British-American War instead of Mexican-American War?

About equivalent to Imperial Japan's odds of winning WWII against 1940s America, or slightly worse.

You probably would say the same thing between Britain and the Boers. That didn't work out too well for Britain OTL.

The USA of 1840 already was an advanced industrial power. They already had experience in war such as the War of 1812 and the establishment of military academies such as West Point. Furthermore, if the USA were to go to war with Britain in this time period over North America, the USA would have one important advantage on its side: logistics. And the USA didn't have any overseas colonies for Britain to seize as leverage.

If the USA of 1840 was committed to a long war for North American territory, they would win. As for Japan vs USA in 1940, Japan never had a chance not only because of the fact that the USA was bigger and more industrialized, they didn't have logistics on its side. The Britain of 1840 wouldn't had logistics on its side in a war against the USA over North American territory.
 
True but i did not know of any different tactics to try to get my point across.

The US only hope in winning is an a quick war, other wise Britain will smash them into the ground with time.

Except that the only way Blitzkrieg works is by confessing the USA hasn't the wherewithal to force a decisive short war. There is no means for the USA to do this to the 1840s British Empire, full-stop. It just doesn't exist.

You probably would say the same thing between Britain and the Boers. That didn't work out too well for Britain OTL.

The USA of 1840 already was an advanced industrial power. They already had experience in war such as the War of 1812 and the establishment of military academies such as West Point. Furthermore, if the USA were to go to war with Britain in this time period over North America, the USA would have one important advantage on its side: logistics. And the USA didn't have any overseas colonies for Britain to seize as leverage.

If the USA of 1840 was committed to a long war for North American territory, they would win. As for Japan vs USA in 1940, Japan never had a chance not only because of the fact that the USA was bigger and more industrialized, they didn't have logistics on its side. The Britain of 1840 wouldn't had logistics on its side in a war against the USA over North American territory.

Yes, and its military might can be gauged in that against the blundering, incompetent Mexican armies it had hard slugging the whole way through, and this against Santa Anna who should if anything have been made to parade through Mexico City with a big fat "I am a dumbass" sign strapped to his shoulders. The British Army of the 1840s is not the Mexican Army of Santa Anna. I would say that about the Boers, and I'd be right: in the Second War the British smashed the Boers conventionally fairly quickly, and had problems with the COIN phase.
 
It still hadn't proven itself able to combat against advanced industrialized powers like the USA that can operate from home.

Neither has the USA ever proven it can do this all by *itself* either, even in the OTL 21st Century. It does semi-well against dirt-poor tinpot dictatorships run by morons, but the USA hasn't shown that it can function in a war against an industrialized power by itself (of course there really hasn't been a war like that IOTL so.....yeah). 1840 America is not like the 20th Century superpower version. It should not be mistaken for it.
 

Free Lancer

Banned
Except that the only way Blitzkrieg works is by confessing the USA hasn't the wherewithal to force a decisive short war. There is no means for the USA to do this to the 1840s British Empire, full-stop. It just doesn't exist.


Maybe but like i said the US has a 50/50 shot at winning such a war.

The pathetic size of the US army aside with its interior lines and superior logistics i believe it has a real chance vs Britain's Superior navy and economic power witch will take time to be brought to bear against the US.
 
Maybe but like i said the US has a 50/50 shot at winning such a war.

The pathetic size of the US army aside with its interior lines and superior logistics i believe it has a real chance vs Britain's Superior navy and economic power witch will take time to be brought to bear against the US.

More like a 5/90/5 chance of win/lose/draw. The USA of the 1840s is not suited to wage war with a real industrial power when it's hardly the most well put together state in its own terms at this time. Put the US system of mass levies and a small professional force against the professional British army and the British smash their way through unhindered. This is the army that struggled greatly against Santa Anna, after all. And whatever else can be said about the 1840s British, they are not Santa Anna.
 
Britain needs to undergo a Revolution and quit. So no Reform Act.

Otherwise this pretty much ends in US defeat, and Polk knew it.
Now, Lewis Cass...
 

Free Lancer

Banned
More like a 5/90/5 chance of win/lose/draw. The USA of the 1840s is not suited to wage war with a real industrial power when it's hardly the most well put together state in its own terms at this time. Put the US system of mass levies and a small professional force against the professional British army and the British smash their way through unhindered. This is the army that struggled greatly against Santa Anna, after all. And whatever else can be said about the 1840s British, they are not Santa Anna.


Snake your not hearing what i said before, the US only hope in winning is a quick war before Britain can bring its might to bear against the US if its fails in that the only thing the US can hope for a status quo peace.
 
Snake your not hearing what i said before, the US only hope in winning is a quick war before Britain can bring its might to bear against the US if its fails in that the only thing the US can hope for a status quo peace.

And the USA has nothing it can do to affect that in the first place.
 
If the US can get it's act together in the west, what happens in the east? Washington burn again, New York bombarded along with a lot of the major ports on the east coast and in the gulf? Don't forget it isn't just the British the US is fighting it is the British Empire. I could see the US not only losing in the west but losing a lot of the industrial part of the east, even if it is just burnt. And don't forget Mexico will take advantage.
 

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
Fifteen years later....

the US put together two major groups of armies either easily large enough to accomplish any continental goal.

For the US to win, her people must be interested and committed. Anything short of that is a loss or a white peace.

PS.. if this war was fought and the US lost something memorable (Maine?), then the CP win in 1915 would have been predestined if that was had not been butterflied.
 
Consider for a moment that the Oregon purchase turns violent.
At this time, being the mid-1840s. What exactly are the chances of success of the Americans gaining a foothold in Canada, and perhaps even gaining control over Canada against the British.

about the same chance as a snowball in Hell....hahahahahah
 
about the same chance as a snowball in Hell....hahahahahah

rUD3m.jpg
 

That's not fair, that's Hell, Michigan.
I could see the US winning a very limited war in the northwest, but then, its a very limited war. Wilcoxchar outlines a scenario similar to this in his TL, and I'll post a link to that page. It does go on from the posted link however. In this scenario, the US gains up to the 52nd parallel, but I believe that because of this, the British end up gaining a lot of influence in the Kingdom of Hawaii.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=115064&page=4
 
Top