As a side note the protagonist of the story is an American Army Air Force fighter pilot who flies the P38-Z Lightning, a fictitious update of the WWII era fighter. American commanders were in love with the 38 and without the German air force to painfully illustrate it's shortcomings I take liberty in extending its life.
Lions of Babylon: the Third British - American War circa 1956
- Thread starter Lightning Driver
- Start date
That is a strong possibility. Definatly would play a part as the war unfolds in North America, in my story at least.
From a British perspective by mid-1950’s can’t actually see a ‘hot war’ between the UK & USA, but possibly a ‘cold war’.
Following on from the Naval Treaties Britain would have built 14 modern battleships of 35,000 tons plus HMS hood. Ideally they would have the newer 15” guns as WW2 hasn’t happened the battleships are the main symbol of power. Ark Royal plus the Illustrious class of 5 armoured carriers, 15 heavy cruisers, 24 light cruisers and 75 destroyers.
Aircraft production
Order B9/32 produced the Wellington coming into service in 1938; F7/30 gave the Gloster Gladiator or Supermarine 224 by 1937. Replacement orders for Hurricanes & Spitfires came from order F36 & 37/34. Giving the 7 year gap on the previous fighters then these would enter service 1941-42. 20mm gunned fighters would probably enter service 1947-48 with possibly Hawker Typhoons & Sea Furies by 1950.
So by 1956 you would see Britain’s RAF starting to bring in the Meteor, probably still the first jet fighter/bomber in the world, to replace its Mosquitoes.
The FAA would be working on the Supermarine Attacker jets which could fly from the fleet carriers & fit into the hanger decks.
Britain would be fighting policing wars as the empire collapses as more and more colonies fight for independence. The USA could possibly finance and equip these insurgencies.
The army would probably have few tanks and ‘heavy AFV’s’, but plenty of armoured cars and possibly a ‘CP truck’ based MRAP vehicles. Infantry regiments may all be deployed in the ‘light role’ with helicopter aviation would be coming on line as in real time. SAS & commandoes would form the bulk of the army.
Both parties would have developed their own A-bomb, so again I don’t see a ‘hot war’ as the US can really only bomb Canada whereas British Lancaster bombers based in Canada can target most American urban centres. B-29’s could possibly reach UK, but then again we would have the Shorts S32 based bombers too. With the prevailing westerly winds if the US bombed England then the fall out would affect France, Germany, Poland, USSR etc. It could escalate into USA v UK, EU & USSR.
Just a few wee thoughts on the subject.
Following on from the Naval Treaties Britain would have built 14 modern battleships of 35,000 tons plus HMS hood. Ideally they would have the newer 15” guns as WW2 hasn’t happened the battleships are the main symbol of power. Ark Royal plus the Illustrious class of 5 armoured carriers, 15 heavy cruisers, 24 light cruisers and 75 destroyers.
Aircraft production
Order B9/32 produced the Wellington coming into service in 1938; F7/30 gave the Gloster Gladiator or Supermarine 224 by 1937. Replacement orders for Hurricanes & Spitfires came from order F36 & 37/34. Giving the 7 year gap on the previous fighters then these would enter service 1941-42. 20mm gunned fighters would probably enter service 1947-48 with possibly Hawker Typhoons & Sea Furies by 1950.
So by 1956 you would see Britain’s RAF starting to bring in the Meteor, probably still the first jet fighter/bomber in the world, to replace its Mosquitoes.
The FAA would be working on the Supermarine Attacker jets which could fly from the fleet carriers & fit into the hanger decks.
Britain would be fighting policing wars as the empire collapses as more and more colonies fight for independence. The USA could possibly finance and equip these insurgencies.
The army would probably have few tanks and ‘heavy AFV’s’, but plenty of armoured cars and possibly a ‘CP truck’ based MRAP vehicles. Infantry regiments may all be deployed in the ‘light role’ with helicopter aviation would be coming on line as in real time. SAS & commandoes would form the bulk of the army.
Both parties would have developed their own A-bomb, so again I don’t see a ‘hot war’ as the US can really only bomb Canada whereas British Lancaster bombers based in Canada can target most American urban centres. B-29’s could possibly reach UK, but then again we would have the Shorts S32 based bombers too. With the prevailing westerly winds if the US bombed England then the fall out would affect France, Germany, Poland, USSR etc. It could escalate into USA v UK, EU & USSR.
