USA joins the Central Powers.

[Elfwine]

I would wonder if the UK might not toss the Yankees a bone in exchange to stay out of the conflict. Maybe give Washington a few bases, islands, a rowdy colony or two, etc. Would it be worth the Bahamas and/or Jamaica?

Probably. Would the US accept? That's another question.

 

[BlondieBC]

So, Britain would then be conceding the Middle East to the Ottomans, and also greatly reduce their operations in Africa against the German colonies. No Gallipoli operation and reducing the colonial operations in Africa toward preserving what they have, plus recruiting more colonial troops could make up some difference.

I had to look at this for my TL. Different POD, but much of analysis is the same.

Well, yes in most ATL where the UK is pressed harder or France is pressed much harder in 1914/15, Gallipoli is cancelled, so the Ottomans are the first winners. And this will free up 5-16 divisions for the UK in 1915. But the UK can't ignore the Middle East. We are probably still looking at about a OTL forces in Egypt in 1914/15. Not the forces/supplies staging for Gallipoli, but the units that largely spent the war in Egypt anyway. Probably about a corp. And unless the Germans help the Ottomans build a RR across the Sinai, it is enough. The UK will also be likely to take Basra to protect the oil. Yes there are other sources, but the North American ones are vulnerable.

Now what does this do for the Ottomans? Not as much as it looks like at first. The Ottomans have issues going to the offensive. First, the front with Russia is a mess and this happened pre-Gallipoli. Supporting major offensives will be hard, but he Ottomans can replace the winter losses. This will likely means the front just stalls, at least until Russia develops serious issues. There are large gaps in the RR to Baghdad. Hard to put a lot more forces here, but they don't likely pull out troops like OTL. UK will never get past Kut, but Ottomans are unlikely to get to Basra unless they build a RR. At this time, the rivers in Iraq had less capacity than single track RR. UK has much better logistics in Basra, and Ottomans in Baghdad. We likely see no Arab revolt. Medina is one of the few places it is easy to get more troops and supply them. Probably add a few more troops (seems like I did 4 divisions), and we simply see no Arab issues. All those famous Saudis and Lawrence would not really be know even to many professional historians.

So we have finished the easy options. Lets look at what we have. Ottomans take about 250K fewer casualties, probably means 120K more troops than OTL. There is a battle on the east where they probably don't lose a corp. Plus you have all the units used in Gallipoli. So we are looking at about 3-5 corps not killed/captured and all the forces used at Gallipoli. We are pushing two full armies here (more than 8 corp). You probably see 1 more in east, 1 more in Iraq, maybe couple more in Palestine/Arab. So we have a full army sitting around doing nothing. What happens is a harder call. You can either have elaborate defenses and be passive. You can attack into Greece assuming the still enter war. You can try to build railroads. You can send them to other fronts, and since the Ottomans sent 135K IOTL and we are talking about 200K additional men, it will be a major help if sent. Hard one to call.

We can't assume no Africa operations, even though I took this in my TL. Once you cancel Gallipoli, you are freeing up lots of see lift and units. The ANZAC units are closer to Africa than Europe. So the UK can make the choice to knock out the German colonies fast. Or more likely go towards the PI or other US Pacific lands. It will depend on where the UK wants to use the RN. And if Japan still joins. Lot of flexibility to the leaders. Now the down side is the UK does not have enough sea units of long range. IOTL they asked Japan for help despite knowing it might cause issues. An offensive against PI will require naval units used in other theaters. Even if you don't do this, you will likely have a lot more ships in the Pacific. Depending on how confident one is the RN can keep ANZAC safe, East Africa can be done with very little forces compared to the ANZAC forces. South Africa will try SWA. Unless reinforced quickly, these likely fall. So I would say East African ports fall if the UK makes a priority. SWA campaign had some setbacks, so even fairly minor reinforcements could keep SWA free. Togoland is indefensible. Kamerun can go many ways. If I had to guess, the UK would take the ports of East Africa and SWA Africa. Togoland falls, but a bit slower. Interior East Africa and Kamerun likely remain free but maybe neutralized.

UK going deeper into colonial troops have several issues. First, Dominion issues for India. Second, finding the weapons for these units. Third, training them up to standard. The defeat of the Indians in East Africa early on and their poor performance on the Western Front in 1914/15 shows how colonial divisions that are little more than rifle battalions missing machine guns and artillery perform. It is an interesting call. With the POD talked about here, the UK may well make the compromises need to get lots of Indians to the battle front.

