Defense Scheme No.1 'What If Canada had attacked the US?'

I really can't see that status quo antebellum. Why is that in the US interest after a Canadian invasion?

Should the plan work out as hoped, by the time the USA would be geared up for attacking again Canada would be bolstered by troops from the Empire. With any luck the US would at that point decide a few acres of snow isn't really worth the lives of thousands of their men.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
No offense, but..... you're trusting 67th Tiger's on a US vs Britian thread? Are you kidding? I saw the guy seriously argue that a Britian-Japanese Alliance could take on the US- in the 1940's!

No. The setup was very ASB.

Could an Anglo-Japanese alliance take on the US in the 1940's? Why not, near 2:1 fleet superiority would suggest so.....
 
Industrial capacity? They would have to act very quickly to control the seas.

Depends on the political situation in the rest of the world too, if it is just UK + Japan VS. USA as they were in 1940 i see the Anglo-Japanese alliance of doom winning, USA may have a great industrial capacity but the only reason it does so well is because it has never, not once, EVER, been attacked.

We all know about how good Germany's production is, but then that was bombed to shit and they could not build crap in the Ruhr, same would happen to the USA cinsidering much of their population and industry is coastal based, including the capital city, not to mention that border at Canada and the Great Lakes would mean a quick route to Chicago and Buffalo and those other areas that mass manufactured tanks... also on the subject of Tanks the Sherman sucked but was good because they could make so many of them so easily, what i was just saying about hurting the American production capacity gets rid of that advantage... plus good old two front war for a divided American fleet and army and a Japanese army not busy in China and a British army not busy in Europe.
 
Depends on the political situation in the rest of the world too, if it is just UK + Japan VS. USA as they were in 1940 i see the Anglo-Japanese alliance of doom winning, USA may have a great industrial capacity but the only reason it does so well is because it has never, not once, EVER, been attacked.

We all know about how good Germany's production is, but then that was bombed to shit and they could not build crap in the Ruhr, same would happen to the USA cinsidering much of their population and industry is coastal based, including the capital city, not to mention that border at Canada and the Great Lakes would mean a quick route to Chicago and Buffalo and those other areas that mass manufactured tanks... also on the subject of Tanks the Sherman sucked but was good because they could make so many of them so easily, what i was just saying about hurting the American production capacity gets rid of that advantage... plus good old two front war for a divided American fleet and army and a Japanese army not busy in China and a British army not busy in Europe.

True, but with the US attacking Canada that will cost the British significantly from OTL. The US also has a lot of inland production abilities, like Pittsburg, so they're coastal cities would concentrate on ship building. The Japanese by comparison pretty well just made ships and planes OTL, which would be a serious issue if they eventually managed to take the ocean. It seems about as likely to succede as the German invasion of Russia OTL. There's a chance, but it isn't the most likely outcome. The US also had 132 million people at the time, which is pretty much equal to that of the British and Japanese.
 
True, but with the US attacking Canada that will cost the British significantly from OTL. The US also has a lot of inland production abilities, like Pittsburg, so they're coastal cities would concentrate on ship building. The Japanese by comparison pretty well just made ships and planes OTL, which would be a serious issue if they eventually managed to take the ocean. It seems about as likely to succede as the German invasion of Russia OTL. There's a chance, but it isn't the most likely outcome. The US also had 132 million people at the time, which is pretty much equal to that of the British and Japanese.

Much of this boils down to Industry it seems, given that the Brits and the Japs will have teh initial advantage it really depends on if they can use it knock out ship manufacturing facilities, which means they win in the long run since their carriers can bomb the American industry to shit and the British and Japanese ones will be too far away to be hurt at all.

You also have to remember that the American Army was a joke at the time and worth shit, so any inland invasion would have great initial success until the Americans get their act together, and the Japanese getting to the rockies is enough to stop that front dead it it's tracks on both sides.

i wonder how Panama would factor into this given how imprtant it would be for the USA for national defence.
 
Much of this boils down to Industry it seems, given that the Brits and the Japs will have teh initial advantage it really depends on if they can use it knock out ship manufacturing facilities, which means they win in the long run since their carriers can bomb the American industry to shit and the British and Japanese ones will be too far away to be hurt at all.

You also have to remember that the American Army was a joke at the time and worth shit, so any inland invasion would have great initial success until the Americans get their act together, and the Japanese getting to the rockies is enough to stop that front dead it it's tracks on both sides.

i wonder how Panama would factor into this given how imprtant it would be for the USA for national defence.
I know the US army was a joke, but the Canadian army wasn't exactly impressive at the time either. I still think the Japanese would get tied up in the Phillipines, Alaska and Hawaii before they could go after anywhere key, leaving the British to have to deal with the bulk of the US production, along with Panama making the Pacific and Atlantic far closer for them than the enemy. I think if you added pretty well any single other nation to either side the war would be decided, but as is they seem far to evenly matched to get much more than a bloodbath.
 
