixieboy
2009-10-14, 02:15 AM
If we are barring the American airforce, bombs and navy.

Why the hell would i wage a ground war?
Wouldn't standing back and bombing them to smithereens with my ships be a better idea?
Assuming this isn't a war for territory.

Myrmex
2009-10-14, 02:17 AM
What is the purpose of this war?

I would wage a total war, annihilating everyone and everything. I would sow the fields with salt, put entire cities to the sword.

All an undead army needs is more corpses, after all.


...what, I invested all my tech points in research: zombie virus.

ondonaflash
2009-10-14, 02:20 AM
First of all, I meant to post this in the top forum, I just get drawn to RPG. The objective is occupation, subjugation, then assimilation. Essentially, conquest. You want their dudes to pay your taxes.

Myrmex
2009-10-14, 02:21 AM
First of all, I meant to post this in the top forum, I just get drawn to RPG. The objective is occupation, subjugation, then assimilation. Essentially, conquest. You want their dudes to pay your taxes.

What if we just exterminate the natives and recolonize?

Dervag
2009-10-14, 02:22 AM
We've ignored so much that it's hard to say definitively what's left. Are we trying to stage landings in the face of some decent coast-defense missiles? What about land based aviation? Any attempt to reinforce troops in Mexico from England, hell, any attempt to supply them, is going to get airstruck and cruise missiled pretty hard.

Dixieboy
2009-10-14, 02:24 AM
We've ignored so much that it's hard to say definitively what's left. Are we trying to stage landings in the face of some decent coast-defense missiles? What about land based aviation? Any attempt to reinforce troops in Mexico from England, hell, any attempt to supply them, is going to get airstruck and cruise missiled pretty hard.

We are obviously not counting a sizeable airforce since the maintenance of the mexico base would be impossible.

Myrmex
2009-10-14, 02:30 AM
Trying to hold any territory in the US would be hell. The resistance would be massive. Even if you could win every conventional battle and defeat the US as a political power, you would be dealing with an insurgency for a hundred years. A well trained, well armed, and very determined insurgency.


Also, what of allies? Would Canada come to the US's aid? What about Russia/Middle East?

One advantage Britain would have is (potential) control of both old world (Africa & the Middle East) and new world (Central & South America) oil wells.

sambo.
2009-10-14, 02:30 AM
Disregard the existence of nuclear missiles, and the threat of a final strike. <snip> How would you wage a ground war to conquer America.

given the vast number of firearms in private hands across the USA, personally, (remember, no nukes, no retaliatory strike) i'd gas the hell out of the place before sending in ground troops for what will probably become a long, bogged down street by street campaign against a seriously pissed off Citizenry.

ondonaflash
2009-10-14, 02:36 AM
Also, what of allies? Would Canada come to the US's aid? What about Russia/Middle East?

I said to discount Eurasia, because by this point, I'm assuming that you've either already defeated Russia, or you are Russia, and just kind of conquered outwards. Lets say that coastal defenses are in place.

Myrmex
2009-10-14, 02:41 AM
I said to discount Eurasia, because by this point, I'm assuming that you've either already defeated Russia, or you are Russia, and just kind of conquered outwards. Lets say that coastal defenses are in place.

So does mean the American military is stuck with whatever energy resources are in Canada/North America?

I'd say wait 'em out, but they'd quickly switch over to nuclear and have a Manhattan Project to find a fast, cheap way to turn coal into oil.

I guess press the energy advantage early and often.

Though honestly, after foreign boots landed on American soil, the invaders would have had to smash their way through such a brutal gauntlet that it would be foolish for the Americans to fight conventionally.

charl
2009-10-14, 02:43 AM
If we are talking modern America then occupying America is going to be pretty much impossible. The people are going to fight you every step of the way, and there's "a rifle hidden behind every blade of grass" due to the extremely liberal gun laws.

But you can force the government to surrender. Embargo them is the first step, which shouldn't be hard now that you have destroyed their navy. You'd also want to hurt their industry, which means aerial supremacy and bombing of cities and factories.