 

[BlondieBC]

Absolutely mass alone is useless. The Americans would probably learn some harsh lessons in 1915 with frontal charges and the like and would end up with whoever is in charge of the armed forces to be put in front of Congress and sacked. This would be especially true if the British send some forces over to Canada, which they probably will. We already had a base number of trained British divisions that they could send to Canada; approximately 20 divisions, and that would be able to prevent the US from making any substantial gains in 1915 or even the first part of 1916. The limited campaigning season not to mention the conditions of Canada leading to casualties due to exposure might allow for the British and Canadians to be able to hold onto the important parts of Canada into 1916. Yet its also likely that the US could also gain the initiative in 1916, and most likely by 1917 at the very latest

While I have not doubt the USA will squander forces, a no mans land like France is unlikely unless the UK has already lost most of Canada. With the defending force to front length ratio, there will always be flanks. Take the 20 divisions you listed. You got a few miles per division with forces like this in France. Even if we double to 40 divisions, you are at most well defending a few hundred miles of front. The border is 3000 miles, this is one division per roughly 100 miles. Lots of flanks, this is really scatter strong points with little to no reserve. Now this is why I think much of Canada falls. When faced with 1 million plus Americans attacking, the Great Plains are indefensible. It is questionable if Quebec/Ontario can be defended. The forces given by various sources in this thread would be about enough to well defend Nova Scotia and perhaps News Brunswick.

Overlay a map of France or Poland with a map of the USA on the same scale. Then look at the number of divisions in France or Poland. The UK defending forces will make the thinnest part of the Russian line look lavishly defended.

 

[BlondieBC]

Id personally consider the British actively striking at the US rapidly rather than sending the BEF to France.
And been honest the US is NOT ready for a war in 1914. No one is but the US least of all.
Its naval bases lack the protection the British & Germany bases have, which is the main reason naval bases weren't targeted at the time. US bases and CITIES are very, very exposed. The British can force the US fleet out to engage, British forces off New York or Washington is not unreasonable.
Plus the view of the Americans was of well; amateurs and a weak enemy relatively speaking but a big economy and numbers. Taking them down first seems more likely to the British then focusing on the Germans.

Everyone here is having the British sit quietly and allow the US to build up this invincible war machine (which by the way will take at least a year to create, likely 2 to be effective).
My personal view is and Entente defeat in Europe, with 2 options in the US theater;
1) a quick war; The British are in a better position to raid and inflict defeats on US forces and remove the political will to fight from the US public. Public morale here is what drives the US effort for what starts the war determines this.
2) a Long bloody war ending around when the entente collapses in Europe. US has lost Philippines but gained most of Canada and everyone negotiates some US favored peace deal. Probably around 1916/17.

Sure they could choose this option. And leaders like Churchill love to take big risks for big perceived rewards. So it is quite plausible. It makes more sense than the Baltic invasion plans that were looked like IOTL. So lets look at what happens.

IOTL, the UK got the many of the BEF forces to France (60 miles?) in September and October. ITTL, dd extra travel time by sea, and we are looking at arriving in Halifax in late October, early November. Winter is setting in and the units are not yet to the front. The BEF will be attacking into the witner.

But you seem to want to do an amphibious assault, not land in friendly ports. Gallipoli was not until 1915. And they took time to get ready at a friendly port. Likely her you assemble at Halifax or in the Caribbean. Assemble and attack a few months later. So around January you are invading the USA. If you use the bulk of the RN, you can achieve local superiority. You land. You probably have good shot at taking single American city if you achieve surprise on the exact target. And then you don't pick a major city like NYC. They the front will stall. No more than taking Odessa from sea will make Russia sue for peace, neither will taking Boston or another USA port. Size matters.

Now to the costs. Ottomans have a nice war, but this can be tolerated. Lets assume Kaiser and old fork-beard squanders the naval chance (likely). You have crippled France. Germany will hold the Marne. Verdun will risk encirclement. The Germans will win the race to the Sea. Calais falls. Germans hold the mouth of Somme. Germany smaller surface units and U-boats will operate directly from channel ports. Now Germany will not be able to capitalize by knocking out France until 1916, but you have set up the Germans for a very easy win. And likely, if the Germans do much better and hold Calais, Italy does not join.

Your idea is really, really likely to end in a disaster for the UK. Even if you raise a few American cities. Worst yet, raising cities means the USA will not stop until we get all our land back, even if it takes a 10 year war. After doing your plan, we will annex Canada.