As for how Japan would land and supply a large army on the West Coast and how the British(and Canadians?) would be able to build up adequate ground forces without the US even noticing let alone responding...of course, if the UK remains a close ally of Japan then Canada may have broken ties to the UK and the US will have a larger standing military, especially the navy.


British carriers are too few and weak to do anything to US industry and the US doesn't have much industry for the IJN to target.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
As for how Japan would land and supply a large army on the West Coast and how the British(and Canadians?) would be able to build up adequate ground forces without the US even noticing let alone responding...of course, if the UK remains a close ally of Japan then Canada may have broken ties to the UK and the US will have a larger standing military, especially the navy.

If you read the reinforcement schedules estimated in Warplan Red/ Red-Orange then they're quite reasonable. There's no question of the US "not noticing", just they simply could not interdict with the forces they had.

Now, a prolonged naval race is another matter, as that was specifically ruled out by the (IMHO rather ASB) PoD. It's a "come as you are" war in 1941 with everyone starting from a peace footing. Other PoD's are far more favourable to the US, but I never argued those.

British carriers are too few and weak to do anything to US industry and the US doesn't have much industry for the IJN to target.

The British had a very capable carrier force hamstrung by the need to divert aircraft to combat over Europe/ Britain.

What is of more interest is the balance of airpower over the Canadian border. The British can put heavy bombers in striking range of the major US industrial centres. The US is on the backfoot initially trying to stop this (which includes sending their own heavy bombers against Canadian bases).

Ultimately the US requires huge quantities of imports despite their large resource base to prosecute a war. Things like rubber and aluminium ore simply aren't available in anything like the required quantities. There's the rub. The major US industrial war output of 1942+ was based upon large quantities of seaborne raw materials, mostly from the British empire. The US ITTL simply won't be producing anything like the war material it did OTL.
 
67th Tigers, the British carriers were fewer than the American, carried fewer and less effective aircraft and there still won't be much industry which they can target at sea.

In this POD British bombers will be too few to have a significant effect when the war begins. Just take a look at the numbers of RAF Bomber Command OTL in September 1940 after a full year to gear up.

Also, I really hope you aren't peddling that nonsense again about Japan landing scores of divisions on the West Coast.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
67th Tigers, the British carriers were fewer than the American, carried fewer and less effective aircraft and there still won't be much industry which they can target at sea.

In December 1941, noting no WW2 to sink half the RN carrier force:

RN

Argus - 18 (in training role, not counted)
Glorious, Courageous and Furious - 48 ea
Eagle - 21
Hermes - 20
Ark Royal - 64
Illustrious, Formidable, Victorious, Indomitable - 54 ea

= 10 Carriers with 465 aircraft

USN

Atlantic Fleet
Ranger - 66
Yorktown - 72
Wasp - 72
Hornet - 75 (trials)

Pacific Fleet
Lexington - 59
Saratoga - 62
Enterprise - 71

= 7 Carriers with 477 aircraft

IJN

Akagi - 72
Kaga - 81
Soryu - 63
Hiryu - 64
Shokaku - 72
Zuikaku - 72
Hosho - 21
Rjuyo - 37
Chitose - 30
Chiyoda - 30
Zuiho - 30

= 11 Carriers with 572 aircraft

Overall the Anglo-Japanese in that TL had a 3:1 advantage in a/c hulls and 2.2:1 in carried a/c. In terms of strike aircraft the disparity is far greater, as the USN carried very large scouting contingents.

The UK on her own has mere parity with the no. of embarked a/c, but has more decks.

In this POD British bombers will be too few to have a significant effect when the war begins. Just take a look at the numbers of RAF Bomber Command OTL in September 1940 after a full year to gear up.

The RAF had a fairly large number of high altitude bombers in 1939, and the number was increasing with the introduction of the Manchester.

Also, I really hope you aren't peddling that nonsense again about Japan landing scores of divisions on the West Coast.

Not me. That's the USN's war planning division. Personally I doubt they could land much more than a single army corps, not because of their logistics but because the army was tied up in China. Of course, this would mount a serious challenge to an unmobilised US which has 3 usable infantry divisions (1st-3rd) with their transport, artillery etc.

That's basically the case with an unmobilised US. They have manpower reserves to build forces later, but from a standing start they'll have a hard time invading Canada, let alone responding to any Japanese attack on California ITTL. Later things may be different....
 
