How would the RN fare in a pre-WWI conflict against the USN and Kriegsmarine?

[GarethC]

In 1901 you're unlikely to get an Anglo-German war - Wilhelm was a pallbearer for his grandmother only the previous year, the HsF is still Tirpitz's fantasy, etc.

But an Anglo-American war needs one flash of inspiration and a few brave statesmen to seize upon it.

William Randolph Hearst realises that the volume of newspapers he sold after the Maine are as nothing to the number he'll move once he announces the boldest scoop in journalism - that Leon Czolgosz was the agent of a British plan to scupper American trade protectionism.

Now, having freed all those oppressed Filipinos (and their oppressed sugar and hemp plantations) from Spanish rule, surely it's time to free all those oppressed Canadians (and their lumber, fisheries, agriculture, etc) from London's burden?

 

[Simreeve]

In 1901 you're unlikely to get an Anglo-German war - Wilhelm was a pallbearer for his grandmother only the previous year, the HsF is still Tirpitz's fantasy, etc.

But an Anglo-American war needs one flash of inspiration and a few brave statesmen to seize upon it.

And a much larger USN than in OTL, too... Otherwise, although the USA might manage to "liberate" Canada, it's just lost all of those ex-Spanish territories again (and Britain probably grants the Philipines a higher level of self-government than the USA was offering at that time, in order to win them over quickly), there's probably a RN/RM force helping the Hawaiian monarchy to re-assert itself against the American planters, the USA can pretty much say goodbye to any idea of overseas trade by sea until its government comes to terms...
And just how good were the USA's naval bases' defences -- and those of the ports in which it would have been building warships, too -- in those days?

 

[sharlin]

The USN just post The US/Spanish war vs the Royal Navy? Please. The USN was a glorified coast defence force until 1902 - 1904 when they started getting the numbers and decent enough ships to be considered a proper navy. Hell before the Spanish American war the Brazilians had a bigger navy :s

 

[BlondieBC]

Although not officially opened until 1914, construction was completed in 1913. Plenty of time.

Opening of thread said "turn of century" - 13 years is pushing that phrase. We could also talk about an 1887 war.

 

[BlondieBC]

Aye but the USN doctrine called for the ACs not to be merchant raiders but act as part of the battle fleet and form their own divisions in the line of battle to bulk out the line. The later USN pre-dreads were good ships, when they were not putting turrets on top of others but they were generally inferior sea boats to the RN's ships, built for the Pacific waters and more coastal waters on the atlantic and of course the carribean.

Don't get too tied up in prewar doctrines. Within a few months of the opening of WW1, both the UK and Germany had largely abandoned prewar doctrines. Once the USA realized it AC are best used for Merchant raiding, that is what will likely happen.

Again, people like to focus on the naval war, which the UK can lose the war on, but can't win. The UK can be starved into submission, but Germany can't be starved, neither can the USA. Germany has too many neutral ports to use. It is like most threads on a USA/UK war. USA gains Canada. USA loses Philippines and maybe Hawaii. USA is now a Central Power if any future war like WW1 happens, at least if the UK is in the Entente.

Were not German Battleships designed for a shorter range, they would have struggle, even if not opposed to cross the Atlantic to join US allies?

Yes, range is an issue, but the bigger issue is the possible war with France/Russia. The High Seas Fleet stays in German waters and the Bulk of the UK capital ship do too. Here is the big problem for the UK. Sealion. If the UK sends too many ships fight the USA, especially somewhere like the Pacific, Germany has all the things need for success - Control of the Seas, Lots of Freighters, Plenty of High Quality land units. Loss of control of the North Sea can mean the end of the British Empire and England becomes a clients state of Germany.

England will likely follow much the same strategy it had in the 1920's and 1930's for War with the USA. Abandon Canada except for Halifax. Try to take over seas USA possessions. Negotiate a peace deal. People love to talk about mobilizing India, and it is doable, for the right price. De Facto Independence for India - it would be call a Dominion. This is the reason that India was not fully mobilized in either WW1 or WW2. India could raise an Army of over 30 million, but when the 30 million combat veterans with an Indian nationality returned home, 100,000 Brits couldn't not hope to contain them.