 

[BlondieBC]

Mass alone is useless. If the US tries to overwhelm Canada by sheer numbers, Canada machine gunners and snipers are going to have a field day.

And we haven't even tried to acknowledge that Britain is not just going to leave five Canadian divisions to defend all of Canada while at war with the United States, and has the money and materials and manpower to send troops.

Especially since attacking all along the borders is not practical. Some places are considerably more feasible (and/or desirable) to attack than others.

It is not mass alone. The men will have modern weapons.

And sure the UK can send significant forces, but only at the cost of France falling apart. The classic between rock and hard place. All choices lead to a loss.

Well, if the border was well defended, it would be hard. But most will be lightly defended. Quite frankly, much of the middle of Canada can be taken with Cavalry. We had longer logistical chains from railhubs in the civil war. RR can be built at 1-2 miles per day. We will just take a USA railhub (Say Minneapolis) and just build north. Once we have advance anywhere, we have split Canada in half. And some place like across from Buffalo, Detroit, Coastal Maine, etc are very easy for the USA logistically.

The UK will win some battles, but will lose this theater of the war.

 

[theirishdreamer]

Hmmm

A raiding strategy depends heavily on the reason "why" the US entered the war and how united they are behind the war effort. If the US public has been "dragged" into the war the and US fleet has been largely destroyed in naval engagements and British offensives have taken some land. Bear in mind the US Fleet faces the Japanese in the Pacific (and should realistically lose there) and the British in the Atlantic.
The strategy is not about razing cities but damaging naval facilities and inducing panic.
It wouldnt work on a strongly united US like after the Pearl Harbour attack but it could bring down an administration that has been perceived to enter the war unready without public backing.
Been honest it fits in more comfortably with British naval thinking of the time, especially with Churchill.
As to the results. Largely all bad for the Entente.
France is doomed, but not for some time, your looking at collapse around 16/17 sometime around a Russian collapse. Russia will fall earlier most likely and probably comes out with territorial losses and a government that is "better" than OTL. A-H & Ottomans come out fairly well since British and Russians come out worse. Japan negiotes about its conquered new positions but is on the losing side.
Britain loses in either scenario of "victory" over the US or in a long war. Its merelt in a better position it it can get the US out. Realistically with a hostile or even strictly neutral US the Entente cant "win" against the CP in realistic terms.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

I note that there have been discussions about how stretched the RN would be in supporting operations against the USN in addition to the HSF, and that the USN could simply adopt a raiding strategy instead of seeking battle. All of which I generally agree with.

However, when it comes to the US supporting its CP allies, the shoe fits even more snugly on the other foot.

The RN can transport troops to Canada, and would have to detail strong escort forces, but at least they can arrive at friendly ports (to start with) without sailing anywhere near major USN bases. The USN faces a problem if they wish to send the boys across to Europe to fight. No friendly ports can be reached without running the gauntlet of naval forces based anywhere from Scapa Flow to Gibraltar & Malta. And consider the size of the escort forces required. The RN could spare a battlesquadron if intelligence was good enough to pinpoint a major troop convoy. The situation would be perfect for all those suddenly obsolete armoured cruisers, let alone a battlecruiser or two, for whom playing at raiders would be perfect - even the I-class might prove useful. The USN would have to devote large naval forces for each convoy, and don't forget that given the supply problems the CP had in OTL that almost everything the boys over there would need would have to be supplied from the other side of the Atlantic. Even worse if they try to coordinate with the HSF with Room 40 listening in.

The USN would have severe strategic overstretch that would only be avoided by the massive shipbuilding plans drawn up but only partly completed, but given that these concentrated upon superdreadnoughts and not enough on escorts, even these may not be enough. IMHO both sides would find it impossible to support major operations on the opposite sides of the Atlantic as well as making their own lines of communication safe, with the RN having the early advantage of numbers and bases, gradually being eroded if the USN follows a sensible crash-programme of naval construction and perhaps elimination of RN bases in Newfoundland & the Caribbean.

 

[Elfwine]

It is not mass alone. The men will have modern weapons.

And it is still mass alone because having modern weapons is not an advantage over the other side.

And sure the UK can send significant forces, but only at the cost of France falling apart. The classic between rock and hard place. All choices lead to a loss.

