WI: U.S. vs U.K., WW1

[Admiral Halsey]

Yes, American dreadnaughts were excellent. But at this point in time, the RN still has more. Plus, in this scenario, the RN is backed by the German Navy and the Japanese. That is already the top 2 navies in the world plus another in the top 5 (give or take).

I don't think the floor would be wiped with the USN. I think it would do a lot of damage to the joint Anglo-German fleet, but in the end I think it would lose.

Remember British and German shipyards were more geared towards mass building of dreadnaughts. This isn't WWII when the US had developed all the improved production techniques, etc. If the war lasted 10 years, sure the US could out build Britain and Germany, but not in the short term.

And see above, I do not think the US would want Canada to join. A vote would be decidedly against annexation by the US, so I think Canada would be given its independence.

And given the original timeline for the scenario which was 6 years(?) then it's entirely possible for them to have significantly increased the navy in size especially if until it was built up they used it as a "fleet-in-being"

 

[Trevayne]

Ok, the USN will be defeated, or at least kept in port. There is no way it can defeat the combined British and German navies. So, the destruction of the USN will leave the US coasts vulnerable. I am not suggesting that the Europeans will land troops, they won't, but they can certainly shell coastal cities and make life miserable. Remember, this is not WWII, British and German shipyards are still more capable of mass producing warships than US drydocks. So the US is on the defensive.

As for land forces. The Germans army is way better than the Americans, but they will be busy in Europe. Yes, the BEF is quite small, but remember that it was a very professional force, probably the best in Europe (although I am sure some will disagree with me) after the Haldane Reforms post Boer War. The US army at the time was tiny and under equipped and under funded. Straight up fight between the two, would not go well for the US Army.

Now, you are correct, the US can mobilise a lot more men. But that takes time to train and equip them. In OTL, the British had to equip a lot of the first American soldiers coming over to France because they didn't have anything to fight with. Sure the Americans could mobilise millions. But they would have to pay for them and feed them and equip them. Yes, they could defeat Canada. I don't think it would be easy, but within 2 years, I expect most Canadian cities would be occupied. But then what? The US would pay to maintain a massive army that is basically on garrison duty, all the while they are getting attacked by partisans.Conscripts generally do not do well at counterinsurgency warfare.

So yes, the Americans can mobilise millions, but they have to pay for that. Sure, they can put them all in Canada, but as I have been saying, this isn't a game of Hearts of Iron, where you just strategically redeploy to Ottawa and leave them on anti-partisan duty

What German Navy? For this situation to emerge, the Germans have to not build a navy, or at least not build one that is significant to the Royal Navy.

As for the Royal Navy, once Canada falls, the Royal Navy will leave US waters, because the logistics of keeping it there are difficult. The US could do it in WW2 because it built a fleet train that could manage it, and because in WW2 all of the ships were oil fired. Trying to transfer coal at sea is a pain.

What destruction of the USN? How? If the Grand Fleet shows up outside Norfolk, the US stays inside. If it leaves a blockading squadron, the USN sorties, sinks it and returns. If the entire fleet tries to stay, the US sends out cruisers from other ports and uses submarines everywhere. There are reasons the British did not attempt a close blockade in WW1, and unlike Germany, the US has direct access to the Atlantic, with no chance of being cut off in a North sea analogue. There are lots of reasons why the Royal Navy didn't want to seriously contemplate fighting the US after 1900, and they amount to a no-win situation.

As for bombardments, sure, the British could attempt bombardments of meaningless coastal communities. If they try to go after a major city, they will probably lose more ships to coastal defenses then the attack was worth. If they lose too many, they lose the war. As for how likely it is, look at how many times the British conducted bombardments of German cities in WW1. IIRC, the answer is zero.

If they wanted to try going after the US, they would have to commit enough of their navy to leave Britain vulnerable to France and/or Russia, so they have to destroy both ogf those navies first. I think the British-German-AH alliance can defeat the French and Russians, but there is very little they can do to the Americans.

 

[IndefatigableRN]

What German Navy? For this situation to emerge, the Germans have to not build a navy, or at least not build one that is significant to the Royal Navy.

As for the Royal Navy, once Canada falls, the Royal Navy will leave US waters, because the logistics of keeping it there are difficult. The US could do it in WW2 because it built a fleet train that could manage it, and because in WW2 all of the ships were oil fired. Trying to transfer coal at sea is a pain.