Just a few wee thoughts on the subject.
Some ideas / PODs for the TL:
- Hitler dies in the spring of 1938, after the Anchluss but before the Sudeten crisis.
- Stalin dies in the early 1930s, so there is not a Great Purge.
- The Spanish Civil War doesn't happen / is avoided.
- Alexander I of Yugoslavia is not killed, which causes that the tension with Italy is greater and ends up leading to a war between these two countries, with the addition of Hungary and Bulgaria.
- Chiang Kai-shek discovers in 1935 the plot to kidnap him, which causes that the Xi'an Incident doesn't happen. This would cause that Chiang is much less anti-Japanese than OTL and that consequently the Second Sino-Japanese War doesn't happen.
- The first son of the Crown Prince German Wilhelm, also called Wilhelm, never met Dorothea von Salviati, and marries a woman of royal bloodline, so that when the monarchy is restored in Germany ITTL he isn't excluded from the succession to the throne and is appointed as Kaiser after the death of his father.
- Hitler dies in the spring of 1938, after the Anchluss but before the Sudeten crisis.
- Stalin dies in the early 1930s, so there is not a Great Purge.
- The Spanish Civil War doesn't happen / is avoided.
- Alexander I of Yugoslavia is not killed, which causes that the tension with Italy is greater and ends up leading to a war between these two countries, with the addition of Hungary and Bulgaria.
- Chiang Kai-shek discovers in 1935 the plot to kidnap him, which causes that the Xi'an Incident doesn't happen. This would cause that Chiang is much less anti-Japanese than OTL and that consequently the Second Sino-Japanese War doesn't happen.
- The first son of the Crown Prince German Wilhelm, also called Wilhelm, never met Dorothea von Salviati, and marries a woman of royal bloodline, so that when the monarchy is restored in Germany ITTL he isn't excluded from the succession to the throne and is appointed as Kaiser after the death of his father.
Last edited:
thorr97
Banned
For the US in the 1930s and into the 40s the priority would be to avoid any "foreign entanglements." Lacking any TTL WWII, there'd be no push within the US to support the UK in its stand against the Nazis as the Nazis ceased to exist shortly after Hitler's death. With Germany in disarray and its plans for European domination on hold, at the least, the USSR would no longer be getting all those wonderful high-tech German machine tools and equipment as the Germans would need a lot less raw materials from the USSR since their demand was ebbing.
In such a scenario, I still can't see the UK allying itself with the USSR. The evil monster of Nazism has been banished in Europe - Fascism being something else and not nearly as malevolent (or so perceived) - so there'd only be the evils of Soviet Communism. Those predated the rise of the NSDAP and even with Hitler's death and dissolution of that party, the evils of the Soviet Union would still exist.
The UK would also most likely oppose the Soviets on the same principle as they'd always opposed the Russians when it came to doing anything to enhance Moscow's role in Europe or elsewhere. A stronger Soviet Union / Russia is a threat to the interests of Britannia and thus something to always oppose for any good Englishman. Yes, perfidious Albion would make deals from time to time but that was all in service of The Great Game and always with an eye to keeping things uncontrolled on the Continent.
So if the USSR is economically imploding by the 1950s then the Brits would, if anything, be doing what they could to hasten that implosion rather than doing anything to keep the Soviet Bear propped up.
As to a conflict with the US, I really can't see that.
If the US has become even more "isolationist" in this ATL than in OTL, the Brits would just pretty much leave America alone. The US had its hemisphere and the UK could play at that Great Game everywhere else. There'd be no reason for the US to much worry - or even heed - what the British did in their own sphere of influence as that sphere didn't much cross into America's and our sphere was very much more concerned about the US and the US only. Yes, the US would exert economic pressure on foreign governments in response to domestic outcry. Hence the American position against Imperial Japan over its atrocities in China. This, in response to the loud and powerful "China Lobby" which had the ear of the US public. But sending American troops to China to fight the Japanese? Sending US troops to fight the Japanese directly? That's not terribly likely.