No. It can send significant forces and avoid France falling apart, because France is able to hold most of the front on her own, and because the British Empire can draw on sufficient troops to have considerable forces in both North American and Europe.

Well, if the border was well defended, it would be hard. But most will be lightly defended. Quite frankly, much of the middle of Canada can be taken with Cavalry.

Quite frankly, "We can just send cavalry up there" isn't really the same as being able to hold it.

We had longer logistical chains from railhubs in the civil war. RR can be built at 1-2 miles per day. We will just take a USA railhub (Say Minneapolis) and just build north. Once we have advance anywhere, we have split Canada in half. And some place like across from Buffalo, Detroit, Coastal Maine, etc are very easy for the USA logistically.

The UK will win some battles, but will lose this theater of the war.

I really don't understand this idea that somehow all the US needs to do is attack and somehow the British are incapable of responding or recapturing or otherwise doing anything except acknowledging "once the US has won anywhere, it's won for good." Ameriwank visions.

 

[Bmao]

And it is still mass alone because having modern weapons is not an advantage over the other side.

No. It can send significant forces and avoid France falling apart, because France is able to hold most of the front on her own, and because the British Empire can draw on sufficient troops to have considerable forces in both North American and Europe.

Quite frankly, "We can just send cavalry up there" isn't really the same as being able to hold it.

I really don't understand this idea that somehow all the US needs to do is attack and somehow the British are incapable of responding or recapturing or otherwise doing anything except acknowledging "once the US has won anywhere, it's won for good." Ameriwank visions.

Actually, given how sparsely populated Western Canada is, it is more than conceivable that a Cavalry company would be able to hold down a vast stretch of countryside. Western Canada has about what, a million people tops? Will there be resistence? Of course, but it'll be more like taming the Wild West than Nazi occupied Russia. You'll see small groups of 'outlaws' who break into small towns, sabotage railroad tracks, cut telegraph poles, that sort of thing, using their mobility to stay one step ahead of the authorities. This would actually make cavalry companys ideal for that particular task of suppressing a vast wilderness.

France isn't going to fall apart, but like many have already mentioned, the fact that Britain is distracted in America combined with lesser French production means that the Germans would slowly but steadily be able to wear the French down, and that the French are likely to crack first.

The Canadians would certainly put up an intelligent and spirited resistence no doubt, and the British are certainly going to have some nasty tricks up their sleeves and achieve several local victories. They can especially exploit the situation in 1915, when the US is still in their awkward, FUBAR stage. An ambitious and talented Lawrence of Arabia type commander (in fact, given that the troops that would have been committed to the Middle East would likely find their way to Canada in this alt Great War you actually might see Lawrence in this theatre) could cause all sorts of havoc far beyond their actual numbers. However, assuming that the Americans remain sufficiently committed to the task and that they'd built up their armies and tactics to the point where they are mostly equivalent man for man with the British and Canadians, eventually the US is going to win.

 

[BlondieBC]

Actually, given how sparsely populated Western Canada is, it is more than conceivable that a Cavalry company would be able to hold down a vast stretch of countryside. Western Canada has about what, a million people tops? Will there be resistence? Of course, but it'll be more like taming the Wild West than Nazi occupied Russia. You'll see small groups of 'outlaws' who break into small towns, sabotage railroad tracks, cut telegraph poles, that sort of thing, using their mobility to stay one step ahead of the authorities. This would actually make cavalry companys ideal for that particular task of suppressing a vast wilderness.

Partially agreed. I think it would likely take 2-4 Cavalry corps to hold the Western Canada region. Taking your 1 million number, it means the locally supplied manpower pool is only 100K Canadian troops (10% or so of population). Somewhere either North of Minnesota or North of NY, the Roads west will be cut. The supplies from the west will either be cut in the Rockies or by taking British Columbia. The main things the Canadians have for them is the sheer size of the hostile area for the USA to occupy. Hunting down roving bands of Canadians with small arms who know the land and have local support will be slow, nasty, and manpower intensive. Besides this, you are looking at probably an infantry corp to hold either the Rocky mountain passes or the ports of BC. Good chance all of this happens in 1915.

And even on raids, I think the USA would come in regimental size based on the Indian wars. I just think company size actions are a bit small for such a massive war. The USA will take the major cities and garrison them. We will build railroads to these cities, and then just hold the RR network. And hunt raiders from cities and strong points along the RR network. The USA does not really need to extract anything from the area for the war besides food and supplies for the local troops, so there is not real reason to even occupy many of the towns and isolated farms. Probably more in the line of punitive raids. If some town of 1K people is being used as a raiding base, it will be destroyed and people relocated. If it is fairly quite, you might never see a USA soldier in the first year.

