Nope.Did not miss a thing.
What about the attack on Fort Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas by the 7th Paraquidista Div. engineers? They didn't see that coming.
Nope.Did not miss a thing.
Hell of a shock for the Park Service rangers!What about the attack on Fort Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas by the 7th Paraquidista Div. engineers? They didn't see that coming.
What about the attack on Fort Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas by the 7th Paraquidista Div. engineers? They didn't see that coming.
Only a few hundred miles from Brazil actually.
How was it that the Japanese held Solomons was a problem and their presence in New Guinea such a threat? Those are closer to Australia than to Hokkaido. Geography is rather funny. Any operation the US actually mounts against Cuba starts not in Florida but from bases hundreds of miles away on the eastern sea frontier, although forward air bases in Florida could be mere minutes away. Charleston, Norfolk, New London, even Kings Bay is some distance. WW II would have been worse.
This has been a fascinating discussion of the B-29, but the distances involved here are immense. It is about 1500 miles from the southern coast of Cuba to the closest point in Brazil. It is about 3200 miles from the Canal Zone or Puerto Rico to Rio. You don't need a B-29 for this, you need a B-52 and aerial refueling. From the east coast of the US, Berlin was closer than Rio (4200 mi vs. 4800 mi). Because of island hopping, an air campaign against Japan was a far less daunting task, with there being a mere 1500 miles from Saipan to Tokyo.
Hmm. Tinian to San Francisco (the real start and end points for your central Pacific offensive;
Tinian → San Francisco 5,698 miles And THAT is the short route...
Hmm. Tinian to San Francisco (the real start and end points for your central Pacific offensive;
Tinian → San Francisco 5,698 miles And THAT is the short route.
I will need to do a map presentation later, but for now the endgoal of the campaign is here...
That didn't work in OTL against Germany or Japan. Why would it happen here?I want to bomb the Brazilians to the peace table; not shoot them.
So do I, eventually,l but the assumption is that Demerara-Mahaica province (British Guiana) is overrun by Brazilians attacking overland. The whole point of island airfields, is to avoid main force on main force after seizure and airfield construction. I want to bomb the Brazilians to the peace table; not shoot them.
That's better, but
Points noted. Another option is to shoot through the Panama Canal and down the west coast of South America and base in Chile or go around the Horn and approach the problem from the south. If Brazil has any bomber capability, getting a base up and running 300 or so miles off their coast is going to be a problem unless you can establish pretty clear air superiority. It's an interesting problem, though, with a lot of similarities to the Pacific campaign but some distinct differences, the main one being that getting to the large Brazilian cities involves a long overflight over enemy land territory, a problem that was not present in World War II either in the Pacific or, for the most part, in Europe.
That didn't work in OTL against Germany or Japan. Why would it happen here?
It did work against Japan. The Americans did not invade the home islands and incur 500,000 dead and 1,000,000 wounded. Getting in range, island hopping, is not the same as land invasion. Brazil is a tough proposition but they can be blockaded and bombed to the table. It would not be pretty, but it is doable. This is South America. Geography works with the Americans if they can get in close enough. Carve Brazil up like a turkey.
Note, this is a mere paper exercise based on the OP premise which I find entirely fictional. I would be extremely opposed to anyone assuming this work up is not anything but a facetious paper what-if exercise like ... "what it would take to invade Mars".
That is a grossly simplified view of the Pacific War. Japan has no intention of surrendering from the bombing. Not even the Nuclear bombs convinced them to surrender. They helped, but they weren't decisive. What pushed Japan to give up was the USSR declaring war. The Japanese DID NOT want the Soviets occupying them.
It is a fallacy of the first order to say that strategic bombing was the sole cause of Japan's surrender. And it will most definitely not force Brazil to surrender either. Unlike Japan, Brazil does not need to import food to feed their population. So bombing and a blockade will not end the war. You're going to need boots on the ground to take Rio, Sao Paulo and Brasilia.
Actually it didn't.It did work against Japan. The Americans did not invade the home islands and incur 500,000 dead and 1,000,000 wounded. Getting in range, island hopping, is not the same as land invasion. Brazil is a tough proposition but they can be blockaded and bombed to the table. It would not be pretty, but it is doable. This is South America. Geography works with the Americans if they can get in close enough. Carve Brazil up by geographic section, using their poor internal roads and geographical barriers against them; one region at a time.
Note, this is a mere paper exercise based on the OP premise which I find entirely fictional. I would be extremely opposed to anyone assuming this work up is not anything but a facetious paper what-if exercise like ... "what it would take to invade Mars".
Did one know that just to make the landings on Kyushu, the Americans were prepared to use "special munitions" in Ford manufactured copies of German V-1 buzz bombs? In other words, the Americans were prepared to break treaties and international conventions just to get ashore?
Ok Guys, Did I miss some transition between B-32s over Tokyo and problems with Brazil? Being new to these forums, are there some rules I should learn?
Dynasoar