You should also take down their satellite network. It's going to be expensive, but missiles with the capability do exist. Just make sure you have a backup system for your own use (you'd want to keep some kind of GPS while depriving the other side of it).

Then you pretty much just wait. They are going to try a counter-attack in Mexico. Let them. Do a fighting retreat and prepare bunker systems for your own use every step of the way (and blow up said bunkers when you pull out). Your mission in this is to make them take as much casualties as possible while minimizing your own. Scorch the earth while you are at it, to make sure that they don't really gain anything either, except for worthless stretches of land.

Eventually American resources will be strained to such a degree that unless they are willing to accept going back to the 19th century technologically they are going to have to surrender. Make sure you force them down permanently with your treaty. Maybe divide the union, even.

This is not going to be cheap for you, but you might just do it.

SurlySeraph
2009-10-14, 02:59 AM
America possesses a pretty strong capacity to resist occupation, at least in theory. That's why you need to focus on demoralizing the people. Shell New York. Shell DC. Shell every city on the Eastern Seaboard. And make sure the media is recording it. Distribute the videos as widely as possible. Show that you have overwhelming force.

After that, sweep into the cities via amphibious landings and occupy them before the people are fully over the shock. Then blitz inward from the coast, scouring out any potential centers of resistance. Winning hearts and minds can come later, for now you want to scare the hell out of people. Remember how horrified Americans across the nation were on the date that need not be mentioned? Imagine how they'd be if a hundred times that many people died, in lots of easily recognizable cities, with their efforts to fight back clearly futile. America sees itself as brave and tough and self-reliant. You need to crush that image. This is all about morale, not actual military strength.

As for the occupation, stick to the cities, round up and relocate the suburban populations, and ignore the rural areas because you can't hold them anyway. You want to shuffle people around, keep them disoriented and demoralized. You'll be strongest on the Atlantic seaboard and in the South. Focus on holding these areas; you can't afford to spread your forces too thin when Canada's hostile and resistance movements could pop up. Put lots of forces in the densely populated areas and ignore everything else.

Oslecamo
2009-10-14, 03:31 AM
If we are talking modern America then occupying America is going to be pretty much impossible. The people are going to fight you every step of the way, and there's "a rifle hidden behind every blade of grass" due to the extremely liberal gun laws.

Altough there's indeed lots of weapons, most nort-americans aren't actualy willing to put their live on the lines, and those who are would probably turn on their own brethern to try to gain power for themselves. Any kind of resistance would be extremely fractured and unstable.

Plus, whitout supply lines, most people would be starving in no time. Take out the regions specialized in farming and the rest colapses pretty quickly.



But you can force the government to surrender. Embargo them is the first step, which shouldn't be hard now that you have destroyed their navy. You'd also want to hurt their industry, which means aerial supremacy and bombing of cities and factories.

Bombing cities is foolish and a waste of ammo unless the enemy army is actually there. The other side has just a lot more civilians than you have bombs. Bombarding cities just for the sake of it has never produced visibile results in any situation.

But bombing the factories is a good plan. Altough I would go first for the oil camps and farms. Once you deny them the oil and food, any resistance will be reduced to a bunch of fanatics, wich will be too busy dealing with the "traitor" americans who joined your side in return for food.



You should also take down their satellite network. It's going to be expensive, but missiles with the capability do exist. Just make sure you have a backup system for your own use (you'd want to keep some kind of GPS while depriving the other side of it).

Capture would probably be best. If the other side has much power, they can probably afford to try to hack the system by brute force.



Then you pretty much just wait. They are going to try a counter-attack in Mexico. Let them. Do a fighting retreat and prepare bunker systems for your own use every step of the way (and blow up said bunkers when you pull out). Your mission in this is to make them take as much casualties as possible while minimizing your own. Scorch the earth while you are at it, to make sure that they don't really gain anything either, except for worthless stretches of land.

Always a good plan.



Eventually American resources will be strained to such a degree that unless they are willing to accept going back to the 19th century technologically they are going to have to surrender. Make sure you force them down permanently with your treaty. Maybe divide the union, even.

