When is the last time the US mainland could be feasibly invaded?

true, but they were settled from the southern end and there are a lot of people in Michigan even 1837 when it became a State (when it had over 80,000 people in it). American states east of the Rocky Mountains filled up fast when it became practical to settle them. Only the states in the Great Basin (Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada) or northern Rockies took a while to fill up. Even the Nebraska Territory had 28,000 people in it in 1860 and only the Central Plains and Rocky Mountain and Great Basin states were still mostly empty of non Native Americans
A couple tens of thousand is not "filled up", that´s basically nothing considering some of them would also emigrate. What kinda of guerilla resistance you have with that small recently settled population prone and easily incentivized to emigrate? Or possibly population that lived in Europe just some years ago. That´s why I think annexiation of the Western great lake region or Oregon country is possible.
 
A couple tens of thousand is not "filled up", that´s basically nothing considering some of them would also emigrate. What kinda of guerilla resistance you have with that small recently settled population prone and easily incentivized to emigrate? Or possibly population that lived in Europe just some years ago. That´s why I think annexiation of the Western great lake region or Oregon country is possible.

depends on when..... which we keep coming back to. Michigan has 749,000 people in 1860 (from 80,000 in 1837!), Oregon has a few fur traders in the 1840s or before (or company employees), 12,000 in 1850, 53,000 in 1860 (which is almost twice the 1867 population of British Columbia) and 90,000 in 1870 and over 300,000 in 1890

like I said, American states fill up fast
 
depends on when..... which we keep coming back to. Michigan has 749,000 people in 1860 (from 80,000 in 1837!), Oregon has a few fur traders in the 1840s or before (or company employees), 12,000 in 1850, 53,000 in 1860 (which is almost twice the 1867 population of British Columbia) and 90,000 in 1870 and over 300,000 in 1890

like I said, American states fill up fast
I´m usually talking about pre-1870.

In 1867 Canadian population is 3,67 millions, we can expect them to hold some Us states(maybe whole Michigan in 1860s is too late, but you have a lot of land West)
 
I´m usually talking about pre-1870.

In 1867 Canadian population is 3,67 millions, we can expect them to hold some Us states(maybe whole Michigan in 1860s is too late, but you have a lot of land West)

British troops are going to be on the far, far end of the supply line when they go West and there aren't enough Canadians. Conquering continental sized powers from across an ocean is very,very tough.
 
I´m usually talking about pre-1870.

In 1867 Canadian population is 3,67 millions, we can expect them to hold some Us states(maybe whole Michigan in 1860s is too late, but you have a lot of land West)

an Oregon Boundary Dispute War sees a pretty lightly settled area west of the Mississippi, and almost no one but company employees, mountain men and a few soldiers west of it, and almost no (comparatively speaking) Anglos (British or American) in California. Of course there aren't many Canadians west of the Lakes either and no Suez Canal, so in practical terms the West Coast is a long way from anybody
 
so in practical terms the West Coast is a long way from anybody

And much further (in time) by land than by sea, so naval strength (including global bases) is critical.

On June 8, 1917, Brigadier General William Sibert assumed command of them as the “First Expeditionary Division.”

And it still took 11 months after that before it was ready to launch an attack. Creating combat-ready forces takes time, unless they are regulars who have been training seriously.
 
I´m usually talking about pre-1870.

In 1867 Canadian population is 3,67 millions, we can expect them to hold some Us states(maybe whole Michigan in 1860s is too late, but you have a lot of land West)

Canadian infrastructure out west pre-1885 is non-existent. We haven't even got a road running across the Canadian Shield through the Muskokas until after 1870. Everything either had to make a difficult portage through the region or go around using American infrastructure.

In the 1860s the most help you could get from Canadians is holding Canada West (Ontario) and possibly invading New York state through the Hudson Valley from Canada East (Quebec).The Maritimes could help invade Maine and hold the overland route. Anything beyond that is a pipe dream.

