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

[Rex Romanum]

(Okay, this is supposed to be a hypothetical scenario, but if the mods feel that this should be moved to ASB, then so be it)

In hypothetical one-on-one wars set on early 1914, between:
1) British Empire vs. United States
2) Germany vs. Russia
3) Italy vs. Austria-Hungary
Who would win?

For the sake of discussion, the rest of the world is fully neutral and there is no outside interferences at all.

[Shtudmuffin]

USA vs. Britain is just about the only one that could have any chance of avoiding interference from allied nations. That being said, I'm surprised most people voted for the US to win againt Britain. The British were practically at their apex in 1914; though their decline was just starting, the were still the predominant world power. They'd easily crush the USN and destroy its economy with a blockade. Sure, they'd lose Canada and their other North American colonies in the process; but I think the British would win. Though it would undoubtedly be a costly victory.

[Snake Featherston]

None of these wars are possible without outside interference, especially a Russo-German war. However *if* Austria-Hungary doesn't absorb the full weight of the Russian army, such a match-up is very interesting at an abstract level.

[ChaosNDiscord]

I'd vote for the USA over Britain because the British while they might take control of the seas, won't be able to do so without serious losses. They can't defeat the USA on land (though to be fair, at the war's start, the US Army sucks, but based on WWI numbers, it'd grow to over 2 million pretty darn quickly).

The United States simply can outlast and outproduce the British, replacing losses faster than they can and would eventually in a longer war eventually defeat the empire. I also believe at this time the British imported a large quantity of their oil from the States, which would be difficult to replace would they end up at war with America, though I could be wrong on that.

[Snake Featherston]

In terms of the outcomes, UK v. USA sees the UK win due to superior economic resources in 1914 and due to Ye Olde Mobilization Problem for the USA. Austria-Hungary v. Italy sees lopsided victories in the favor of Austria-Hungary, assuming just those two together.

Russia v. Germany is the most difficult. While both sides concentrate the full weight of their armies, Germany can't rely on Austria-Hungary, Russia has a narrow front, and Nicholas II as a major handicap. My instinct inclines to this being a German victory, but it would be a victory in a prolonged and sordid war of attrition. Russia does not have the logistics for a major invasion of Germany, but having the luxury to concentrate six armies on Germany instead of two is going to give it on paper relatively more freedom to do something. On the other hand these six armies are facing several more German armies than IOTL, all on the probable initial advantage of the defensive.

[sparky42]

At the start of a war between the UK and the US wouldn't the US be vastly outnumber on the ground, if the UK could destroy the army in the field wouldn't that reduced the effectiveness of any follow on forces. Like when the "professional British Army" was reduced in the early years of WW1?

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by sparky42

At the start of a war between the UK and the US wouldn't the US be vastly outnumber on the ground, if the UK could destroy the army in the field wouldn't that reduced the effectiveness of any follow on forces. Like when the "professional British Army" was reduced in the early years of WW1?

Actually neither would be able to move massive armies in the field. The 1914 BEF is about the size of the British Army of the time, the US Army was either that small or smaller. By small and smaller this is all relative to the massive levies of Germany, Russia, France, Austria-Hungary, and so on.

[Shtudmuffin]

Originally Posted by ChaosNDiscord

I'd vote for the USA over Britain because the British while they might take control of the seas, won't be able to do so without serious losses. They can't defeat the USA on land (though to be fair, at the war's start, the US Army sucks, but based on WWI numbers, it'd grow to over 2 million pretty darn quickly).

The United States simply can outlast and outproduce the British, replacing losses faster than they can and would eventually in a longer war eventually defeat the empire. I also believe at this time the British imported a large quantity of their oil from the States, which would be difficult to replace would they end up at war with America, though I could be wrong on that.

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.

[Beedok]

USA vs. Britain is sort of like USSR vs. Nazi Germany in my mind. The British start out strong, crush the US mutiple times, but attrition and the size of the USA eventually grinds up Britains manpower too much and they likely are forced into handing over their new world territories. The only fix is if they somehow get over their racism and offer India full home rule in exchange for manpower, and I doubt that would happen.

I am interested in who would win in a Italy vs. Ottoman Empire match.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Beedok

USA vs. Britain is sort of like USSR vs. Nazi Germany in my mind. The British start out strong, crush the US mutiple times, but attrition and the size of the USA eventually grinds up Britains manpower too much and they likely are forced into handing over their new world territories. The only fix is if they somehow get over their racism and offer India full home rule in exchange for manpower, and I doubt that would happen.

I am interested in who would win in a Italy vs. Ottoman Empire match.

Um, that was OTL. 1911-2. The answer is Italy.

Now, the USA v. Britain match to me is less USSR v. Nazi Germany and more Napoleon v. Alexander.

[sparky42]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Actually neither would be able to move massive armies in the field. The 1914 BEF is about the size of the British Army of the time, the US Army was either that small or smaller. By small and smaller this is all relative to the massive levies of Germany, Russia, France, Austria-Hungary, and so on.

True but how do those forces deploy?

If the US Army moves towards Canada could the UK use the RN and the BEF to launch attacks on lightly defended areas with coastal industries while the ANZAC's and the rest of the other Imperial forces are moved in to support, would that force the US to slow a movement to the North

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by sparky42

True but how do those forces deploy?

If the US Army moves towards Canada could the UK use the RN and the BEF to launch attacks on lightly defended areas while the ANZAC's and the rest of the other Imperial forces are moved in to support

Depending on the economic forces they might never deploy. The USA in 1914 doesn't, to put it bluntly, *have* an army worth fighting the likes of Argentina, let alone the UK.

