At what point did it become unlikely for Britain to beat the US in an all out war...

[Brunaburh]

GB is going to successfully invade the US after the ACW at the latest only if you spot it Star Trek Teleporters and Replicators. Other than that the US is too big and too far away. It has the first or second largest economy on the planet , is 2,500 miles wide , has numerous ports and international trade is a very small part of its economy at the time.

You are talking about taking on a continental sized peer power from 3,000 miles away. Here is a clue for you. The US didn't have a big military in the late 19th century because it didn't need it. It could curbstomp any within 3,000 miles of it and countries that far away would have their logistical lines snap under the strain.

Nobody is saying the UK could successfully invade all of the US. We are saying they could beat the US in a war fought in the american continent, and we have given you reasons. Wars do not require total conquest for victory. The UK wouldn't necessarily need to control ANY US territory to force them to the table for a humiliating peace, however, the UK would be able to occupy some coastal areas comfortably prior to the 1890's. The US would be unable to trade with anywhere but Mexico, imagine how America's billionaires would feel about that.

The OMG 3000 miles! thing is silly. You know how big the UK's navy and merchant fleet was, it was immense and more than capable of supplying and transporting a large force across the Atlantic. We know this because the UK was able to do this with medium forces a century earlier when it had nowhere near as much capacity. Another clue rests in the fact that the UK successfully supplied an army in the Crimea which is further away by sea than Canada

People who say the US would lose a war against Britain may be wrong, but please stop mischaracterising our arguments, because at the minute you are just being sarcastic about things that only you have said.

 

[Matteo]

The US overtook the UK in GDP per capita in the 1890s, not overall GDP. The US overtook Britain proper around the early 1870s in GDP.

Well, as I already mentioned, comparing the GDPs of the US and Britain alone is not relevant when one wants to assess the amount of economic resources 2 rival countries can muster in a conflict.

Britain was not only Britain then. Britain had the British empire. It controlled one quarter of the lands on Earth and one quarter of the planet’s population too.

This empire, and especially the crown’s jewel of India, was, as many British statesmen men perfectly understood (and noticeably Winston Churchill) was what made Britain the world number one power.

So you should take that into account to assess what was the real balance of powers between these 2 powers.

Just in cas, I anticipate the possible objection that 400 million people in the British empire did not equate with 400 British people with the per capital level of development, resources and qualifications of the then average British.

Sustained.

However, these numbers globally enabled the British empire to match any rival power, including the US until around the 1920’s.

 

[Brunaburh]

BTW, finally to put to bed the "Britainball can not into sea!" rubbish, here is the wiki page on the second Boer War, fought at the end of the period discussed here and in the other thread.

In this war the UK's field force was 600k soldiers, 350k of them British regulars, 150k were colonial units from Australia, Canada, The Cape, New Zealand and India, 100k were locally recruited auxiliaries.

This figure is 60 times the US army in 1850, 20 times the US Army in 1875 and 8 times the US army in 1902, when the US was involved in its own colonial adventures. It is worth remembering that this force was not the whole British army, it was only that part of it in South Africa. The army was fighting much further from home than an army in Canada would be, double in fact, and the UK had no problem at all delivering and supplying it.

 

[pjmidd]

The US overtook the UK in GDP per capita in the 1890s, not overall GDP. The US overtook Britain proper around the early 1870s in GDP.

[Edited as the last half was missing]
Wrong way round mate , US pop exceeded the UK's in the 1860's , however the UK has its Empire so overall a bigger population. This meant GDP per capita was reduced as colonies were not industrialized but numbers told.

 

[Johnrankins]

Nobody is saying the UK could successfully invade all of the US. We are saying they could beat the US in a war fought in the american continent, and we have given you reasons. Wars do not require total conquest for victory. The UK wouldn't necessarily need to control ANY US territory to force them to the table for a humiliating peace, however, the UK would be able to occupy some coastal areas comfortably prior to the 1890's. The US would be unable to trade with anywhere but Mexico, imagine how America's billionaires would feel about that.

The OMG 3000 miles! thing is silly. You know how big the UK's navy and merchant fleet was, it was immense and more than capable of supplying and transporting a large force across the Atlantic. We know this because the UK was able to do this with medium forces a century earlier when it had nowhere near as much capacity. Another clue rests in the fact that the UK successfully supplied an army in the Crimea which is further away by sea than Canada

People who say the US would lose a war against Britain may be wrong, but please stop mischaracterising our arguments, because at the minute you are just being sarcastic about things that only you have said.

