Could the US have successfully invaded the UK by 1910?

BlondieBC

Banned
Just offer Spain Gibraltar,and a few British colonies.

OK, once we assume a USA/French alliance, then sure, Germany is likely bought off with chunks of the British empire, as is everyone else. The only way a Great Power gets dismantled is all the other ones want that one power dismantled and at least one power is angry enough to do the heavy lifting.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Well strictly speaking it is unlikely to be anything but commerce interdiction which I expect is what you mean by merchant warfare blockade. The Big issue for America is that one of the things it need to think about in a long war scenario especially one to the death as you seem to assume is that the British represent upwards of 40% of the world's commercial shipping. This means unless the US encourages a much larger than OTL expansion of its merchant marine and in particular its ocean capable merchant marine simply going to war with the UK is going to have a big impact on its capacity to conduct foreign trade even to the extent of affecting its ability to trade with South America.

Strangely enough, that is not factually correct. The USA had severe restrictions on using foreign ships in trade, and the number of UK ships docking in the is very, very low. Almost 100% of the loss of the UK using all its ships on UK trade comes out of other European powers trade. So the impact is the fascinating diplomatic reaction of say France that will see a HUGE drop in imports. And Italy. And Spain. etc.

Not only that but having trawled through the lists of British First Class* Protected cruisers it would seem that there are above 50 of them available in OTL 1910. This really should be taken as a lower limit but does suggest in order to interdict British commerce the US are going to need to look to add more than half to their cruiser force...rather more as they have to travel long distances to find the British shipping which be covered at the very least by aggressive patrols of British cruisers even if the British do not go to convoys.

Except the UK war plans called for ignoring the merchant warfare and focusing on the decisive battle. While an imperfect comparison, the closest thing in OTL to the UK strategy ITTL will be Japan 1941/42.

Also, you can't protect 8000 ships with 50 cruisers. Then we get into port facilities, ranges, % of time in port, screening duties for main fleet, trying to interdict USA trade, etc. The UK simply does not have even close to enough long range ships to protect any significant portion of its trade.

It is one thing to create a battlefleet capable of contesting home waters. By 1910 even allowing for the fact that the US needed to split its fleet into two it was close to that, for defensive purposes a fleet roughly 75% as large as you enemy is probably good enough. The US fleet did as noted count ships as old as the USS Texas with it two old 12" guns but even so it is unlikely that the British would send more than half their battleships into the zone due to the need to cover other commitments. So it is possible to see a US fleet that can control its near abroad...not a certainty but a possibility.

However this still actually leaves it a long stretch from being able to dominate distant sea routes. A fleet that can win in Canadian waters and the Caribbean does not actually mean a fleet that can contest the whole Atlantic. The problem being the further afield the US push the more ships of the Royal Navy able to do double duty on second sortie...that is cover their station and fight the Americans. This is even without pointing that Royal Navy confronted with a hostile America might well forward deploy a not small number of assets and even if defeated would likely inflict losses on the US forces. A point often noted is that replacing lost naval vessels is neither quick nor cheap.

*yes even here we are disregarding all the lesser protected cruisers which would pose a big problem for a raider.

I am not worried about where the USA got the ships from. The USA has this huge navy and army via the thread assumptions, so I am running with it. Obviously, at least 15 years before this started, something made the USA really mad, and the USA stayed mad. I don't have the POD. In a thread that ask what happens in a war with a shorter lead time, I give different answers depending on the details of the thread.
 
Strangely enough, that is not factually correct. The USA had severe restrictions on using foreign ships in trade, and the number of UK ships docking in the is very, very low. Almost 100% of the loss of the UK using all its ships on UK trade comes out of other European powers trade. So the impact is the fascinating diplomatic reaction of say France that will see a HUGE drop in imports. And Italy. And Spain. etc.

Except you are wrong. US law forbade carrying goods between US ports in foreign hulls. The vast majority of cargoes heading to and arriving from destinations abroad were in foreign bottoms. In 1900 going by value only 9% of goods were travelling in US hulls to ports foreign. British ships were heavily involved in carrying US goods...and yes a lot of other people's goods too.



