Replies

Let's put on out George S. Patton School of Armored Warfare helmets, shall we?
I would never be so presumptuous. You apparently don't seem to have a problem doing so.
If you wanted to attack the lower 48, why would you maneuver your forces to the center of the continent and then attack north (from Mexico) or south (from Canada)?
Where have I said I would do something so foolish as that?
Anyway...to start with, I don't want to attack the lower 48.
Secondly, if I did you imply that I would follow your scenario...why would you...which I wouldn't.
Your scenario is impossible as the troops would not be in a position to attack from either Mexico or Cananda as they would already be in the central US from such a mad dash and would be unable to attack in the manner you suggest. (that would lead to your touted image and the rout of my forces)
The most logical process, IMO, if attacking from the south, or the north, would be to gain footholds and defensive positions/strongholds at the outset of engagments and bring in reinforcements to support further attacks and to control the territory already gained, as well as to supress insurgents that are bound to spring up, in a leapfrog process.