US gun ownership vs WW2 reality
- Thread starter nik2016
- Start date
I don't think any state that holds the sheer power and capabilities to launch a successful trans-oceanic invasion of mainland US, despite the logistics and America's own military, industrial and technological prowess, would be very inconvenienced about an armed civilian populace.
I think those were just random Alaskan islands. I don't believe anyone lived on them and the only reason Japan invaded those islands was to distract the US from Midway.
It mostly was.
If as many people were actually in the Resistance as was claimed postwar, the Nazis would have been overthrown in 1942.
Military equipped meant that they had to be supplied from a military depot, somewhere
If you were a member of the Party, you wouldn't have a problem acquiring sporting weapons, that didn't really include handguns.
Not a party member? well they got to turn in those weapons
Kaze
Banned
Yes. Prior to European contact, Kiska Island had been densely populated by native peoples for thousands of years. Then it became a Russian Fur-trading port. Then a US military base. Now it is bird sanctuary.
MatthewDB
Banned
If I lived in the US I’d have both!
Best 40 Cal Pistols of 2020 – Buyer’s Guide - Gun Mann
.40 caliber pistols have seen an uptick in purchasing recently, especially as people look for versatile weapons that they can practice with on both the shooting range and for self-defense purposes. Although finding the right .40 caliber pistol can be difficult, it doesn’t have to be. Our guide...
www.gunmann.com
Checked up, and, no, the only inhabitants then on the island were the 10 men manning a weather station.
There was a 10 man, 1 dog USN weather detachment on Kiska at the time of the invasion. There were only 47 people living on Attu when it was invaded. And the U.S. Marines had absolutely nothing to do with the recapture of these islands. The Marines were busy elsewhere, in the South Pacific.
I'm surprised the sketchy, alleged, Yamamoto quote hasn't been cited: "To invade the United States would prove most difficult because behind every blade of grass is an American with a rifle." Whether Yamamoto actually said it then or not, it could almost be true today given per the Brookings Institute estimate of over 400 million guns in private hands in a nation of just over 328 million, with gun sales running between 80,000 and 100,000 PER DAY! Three million more guns: The Spring 2020 spike in firearm sales (brookings.edu)
The best the Japanese can hope for in terms of invading the USA is to do a little better in Aleutians campaign. There are two routes for them if they want to invade, and neither is practical. Crossing the central Pacific would be a logistical nightmare because of sheer distance even if ASB made the US Navy disappear into thin air. Crossing the north Pacific to Alaska means dealing with the issues of transporting supplies and an invasion force in the Arctic. The Nazis also tried to make landings in Greenland in OTL but the weather (and the US Army) stopped them. In both the Nazi landings in Greenland and the Japanese Aleutian campaign, even the deluded planners knew it wouldn't be feasible to use it for a successful invasion and occupation of the whole of North America or a large part of it.
Having a gun used for hunting or target shooting isn't the same as being trained to fight in a military. That's the reason the invasion of Canada failed in the War of 1812. The best they could do is act as guerillas and that also tends to work better with training. In Nazi occupied Europe the British intelligence, most notably the SOE coordinated with various resistance groups, helping them be more effective. Guerillas are powerful and can a major impact in a conflict, but they usually don't succeed unless they have outside help. In Europe it was British intelligence, combined with the fact that the Nazis had to fight the Soviets and the Western Allies. In China it was mostly the USA in the later years although the Comintern helped in the earlier ones. In the Vietnam War, guerillas were aided by China and the USSR. In Afghanistan the Mujahadeen was aided by the CIA.
Having a gun used for hunting or target shooting isn't the same as being trained to fight in a military. That's the reason the invasion of Canada failed in the War of 1812. The best they could do is act as guerillas and that also tends to work better with training. In Nazi occupied Europe the British intelligence, most notably the SOE coordinated with various resistance groups, helping them be more effective. Guerillas are powerful and can a major impact in a conflict, but they usually don't succeed unless they have outside help. In Europe it was British intelligence, combined with the fact that the Nazis had to fight the Soviets and the Western Allies. In China it was mostly the USA in the later years although the Comintern helped in the earlier ones. In the Vietnam War, guerillas were aided by China and the USSR. In Afghanistan the Mujahadeen was aided by the CIA.
Well there's quite a few retired soldiers around, so they'll be able to help out, if mostly in a training role.
An Armed Population is a deterrent in and of itself. Just look at recent examples. Afghanistan for example. It is a sign of being a man to have a firearm and the better it is the more manly you are. Now i know that is a simplification but if you have %25 of the population having firearms it makes an invasion likely to turn into a COIN operation.
The USA has the following to counter invaders.
1: Super Large country with zero chance of conquering any essential resource or production facility.
2: Very patriotic population, well educated and fairly active.
3: Firearms training is simple when most of the population is taught shooting early.
4: The US firearms manufacturers can tool up for military weapon production real fast.
5: If an invasion takes place expect any supply convoys to need lots of guarding.
6: firearms up to and including 50 cal are common.
The USA has the following to counter invaders.
1: Super Large country with zero chance of conquering any essential resource or production facility.
2: Very patriotic population, well educated and fairly active.
3: Firearms training is simple when most of the population is taught shooting early.
4: The US firearms manufacturers can tool up for military weapon production real fast.
5: If an invasion takes place expect any supply convoys to need lots of guarding.
6: firearms up to and including 50 cal are common.
To me it beggars belief that people still cling to this “armed population” myth given that the US now has a huge number of people who have been through the Iraq and Afghanistan insurgencies which have both been characterised by:
- Highly motivated and locally knowledgeable insurgents shot apart like skeet whenever they try to fight proper troops using their oh-so-manly rifles
- Western forces utterly dominating pretty much every firefight yet continuously taking casualties from IEDs, rockets, mortars and similar, all the types of weapons which are kept off-limits in organised states for obvious reasons.
Since then the situation has only got more lopsided, if anyone is curious how Red Dawn 2021 would turn out just do a video search for ‘Azeri drone footage’.
Agreed.
And quite frankly... 'gun ownership' is an incredibly nebulous term that covers a wide spectrum. Like...
OK. Imagine...let's call him Herb. A forty-something American, lives in a little house with a white picket fence, works what would in the 1940s have been a middle-class job. Doesn't exercise overmuch, no military experience, fond of the quiet life. Owns, say, a Smith&Wesson because he's worried about burglars.
Now suppose the Nazis invade. How much impact does anyone think Herb and his Smith&Wesson are going to have on stopping them?
except for one thing... in the end, the Wolverines lost. Everyone forgets that..... Red Dawn, though I didn't realize it at the time (hey, I was a teenager) in retrospect is one of the silliest premises for a movie ever...