This is not going to be cheap for you, but you might just do it.
Indeed the money is the scary part. The north-americans greatest weapon would be no doubt try to bribe your officers and destroy your force from whitin.

Temet Nosce
2009-10-14, 03:35 AM
Bluntly, I'd have to say at the point you're specifying it becomes less related to fighting and more to plotting. With the Navy (and probably a good portion of the other services) gone and nukes not being considered you've already eliminated the main (official) trained opposition. Further, you already have more people in arms than the entirety of the USA's military had beforehand.

I may be wrong, but the question you're asking seems more like "how do you pacify the USA?", because that's going to be the problem. My answer is probably the best way would be to integrate already existing infrastructures and systems and attempt to cause as little disturbance as possible. You're still looking at a hideous level of resistance, but that would probably be the best way to cut down on it (as people have a natural inertia, and the less you change immediately the fewer will be motivated to engage in active resistance). Still, even with that many trained troops... The USA has vastly more people than that, even if we only count people with access to weapons (albeit perhaps few are as well armed as the area I live in... My friends and I figured out that we had enough firearms to arm all our close friends/family (including children) and our pets and we'd still have guns leftover) you're still looking at a situation where you are effectively vastly outnumbered in terms of people in arms once you actually begin dealing with the population of the USA. In addition of course to being forced to tie down your men after that...

To be honest, I don't really think pacifying the USA would be actually possible. The resources required are so vast as to be difficult to even comprehend. Even if it were possible, it would be a project which whoever started would be unlikely to see the end of. The timetable would not be measured in years, but decades...

charl
2009-10-14, 03:39 AM
Bombing cities is foolish and a waste of ammo unless the enemy army is actually there. The other side has just a lot more civilians than you have bombs. Bombarding cities just for the sake of it has never produced visibile results in any situation.

But bombing the factories is a good plan. Altough I would go first for the oil camps and farms. Once you deny them the oil and food, any resistance will be reduced to a bunch of fanatics, wich will be too busy dealing with the "traitor" americans who joined your side in return for food.

Indeed the money is the scary part. The north-americans greatest weapon would be no doubt try to bribe your officers and destroy your force from whitin.

By bombing cities I didn't mean to bomb civilian populations. I was more thinking of destroying infrastructural and communications hubs, banking establishments, industrial facilities and so on.

America has too much farmland to bother trying to bomb it into oblivion, though I suppose strategic napalm strikes on some corn fields couldn't hurt.

Bribes only work if your money is worth something. If America is in such bad shape it is in danger of facing large scale land warfare on its own soil one can assume its economic power has declined to the point where you might as well declare all American money worthless within your own country (you should in fact do this the minute you declare war on them).

If you want to screw with their economy even more you can print false American dollar bills and inject them into the US via airdrop or spies. Devalue the currency and America gets really screwed, as the last couple of years have proven.

Myrmex
2009-10-14, 03:48 AM
Bombing cities is foolish and a waste of ammo unless the enemy army is actually there. The other side has just a lot more civilians than you have bombs. Bombarding cities just for the sake of it has never produced visibile results in any situation.

Total war has worked for virtually every military that has ever used it, from the oldest recorded histories right up to WWII. With the advent of nukes, superpowers, the UN, and Western Democracy, it is no longer a political option, but it is just as strategically viable now as it was in Ghengis Khan's day.

If history has taught us anything, it's that, if you have the ability to wage total war without repercussion, do it.


Indeed the money is the scary part. The north-americans greatest weapon would be no doubt try to bribe your officers and destroy your force from whitin.

If America fell to ground invasion, the money would be worthless. Currency backed by faith isn't worth anything when there's no faith in it.

ondonaflash
2009-10-14, 04:00 AM
I tend to refrain from participating in hypothetical strike planning on countries that I am a citizen of.

Well if your country is ever attacked you need to know what your enemies are planning! Planning to invade your own country is not just and amusing pass time, its your civic duty.