[GarethC]

War in 1914 is a political exercise, particularly between the US and Britain, not a steelcage deathmatch. The goal is to compel a political change, not to conquer the nation of the opponent.

So before evaluating the outcome, you absolutely must understand the cause of the war and the desired results on both sides.

So for instance, if the US decided that an extension of the Monroe Doctrine mandated the ejection of the British Empire from Canada and the Caribbean, there will be a ramp-up period where the US raises taxes or bonds and institutes conscription to get the troops to do so before war is declared. Britain will see the conscription occurring and react to it, and so on. This is the biggest war scenario I can imagine, by the way - where the US goal will be the annexation of Canada and the West Indies, while the British goal, while totally defensive in nature, will probably include a de facto regime change in the US, maybe with reversion of some territory to Spain (Philippines, Cuba, maybe more), Japan (as they would probably enter the war as UK allies, despite the OP), or to the UK (Hawai'i, maybe other Pacific possessions like Wake, Guam, or Midway), to weaken the US in the future.

Conversely if American diplomacy starts to close China to British trade, or US Navy ships begin to seize British ships trading in the Caribbean, Britain might respond with a military intervention - but with the goal of compelling a treaty from the US government accepting the inviolable nature of British shipping along with some damages, and maybe limitations on naval construction. The goal will not be to force the unconditional surrender of the United States and put in place an occupying regime like MacArthur in Japan or something - that would be in the ASB forum.

Whoops, forgot the concluding bit - so the point is, that there are factions in the initiating governments that benefit or are injured by the succesful conclusion of a war or the conduct thereof. So for instance, if the US was interfering with British trade with British Honduras or the West Indies, if it's on behalf of a banana company that wants to acquire new fruit plantations and eliminate competitive suppliers, then the UK needs to identify who in the government is supported by that company and target the blockade and coastal raids appropriately. There's no point in burning Boston to the ground if no Massachusetts legislators support the war anyway.

[nikkythegreat]

What would be nice is to see all three happen at once, in a different sort of WW1

Anyway Im also of the opinion that UK will win vs the USA

[ickysdad]

I'm new to this forum but would like to make some points...Per historical 1913-1914

1. For the US and UK to come to grips we need to know what causes that so what would that be? Is Germany still hostile albiet building up the HSF? If Germany isn't then is the Grand Fleet as large per historical? If Germany is still building it's large fleet then tensions are still going to be quite high between them which means probably no large fleet to the Western Atlantic for the RN. I see it(per historical) about 18-20 BB's in the GF along with 6-8 CB's compared to the US probably having around 12+ BB's though the RN would have a larger Pre-Dread & cruiser fleet also. The US does have extensive seacoast fortifications though.

2. The US Army maybe a joke but it still has 98,000 regulars plus 119,000 National Guards in 1914. The Canadian Army had 3100 regulars plus 75,000 Militia. The British Army had like 254,000 regulars scattered around the globe. I know the deployment of the BEF was extra-ordinary in 1914 but the plans for such were the results of years of preparatrion there was no plan for deployment to North America furthermore in going to France they had the luxury of being able to deploy to several deep water ports serviced by a very extensive RR system which is lacking in Canada,the logical staging area.

3. Another joke in 1914 were the garrisons in the Western Atlantic ,Halifax just had a garrison of around 1,000 men. The island of Bermuda had like a single battalion and was down to 3 forts with just 8 guns nothing larger then 6". Port Royal just had just like a 650 man garrison ,Port Castries only 200-300 men. Esquilmalt and St' Johns probably had no garrisons or very small ones at that. All of this is as per historical. One other thing per Esquilmalt is that at this time it had just the Canadian Pacific RR for a land link ,at which link is very vulnerable to interruption. The Canadain Northern RR wasn't completed till mid 1916.

4. Economies...In 1913 the US had a population of 96,000,000 ,a GDP of 511.6 billion dollars and per capita income of $5301. The UK had a population of 46,000,000 ,a GDP of 226.4 billion dollars and a per capita income of $4921. The Colonies of the UK had a population of 380,000,000, a GDP of 257 billion dollars and per capita of $576 and finally the Dominions had 19.9 million population ,a GDP of 77.8 billion dollars with per capita of $3909. In other words the US economy was as large as the UK,the Dominions and the empire all put together.

5. A blockade? The US is pretty self sufficent plus has coasts on two oceans,the West Coast ports are going to be very,very hard to blockade and you can probably add the Gulf Ports as being very difficult to bloakade.. The RN in WW1 had the advantage of only having to close the English Channel along with ther North Sea between Scotland & Norway which still took around 8 old CA's and 24 AMC's to patrol that 300 miles,it didn't hurt that it's main base happened to be right astride the choke point.

6. Geographical/Political.. In this time frame the uS has an added advantage of bascially being in control of Cuba,Haiti,Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. It also has the Panama Canal which is extremely well fortified plus serviceable from the Pacific side.

Anyways looking forward to your answers.

[Peg Leg Pom]

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.

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".

[Jericho15]

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

[freethinker]

Originally Posted by Jericho15

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

but in this period the war was not defined by russia's nature but of of the nature of the OTL czardom

[Jericho15]

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

[ickysdad]

The British themselves felt in 1870 they couldn't beat the US in a war in North America. If one reads Kenneth Bourne's "The Balance of Power in North America" from page 322 on it will show the British felt like they couldn't win a war in this time frame..

On production of weapons the US was producing as many weapons as the British after they enetered the war as the British themselves were producing after being in the war for 19 months. The US had enough weapons on hand in 1914 to equip an army of around 500,000. The US most certainly did produce quite a bit of arms in this time frame.

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

http://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/memo...agrams/d31.gif
http://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/memo...agrams/d68.gif