One thing about US military procurement in such an environment would be that it'd be all about being able to strike the nation's enemies as far from our shores as possible - but with as little use of ground troops as possible. We'd want a military that could protect our trade overseas but not one which would risk our getting involved in occupations overseas. Thus, the Navy would be getting the lion's share of War Department spending and then the next largest chunk would go to the Army - but specifically limited to its Air Corps and the procurement of ever larger and longer ranged bomber airplanes. The B-17s demonstrated how such aircraft could assist the Navy in defending the nation's coasts. Thus, even in the smaller economy of the US in this ATL, long range bomber aircraft would enjoy lots of development and procurement dollars.
So the US would be seeking ways to stand off from the rest of the world and be developing the means to assure that. So, American diplomacy would be toward that end and American military development would be as well. As long as no one tried violating the Monroe Doctrine's boundaries, I just can't see the US giving a damn what else happens in the world. At least not to the point of spurring official US government action. Private citizens spending their own money and lives to further this or that cause or faction? Sure. But nothing on America's part that'd require a declaration of war.
Now, one possible spin here is that with China still a morass for Japan, this might cause their economy to so stagnate or implode that Communism comes to power there. This with the covert help of the Soviets. A Red Japan could ally with the USSR for the economic benefit of both. Japanese tech could help develop Soviet Siberian oil and thus be a boon to the USSR and Japan
Something to think about, in any event...
In such a scenario, I still can't see the UK allying itself with the USSR. The evil monster of Nazism has been banished in Europe - Fascism being something else and not nearly as malevolent (or so perceived) - so there'd only be the evils of Soviet Communism. Those predated the rise of the NSDAP and even with Hitler's death and dissolution of that party, the evils of the Soviet Union would still exist.
The UK would also most likely oppose the Soviets on the same principle as they'd always opposed the Russians when it came to doing anything to enhance Moscow's role in Europe or elsewhere. A stronger Soviet Union / Russia is a threat to the interests of Britannia and thus something to always oppose for any good Englishman. Yes, perfidious Albion would make deals from time to time but that was all in service of The Great Game and always with an eye to keeping things uncontrolled on the Continent.
So if the USSR is economically imploding by the 1950s then the Brits would, if anything, be doing what they could to hasten that implosion rather than doing anything to keep the Soviet Bear propped up.
As to a conflict with the US, I really can't see that.
If the US has become even more "isolationist" in this ATL than in OTL, the Brits would just pretty much leave America alone. The US had its hemisphere and the UK could play at that Great Game everywhere else. There'd be no reason for the US to much worry - or even heed - what the British did in their own sphere of influence as that sphere didn't much cross into America's and our sphere was very much more concerned about the US and the US only. Yes, the US would exert economic pressure on foreign governments in response to domestic outcry. Hence the American position against Imperial Japan over its atrocities in China. This, in response to the loud and powerful "China Lobby" which had the ear of the US public. But sending American troops to China to fight the Japanese? Sending US troops to fight the Japanese directly? That's not terribly likely.
One thing about US military procurement in such an environment would be that it'd be all about being able to strike the nation's enemies as far from our shores as possible - but with as little use of ground troops as possible. We'd want a military that could protect our trade overseas but not one which would risk our getting involved in occupations overseas. Thus, the Navy would be getting the lion's share of War Department spending and then the next largest chunk would go to the Army - but specifically limited to its Air Corps and the procurement of ever larger and longer ranged bomber airplanes. The B-17s demonstrated how such aircraft could assist the Navy in defending the nation's coasts. Thus, even in the smaller economy of the US in this ATL, long range bomber aircraft would enjoy lots of development and procurement dollars.
So the US would be seeking ways to stand off from the rest of the world and be developing the means to assure that. So, American diplomacy would be toward that end and American military development would be as well. As long as no one tried violating the Monroe Doctrine's boundaries, I just can't see the US giving a damn what else happens in the world. At least not to the point of spurring official US government action. Private citizens spending their own money and lives to further this or that cause or faction? Sure. But nothing on America's part that'd require a declaration of war.
Now, one possible spin here is that with China still a morass for Japan, this might cause their economy to so stagnate or implode that Communism comes to power there. This with the covert help of the Soviets. A Red Japan could ally with the USSR for the economic benefit of both. Japanese tech could help develop Soviet Siberian oil and thus be a boon to the USSR and Japan
Something to think about, in any event...
A great description of a posible British military in this ATL.