 

[BlondieBC]

And a much larger USN than in OTL, too... Otherwise, although the USA might manage to "liberate" Canada, it's just lost all of those ex-Spanish territories again (and Britain probably grants the Philipines a higher level of self-government than the USA was offering at that time, in order to win them over quickly), there's probably a RN/RM force helping the Hawaiian monarchy to re-assert itself against the American planters, the USA can pretty much say goodbye to any idea of overseas trade by sea until its government comes to terms...
And just how good were the USA's naval bases' defences -- and those of the ports in which it would have been building warships, too -- in those days?

Yes, the USA has vulnerabilities, but the UK has issues too. First, Canada for all the conquered Spanish lands is a good trade. It was in 1912, and it would still be today. Second, the UK barely held on to South Africa in 1902. The UK will lose Canada. France is as likely to want some extra English colonies as it is to gain A-L back.

And trade - the USA prefers to trade. If the UK can't trade, it will starve to death. Go pull the trade stats for the UK. The loss of Canada alone creates a major food issue in the UK. The USA can live longer with lower rubber and banana imports than the UK can live with the lost cereals and meat from Canada.

 

[sharlin]

You're underestimating the sheer size of the RN though Blondie. Even without Dreadnoughts the sheer number of ships the RN can send to fight america without weakening the fleet against the small forces of the German fleet are staggering.

Lets take this dust up as happening at the same time period as the 1905 Russo/Japanese War in Battleships alone you've got this going from oldest to newest.

6 Admiral Class Battleships in Reserve
2 Nile Class Battleships in reserve
1 Victoria Class Battleship In reserve
8 Royal Soverign Class Battleships
2 Centurion Class 2nd Class Battleships
1 Renown Class 2nd Class Battleship
9 Majestic Class Battleships
6 Canopus Class Battleships
8 Formidable Class battleships (basically the same ship as the Misaka, flagship of the Japanese Fleet at Tishuma)
6 Duncan Class Battleships
2 Swiftsure Class Battleships
5 King Edward Class Battleships with 3 more under construction.

A grand total of 56 Battleships. And the reserve ships were in perfect condition only needing coal, ammo and crew. All the rest were in service, fully manned, fully deployed.

Then you're talking hundreds of Cruisers, armoured, protected and light, then hundreds of Destroyers and Torpedo Boats.

The RN could contain the HSF with the Channel fleet, re-deploy the Med fleet, pull together the Afraica, India, Far Eastern, South American, North American (west coast and East coast) squadrons together and go against the USN.

Lets compair to the German fleet

4 Brandenburg Class Battleships
5 Kaiser Fredrich Class Battleships
5 Wittelsbach Class Battleships
2 maybe 4 Braunshwig class Battleships with 1 more under construction.

The USN

1 Texas Class Battleship
3 Indiana Class Battleships
1 Iowa Class Battleship
2 Kearsage Class Battleships
3 Illinois Class Battleships
3 Maine Class Battleships
5 Virginia Class Battleships fitting out, launched in 1904.

For a combined total of 34 Battleships, although you might as well discount the Brandenburd Class and the Texas as both were basically coast defence ships, poor range, poor sea keeping, next to no secondary armament to keep them safe from Destroyers, Cruisers and torpedo boats.

Please do not be under any illusion that the Germans could tie down the RN or that the RN would be overwhelmed by the two fleets.

 

[AdA]

no contest in battle fleet terms

The numbers demonstrate just what the RN lost when th Dreadnough race began and their quantitative and qualitative edge was lost.
The problem here is that if we move the war forward it makes no sense politically, and if we move it back the RN is strong enough to win it to the point of making it boringly predictable. Those RN BB were not only more numerous, they were far more capable.
Only hope for some fun is to move all the USN CA in service dates to 1905/6, change the HsF into a more capable force, and you have the USN Battle fleet limited to a costal protection role and the USN Armoured Cruisers chassing british trade to force a political settlement. A repeat 1812?
The US Army was also very small and not capable, without a major build up, of taking Canada, and an invasion of the continental USA would also be unlikely to suceed, so we would have the german and US battle fleets in harbor, the RN Battlefleet split into two forces and the German and US Cruisers playing "guerre de corse" for all it was worth.