What destruction of the USN? How? If the Grand Fleet shows up outside Norfolk, the US stays inside. If it leaves a blockading squadron, the USN sorties, sinks it and returns. If the entire fleet tries to stay, the US sends out cruisers from other ports and uses submarines everywhere. There are reasons the British did not attempt a close blockade in WW1, and unlike Germany, the US has direct access to the Atlantic, with no chance of being cut off in a North sea analogue. There are lots of reasons why the Royal Navy didn't want to seriously contemplate fighting the US after 1900, and they amount to a no-win situation.

As for bombardments, sure, the British could attempt bombardments of meaningless coastal communities. If they try to go after a major city, they will probably lose more ships to coastal defenses then the attack was worth. If they lose too many, they lose the war. As for how likely it is, look at how many times the British conducted bombardments of German cities in WW1. IIRC, the answer is zero.

If they wanted to try going after the US, they would have to commit enough of their navy to leave Britain vulnerable to France and/or Russia, so they have to destroy both ogf those navies first. I think the British-German-AH alliance can defeat the French and Russians, but there is very little they can do to the Americans.

Well, there were still attempts at Anglo-German alliances well into the early 20th century, so while I agree that the German fleet is not going to be as large as OTL, I think it is certainly capable.

Remember also that the RN switched to oil in 1911, so depending on when this war takes place, the RN may have already switched over.

The Maritimes are quite defensible so I doubt the Americans will get near Halifax which would serve as the main base for the RN in North America at least for a long while.

Generally, I think you make good points, both sides will probably be unable to do much against one another.

I agree with you that the British-German alliance will be able to do little against the US. If you read my posts, I am simply saying that it is unlikely that the US will annex Canada in any peace treaty.

 

[Trevayne]

Well, there were still attempts at Anglo-German alliances well into the early 20th century, so while I agree that the German fleet is not going to be as large as OTL, I think it is certainly capable.

Remember also that the RN switched to oil in 1911, so depending on when this war takes place, the RN may have already switched over.

The Maritimes are quite defensible so I doubt the Americans will get near Halifax which would serve as the main base for the RN in North America at least for a long while.

Generally, I think you make good points, both sides will probably be unable to do much against one another.

I agree with you that the British-German alliance will be able to do little against the US. If you read my posts, I am simply saying that it is unlikely that the US will annex Canada in any peace treaty.

Good points, although I think the RN starting to use oil in 1911, but most of it is still coal burning.. The Queen Elizabeths were the first oil fired battleships in the RN, so the rest of the capital ships were coal burners.

I expect the German fleet would be capable for its size, but look at the composition of the pre-Tirpitz German Navy. IIRC it had battleships designed to keep the Freench away and some cruisers for colonial operations. The cruisers would help the British, but the German battleships are likely to be useful only inside the North Sea.

Even with Halifax and Bermuda as bases, blockading the US coast is challenging to put it mildly. Once submarines and mines become common, a close blockade is hazardous to the blockader's health. A line of cruisers 50 miles or so off shore is more likely, but even then there will be cruiser battles and attemptsd to lure a portion of one fleet into a bigger portion of the other fleet.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

Good points, although I think the RN starting to use oil in 1911, but most of it is still coal burning.. The Queen Elizabeths were the first oil fired battleships in the RN, so the rest of the capital ships were coal burners.

I expect the German fleet would be capable for its size, but look at the composition of the pre-Tirpitz German Navy. IIRC it had battleships designed to keep the Freench away and some cruisers for colonial operations. The cruisers would help the British, but the German battleships are likely to be useful only inside the North Sea.

Even with Halifax and Bermuda as bases, blockading the US coast is challenging to put it mildly. Once submarines and mines become common, a close blockade is hazardous to the blockader's health. A line of cruisers 50 miles or so off shore is more likely, but even then there will be cruiser battles and attemptsd to lure a portion of one fleet into a bigger portion of the other fleet.

In the TL I posted the US do take Canada and the Bermuda Islands. Effectively ending the threat of a Imperial Alliance invasion.

I do here a lot of reference to that the USA has 6 years to get on top of producing huge amounts of fleets, but I feel the point is rather moot, considering the British, Germans and Sino have been doing the same.

 

[Admiral Halsey]

In the TL I posted the US do take Canada and the Bermuda Islands. Effectively ending the threat of a Imperial Alliance invasion.

I do here a lot of reference to that the USA has 6 years to get on top of producing huge amounts of fleets, but I feel the point is rather moot, considering the British, Germans and Sino have been doing the same.

Japan doesn't have the ability to build a huge fleet.

 

[Sior]

The US would probably overrun Canada while Britain sets up a blockade and captures some of America's remote territories.