About the only area GB could take and hold along the US coast is farm regions and isolated bays. The US was entirely connected by rail road. The US in 1866 is a LOT more powerful than 1814. It grew in size, population and industrial production at a much faster clip than the British Empire. It was not only 2,500 miles wide it had lots of ports to blockade. The US has the most ports on the planet and by a pretty significant margin. By 1876 GB would be trying to blockade a country 2,500 miles wide with numerous ports from 3,000 miles away entirely connected by rail.

In both the Crimean War and the Boer War they fought in backwater regions and did a poor job fighting in them. In the Crimean War it fought mainly ill educated, poorly supplied Russian peasants in a very undeveloped region of the Russian Empire with very poor logistical infrastructure in the region. In the Boer War it fought disgruntled farmers in a barely developed area with very poor logistical infastructure. In both cases it fought well under its weight. In the US they would be fighting in highly developed regions with well educated , heavily supplied troops backed by the largest rail net on the planet.

The British Army at the time was nothing to write home about. From the Napoleonic Wars until at least WWI it consistantly fought below its weight class.

 

[Virginia Liberal]

Now I know this is going to get a lot of people saying "never this is in possible" but here is one I haven't seen yet. If war between the US and Britain happened in the 1870s the US could and would most likely face an armed up rising in the Southern States. This is not the United America of the Pre Civil War or even the 1890s. This is an America that is Still half under a military occupation, and the Southern whites would see a British invasion and a chance for revenge. Even if they cuss the Redcoats for being ten years too late.

 

[takerma]

This thread reminds of those epic debates between two now departed members.

1920s some time.

19th century, US loses Naval war before it starts. Depending on timing etc it will also be facing a long drawn out war in Canada while being raided on the coast and losing California. RN lift capacity was immense. Can US evict few hundred thousand British troops from there while being under blockade? Not being able to strike at UK centres of production or economy at all? Not happening.

Also yes war right after ACW or any time till 1890s it is liable to get funny. I have a suspicion quite a few places down south will welcome English, and there are a lot of places to land troops, weapons etc. Promise them independendence and boom US has ACW round 2 on its hands.

 

[Napoleonrules]

Can someone from the "Britain is so powerful and will defeat the US" because of their reasons stated of economic, naval, and military size please explain to me how the US lost to North Vietnam when the US was more powerful compared to that nation than the British were to the US (at any point in history). Yet the US lost. Why do you think the British would automatically win? Any reason you give for the US losing Vietnam could then have happened to the British. The British, with French assistance, couldn't even defeat Germany in WWI let alone actually invade German territory and that's right there in Europe; why do you think it takes until 1920 before the US could stop Britain?

 

[Brunaburh]

Can someone from the "Britain is so powerful and will defeat the US" because of their reasons stated of economic, naval, and military size please explain to me how the US lost to North Vietnam when the US was more powerful compared to that nation than the British were to the US (at any point in history). Yet the US lost. Why do you think the British would automatically win? Any reason you give for the US losing Vietnam could then have happened to the British. The British, with French assistance, couldn't even defeat Germany in WWI let alone actually invade German territory and that's right there in Europe; why do you think it takes until 1920 before the US could stop Britain?

No war result is inevitable, especially as we don't know the circumstances surrounding it. But there is a difference between the victory requirements of an aggressor than those of a defender. Britain has more in common with North Vietnam than the US in a Canada invasion scenario.

 

[Faeelin]

A series of American states uniting to defeat the British? Could never happen!

 

[Johnrankins]

This thread reminds of those epic debates between two now departed members.

1920s some time.

19th century, US loses Naval war before it starts. Depending on timing etc it will also be facing a long drawn out war in Canada while being raided on the coast and losing California. RN lift capacity was immense. Can US evict few hundred thousand British troops from there while being under blockade? Not being able to strike at UK centres of production or economy at all? Not happening.

Also yes war right after ACW or any time till 1890s it is liable to get funny. I have a suspicion quite a few places down south will welcome English, and there are a lot of places to land troops, weapons etc. Promise them independendence and boom US has ACW round 2 on its hands.

How long will it take the UK to transport both men and supplies to Canada? Unless you are using Star Trek teleporters it would take months. You have to organize the ships and men. You have to build supply depots and ammo dumps. You have to ship all those men over along with their supplies. This won't happen over night. Meanwhile the US is training up its militia forces to regular troops because it is going to notice this and a large shipments of British troops and military supplies can only mean one thing.

If it takes place soon after the ACW you get everything that goes along with it like US troops still in the South, millions of men that need only "refresher courses" to be put out again in the field, thousands of veteran NCOs and officers all going up against green as grass troops.

 

[Faeelin]

Promise them independendence and boom US has ACW round 2 on its hands.

I wonder if there’s anyone in the British empire who might be vulnerable along those lines?

 

[Faeelin]

This is not the United America of the Pre Civil War or even the 1890s. This is an America that is Still half under a military occupation, and the Southern whites would see a British invasion and a chance for revenge. Even if they cuss the Redcoats for being ten years too late.