Except the UK war plans called for ignoring the merchant warfare and focusing on the decisive battle. While an imperfect comparison, the closest thing in OTL to the UK strategy ITTL will be Japan 1941/42.

Except for the minor detail you have completely made that up.

War Planning and Strategic Development in the Royal Navy, 1887-1914

I realise that you came up with your theory because of a lack of actual knowledge on the subject so do take the time to read the above when you have a chance.



Also, you can't protect 8000 ships with 50 cruisers. Then we get into port facilities, ranges, % of time in port, screening duties for main fleet, trying to interdict USA trade, etc. The UK simply does not have even close to enough long range ships to protect any significant portion of its trade.

First off there are more cruisers than that and secondly rather less ships to cover. > IIRC the British ocean going merchant fleet of 1914 was around 3,000 vessels.< Edit: whoops brain fart there, that is more like the figure for all British merchant ships the figure for ocean going steamers was around 1,600.



I am not worried about where the USA got the ships from. The USA has this huge navy and army via the thread assumptions, so I am running with it. Obviously, at least 15 years before this started, something made the USA really mad, and the USA stayed mad. I don't have the POD. In a thread that ask what happens in a war with a shorter lead time, I give different answers depending on the details of the thread.

No by your assumptions. The point is the OP asked a question and you are determined to answer a different one. There is a lot that can be learned about the development of the US shipbuilding industry and the infrastructure behind it by a serious examination of the OP question. Yet you are beginning to come across as simply trying to railroad a completely different topic into this thread.


If by the turn of the century the US set out invade the UK could it have successfully accomplished that feat within a decade?

Here is the actual question.
 
Last edited:
There is a subtle difference between the thread OP 'if the US set out to invade the UK could it have successfully accomplished that feat within a decade' and how can we get the US to defeat and invade the UK. For the latter you simply have to add up everything that is not British and set it on a warpath against Britain: job done and home for tea and medals. For the former and actual OP it has surely to be set amongst actual OTL forces etc. and feasible political alliances.
 
OK, once we assume a USA/French alliance, then sure, Germany is likely bought off with chunks of the British empire, as is everyone else. The only way a Great Power gets dismantled is all the other ones want that one power dismantled and at least one power is angry enough to do the heavy lifting.


Ah, that would also invoke the Mutual Defence clauses of the Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty.
(And we're well on the way to WW1 a few years early)
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Ah, that would also invoke the Mutual Defence clauses of the Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty.
(And we're well on the way to WW1 a few years early)

I generally agree. Any war between two great powers has a big chance of being WW1 early, especially if the core territory of any power is threatened.
 
OK, once we assume a USA/French alliance, then sure, Germany is likely bought off with chunks of the British empire, as is everyone else. The only way a Great Power gets dismantled is all the other ones want that one power dismantled and at least one power is angry enough to do the heavy lifting.
If we look at Great Powers defeated then one only needs to look at France in 1815 and 1870. Colonies retained, minor boundary changes and a big bill then everyone goes back home. The Great Powers in Europe are seeking security by a balance of powers. The Ottoman Empire dragged on up to WW1 by any benefitting power being ganged up on by the rest. I cannot see any European power seriously fearing British encroachment on the continent. Britain intervening in an unbalanced Europe yes but not direct territorial ambitions. A USA land grab is going to set the alarm bells ringing across Europe. If (the unlikely) support of Germany happened then France and Russia will not want a stronger Germany. Support from France will alarm the Germans. The Japanese were already concerned about the Americans and cuddling up to Britain for security.

I think the OP needs to have an element showing the USA end game. Should it invade what would it intend to do with it once it might have been successful? Also a clearer reason why any of the Great Powers would run the risk of an early WW1 that they could avoid. It was the interlocking of treaties and competing mobilisation speeds that forced the issue in OTL WW1. No Great Power sought it. What can the USA offer that would tempt a European Great Power to side with them and risk a continental conflict with the other/s? Colonies saw plenty of clashes of interest but they all sought to avoid them becoming European wars. Germany in 1870 was careful to ensure that they managed the French causus belli in such a way as to isolate the issue and making it clear that they were not seeking to conquer and retain France so the balance was retained and Britain remained neutral as both Francophile culturally and a traditional ally of Germany.

In the spirit of the devil's advocate. Offer Ireland to France, which would upset the anti clerical Republican left who could do with fewer committed Catholics and end up with a civil war with the Protestants in Ireland which could spread to France and risk mutiny in the army. Perhaps Scotland to Germany under the principal Jacobite Prince who was (and indeed still is) a Bavarian Catholic Prince. That would not go down well with the Scots Protestants. That still leaves England and Wales. A guaranteed civil war with whoever took it on.

I can see a USA aim of isolating Britain and separating Britain from it's colonies and gain some for the USA (suitably dressed up for the US public). I can see an aim of damaging and humiliating Britain for some (?) extraordinary breach of international law with the USA but I cannot see why they would want to invade. However we are being asked to comment on if they could have succeeded. Given the forces and political allies by 1910 no they could not. They could not hold South Vietnam when they had the world's most powerful armed forces nor retain day to day control in Afghanistan nor Iraq at the moment so going up against the British Empire at it's height looks unlikely. Just possibly some lesser aim but it would not succeed in an invasion.

Of course if you assume a USA/Franco/German/Russian/Turkish/Italian/Spanish/Japanese/Austrian/Dutch etc. alliance then yes anything is possible.
 
If we look at Great Powers defeated then one only needs to look at France in 1815 and 1870. Colonies retained, minor boundary changes and a big bill then everyone goes back home. The Great Powers in Europe are seeking security by a balance of powers. The Ottoman Empire dragged on up to WW1 by any benefitting power being ganged up on by the rest. I cannot see any European power seriously fearing British encroachment on the continent. Britain intervening in an unbalanced Europe yes but not direct territorial ambitions. A USA land grab is going to set the alarm bells ringing across Europe. If (the unlikely) support of Germany happened then France and Russia will not want a stronger Germany. Support from France will alarm the Germans. The Japanese were already concerned about the Americans and cuddling up to Britain for security.

I think the OP needs to have an element showing the USA end game. Should it invade what would it intend to do with it once it might have been successful? Also a clearer reason why any of the Great Powers would run the risk of an early WW1 that they could avoid. It was the interlocking of treaties and competing mobilisation speeds that forced the issue in OTL WW1. No Great Power sought it. What can the USA offer that would tempt a European Great Power to side with them and risk a continental conflict with the other/s? Colonies saw plenty of clashes of interest but they all sought to avoid them becoming European wars. Germany in 1870 was careful to ensure that they managed the French causus belli in such a way as to isolate the issue and making it clear that they were not seeking to conquer and retain France so the balance was retained and Britain remained neutral as both Francophile culturally and a traditional ally of Germany.

In the spirit of the devil's advocate. Offer Ireland to France, which would upset the anti clerical Republican left who could do with fewer committed Catholics and end up with a civil war with the Protestants in Ireland which could spread to France and risk mutiny in the army. Perhaps Scotland to Germany under the principal Jacobite Prince who was (and indeed still is) a Bavarian Catholic Prince. That would not go down well with the Scots Protestants. That still leaves England and Wales. A guaranteed civil war with whoever took it on.

I can see a USA aim of isolating Britain and separating Britain from it's colonies and gain some for the USA (suitably dressed up for the US public). I can see an aim of damaging and humiliating Britain for some (?) extraordinary breach of international law with the USA but I cannot see why they would want to invade. However we are being asked to comment on if they could have succeeded. Given the forces and political allies by 1910 no they could not. They could not hold South Vietnam when they had the world's most powerful armed forces nor retain day to day control in Afghanistan nor Iraq at the moment so going up against the British Empire at it's height looks unlikely. Just possibly some lesser aim but it would not succeed in an invasion.