As an interesting twist I created a treaty between the US and the Dominion of Canada signed in the mid 1940s. Mostly an economic agreement between the two nations, a clause of aid or neutrality ensures a deterrent to the possible invasion of North America. In this agreement Canada or the US agrees that if either is attacked they will either come to the others aid or declare strict neutrality in the conflict to provide a geological and political buffer along either nation's land borders. Think NAFTA combine with NATO without Mexico, duty free trade, or the supreme allied commander. When the British Empire attacks the American fleet off Persia Canada honors this treaty as they declare neutrality despite the fact they are a commonwealth nation. Let's say in the second installment the UK does not take this well.
An InterContinental bomber would become a high priority project.
With no war to drive the creation and utility of SAS/commandoes, why would they even exist in the first place? I think its more likely you'd see the British mainly equipped with some form of armored car-based mechanized divisions.
How about the US Calvary. Horses were useful in places like the Philippine Islands as the US maintained a squadron there until it fell to the Japanese in 1942. Perhaps the Americans could use this along with constituted regiments of sea bourne Marines to great affect in the mountains of Iran. US special forces used horses in the early days of the Afghan war following 9/11 so 50 years prior horse soldiers may have still had a place on the battlefield.
Last edited:
thorr97
Banned
A possible spin here is not having the US go into or remain enamored with isolationism. The Hamiltonian School of US foreign policy - or perhaps the Wilsonian one - could come to the fore and thus see the US championing a more active role for America in shaping the world's affairs. Not with the intent of enforcing a Pax Americana but with the intent of "making the world safe for Democracy" and "righting the wrongs being perpetrated against humanity." The US was never a supporter of Colonialism and in OTL that caused no small amount of friction between the US and the UK and Churchill sought a war policy which perpetuated the British Empire - with all its colonial aspects.
In this ATL, by the 1950s, the US has finally recovered from the Great Depression. With no deluge of war material orders coming in to the US in the late 30s the US economy would not have recovered from what the Democrats had inflicted on it and the Republicans would then have gone on to affix blame on the Democrats while positioning themselves as America's economic saviors. The Democratic Party would thus have been banished back to irrelevance outside of the Deep South as FDR's New Deal would come to have been seen as a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars and an unforgivable power grab by Big Government types.
Now, getting the Republican establishment to swing Hamiltonian could be easy enough on the economic side but putting any teeth to that, militarily, would have been no small trick.
Perhaps have the British start doing stupid things, economically and militarily, to maintain their colonial holdings. And have the Soviets - as per OTL - do their best at destabilizing world order by supporting any "independence" movement they could. This, both overtly and covertly.
So you could thus have the Soviets spreading chaos at every turn all over the globe. The British clinging ever tighter to an increasingly restive colonial empire. And the US embarking on some grand international crusade to spread freedom to all peoples everywhere! That'd put the American idealist zealots at odds with the British ruthless imperialist pragmatists whilst the Soviet Communists made sure the revolutionaries and terrorists had as much weaponry as they could handle to spread hell far and wide.
With China being a mess this'd be a great place for America's "China Lobby" to inflame US opinion against Japanese colonialism there. And if Japan allied itself, somehow, with the UK in the absence of OTL WWII - say, perhaps, as a means of holding the Soviets at bay in the Far East in exchange for giving up the worst aspects of the militarism - then perhaps some sparks could start between the US and Japan. Which might then get the UK to start using its economic levers against the US to try and force the American idealists to back off.
In this ATL, by the 1950s, the US has finally recovered from the Great Depression. With no deluge of war material orders coming in to the US in the late 30s the US economy would not have recovered from what the Democrats had inflicted on it and the Republicans would then have gone on to affix blame on the Democrats while positioning themselves as America's economic saviors. The Democratic Party would thus have been banished back to irrelevance outside of the Deep South as FDR's New Deal would come to have been seen as a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars and an unforgivable power grab by Big Government types.
Now, getting the Republican establishment to swing Hamiltonian could be easy enough on the economic side but putting any teeth to that, militarily, would have been no small trick.
Perhaps have the British start doing stupid things, economically and militarily, to maintain their colonial holdings. And have the Soviets - as per OTL - do their best at destabilizing world order by supporting any "independence" movement they could. This, both overtly and covertly.
