Ficboy
Banned
Maine, Michigan and upstate New York is where the majority of Anglo-Canadian forces would attack the Americans. At least some would go to Vermont and New Hampshire just not as much as the other three states. They would take or siege any nearby cities such as Detroit, Rochester and Augusta in the fighting. The Anglo-Canadians would attack New York City, Boston and other cities in a hypothetical blockade assuming if it is successful.Honestly, I am not sure what you're arguing here. Yes, the initial battles will be fought in the border regions of the two countries, how the British will invade the 5 states you've listed with an active duty army of ~150,000 is very much stretching credibility. In geographic terms that's equivalent to invading northern France, Britain, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands with about a corps assigned to each. What will these forces do? What key areas will they occupy? How will they avoid a defeat in detail? How will they maintain their supply lines? What strategic goals do they pursue that helps the war?
I'm going to echo the ending sentiment here. So far I have read that the British forces will pursue naval-based terror bombings of cities, and geographically dispersed, unfocused ground occupations. They will do this assuming the war will be short and the Americans will quickly fold. I ask, when have assumptions like this *ever* proven true?
In the Crimean War the British needed the in-theater alliance with the Ottomans and the French to provide the majority of the troops in order to get Russia, a much poorer and less technologically capable country than the U.S. to give up only Southern Bessarabia. If the British could only get that done a few years before this war, how would they take any land from the U.S. a much richer and more industrially modern country, when the U.K. has only Canada as an "ally" (they're kind of the same country, and I'm not trying to quibble about definitions) and is fighting at a much larger distance?
Last edited: