The Generic 3rd British-American War

So having read a fair number of threads I've noticed that nothing (except perhaps the unmentionable sea-mammal) generates as much controversy as a post-1812 pre-1914 British-American war. Unfortunately both sides seem to have rather stereotypical scenarios of how the war plays out (Personally I think both sides have a pre-set template):

British-Victory:
-The US is completely unprepared and gets smashed trying to invade Canada.
-The USN is completely ineffective and the RN has complete control of the seas within a week of the war starting.
-The British Army magically transports thousands of men across the Atlantic and crushes whatever is left of the US army
-Within 3 months the US collapses from lack of trade and a total lack of nation morale

Some problems include:
1. The America was one of Britain's largest trading partners and even during the revolution/1812 both sides kept trading
2. America fought two years against the British with much worse odds and managed to hold together for years, yet post-1814 the British are so scary America folds in about 5 seconds
3.a. America never attempts to get any allies or b. America's allies fail completely


American-Victory:
-The American invasion of Canada is a complete success within 2 weeks
-America magically manages to train a new army from scratch in less than 6 months
-The USN modernizes to an impressive degree and gains local control of the seas
-The British fold from a total lack of national morale

Some problems include:
1. It's not 1941 and the US can't just pull a new army and navy out of its ass.
2. The RN was pretty badass and the British Army while small would still be larger and much better trained than the US Army for at least the first year.
3.a. Britain fails to get any allies or b. Britain's allies do nothing

Generally both sides seem to underestimate the other side's national morale, economic viability and capable military commanders. On the same note the side one is arguing for has near ASB logistical capabilities and never makes any wrong moves despite the command weaknesses both nations showed historically at this time (ACW, Crimea, Boer War etc.).

Personally I'm on the American victory side, but I realized that the extent to which both sides wank their nations is ridiculous and thought someone should point it out since I've seen the exact same debate at least 5 times.
So what does everyone else think of the Generic 3rd Britsh-American War?
 
I think it's nice to see someone says all participants will be stupid fuckers to go war is what. ;)

Naturally, expect some hothead Brit or Yank to eventually degrade the topic with rhetoric and half-baked stats of the time to show why they'd win anyways. :rolleyes:

It really gets to me with those topics, being an Anglo-Canadiophile and yet proud American at the same time.

*fin semi-connected rambling*
 

wormyguy

Banned
My oversimplified analysis of how the final peace treaties would end up at various time periods (taking into account that Britain was generally willing throughout the 18th and 19th centuries to make minor concessions to America to stop war or prevent it).

1783 - ~1820: Most likely status quo ante bellum or minor American gains, major British gains possible if they go all out.

~1820 - 1865: Most likely status quo ante bellum or minor American gains.

1865-1870: Most likely status quo ante bellum or minor American gains, major American gains possible if they go all out.

1870 - 1896: Most likely status quo ante bellum or minor American gains.

1896 - 1914: Most likely medium size American gains, major American gains possible if they go all out.

1914 - present: Major American gains.
 
What's the phrase? Status quo ante bellum? Yeah, that's it.

Quoted for truth. Both nations have so much to lose from fighting each other, with the massive trade with each other and the massive British investment in the USA. And all the causes for war are so over such small issues, like the Venezuela border dispute or the Oregon territory. Some meaningless plots of land. And yet, over these issues, the USA is willing to give up all trade temporarily and smash the economy, while the British are willing to start a massive invasion of the USA. I mean, I think it could happen, but I also think this is the most likely outcome.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
The academic study of the possibility of an Anglo-American War has the conclusion that the British did not want a war with the US, and their primary lever to make sure such a war never happened was to make it plainly obvious that they would immediately clobber the US with everything they had.The idea was to make the idea of a war against Britain so dangerous that the US would never cross the line.

If the US ever did cross the line the British were more than willing to carry through. Massive reinforcements for Canada, a naval squadron for the Lakes, the North American and West Indies squadrons massively reinforced from home and the Mediterranean burning the US coast etc. The idea was simply to overwhelm the US to a point that they'd throw in the towel as quickly as possible and life could go back to normal.

The idea that any of this is "magic" I find rather odd and founded on strawman arguments. No-one has ever argued a major British force will teleport across the Atlantic, but it is easily within the British capabilities to load them onto their ample transports and escort them over the 6-10 days it will take to make port.

In the recent 1896 case, I simply used the 1898 US mobilisation and 1899 UK mobilisation and directly compared them as "historical". This was aparently partisan.
 
It really depends on when the war happens and what the US does. Before the ACW, the US doesn't really have a chance, either on land or at sea. After the ACW, the US has a better chance on land, but no chance at sea. A couple of generations after the ACW, the US had a big population, but had allowed the armed forces to stagnate; modern equipment was sparse. Plus, the army was again tiny. If the US doesn't do any upgrading to it's military, then it still doesn't have a chance. If it spends a couple of decades in buying/making modern army equipment and drafting soldiers and giving them solid training, then it has a good chance on land. At sea, though, it's still a problem. The US could likely build a big force of short range heavily gunned and armored ships to defend it's shorelines, but the RN is the cutting edge of naval warfare, and the issue is really in doubt.
 
Top