Dixieboy
2009-10-14, 04:05 AM
Total war has worked for virtually every military that has ever used it, from the oldest recorded histories right up to WWII. With the advent of nukes, superpowers, the UN, and Western Democracy, it is no longer a political option, but it is just as strategically viable now as it was in Ghengis Khan's day.

If history has taught us anything, it's that, if you have the ability to wage total war without repercussion, do it.



If America fell to ground invasion, the money would be worthless. Currency backed by faith isn't worth anything when there's no faith in it.Not only that but the opposing force is obviously also quite well off, they have after all managed to take mexico without much trouble, aswell as taken out your navy and are still going strong.

Oslecamo
2009-10-14, 05:58 AM
Total war has worked for virtually every military that has ever used it, from the oldest recorded histories right up to WWII. With the advent of nukes, superpowers, the UN, and Western Democracy, it is no longer a political option, but it is just as strategically viable now as it was in Ghengis Khan's day.

If history has taught us anything, it's that, if you have the ability to wage total war without repercussion, do it.

O'rrly? Nevermind that the germans started losing air superiority when they started to bomb civilians isntead of bombing the english air force bases, allowing the british to rebuild the royal airforce.

Also we all know how Ghengis Khan ended. And Atila. And the crusades. A moment of glory, and then quick colapse.

On the other hand, look at the chinese conquerors, wich put a great emphasis on pacification of the conquered lands, seeking to gain the people's favor instead of mindlessly slaughtering them, and thanks to that managed to create a country wich has lasted more time than any other out there, and it's on his way to become one of the top dogs. Again.

A living civilian is a civilian who can be persuaded to work for you, but a dead civilian is just a waste of atention wich could've been directed attacking an actualy valuable part of the enemy, like leaders or weapons production.

Also the main reason why you can't just nuke everything in a war. Radioactive cities may not fight back, but you cannot get any loot from them either. And nukes are expensive. Much better to risk some soldiers, tanks and time if it means you can get your hands on their resources and working force.



If America fell to ground invasion, the money would be worthless. Currency backed by faith isn't worth anything when there's no faith in it.
Well, I guess you've got a point there. For this situation to happen,the USA's economy would already be seriously crippled.

Green Bean
2009-10-14, 06:27 AM
How does the technology stack up? On one hand, the US's military philosophy generally means they have that advantage. On the other, you've already destroyed the most powerful navy in the world, so you've clearly got something up your sleeve.

Numbers-wise, the US has an advantage; 1.5 million troops (minus 332,000 for the Navy), and 1.5 million reserves. Their biggest advantage is that most of your troops will need to be ferried over, and that they have a ridonkulous Air Force. Your biggest advantage is whatever let you destroy their navy in the first place.

Also, Canada could prove to be fairly important. We've got pretty big oil resources, and in the middle of a war, we're going to be sending it all to the folks who can help defend us, especially since we can't trade with England anymore.

Johel
2009-10-14, 07:00 AM
So :

No US navy
No US airforce
No US nukes

I guess America is screwed, then. :smallbiggrin:

No anti-Americanism, here, but the ground forces of the US army have always fought with close air support since the Korean Wars. It could always count on a good logistic thanks to the navy. Even if they are fighting at home, without air support, I doubt of the ability of the US army to stop a zerg through the Mexican frontier if their opponent has modern weaponry.

I don't know for local resistance. Looking at the level of participation to the last elections, I'd say US citizens look pretty apolitical from where I sit. Sure, there'll be a few "patriotic rednecks" but if the invaders only change the flag, the anthem and the guys in charge, not the rules themselves, I don't see why there should even BE a resistance from Joe the Random American. Beer in the fridge, Baseball and Superbowl on TV ? Yep, nothing is wrong.

However, since we only know QUANTITY and not the QUALITY of your troops, we can't help you, really. If it's 1.500.000 militiamen with USSR-old Kalashnikov and no mechanized infantry or armored cavalry, that's as good as rubbish for an invasion.


Also we all know how Ghengis Khan ended

Died of old age, in his tent, with a lot's of wives and children.
The Mongol "Empire" felt to internal strifes between his heirs.
The final stroke was the gunpowder but Mongols were still a problem for 19th century Russia.