War ends as soon as the leadership of both countries realise how pointless this war is.

Long years of headaches for the Amerinazis!

 

[Fordicus]

Why does everyone assume that British would just wipe the floor with the US navy? Sure they'd outnumber the US at the start but a crash naval building program and while they may not be able to outnumber them in dreadnoughts or battlecruisers they'd be able to catch up quite quick. Plus the US dreadnoughts were of a far more practical design and had better armor protection. As for Canada they'd probably hold elections afterwards with two options on the ballot. Independence or join the USA.

There is a pretty good documentary on Netflix about Plan Red that is worth watching. It is entitled "The Secret American Plan for War with Britain" or something like that. It covers both American, British and Canadian war planning. In a nutshell, the British and Canadians knew they could not defend Canada long term. Their planned strategy was what it had always been: Take the offensive then beat a fighting retreat, destroying everything behind them as they go. Some academics ran a simulated battle between the American and UK fleets and found that neither could have bested the other. Both America and the UK were safe from invasion. And Canada and the European theater would have been difficult to impossible to reinforce.

 

[Fordicus]

Japan doesn't have the ability to build a huge fleet.

If we are talking about the WWI time period, remember, the Japanese severely drubbed the Russians just a few years before. The Japanese also joined the Allies in WWI and spent a large amount of money, only to be snubbed at Versailles. It appear their fleet was modern and of decent size.

 

[ManintheField]

If that what you want to think then fine. You are free to ignore Germany, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Turkey, Italy and Japan.

You know the fun thing? I'm actually not ignoring those others. That entire alliance punches about equally with the US alone in terms of measures like GDP, steel output, and other ship-building relevant economic capacities in 1914. When you include France and Russia, it becomes lop-sided.

It be hard to understand sometimes, but in things like steel production you had individual US companies producing more than entire European nations. At a time when global steel production was about 60 million metric tons, almost half of it came from the US. The US produced more pig iron than the UK, France, and Germany put together.

More power to you bub.
The USA loses this war. It has to accept the penalties, because other than paying reparations everything that it loses it lost already.

You're wrong. The Central Powers would be unable to contest waters in the Western Hemisphere for any length of time. The battles for the Atlantic and Pacific would be murky, uncertain, and unlikely to reach any sort of conclusion for a long period of time (with a degree of inevitability that the US will simply outproduce the Central Powers over that long run).

The reason the USA has to pay is that if it wants to join the rest of the worlds economy it will. Otherwise, they will just refuse to embargo, and lets be honest. By the 1920's no modern nation was self-sufficient any more. They all needed imports of some sort.

Yeah, right, the entire rest of the world is going to cut off the largest supplier of grain and other food-stuffs just because Great Britain asks them to. This is silly heaped on silly.

Your entire post is fantastical. United against it the UK and Germany would not be capable of defeating the US in the Western Hemisphere and the US is not going to sign any peace treaty but status quo ante unless it is dictated to the Americans in the charred remains of the White House.

And this is ignoring even grittier strategic details, like how the flying fuck the UK and Germany feed themselves when at war with the two largest food exporters on the planet at the same time, despite this being a serious game breaker when you consider that both the UK and Germany were the world's largest food importers. Especially when you consider that number three wheat exporter is France.

The food situation for the Central Powers will become very desperate very quickly (less so in Germany, but by no means 'OK'). That alone will probably be the end of this war, regardless of what happens on the battlefield.

 

[Admiral Halsey]

If we are talking about the WWI time period, remember, the Japanese severely drubbed the Russians just a few years before. The Japanese also joined the Allies in WWI and spent a large amount of money, only to be snubbed at Versailles. It appear their fleet was modern and of decent size.

They ordered most of their ships from the British. It wasn't until the Fuso(?) class that they started to make their own Dreadnoughts.

 

[ManintheField]

And I just went back and re-read the OP. It actually says nothing about it being the an alt-Triple Entente with the US versus an alt-Central Powers with the UK. In a situation like the OP asks, where it is the US versus the UK in the same general era as WWI, the US wins every single time. It's not entirely infeasible that the US would be able to invade and conquer the UK if they could find a staging point near enough to the British Isles.

 

[richhossfloss]

And I just went back and re-read the OP. It actually says nothing about it being the an alt-Triple Entente with the US versus an alt-Central Powers with the UK. In a situation like the OP asks, where it is the US versus the UK in the same general era as WWI, the US wins every single time. It's not entirely infeasible that the US would be able to invade and conquer the UK if they could find a staging point near enough to the British Isles.

