If the japs won against US in the pacific, how would they do in a land invasion on US soil?
Poorly
My dad says they wouldnt invade land because of all the guns available to civilians, second amendment.
They didn't had the resources or the manpower to do such thing, even if their wouldn't be a war with china and britain ongoing.
After a victory they would have demanded from america to destroy big parts of their navy and drop out of the war, or otherwise loose all their islands in the pacific and maybe alaska
>>29701066
It would be almost comical how pathetic a mainland invasion would be. They didn't even have hopes of doing such a thing. They wanted to knock out the US fleet quickly so we would just give up and let them have the pacific territory they invaded.
>>29701066
Those are British tanks. Whippets.
They would have failed, but getting the chance to invade mainland murica wasn't their war goal.
>>29701066
It would be impossible
>>29701066
They'd be fucked. Behind every blade of grass there is a tiny rifle carried by an army of ant riflemen.
>>29701290
>A Bug's Life: 1943
>>29701066
Terribly, blade of grass meme aside they probably didn't have the logistical capability to invade Australia or even Hawaii let alone CONUS. It's irrelevant though because like >>29701136 said what they were looking for was a negotiated peace heavily in their favor.
>>29701617
well they screwed that up by attacking pearl harbor?
>>29701631
>?
*.
if say they managed to btfo the USN they'd go for a treaty so they can get oil again to conquer china.
>>29701066
They already have problems with a land invasion of Chinkdom alone. What more the US fucking A?
>>29701066
They wouldn't, they had no intention of doing so. They just wanted control of the pacific and pearl harbor was simply an attempt to drastically reduce the United State's power in the region so that they wouldn't have the ability to interfere until they could have built up a bigger presence.
Unfortunatley for them, they fucked up
>>29701631
They needed the sanctions against their country lifted.
The americans basicly cut them of from the resources they needed to keep their other fronts in china alive.
The pacific war never was about islands or such
>>29701066
Not well. If you read about the island hopping campaigns, the US was obliterating the Japanese -UNTIL- the Japanese began tunneling in and fighting to the death from their suicide caves. The success of Japanese defense during island hopping campaigns is exactly what camping is in Call of Duty. They would fair horribly in offensive combat during that period in their history
What about just naval artillery and carrier strikes into conus? What kinda range did their carrier planes have. I know they couldn't hit our main manufacturing, but most shipyards would be fucked.
Luckily they couldn't starve us out like we did them.
>>29701734
No, the USAAF was to strong.
Like people already mentioned, such things wasn't planned by the japanese and also not desired
>>29701066
they wouldn't have unless they want to attack some isolated town in Alaska and fight a shitty winter war
>>29701405
>not Ants 2: Banzai Boogaloo
>>29701900
well they did land in Alaska
>>29701734
How would you imagine carrier strikes or even naval artillery strikes against a piece of land with superior air production capabilities? Your carriers, ships, what have you get destroyed the moment they get in range.
>>29701066
There's no way they could. They don't have anywhere near the merchant marine needed to supply such an operation. Even Hawaii was outside their grasp.
>>29701116
In Japanese service.
They would make their soldiers swim across the Pacific.
>>29701290
Not riflerdrones or rifleants?
MUH BLADE OF GRASS
>>29701066
Everybody talks about how Russia could be invaded but never conquered.
The same actually applies to the US, even more so in some areas.
Let's get the obvious.
The US is rich as fuck. Our military is both numerous enough and strong enough to defeat pretty much any naval offensive.
Heavily armed citizenry. Not much to say here.
The US maintains friendly relations with our neighbors. Any attempt to land in either Mexico or Canada will be met with a US response force.
Geography-wise, northern Canada is an extremely harsh environment. That leaves any landing attempt towards the south, closer to the US-CAN border.
The only land connection North America has to more vulnerable areas is through Central America, which is easily defended.
The US touches two oceans and cannot be blockaded easily.
The US has extensive industrial and agricultural capabilities, plus the natural resources to keep them running.
tl;dr the answer is no. While some of these points would not apply to the USA circa 1941, my argument still stands. North America is pretty much impossible to conquer.
>>29701066
They couldn't even take all of China, and didn't even have the manpower to take invade Australia. How do you expect them to invade the US?
>>29701665
The war didn't lift the sanctions, it gave them reason to invade the Philippines for crude oil and rubber their reasoning was the cripple the US navy for long enough to reach some sort of stale mate or possibly a white peace to allow them to keep the ground they took.
>>29705858
There was no crude oil in the Philippines you moron.
>>29706047
But there was in Indonesia and Borneo, which an American garrison in the Philippines made difficult to access.
>>29701066
> how would they do in a land invasion on US soil?
Hilariously.
>>29701066
I'm pretty sure Japan landed troops somewhere on Alaska and the islands. They fucking left because it was shit. So, even if they beat back the USN, they'd still suck at landing anything.
>>29702115
>Banzai Bugaloo
FIFY
>>29705738
>The same actually applies to the US, even more so in some areas.
Less so in others. Russia's industry is mostly located beyond Ural, deep within the continental heartlands, out of reach of anything but ICBMs and strategic bombers. Absolute bitch to take out.
Meanwhile everything important in the US is along or near the coasts, which are wide-opened for an invasion.