Of course the entire POD fails because the preservation of the Anglo-Japanese alliance would have had so many butterflies by 1941...
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Of course the entire POD fails because the preservation of the Anglo-Japanese alliance would have had so many butterflies by 1941...

I utterly agree. I never argued that the above was realistic (I think it's utter BS), but simply argued for what would happen in that situation.
 
Well, you'd need a POD before 1900 to bring the British Empire into conflict with the United States and even then that's iffy. Toss in a few more Anglo-American wars, and you could see enough hostility that the US/Britain remain natural advesaries and bitter rivals, I suppose.

As 67th said, in a scenario such as this there's too many butterflies, but anything remotely resembling OTL scenario, an Anglo/Japanese continued alliance vs the US would be an extremely interesting scenario.

Even then, the Japanese would be more focused upon attacking the Phillipines, US colonies and -maybe- Alaska than Britain, so even then it seems the USN would give Japan a free hand in the Pacific and focus on fighting the RN, since Britain would actually have ability to project military power into North America.

But even as I type out that hypothetical scenario I'm automaticly thinking what the heck would Germany, France and Russia be doing. All these nations would have an agenda in this scenario, and if Japan is any bit as opurtunistic as it is OTL, could bow out of the conflict and focus on other colonial powers.

Gah, I'm done. :p
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Hm? The allies built 13 battleships and 155 carriers in WWII, with the US building the bulk of the carriers and battleships.

The US built, in fleet service before the Japanese surrender 16 Essex class fleet carriers and 9 Independence class light carriers. That's 25 carriers. Most of the "155 carriers" were a flight deck put atop a merchant or tanker for anti-submarine patrols, they were not built as warships and had no place in battle.

Of the Essex's, only the lead ship (Essex) is available one year after the Japanese attack (because she was building already, having been authorised in 1938). Another six join in 1943, along with all 9 Independence's. Two years after the Japanese attack the USN had (OTL) 20 Carriers, the same number as Britain and Japan combined had in December 1941.

Of the 8 battleships completed during WW2, all had been ordered before the outbreak of the European war in 1939, and absorbed the battleship builders until 1944.
 
If Canada launches the first blow it might get left to dry, or at least not responded to with enthusiasm by Britain. I have to say this before Canadian Federation discovers this thread so here goes...

The American Revolution and the War of 1812 were a vastly weaker USA versus a vastly STRONGER British Empire. This time around it's a militarily weak Canada versus an immensely militarily strong neighbor the USA, however Canada's geography historically poses a spot of trouble for any would-be invaders and it would come into play against America's favor if the Americans were dumb about it.

Even Canada with British and Commonwealth forces supporting is disadvantaged. Britain's biggest asset is its navy and that asset largely precluded any possibility of German invasion, however said navy can't cut off the mostly land-based US-Canadian border so would have to content itself with pestering coastal regions of the US, though against a constantly replenishing (by virtue of proximity) US Navy the British would eventually lose the naval advantage, no navy means no more British reinforcements so this would leave meager Canadian forces backed up by increasingly dwindling British forces... at that point that's where Canada is going to have to prepare to be the 51st state.

Pretty much.

Defence Scheme No.1 was pretty much a guy's plan on trolling the US and would not have ended well for Canada. Sure, we would've put up one hell of a fight, but even if Britain and the Commonwealth were to devote the entirety of their resources to helping Canada, it would still be a US victory, albeit a pyrrhic one due to the damages suffered in the war.

Any war plan that counts exclusively on a power across the seas coming to your aid is NOT a good plan.
 
I think that the OTL size of the US Army is irrelevant, because in any world that Canada would attack the US, the US would be prepared. If a hostile nation is to it's North, and such a war seems imminent, wouldn't a larger US military establishment be in effect?

True, but the whole purpose of Defence Scheme No.1 was a pre-emptive and secret attack on the US. It would have seen covert agents taking out industrial targets, with military branches launching quick attacks/raids across the border, then destroying bridges adn rail lines in order to slow the American counter-attack. Following this, the plan was to wait for Britain to come help, which I doubt it would have done.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
True, but the whole purpose of Defence Scheme No.1 was a pre-emptive and secret attack on the US. It would have seen covert agents taking out industrial targets, with military branches launching quick attacks/raids across the border, then destroying bridges adn rail lines in order to slow the American counter-attack. Following this, the plan was to wait for Britain to come help, which I doubt it would have done.

It was a defence plan, to be implemented immediately on war between the United States and the British Empire. There were no grand visions of conquest, merely a way to try and buy more time for the British to tip up with an army.
 
Top