Of course if you assume a USA/Franco/German/Russian/Turkish/Italian/Spanish/Japanese/Austrian/Dutch etc. alliance then yes anything is possible.

not only the end game, but also the whole justification (and motive) for the United States overcoming its built in isolationist tendencies to carry out what would be essentially a crusade (from the American perspective). It took a lot for US entry into OTL World Wars, so there has to be a really big compelling reason
 
Yes, if you cut off the UK from its overseas trade, the game will be over. It may take a while, but it will be over. Look at the link below. It can be taken as the Official UK position, since it was the official UK assessment. You have people such as the Prince of Wales leading the commission. It also has two vice admirals, 3 MP, and bunch of other various lords.

So, back to the big picture. The landing is a cake walk, once you take control of the Sea.

You seem to miss the blindingly obvious point that this report is a justification for outbuilding anybody who looks as if they may threaten Britain's trade routes.

In this scenario the RN starts with a 2-power status and a commitment to maintain it, on the grounds that battleships may be expensive but losing control of the seas is disastrous.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
You seem to miss the blindingly obvious point that this report is a justification for outbuilding anybody who looks as if they may threaten Britain's trade routes.

In this scenario the RN starts with a 2-power status and a commitment to maintain it, on the grounds that battleships may be expensive but losing control of the seas is disastrous.

Until the reality of budgets set in. IOTL, the RN had abandoned the two navy standard well before WW1. There is a big difference in talking about being able to defeat the two largest powers, and building the navy to do it. And this is based on prewar standards which had a good bit of hopium in them. I reality, the UK almost went down to one power using submarines. There is not way the UK defeats the USA and one other great power navy once that other navy goes to merchant warfare of some type. Now there is also no way the other powers stand idly by either.

This thread is basically discussing a military table game that can't occur because of diplomatic and political realities.
 
Until the reality of budgets set in. IOTL, the RN had abandoned the two navy standard well before WW1. There is a big difference in talking about being able to defeat the two largest powers, and building the navy to do it. And this is based on prewar standards which had a good bit of hopium in them. I reality, the UK almost went down to one power using submarines. There is not way the UK defeats the USA and one other great power navy once that other navy goes to merchant warfare of some type. Now there is also no way the other powers stand idly by either.

This thread is basically discussing a military table game that can't occur because of diplomatic and political realities.

Well actually by WW1 the two power standard had gotten a lot easier, there was one, one power that could seriously hope to keep pace with the British in the dreadnought age and that was the US. However it would require further massive growth in its civilian economy before it could look to match the RN by simple domestic construction...hence the Washington Treaty. Germany found in 1912 it just could not afford the race. Without a nice handy European War™ the US has to wait a bit. It will if it follows its OTL trajectory find itself in a position of massive supremacy but in 1910 it is not there yet and in 1900 it is much further back. For example of the World's dreadnought fleets in 1919 almost half were British.

As to going down to one power, firstly that power had to use submarines and secondly the British did not go down...minor point but worth mentioning. In 1910 submarine tech is iinfancy but in 1900 it was neonatal.

What this thread could be is an exercise in trying to understand how sea power was built and maintained. Rather than simply assert something, try actually asking and looking to find answers for such questions as

1: How many cruisers does it take to blockade Britain from bases in the Northern Western quadrant of the globe? For example the estimate for the required U-boat force to bring down Britain was 212 boats, of which the Kaiserlich Marine managed to actually assemble and maintain a peak strength of 120.

2: How long does it take for the US to assemble such a force?

3: What kind of counter force might Britain build in the mean time? In the era in question the likely British response is a mixture of 1st Class cruisers to hunt and kill raiders, later this philosophy results in the battlecruiser,. 2nd and 3rd Class cruisers to defend commerce. Later on just after the era in question the Light Cruiser is developed and of course destroyers continue to mature.

4: How does the dynamic of British reaction affect US build up and strategy?

5:How would a credible US threat affect European diplomacy and power games. In OTL the US was the snoozing giant...it was not that giant at the beginning of the decade in question but in terms of civilian economy it was a lot bigger than anyone else by the end of it. Now give it a few more teeth and how to people react?
 
Top