 

[Elfwine]

Actually, given how sparsely populated Western Canada is, it is more than conceivable that a Cavalry company would be able to hold down a vast stretch of countryside. Western Canada has about what, a million people tops? Will there be resistence? Of course, but it'll be more like taming the Wild West than Nazi occupied Russia. You'll see small groups of 'outlaws' who break into small towns, sabotage railroad tracks, cut telegraph poles, that sort of thing, using their mobility to stay one step ahead of the authorities. This would actually make cavalry companys ideal for that particular task of suppressing a vast wilderness.

"Companies" won't be nearly sufficient to do so. and over such a broad area, "regiments" might not be enough given how they'll be dispersed.

Just sending the US Army's 15+ cavalry regiments up there is a recipe for trouble.

France isn't going to fall apart, but like many have already mentioned, the fact that Britain is distracted in America combined with lesser French production means that the Germans would slowly but steadily be able to wear the French down, and that the French are likely to crack first.

People keep overestimating how good Germany's position is and how much France is weakened, and meanwhile treating it as if in no way shape or form will the French or British act any differently on the Western front to deal with the fact that they don't have the luxury of being able to concentrate in full there. Speaking as an Austrophile (aka a supporter of the Great Power that performed the worst in WWI), that's just insulting.

The Canadians would certainly put up an intelligent and spirited resistence no doubt, and the British are certainly going to have some nasty tricks up their sleeves and achieve several local victories. They can especially exploit the situation in 1915, when the US is still in their awkward, FUBAR stage. An ambitious and talented Lawrence of Arabia type commander (in fact, given that the troops that would have been committed to the Middle East would likely find their way to Canada in this alt Great War you actually might see Lawrence in this theatre) could cause all sorts of havoc far beyond their actual numbers. However, assuming that the Americans remain sufficiently committed to the task and that they'd built up their armies and tactics to the point where they are mostly equivalent man for man with the British and Canadians, eventually the US is going to win.

"mostly equivalent man for man" is not enough with the advantages of the defense. Which ties into why Germany is not going to crack France. You need to go beyond "parity" into "superiority'.

Plus, "the US remains sufficiently committed to the task" is far from a given for a war incident that came out of nowhere.


BlondieBC: 2-4 cavalry corps when the entire US army (as of 1914) has all of 15 regiments scatted all over.

http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/U.S._Army_Order_of_Battle

Judging by this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry_Corps_(United_Kingdom)

you'd need to at least double pre-war strength just to have 2 corps - and that's without a single regiment elsewhere, every unit sent into western Canada.

Given how much time and effort raising and training good cavalry takes, you're looking at 1916, not 1915 at the earliest you could see this as really feasible.

 

[sharlin]

One thing I think is needed for the US to wade in with the Central powers is for the UK and USA to have sour relations before the war or at least be not that warm which could mean that the Canadians have a larger army and/or some fixed defences. I simply see it as being impossible for the UK and USA as they were in WW1 to suddenly go to war.

 

[theirishdreamer]

Actually

You can have sour relations between the US & UK without the US building up any extra forces. Simply put the US even when having bad relations had a weird tendency to ignore the rest of the world back then.

 

[BlondieBC]

Actually, that would make it worse for the Canadians. The US would likewise build up its Army and Navy. The US could build 4 to 1 divisions without breaking a sweat. Far better for Canada to start off 0:0 divisions with the US, then a US with 20 active division facing Canada's 5 from day 1 one of the war.

Yes, a long buildup is worse for Canada, but there are some mitigating factors that lessen the harm to UK interests. First the USA was still in love with the old militia concept, so most of these troops will be in the reserve. And these forces will be no where near to the quality of the reserves of Germany or France. Lucky if better than Romania or Bulgaria. The references were in passing, but it looks lucky if a USA National Guard (really militia) did 10 days of annual training. It is more men preorganized into draft pools matched with equipment than trained soldiers. Now a big help for the USA, since they will start improving day 1 of the war. Often by dying. Compared to OTL where the size of the USA army decreased for the first 90 days of the war.

Yes, Wilson was in some ways working in the spirit of Mussolini with plans to just have enough troops get to Europe at the peace talks.

