1914: Britain vs. USA, Germany vs. Russia, Italy vs. Austria-Hungary

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Jericho15

For all of you who voted Germany over Russia you guys apparently know nothing about the nature of Russia.

Russia's nature at this point was a colossus with feet of cotton candy. For reasons having a lot to do with Nicholas II and very little to do with the Germans.

[ickysdad]

Originally Posted by Jericho15

Wait is this an extension of a timeline or based off of historical events?

In talking about a war between the US and UK there are just too many things that need to be settled first like the issue of historical tensions between Germany an UK.

[ickysdad]

Originally Posted by Shtudmuffin

The British, even with heavy losses, still have control of the seas at the end of the day. Additionally, their shipyard can churn out ships at a very quick rate, much faster than the American shipyards can in 1914. So the RN is certain to win. And they'd likely keep up a blockade once they gained dominance of the seas.

On land, it would likely end in favor of the Americans, and Canada would be overrun. However, this might be averted with the help of the BEF and other colonial forces (like from Australia or India). Furthermore, even if Canada is overrun, that won't change the economic situation that would be brought about by a British blockade (although there is the possibility that the US could become self-sufficient).

As for supplies, the British get their oil from the Middle East, within their spheres of influence. So they'll be fine there. This area, though, is their one true disadvantage. The US's industrial capacity is truly far greater than the UK's, and the US will easily outproduce the British over a long period of time. So any victory for Britain would need to be hard-fought and quickly won.

Are you sure about getting most of their oil from the Middle East? According to "The Economic Position of the UK 1912-1918" the UK imported in 1914 80% of it's kerosene, 87% of it's lubricating oils,96% of it's gas oil and 70% of it's fuel oil from the US. I don't think the Mid-East oil fields were even online in that time frame maybe Iran but just starting right before WW1.

http://voiceofmoorecounty.com/2011/0...-implications/

[ickysdad]

Originally Posted by Peg Leg Pom

While if the war on land is prolonged then eventually the US would win I feel this is unlikely.

1. In 1914 if asked about the US army most European powers including Britain would scratch their heads and ask What Army?

2. With British control of the seas it is likely that with the US ports litterally under the guns of the Royal Navy the US would seek terms.

3. The UK can muster troops more quickly than the US can raise and train an army by drawing troops from the empire, especialy from the British Indian Army.

4. The US army was not only tiny but lacked modern weapons. There's a very good reason that when the US entered WWI they used mainly British and French made weapons or adaptions of weapons produced in the US to fullfill British and French orders. Small arms aside the US at that time had very little in the way of an armaments industry.

The bigest problem the British would face would not be the US army but civilians taking pot shots with their hunting guns. Then as they said in Africa it's a case of "Whatever happens we have got the Maxim (Vickers) Gun and they have not".

I think you might be talking about the Boer War in regards to civillians taking pot shots but against the US one must remember the US is much,much larger ,far more heavier populated and unlike the Boers have a much larger economy and industrial base then the mother country. Your example would be like the US trying to invade China ,India or any other large geographical country with a large population.

1-4. Now per the US Army you might want to look at the link below showing the US certainly had weapons to equip an army of 500,000 at the beginning plus they would be producing more at that. The US mobilisation actually was pretty fast in WW1 and one might examine the Spanish-American War per how many volunteers they had in a couple of months.

2. The RN standing off and bombarding US ports? You do know most major US ports had extensive coastal defences at this time don't you? One thing further is that would the British actually condone shelling cities at this time? I think there was an uproar in the UK when the HSF did it in 1914-1915 off the east coast of the UK.

3. Can they really raise more troops faster(at least that and getting them deployed in North America)? If so where do they go? If the US is smart they use their limited army at the start to go after Bermuda, Bahamas,Port Royal,Port Castries, Halifax and Esquilmalt since that would deprive the UK of any bases/ports further also cut the Canadian Pacific thereby cutting off Western Canada from the land side.

One further note this isn't just my opinion but the British themselves said almost the very same thing in relation to the period of around 1903-1918.


http://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/memo...cs/statstc.htm

[Jiraiyathegallant]

How one sided would Italy vs AH be?