Crusades

The Kingdom of Jerusalem felt because local lords kept bickering and the last king wasn't exactly a military genius either. Local resistance, sure there was, but no open rebellion or even noticeable guerrilla. Worst were attacks on trade caravans...which weren't exactly a political thing.
The Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem felt after nearly two centuries but it did so against a man who had already singlehandedly conquered most of the Muslim world. That's right people, Saladin defeated most Muslim rulers before conquering Jerusalem, which was simply the last thing left.

Following crusades were more "failed strikes" than conquests. Military incompetence, leadership bickerings and very bad logistic are the main causes.


Chinese...
...whole history is a succession of civil wars and occupation periods.
The Chinese civilization, as a whole, has lasted more than any but simply look at the number of petty kingdoms and of different dynasties.
No single competent Chinese ruler was an angel. They actually used more "real politic" than demagogy, not hesitating to starve whole cities if rebels took them, or to slaughter entire families (and Chinese families back then meant extended families...) if one member was branded as traitor or criminal.
Look at the Yellow Turban Rebellion, which was resolved in a "pacific" fashion for the time. It started the COLLAPSE of the ruling dynasty.

20th century alone saw 3 different rules in China : the imperial one, the nationalist republic (aka warlords) and the communist republic. Each one used ethnic and cultural difference to either rise to power or try to keep it.
If you dare to say that the actual republic is a model of peaceful ethnic and cultural integration, let's wait for it to get past its first century. This being said, I won't talk more about it, since it's against the forum rules.


Also the main reason why you can't just nuke everything in a war. Radioactive cities may not fight back, but you cannot get any loot from them either. And nukes are expensive. Much better to risk some soldiers, tanks and time if it means you can get your hands on their resources and working force.

If cost isn't a issue, you better effectively bomb them with conventional explosive. Sure, there's no loot but after a ground invasion, unless you want to go the Irak way, there won't be much loot left either.

Green Bean
2009-10-14, 07:24 AM
So :

No US navy
No US airforce
No US nukes



Where did the OP say no airforce? :smallconfused:

bosssmiley
2009-10-14, 07:27 AM
Why conquer when you can subvert so much more cheaply? :smallconfused:

Johel
2009-10-14, 07:28 AM
Where did the OP say no airforce? :smallconfused:

...my bad. :smallbiggrin:

I assumed that, since most of the US navy's punch comes from its aircraft carriers, there wouldn't be much planes or pilots left.
Also, I guess the US didn't let an enemy nation (or any warlike nation, for what matters) conquers Mexico. It's like opening a door to tanks. If the US failed to protect Mexico, it's either because they didn't wanted to help or because they lost air superiority.

Green Bean
2009-10-14, 07:37 AM
...my bad. :smallbiggrin:

I assumed that, since most of the US navy's punch comes from its aircraft carriers, there wouldn't be much planes or pilots left.
Also, I guess the US didn't let an enemy nation (or any warlike nation, for what matters) conquers Mexico. It's like opening a door to tanks. If the US failed to protect Mexico, it's either because they didn't wanted to help or because they lost air superiority.

Yeah, a bit more context is important if we have to formulate a strategy. "We have naval superiority because we have a bigger/better navy" is different from "We have naval superiority because the Ark of the Covenant made their aircraft carriers explode".

charl
2009-10-14, 07:45 AM
Assuming conventional warfare for any other nation to defeat the US navy it'd have to have air supremacy since modern navies are in many ways centred around carrier groups. That air supremacy would also have to fight off most of the US airforce as well since there is no way that branch would just look the other way while the navy is obliterated. It seems like a fair assumption that our airforce in this scenario is superior to the US one.

Fluffles
2009-10-14, 08:34 AM
I'd pull out my Risk board and pretend that it was possible to conquer the US.

Roland St. Jude
2009-10-14, 08:39 AM
Sheriff of Moddingham: This seems inherently and inevitably bound up with politics. The OP meant this for the Friendly Banter forum, which makes it even more real world-ly.