 

[BlondieBC]

"Companies" won't be nearly sufficient to do so. and over such a broad area, "regiments" might not be enough given how they'll be dispersed.

Just sending the US Army's 15+ cavalry regiments up there is a recipe for trouble.

People keep overestimating how good Germany's position is and how much France is weakened, and meanwhile treating it as if in no way shape or form will the French or British act any differently on the Western front to deal with the fact that they don't have the luxury of being able to concentrate in full there. Speaking as an Austrophile (aka a supporter of the Great Power that performed the worst in WWI), that's just insulting.

"mostly equivalent man for man" is not enough with the advantages of the defense. Which ties into why Germany is not going to crack France. You need to go beyond "parity" into "superiority'.

Plus, "the US remains sufficiently committed to the task" is far from a given for a war incident that came out of nowhere.


BlondieBC: 2-4 cavalry corps when the entire US army (as of 1914) has all of 15 regiments scatted all over.

http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/U.S._Army_Order_of_Battle

Judging by this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry_Corps_(United_Kingdom)

you'd need to at least double pre-war strength just to have 2 corps - and that's without a single regiment elsewhere, every unit sent into western Canada.

Given how much time and effort raising and training good cavalry takes, you're looking at 1916, not 1915 at the earliest you could see this as really feasible.

Your comments about having to double, and this being hard seems to indicate lack of familiarity with what the USA did IOTL. First, the army decreased in strength for 90 days due to no stop loss and no draft (Congress took a while). So we really did not start the war until July or so. One of the first actions was to triple the size of units. So our standard TOE was 9 Infantry regiments, 3 Artillery regiments, etc. Basically each division was a Corp. In a war demanding cavalry, we do the same. For example, the 7th Cavalry would likely become the 7th Cavalry division. So by 12 months into the war, we had 1 million men in France. This is lot more logistically challenging than assembling in the USA. You also save transit time. In a war with Canada where there is sure to be some losses on American soil, the mobilization will be faster. So if the priority was made, the USA will have AT LEAST 15 cavalry divisions by August 1915. We are as big as Russia, and can field Russian size armies. We also have an industrial base the size of Germany, so we will have better equipped armies. And quite frankly, even a low quality USA cavalry division with 15% experienced men will sweep aside ad hoc formation of Canadians. If the USA chooses to, we can put more cavalry soldiers in an area than there will be Canadians of military age. And we have a better RR network.

Now lets look at some dates, and remember for the US Army IOTL, the war starts in August 1917. Using Wiki, which is normally fine on dates.

1) First ID - Full Division (really Corp) in France by end of year. So backing into this TL, we have a the first Infantry Corp ready on November 1, 1914. This was the morale for France division, so got priority.

2) 2nd ID - October in France OTL. So in September 1914, the Second USA Corp is ready to fight.

3) 3rd ID - Probably April 14. Third Corp available.

4) 4th ID - Full manpower by December 1917 OTL, so likely 4th Corp is ready to fight but very green. Ready for Spring 1915 offensive.

5) 5th ID - Same as 4th.

5) 6th ID - Looks more like middle of year.

6) 7th ID - Same as 6th.

8) 8th ID - Same as 6th.

9) 9th ID - Late fall 1915.

So we are looking at 5 pretty large corps to start and 3 more following in the year. Then we have to add in the extra units from being an important war. There is a very short period (before the snows fall in 1914) where the UK can do something if it ignores France. After this, the window closes.

 

[Elfwine]

The USA OTL had Britain and France handling the heavy weaponry - not its own factories. So it's more time consuming when the USA has to build all its own aircraft, all its own artillery and (when they come up) all its own tanks. That will take time.

Then there's the issue of actually training men. Which will take time as well - especially for cavalry and artillery. You can't just raise a few thousand men and put them on horses and call it an effective cavalry division, as your scenario would have the US. 15 cavalry divisions in a year is not feasible except in Civilization and Ameriwankery.

As for population & industry: The US compares favorably to Germany on the latter, unfavorably to Russia on the former, and does not have either the armament production or trained reserves of Germany.

It might be worth noting that unlike 1917, the US still has its issues with affairs in Mexico, so simply "subtract three years" doesn't work - it's very likely at least part of the US army is going to be distracted by that. Not enough to matter in the numbers game, but probably an influence on the amount of already trained units available

An ad hoc formation of Canadians? It won't be an more ad hoc than the US unit.

The British Empire can most certainly do something without ignoring France and well past your "window".