> The US touches two oceans and cannot be blockaded easily.
It also means that said coasts cannot be defended easily.
>>29707839
There's a joke in the Silent Hunter games when this happens. "JAPS TAKE ALEUTIAN ISLAND. GIVE THEM A MONTH AND THEY'LL PAY US TO TAKE THEM BACK."
>>29701066
They wouldn't have, nor did they have any plans to invade Australia, despite the myth.
>>29705738
>The same actually applies to the US, even more so in some areas.
There's a good Bismark quote about that; "The Americans are truly a lucky people. They are bordered to the north and south by benign neighbors and to the east and west by fish."
While Russia and China both have 14 neighboring countries.
>>29707894
Bismark was also a little pissy about the amount of Germans that decided a unified Germany was a pipe dream and instead immigrated to the US.
All he wanted was to unite the german peoples under one flag.
>>29707894
The fish have launched 4 invasions of american soil in the last 200 years.
>>29702115
>>29707857
>literally what are coastal defenses
>>29708136
It is neither of those things:
>Something not obsolete
>Something US has along it's entire coastlines
>>29707857
If by along the coasts you mean 700 miles inland, then yes. The largest aerospace industrial base is in the south specifically Northern Alabama followed by the north eastern Midwest in places like Michigan which is also a massive industrial hub and then you have Texas which is an enormous economic and industrial and naval state and good fucking luck invading the Gulf of Mexico without first capturing the entire south eastern seaboard first which would be really hard with so much industry pping out weapons to kill you on the coast, behind the coast, and several hundred miles away from the coast.
>>29708341
>If by along the coasts you mean 700 miles inland, then yes
That's why I specified "along or near". Plus, it's relative, as Russian industry is still located FAR deeper and farther away from any invasion vector, sans Saint Petersburg, which is it's own can of worms.
>and good fucking luck invading the Gulf of Mexico without first capturing the entire south eastern seaboard first which would be really hard with so much industry pping out weapons to kill you on the coast, behind the coast, and several hundred miles away from the coast.
Again - it is relative. I'm not arguing that USA is easy to invade as it is most certainly not. Only that it's geographical characteristics don't attribute as much to it's defense as it happens with Russia.
>>29702115
>>29701115
>They didn't even have hopes of doing such a thing
Lord knows they tried to take Alaska though.
>>29701066
the Japanese would have used anime to invade the US, with their kawaii tactics they would have created a generation of NEET weaboos that would literally rot the US from within
>>29708608
On the other hand is say it's geographical location makes it much more difficult to invade than Russia.
Russia has an enormous land border it shares with over a dozen countries. It would be a simple matter to organize a land invasion, it's success notwithstanding.
For the US, you have to make a naval invasion before you do anything else. Even if it's into Mexico or South America so you can do a land Invasion of the US.
Of course in some kind of stasis where Europe was unable unwilling or starkly opposed to the imaginary invader invading Russia they'd have to make a naval invasion as well.
It's rather silly to discuss this, but suffice to say the US has a more advantageous defensive position than Russia simply because it's largest border is the Atlantic to the East and the Pacific to the West. It wouldn't matter if every single factory was oceanfront property any invader would first have to be able to cross the Ocean to do anything to the US.
The logistics to do so are simply impossible for any country on Earth. Even if the US lent it's merchant marine to the invader there would not be enough logistics to successfully supply an army large enough to defeat a 330 million strong nation. Distance is the greatest natural defensive barrier, followed by mountains followed by water.
Japs should've put it bets on going against the soviets rather then the Murricans
even if their naval doctrine and the american fleet somehow retardedly got annihilated in a decisive battle,the japs would have only like 2 years of free rein the sea,and that's not counting on the murricans stepping up on their submarine warfare and stopping any commercial shipping going on
The japs didn't perform to badly against the soviet,even during Khalkin Gol where the soviets outnumber them 2:1 and with numerical superiority on every aspect and completely encircling the Kwantung army,they still dealt a proportional number of casualty
Imagine the battle of Moscow where the 19 armies are still in the far east,especially those siberian troops how made the winter counter attacks possible,Moscow could've been encircled and shit would've been much grimmer for the ruskies,it wouldn't guarantee victory but still a major boast in actually conquering Russia
>>29701631
Yes, they should have carried out their attacks on the Dutch East Indies and then negotiated from there.
>>29710537
The US had a secret defensive pact with the Dutch and the Brits.
>>29709370
Japan is still fighting the war.
The weaboo generation is forming
Soon you will be defenceless
The rising sun leaves at night, but it shall return.
>>29701066
Probably would handle it like we did
>>29701066
They wouldn't
/Thread
>>29711490
This. Logistics is the deciding factor for things like this, and no country during WWII had the capability to ship enough troops and supplies across the Pacific (or the Atlantic) and keep those supply lines open, except the United States. Even if somehow Japan decisively won every naval engagement against the US with minimal enough losses to sustain their naval operations, they didn't have the logistics to sustain those operations farther east than the Solomons. Invading Hawaii would have been possible but not feasible, but outright invasion of mainland US was a distant dream with Japan's population, industry, and sealift capability.
>>29702115
kek
>>29701066
You're a funny guy