How come there was Almost no partisan resistance to union troops? Actions against blacks yes, but nobody was killing American soldiers.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

In both the Crimean War and the Boer War they fought in backwater regions and did a poor job fighting in them.

The British army in the Crimea won all its major battles, not to mention the logistic feat of keeping an army supplied so far from home throughout the Russian winter. The Boer War took so long because the Boers resorted to guerrilla tactics, which are always difficult to counter and require a lot of time and men.

The British Army at the time was nothing to write home about. From the Napoleonic Wars until at least WWI it consistantly fought below its weight class.

"Constantly fought below its weight class" whilst conquering the largest empire the world has ever seen?

Also, if British involvement in the Crimea and South Africa counts as punching below its weight, what do you call the US taking four years to beat an enemy with next to no heavy industry, and whom it outnumbered by more than two to one?

How long will it take the UK to transport both men and supplies to Canada? Unless you are using Star Trek teleporters it would take months. You have to organize the ships and men. You have to build supply depots and ammo dumps. You have to ship all those men over along with their supplies. This won't happen over night. Meanwhile the US is training up its militia forces to regular troops because it is going to notice this and a large shipments of British troops and military supplies can only mean one thing.

Britain can ship troops over the Atlantic in less time than it takes the US to train new troops.

If it takes place soon after the ACW you get everything that goes along with it like US troops still in the South, millions of men that need only "refresher courses" to be put out again in the field, thousands of veteran NCOs and officers all going up against green as grass troops.

"Green as grass"? The British army fought plenty of wars during this period.

I wonder if there’s anyone in the British empire who might be vulnerable along those lines?

The difference is that Britain can plausibly offer to land troops etc. to help the rebels, whereas the US didn't have the necessary naval strength to land troops anywhere in the British Empire until at least the 1920s.

 

[Faeelin]

The British army in the Crimea won all its major battles, not to mention the logistic feat of keeping an army supplied so far from home throughout the Russian winter. The Boer War took so long because the Boers resorted to guerrilla tactics, which are always difficult to counter and require a lot of time and men.

I am not sure you can say "the Russian Winter" in the Crimean War. The average temperatur ein the Crimea in January is... 32 degrees.

 

[Bayou57]

It highly depends on the conditions of the conflict. Where is it fought ?

The country that defends itself has a huge advantage over the very distant adversary that attacks him.

Excluding alliances and coalitions, the US could not defeat Britain around the British Isles before 1945. And Britain was no longer able to defeat the US on the American continent since the middle of 19th century.

What Britain could do until the 1920’s is win a maritime war of attrition.

 

[Bayou57]

Matteo does a nice job in summarizing the situation.

Additional comments: The rebels won the American Revolution because of foreign support. However, the War of 1812 made it obvious that a British conquest of the United States wasn't likely. Although the British capture of Alaska, Hawaii, and all of the West Coast down to Mexico were possible, as late as the 1860s. I'm surprised that the British didn't develop a protectorate for Hawaii during the American Civil War.

After the 1860s, the British conquest of Alaska and Hawaii were possible but unlikely. I can't imagine a British conquest of California, if the Yanks had the transcontinental railroad for support.

An American alliance with Germany, France, or Russia might have made an American invasion of Britain possible, at any point after the 1890s. It's difficult to imagine how or why an anti-British alliance would have developed with the Americans involved.

 

[AlexG]

In an "all-out" war, assuming the U.K. is the aggressor, the U.S. can conquer defend its continental territories and conquer Canada beginning in 1865.

The most Britain could do is to maintain ridiculously garrisoned and fortified coastal areas, but even in the revolutionary war, no sane person thinks that this is a victory by any means.

However, until the popularization of submarines, ~1900s, the U.S. can't take Britain out either.

Also, each successive decade of the 1900s makes an American victory in an offensive all out war, all the more likely at first, and later all but certain.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

In 1806/7, Upper/Lower Canada/New Brunswick/Prince Edward Island together had 410 000 people. In 1810 the US population was 7 239 000. So (assuming Canadian growth from 1806-10) more like 15 to 1.

Given that there was a grand total of two skirmishes in BNA outside of Upper Canada, I only counted it (and in 1811 Upper Canada had a population of 77,000).

 

[BlondieBC]

The British army in the Crimea won all its major battles, not to mention the logistic feat of keeping an army supplied so far from home throughout the Russian winter. The Boer War took so long because the Boers resorted to guerrilla tactics, which are always difficult to counter and require a lot of time and men.

The Crimean war was a logistical nightmare that manage to push at most 10's of miles into Russia. Most of the major battles were won by the French, who were a much better army at that time frame.