 

[Lord High Executioner]

the further West it is fought the better will the US navy perform (Fleets quickly lost their "power" when venturing further from homeports)

I might be missing some finer points regarding the definition of "homeport" or
misunderstanding the actual importance and usefulness of the places, but
how far from Halifax and Bermuda does the Royal Navy start losing its
"power"?

 

[sharlin]

Simple answer

It does not.

Mr White and D'erincourt were smart enough to build big ships with big coal holds giving them a formidable cruising range.

 

[sendô]

At the turn of the century, around 1900 then:

The two power rule was just that - the RN was stronger than the next two navies combined, which at that time was more likely to include the French Navy than the German.

If we're talking a straight naval conflict, then the RN wins against both. Easily. The trick of course is to get the Germans and Americans to come out to fight knowing this.

If not then it's a long blockade of Europe and north America, whilst the RN takes all of Germany's and America's overseas possessions.

In terms of invading Canada, the US had no proper standing army at this time and relied on a few reserves. Even IOTL WW1 they had nothing and had to build up from scratch. There isn't going to be an invasion of Canada any time soon.

A lot would hinge on other nations. It stands to reason that all of the Empire backs Britain. The French and Russians were allied in opposition to Germany at this time. Most likely they stay neutral, but if they're going to side with anyone it's going to be Britain which could well lead to an earlier Great War dragging A-H and Italy in.

Britain for it's part had been enjoying it's splendid isolation period and would stand alone, but a war against two of the world's foremost industrial powers would bring it back into the market for friends with a jolt. Expect Japan to side with Britain and get the Philippines and Hawaii as spoils.

The longer the conflict drags on of course the more that the US is going to be able to make it's industrial might felt, and the more Britain is going to struggle with imports.

 

[Grimbald]

Time is everything...

Six month war...white peace, US possibly loses Phillies

One year war...RN destroys much of USN, takes Phillies and Hawaii; US takes western Canada

Two year war... RN destroys more of USN, takes Phillies and Hawaii; US takes virtually all of Canada, starts rebuilding fleet

Three year war...UK in grave danger, US invades select UK colonies

Four year war...US writes terms for an unkind peace

 

[sharlin]

The RN could mount raids against the US coast, come along, bombard a port or two, use cruisers and other ships to attack US coastal trade.

Also where is the US going to get this army to take Canada from?

 

[David S Poepoe]

The German predreadnoughts would have very litte chance of forcing their way out of the GIUK gap into the Atlantic. Slow, shortranged and underarmed, they would better deployed close to their bases as a fleet in being to tie up a part of the RN battle Fleet.

The Imperial Germans didn't have to worry about the GIUK gap, they just worried about the Channel, the Scotland-Finland Gap and the Baltic. They didn't need to deploy their forces to other areas except where visibility was low - so why worry about speed and size of armament - and any contest was going to be decided right in the North Sea - so no need for great range in steaming.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Meanwhile where do the UK's French, Mexican and other allies come in during this scenario?

 

[AdA]

The Imperial Germans didn't have to worry about the GIUK gap, they just worried about the Channel, the Scotland-Finland Gap and the Baltic. They didn't need to deploy their forces to other areas except where visibility was low - so why worry about speed and size of armament - and any contest was going to be decided right in the North Sea - so no need for great range in steaming.

Wich makes it impossible for them to cut British lines of comunication. The HsF, unable to break into the Atlantic, is just a very expensive coastal defence force. Even if they can control all their areas of interest (Baltic and North Sea), the RN can still cut all their comunications out of Europe.
The HsF is therefore a non-Maham battle fleet, unable to win a decisive victory, and therefore futile. The German fleet was trying the naval equivalent of invading russia with an Army that couldnt break out of the Pripet marshes...
Geography is a bitch. Just ask the Soviet Admirals...