Might this staging point be sort of an island bridge or one of the following Greenland, Iceland, Rebellious Ireland?

 

[Admiral Halsey]

Might this staging point be sort of an island bridge or one of the following Greenland, Iceland, Rebellious Ireland?

Maybe even get some help if they tell the Irish. "Help us fight the British and we'll let you become an independent country after the war is over."

 

[richhossfloss]

Maybe even get some help if they tell the Irish. "Help us fight the British and we'll let you become an independent country after the war is over."

I think this would work. iotl the Irish rebelled in 16 with no reasonable expectation of german support. now consider the US which has long been a destination for irish refugees who had just ran the brits out of canada and is coming to bring the fight to the english at home. many of the american soldiers will have familiar names. The South Africans might even rise up since it was a common enemy on their borders which occupied them iotl. now they are still angry over the boer wars and the brits are in danger. this war where a previous poster has talked about the empire contributing might see large parts of the Empire take their shot at independence. It might be the brits suing for peace and paying reparations while the germans will seek to hold what they have. Why should german soldiers cross the ocean to fight the americans when they've spent 6 years fighting in europe. Also i wonder would this german army be filled with old men and young boys and starving like iotl?

 

[Admiral Halsey]

I think this would work. iotl the Irish rebelled in 16 with no reasonable expectation of german support. now consider the US which has long been a destination for irish refugees who had just ran the brits out of canada and is coming to bring the fight to the english at home. many of the american soldiers will have familiar names. The South Africans might even rise up since it was a common enemy on their borders which occupied them iotl. now they are still angry over the boer wars and the brits are in danger. this war where a previous poster has talked about the empire contributing might see large parts of the Empire take their shot at independence. It might be the brits suing for peace and paying reparations while the germans will seek to hold what they have. Why should german soldiers cross the ocean to fight the americans when they've spent 6 years fighting in europe. Also i wonder would this german army be filled with old men and young boys and starving like iotl?

Damn I didn't think about the potential butterflies of that. If the US tells the Irish that if they fight with them they'll grant them independence after the war the both South African and India may revolt against the British as well and the British wouldn't be able to spend the manpower they'd need to suppress them.

 

[richhossfloss]

I suspect other parts of Africa might rise up too. Austrlalia and new zealand aren't likely to rebel but in this new global war they just might be less willing to send men off on foreign adventures. i don't think the USN will be swept away as easily as has been suggested.Keep in mind this is all post France and Russia surrendering too. that means the french empire and former parts of the russian empire will also need to be occupied and pacified.

 

[ahdamnit]

What I'd like to know is why the US wouldn't start ramping up military spending and production before the outbreak of such a war if it really was such a likely thing. I mean this sort of this can't just come from nowhere and as soon as the US starts realizing that yes, a war with Britain is coming and they could likely stomp our navy the US might want to start building more ships?

Maybe it doesn't make much of a difference in the short term/early war but if the US realizes from the start that their navy isn't going to cut it as is then they wouldn't be sending it out to face the RN until it was at least respectable. Most of the US navy would be staying home in the early war to protect it's boarders. Especially if like you guys say they cannot possibly get men over to any Euro front through the RN. Why else would the US send it out? I just cannot see the US throwing away it's naval assets in a fight it has to know it cannot win if the RN is capable of stomping it at first.

 

[funnyhat]

Why on earth would the US want Quebec. French Canadians hate Americans more than they hate Anglo Canadians. That's why they joined Confederation. They don't want to be swamped by a Protestant, Catholic hating America.

This is really overstating things. In OTL, 900,000 French Canadians immigrated to the United States between 1840 and 1930. The total population of Quebec in 1900 was 1.6 million, so this represented an enormous migration. By the 1910s, practically every village in Quebec had sent immigrants to the U.S. and there were "Little Canada" neighborhoods all over New England cities. In the early 20th century, these neighborhoods were still generally French-speaking. And by this time, New England was already heavily Catholic.

I don't know what would motivate the U.S. to take over Quebec, but if a U.S. conquest had happened, I'm not sure how much the Québécois would have protested - assuming that some sort of linguistic guarantees were made to them. (Whether the U.S. would have kept such guarantees is, of course, another question.)

 

[Killer300]

Hmm, interesting discussions so far, to say the least.

Although I have to say, the idea of the U.K. somehow embargoing the U.S. if it doesn't pay reparations is laughable at best. Steel and food production of course, but also, I'd imagine the financial sector of the United States at this point is rather important.