So you could thus have the Soviets spreading chaos at every turn all over the globe. The British clinging ever tighter to an increasingly restive colonial empire. And the US embarking on some grand international crusade to spread freedom to all peoples everywhere! That'd put the American idealist zealots at odds with the British ruthless imperialist pragmatists whilst the Soviet Communists made sure the revolutionaries and terrorists had as much weaponry as they could handle to spread hell far and wide.
With China being a mess this'd be a great place for America's "China Lobby" to inflame US opinion against Japanese colonialism there. And if Japan allied itself, somehow, with the UK in the absence of OTL WWII - say, perhaps, as a means of holding the Soviets at bay in the Far East in exchange for giving up the worst aspects of the militarism - then perhaps some sparks could start between the US and Japan. Which might then get the UK to start using its economic levers against the US to try and force the American idealists to back off.
I truly enjoy this conversation.
I don't think however that the US was any more benevolent than the British Empire at the time. Our cause to "make the world safe for democracy" was self serving as much as an articulation of national ideals. America fought it's own string of imperialist anti-insurgency wars during the early 20th century in places like the Philippines, Cuba, and the American West. As a veteran we learn about some of these battles in the culture of the service but we surely don't sing about the deposition of Hawaiian Royalty or the suppression of Filipino rebels in the Marines Hyme. Ironicly given this story line, the Boxer Rebellion is held in esteem among Marines but only for the heroic actions of one of their most storied figures. Even though the service's history is full of such instances, details are best left to the academics when instilling the lure of the American fighting man into a new recruit. We all have our faults but I feel the US doesn't enjoy a moral distinction from the British Empire in this regaurd at that time. I intend to show how soldiers try to devorce themselves from the political when the morality of a conflict becomes ambiguous. The modern military subculture of enlisted personnel draws much of its structure from the aura of the Vietnam war and the duty to fight for the soldier to your flank dispite the actions or opinions of those back home or in power. This sentiment is shared by many veterans of the Iraq War of 2003 - 2010 as the justifications for that conflict are believed to be mostly false by the general American public. In this haze many former soldiers struggle with PTSD and homelessnes despite a shower of "thank you for your service" from their countrymen. War gets sideways quickly and often the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The US Cavalry in the Philippines would have killed to have more tanks instead of horses.
No argument with that one. Would make for an interesting story though, American "cowboys" in the Middle East. The China Marines (reference to US Marines stationed in American areas of the international zones in China) also used horses during the '30s but never in combat vs the Japanese. There are also examples of pack horses in the Korean war but these were rare and inconsequential to the war.
marathag
Banned
US was looking for big Bombers since the 1930s.
From the Wiki
The specification that produced the XB-15 began in mid-1933 as "Project A", USAAC discussions regarding the possibility of flying a very large bomber with a range of 5,000 mi (8,000 km).[2] In April 1934 the USAAC contracted with Boeing and Martin to design a bomber capable of carrying 2,000 lb (910 kg) at 200 mph (320 km/h) over a distance of 5,000 miles.[3] Boeing gave the project the internal name of Model 294, while the USAAC called it the XB-15.
Not to be outdone by Boeing, Douglas in 1936 worked slowly on the even larger XB-19, largest plane until the B-36
from Foxtrot Alpha
Under Project D, two major manufacturers, Douglas and Sikorsky, were competing at a chance to build what would be the most advanced bomber ever conceived by the US. Much like modern classified bomber competitions, both manufacturers were given a designation, those being the XBLR-2 for Douglas, and XBLR-3 for Sikorsky, with BLR standing for 'bomber, long-range.' The Army ordered full-scale mock-ups of each design for evaluation.
In mid 1936, after reviewing both companies' mock-ups and design proposals, the Army Air Corps chose Douglas's XBLR-2 design for further development as it was thought to have been superior both in potential performance and its packaging of new technologies.
For Oil, these were production levels in 1940
1940 production
USA 182 Mtons
USSR 29 M
Venezuela 27 M
Iran 10 M
Dutch Indonesia 8M
Mexico 6M
Romania 6M
Columbia 4M
Iraq 4M
Mideast Oil was not a worry to US production till the 1960s. Saudi Oil was all a US project, as Ibn Saud hated the British more than anything. Contact with the US Oil Companies started in 1938
From the Wiki
The specification that produced the XB-15 began in mid-1933 as "Project A", USAAC discussions regarding the possibility of flying a very large bomber with a range of 5,000 mi (8,000 km).[2] In April 1934 the USAAC contracted with Boeing and Martin to design a bomber capable of carrying 2,000 lb (910 kg) at 200 mph (320 km/h) over a distance of 5,000 miles.[3] Boeing gave the project the internal name of Model 294, while the USAAC called it the XB-15.