 

[BlondieBC]

You're underestimating the sheer size of the RN though Blondie. Even without Dreadnoughts the sheer number of ships the RN can send to fight america without weakening the fleet against the small forces of the German fleet are staggering.

Lets take this dust up as happening at the same time period as the 1905 Russo/Japanese War in Battleships alone you've got this going from oldest to newest.

6 Admiral Class Battleships in Reserve
2 Nile Class Battleships in reserve
1 Victoria Class Battleship In reserve
8 Royal Soverign Class Battleships
2 Centurion Class 2nd Class Battleships
1 Renown Class 2nd Class Battleship
9 Majestic Class Battleships
6 Canopus Class Battleships
8 Formidable Class battleships (basically the same ship as the Misaka, flagship of the Japanese Fleet at Tishuma)
6 Duncan Class Battleships
2 Swiftsure Class Battleships
5 King Edward Class Battleships with 3 more under construction.

A grand total of 56 Battleships. And the reserve ships were in perfect condition only needing coal, ammo and crew. All the rest were in service, fully manned, fully deployed.

Then you're talking hundreds of Cruisers, armoured, protected and light, then hundreds of Destroyers and Torpedo Boats.

The RN could contain the HSF with the Channel fleet, re-deploy the Med fleet, pull together the Afraica, India, Far Eastern, South American, North American (west coast and East coast) squadrons together and go against the USN.

Lets compair to the German fleet

4 Brandenburg Class Battleships
5 Kaiser Fredrich Class Battleships
5 Wittelsbach Class Battleships
2 maybe 4 Braunshwig class Battleships with 1 more under construction.

The USN

1 Texas Class Battleship
3 Indiana Class Battleships
1 Iowa Class Battleship
2 Kearsage Class Battleships
3 Illinois Class Battleships
3 Maine Class Battleships
5 Virginia Class Battleships fitting out, launched in 1904.

For a combined total of 34 Battleships, although you might as well discount the Brandenburd Class and the Texas as both were basically coast defence ships, poor range, poor sea keeping, next to no secondary armament to keep them safe from Destroyers, Cruisers and torpedo boats.

Please do not be under any illusion that the Germans could tie down the RN or that the RN would be overwhelmed by the two fleets.

It is interesting you pick 1905, which is really the peak year for RN relative power. This shows how the dreadnought class, while a great idea, actually made more British ships obsolete than UK ships. I am not double checking your numbers.

You show sixteen German ships, and with the UK idea of keeping 2-1 odds, it keeps AT LEAST 32 ships at home. Now the remaining 22 UK ships to 18 ships is close enough the battle will be close call, but likely the USA dominates near its ports and the UK near its ports. Now remember, you picked the peak year of UK relative strength, so you have to have the political situation. France's traditional enemy is still the UK. If the UK ever loses control of the seas for a few weeks, the Sealion can happen, and the British empire will end. So the UK likely keeps well over 32 ships in its home port. Also, the UK ally helped maimed France's critical ally, so you probably picked the worst diplomatic year to start a war for the UK.

The hundreds of cruisers will be chasing AMC's all over the world. They also will be handling the surge in submarine construction. Look at what one ship the SMS Edmen did. The USA/Germany combo will be able to put out hundreds of AMC, and they will have to ports to resupply them.

You comment of pulling ships is double counting. You can't start a list of the entire British Navy, and then also talk about pulling out ships from other seas. You should either start the analysis with the Ships in home waters combined with an analysis of the ships that can be pulled from other fleets. Or you can just assume they pull them all, and start with a total list.

And also, Canada falls. The only question is does it take one or two years for the USA. And I never said the USA sweeps the seas of the UK, but that the UK can't win the war at sea, only lose. Even if the UK sinks the entire USA and German capital ships at 2-1 loss ratio in favor of the UK, the UK still lose Canada, and the USA keeps building ships, so does Germany. So after the initial surge of fighting, even in a UK wank, it is either a negotiated peace or a long war that as likely break the British Empire as result in a British win that increase the power of the UK.