You seem to be under the impression that somehow the US can just call up men and we'll see units formed in weeks, trained as quickly, armed as quickly . . . and nevermind that the US doesn't have the slightest basis for this.

Can it produce that basis? Yes, given time. But we're looking at 1916, not early 1915. Unless you want a very green army with very little in the way of heavy weaponry that will be defeated as badly as past invasions.

 

[BlondieBC]

Then there's the issue of actually training men. Which will take time as well - especially for cavalry and artillery. You can't just raise a few thousand men and put them on horses and call it an effective cavalry division, as your scenario would have the US. 15 cavalry divisions in a year is not feasible except in Civilization and Ameriwankery.

...

An ad hoc formation of Canadians? It won't be an more ad hoc than the US unit.

The British Empire can most certainly do something without ignoring France and well past your "window".

You seem to be under the impression that somehow the US can just call up men and we'll see units formed in weeks, trained as quickly, armed as quickly . . . and nevermind that the US doesn't have the slightest basis for this.

Can it produce that basis? Yes, given time. But we're looking at 1916, not early 1915. Unless you want a very green army with very little in the way of heavy weaponry that will be defeated as badly as past invasions.

The main advantage of the USA is the size of the units. As to your accusation of Americawank, I am not wanking, I am merely looking at what we achieved IOTL. We had units fighting the Germans that went through similar enlargements. We performed poorly compared to good German units, but these units are more than capable of taking lightly defending cities or even demoralized German units. Yes, these are really Class B divisions, but they beat the local defense forces they will face.

The key is not how well the division will perform versus a good French, German or Cossack cavalry division. It is how it handles the local Canadian forces.

I understand you say the UK has spare units. Please list the corp size formation that you believe would be available. I went through the English Order of Battle Quarter by Quarter for my TL. For every unit not fighting, there is a good reason. Lacks equipment. Required to maintain control of India. In training status. Defending against Sea Lion. etc. Any noticeable units (corps or bigger) must come from France or Gallipoli. Anything smaller easily gets steam rolled. And even a corp or two will be enough just to defend Halifax.

It is the classic rock and hard place dilemma. In 1914 and early 1915, the UK can either move units to defend Canada or allow the Germans to control the Mouth of the Somme and have clear access to the Channel. Now we know this with hindsight. It is very possible that a UK General would be as optimistic as you are and try to do both. But all this gets is an even worse result. If the UK sends half of the BEF (say the later arriving units) to Canada and tries to defend the entire border, not only will the Germans win the race to the sea. The forces in Canada will be so widely spread they will simply but cutoff, surrounded and destroyed.

 

[Bmao]

We've pretty much established that eventually, the US and Germany are going to wear the British down in the end. I also want to expand upon another theatre of war.

With the US and Britain at war, two major powers with significant influence in the Western Hemisphere, Central and South America are much less likely to remain neutral during the Great War. Both the US and Britain know that the UK gets a great number of resources from South America, and to stop this flow of resources would be decisive. The US, of course, would want to ensure that its South American client states remain in their hands, and vice versa with the British. Argentina, Brazil and Chile had been engaging in an arms race of their own and a larger US-British conflict could exasperate tensions between these three.

We've mentioned that Britain would be relying greatly upon Argentina to help supply its food. Instead of deciding to attack Argentine shipping, what if the US decided to try and convince Argentina to join the Central Powers, by offering to not only buy Argentine exports but also with the promise of taking the Falkland Islands?

Likewise, the Colombians are still sore about the US backed Panama Uprising 1903, and the British would love nothing more than to entice the Colombians to declare war and attack Panama, with the intension of course of ending American access to the Panama Canal and granting that to the British, that could buy at least six months for the British Navy in the Atlantic. Its also a way for the British to divert a sizable amount of US forces away from Canada in order to protect the Canal, which they absolutely have to protect.

Venezuela is just starting to discover its oil wealth, and could take a more favorable stance toward who is more likely to invest in developing these resources during the war. Britain, stretched on many fronts, has far less disposable income to develop these compared with the US. They could also sweeten the deal by backing its claims for British Guiana, and with the British obviously having larger priorities in South America, never mind in the rest of the world, the whole colony could end up being taken. French Guyana could also serve as a nice piece of low hanging fruit that Brazil could be interested in taking and could be siezed with little cost.

Chile is another country that could come into play, and since its a country that Britian would have an extremely hard time reaching with its navy its likely to align with the US all the sooner.