Not to be outdone by Boeing, Douglas in 1936 worked slowly on the even larger XB-19, largest plane until the B-36
from Foxtrot Alpha
Under Project D, two major manufacturers, Douglas and Sikorsky, were competing at a chance to build what would be the most advanced bomber ever conceived by the US. Much like modern classified bomber competitions, both manufacturers were given a designation, those being the XBLR-2 for Douglas, and XBLR-3 for Sikorsky, with BLR standing for 'bomber, long-range.' The Army ordered full-scale mock-ups of each design for evaluation.
In mid 1936, after reviewing both companies' mock-ups and design proposals, the Army Air Corps chose Douglas's XBLR-2 design for further development as it was thought to have been superior both in potential performance and its packaging of new technologies.
For Oil, these were production levels in 1940
1940 production
USA 182 Mtons
USSR 29 M
Venezuela 27 M
Iran 10 M
Dutch Indonesia 8M
Mexico 6M
Romania 6M
Columbia 4M
Iraq 4M
Mideast Oil was not a worry to US production till the 1960s. Saudi Oil was all a US project, as Ibn Saud hated the British more than anything. Contact with the US Oil Companies started in 1938
Whilst WW2 may indeed have been the birthing pool for these units, they were in existence in other names/form for 100’s of years. The Reivers, Rogers Rangers etc as counter-insurgency, raiding forces.
As for horse power, the Selous Scouts used horses up to their disbandment in 1980.
But none of those forces represented long term doctrinal shifts. They were outliers for use in a specific time and place.
The very conservative British Army isn’t just going to up and restructure most of its force to be commandos.
I could see a Us-UK rivalry if the UK recognized the South during the ACW, with the RN breaking the blocade. The South achieve independence on the battlefield with British support. During ww1 with the RN busy in Europe, the US invade and reintegrate the southern states in to the Union. The franco-british alliance wins ww-1 without US support.
Everything from the ‘new model army’ to date has been for use in a specific time in place, whether large set battles like Waterloo of the Somme or counter insurgents Malaysia, Aden, Kenya, Mogadishu, Oman, Afghanistan. Etc
With ‘the empire’ crumbling down round them the need is for swift mobile commando type operations. So that’s what the army becomes.
thorr97
Banned
"Benevolent?" No, not at all. There'd no doubt be plenty of Americans who earnestly believed that their intent of "making the world safe for Democracy" was absolutely pure and benevolent. And there'd be no few other Americans who were only all too happy to sing that same song - as long as the ensuing contracts, trade agreements, and business deals went their way.
My point being is that such a sentiment could be the way you get the US to "flip" from its isolationism into a sort of international interventionism that eventually puts it at odds with the imperialist United Kingdom. And this, not on anything so "base" as mere economic competition but rather one of high and noble principles where the American actions are for the freedom and benefit of all humanity while the Brits are nothing but grubby imperialists ruthlessly exploiting their colonies for their nearly slave labor. "Yellow Journalism" worked quite well along those lines a half century prior and the bitter memories of World War One's slaughterhouse type of combat would only be among old men by the 1950s.
For the ensuing generations who, in this ATL, haven't seen any major war since The Great War, there'd be less cynicism / worldliness when it came to seeing through the propaganda spouted by the "make the world safe for Democracy" types. There'd be a greater eagerness for America to "assert its rightful place in the world" particularly if the UK was throwing its economic power around to restrict American economic interests.
Combine all that and I think it'd be the way to get the US and UK into an increasingly hostile situation.
Why would the British not continue using the same line infantry model they had been using in colonial warfare to date?
Where would the rebels in the colonies be getting the advanced weaponry that would justify a major sea change in how counter insurgencies are fought?
We’re talking about a world with no WW2 and where the Soviets are falling apart. There’s no mass of WW2 surplus guns or SKS/AK-47’s to funnel to rebels. Rebels are going to be armed with bolt action rifles.