And it is nice to say the UK has "better sailors, better admirals", but WW1 and WW2 show the UK both wins and loses, even when it has noticeable advantages in ship numbers. It is a nice story the RN never loses a sea battle, but it lost a lot of them, but normally it had both a bigger Navy, a better port system, and a bigger ability to replace ships. In this war, it starts with a slightly larger navy, but the other side will build ships faster, and the USA/Germany have a better terrain for the war. Unless you think a Philippine /Hawaii for Canada is a good strategic trade, the the UK comes out badly in this war.

Now as in most major wars, who are the real winners? The great powers who did not fight. France will likely negotiate favorable treaties for its favors as quite possibly would the Ottomans, Italy, Spain, etc.

 

[BlondieBC]

Six month war...white peace, US possibly loses Phillies

One year war...RN destroys much of USN, takes Phillies and Hawaii; US takes western Canada

Two year war... RN destroys more of USN, takes Phillies and Hawaii; US takes virtually all of Canada, starts rebuilding fleet

Three year war...UK in grave danger, US invades select UK colonies

Four year war...US writes terms for an unkind peace

Agreed, Excellent summary assuming no other major powers get involved.

The RN could mount raids against the US coast, come along, bombard a port or two, use cruisers and other ships to attack US coastal trade.

Also where is the US going to get this army to take Canada from?

Sure they could burn a city. And it might even be probable the UK does it. But if the UK does such an act, the war will last as long as it takes for the USA to win. Here is what you Brit lovers don't get. If you burn the USA, you will have to occupy the Entire USA and dictate peace terms to the USA government deep in the interior. Getting from New York to Kansas City is about the same distance as landing in Calais and conquering Moscow.

In 1917, we had a million men in Europe in about 12 months. We can get a million men to Canada in about 6-9 months. Our army capacity is 10-15 million, the UK tops out at 4-6 from the British Isles and 1.0-1.5 from Canada. South Africa recently rebelled. Aussies and NZ are not enough. The USA wins the land war on weight of numbers alone, regardless of the number of bad decisions we make. And if you send the bulk of your army to North America, it makes you keep a higher % of your ships in the UK. You can't send the majority of the Royal Navy and the British Army to North America without facing grave risks.

This ultra powerful UK you talk about was not even able to beat the Turks and take Istanbul. Taking New York alone will tax the UK strength. Remember, it is a lot easier to defend a port than attack it. Cheap ships like torpedo boats and submarines combined with minefields are a huge force multiplier for the capital ships. And the entire force the UK can safely commit to fight the USA is less powerful, but slightly larger than the Gallipoli expedition. Hitler is more likely to successfully do Sealion than the UK is to occupy the Eastern Seaboard of the USA, and even if they do, the war is just beginning.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Wich makes it impossible for them to cut British lines of comunication. The HsF, unable to break into the Atlantic, is just a very expensive coastal defence force. Even if they can control all their areas of interest (Baltic and North Sea), the RN can still cut all their comunications out of Europe.
The HsF is therefore a non-Maham battle fleet, unable to win a decisive victory, and therefore futile. The German fleet was trying the naval equivalent of invading russia with an Army that couldnt break out of the Pripet marshes...
Geography is a bitch. Just ask the Soviet Admirals...

The general purpose of the German Fleet was to protect German ports from being blockaded by enemy forces in the eventuality of war thus permitting the continued importation of goods and grains. The decisive battle is going to be fought in the North Sea so the main battlefleet will be deployed there.

 

[BlondieBC]

The HsF is therefore a non-Maham battle fleet, unable to win a decisive victory, and therefore futile. The German fleet was trying the naval equivalent of invading russia with an Army that couldnt break out of the Pripet marshes...
Geography is a bitch. Just ask the Soviet Admirals...

And so is the Grand Fleet. Please explain the scenario win by the Grand Fleet that causes the USA to sue for peace? There is 0.0% chance in this scenario that the Grand Fleet can cause either the USA or Germany to sue for peace. Not without France or Russia coming in on the war on the UK side.