If we're talking 1812 time frame them some limited frontier expeditions like OTL are possible, but that's because this is land which is pretty much unsettled by white men and thus is rather fluid in ownership.
 
And much further (in time) by land than by sea, so naval strength (including global bases) is critical.



And it still took 11 months after that before it was ready to launch an attack. Creating combat-ready forces takes time, unless they are regulars who have been training seriously.

true, although depending on the year the nearest British base is India or possibly Chile. Even as late as the 1870s the British were using the US base at Mare Island (San Francisco Bay) to conduct repairs and maintenance as Vancouver was a small coaling station and the nearest other bases were Australia and Hong Kong, neither of which is particularly close.
 
And it still took 11 months after that before it was ready to launch an attack. Creating combat-ready forces takes time, unless they are regulars who have been training seriously.

his assertion (Saph) was that they weren't there at all.. the French seemed happy to have them even if they were still in training for the rest of 1917 and early 1918
 
his assertion (Saph) was that they weren't there at all.. the French seemed happy to have them even if they were still in training for the rest of 1917 and early 1918

I think you're putting words in his mouth here.

The original question IIRC was how quickly armies could expand and become effective. OTL it took more than a year for a US division to launch an attack; there is perhaps still a question if it could have been done quicker.
 
I think you're putting words in his mouth here.

The original question IIRC was how quickly armies could expand and become effective. OTL it took more than a year for a US division to launch an attack; there is perhaps still a question if it could have been done quicker.

not really, he said the Americans were not in France until 1918 and the entire point was that this was not exactly accurate
 
not really, he said the Americans were not in France until 1918 and the entire point was that this was not exactly accurate

No, the words used were 'didn't really start showing up until 1918' which is not as absolute as you're claiming, and seems reasonably accurate.
 
No, the words used were 'didn't really start showing up until 1918' which is not as absolute as you're claiming, and seems reasonably accurate.

except for the destroyers I directly linked to and other naval forces, the American engineer regiments at Cambrai etc

as an Army sure, the Americans were not combat ready until 1918, but individual units saw action beginning 1917

and as an Army, major combat operations in April 1918, exactly one year from the start of the war, which compares well with World War II (Torch is in Nov 1942, Guadalcanal and Buna Aug/Sept 1942) leaving aside the Philippines garrison
 
Sorry, but calling the isolated divisional actions - Catigny at the end of May, and Belleau Woods in early June 1918 - "major combat operations" is stretching it. That should really be reserved for Saint Mihiel in September. Getting an expanded army into action within 18 months is a good performance, WW2 was only faster because the expansion started earlier, after the fall of France in the summer of 1940.
 
Sorry, but calling the isolated divisional actions - Catigny at the end of May, and Belleau Woods in early June 1918 - "major combat operations" is stretching it. That should really be reserved for Saint Mihiel in September. Getting an expanded army into action within 18 months is a good performance, WW2 was only faster because the expansion started earlier, after the fall of France in the summer of 1940.

considering the American divisions where 28,000 men, about the size of the average corps at this point on the Western Front, yeah, I would call them major actions

what would you call them? A skirmish?

Saint Mihiel was indeed a major action, but the previous battles were fought as part of French field armies and were considered vital by the French

Yeah the AEF had its problems but considering its rapid expansion it compares well with the BEF
 
considering the American divisions where 28,000 men, about the size of the average corps at this point on the Western Front, yeah, I would call them major actions

what would you call them? A skirmish?

Battle of Cantigny 28th May 1918 - attack by 28th Infantry Regiment, less than 4000 men. In Western Front terms not much more than a skirmish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cantigny

Don't forget that US divisions also were under British command and helped breach the Hindenburg line.
 
Last edited:
Battle of Cantigny 28th May 1918 - attack by 28th Infantry Regiment, less than 4000 men, taking c5% casualties. In Western Front terms not much more than a skirmish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cantigny

Don't forget that US divisions also were under British command and helped breach the Hindenburg line.

yep 2 of them plus 2 divisions permanently under French command (and then because they were African American, ignored as completely as possible postwar)
 
Top