The North Atlantic War of 1938-??

[TFSmith121]

In 1938, the US share of world manufacturing output was 31.4 percent; that of the UK in the same year was 10.7 percent (numbers from Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers).

Now, without explaining the politics that leads to the situation, posit that the US decides to mount a transatlantic campaign aimed at forcing a lasting political change in the UK.

To make the logistics within the realm of the possible, Ireland allies with the US.

Set aside any consideration of the historical military balance, etc. Presume both the US and UK have professional armed forces, and are equipped at relatively the same levels of technology; industrial production, of course, is a different question. Presume the production numbers mirror the manufacturing output numbers - essentially, 3-1 in favor of the US.

There are no foreign entanglements or alliances.

Thoughts on the prosecution and/or ultimate success of such a conflict?

Best,

 

[jsb]

- 1938 with

no foreign entanglements or alliances.

is this realistic ?

-

To make the logistics within the realm of the possible, Ireland allies with the US.

How long does it take to drive down from Belfast ? v cross the Atlantic ?

Set aside any consideration of the historical military balance, etc. Presume both the US and UK have professional armed forces, and are equipped at relatively the same levels of technology; industrial production, of course, is a different question. Presume the production numbers mirror the manufacturing output numbers - essentially, 3-1 in favor of the US.

So just a exercise about can you cross an ocean (with or without Ireland ?) with a 3 to 1 advantage ? (IJN through at WNT they needed 70% to win the decisive battle so I think "USA" will win eventually v "UK" (but depending on starting forces it might take a long time).

 

[TFSmith121]

1) - 1938 with is this realistic ?

2) - How long does it take to drive down from Belfast ? v cross the Atlantic ?


3) So just a exercise about can you cross an ocean (with or without Ireland ?) with a 3 to 1 advantage ? (IJN through at WNT they needed 70% to win the decisive battle so I think "USA" will win eventually v "UK" (but depending on starting forces it might take a long time).

1) No, but humor me...

2) Depends on traffic, certainly.

3) You might think that; I couldn't possibly comment.

Best,

 

[Julius Vogel]

Interesting scenario, but what happens with the Dominions? Arguably they are not foreign at this point (in post War terms anyway). It would be rather hard not to have them enter such a war at this point. Not that this massively helps the numbers imbalance.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Does the USA occupy Bermuda and the British West Indies? Does Canada declare itself neutral?

And if the USA and British Empire are fighting each other I can see the Japanese helping themselves to Malaya and Singapore making the USA and Japan de facto allies.

 

[lukedalton]

In 1938, the US share of world manufacturing output was 31.4 percent; that of the UK in the same year was 10.7 percent (numbers from Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers).

Population was 138.3 million in the US, 47.6 million in the UK.

Now, without explaining the politics that leads to the situation, posit that the US decides to mount a transatlantic campaign aimed at forcing a lasting political change in the UK.

To make the logistics within the realm of the possible, Ireland allies with the US.

Set aside any consideration of the historical military balance, etc. Presume both the US and UK have professional armed forces, and are equipped at relatively the same levels of technology; industrial production, of course, is a different question. Presume the production numbers mirror the manufacturing output numbers - essentially, 3-1 in favor of the US.

There are no foreign entanglements or alliances.

Thoughts on the prosecution and/or ultimate success of such a conflict?

Best,

Naturally the US win, geez with all this premise it's the only reasonable endgame...please try to make things at least interesting or at least don't give at the good old US even more advantages that she hold in OTL

 

[Derek Pullem]

Why isn't this in ASB?

You've magically created a US Army of four times its OTL size?

Or does the US start with its OTL 1938 strength?

 

[Astrodragon]

This should be in ASB.

First, the logistics issue is impossible for 3-4 years (at least). Ireland doesn't help, its occupied by the British army before a US force could even cross the Atlantic.

Then you get the problem of how do you get past a fleet as big as yours, with loads of highly aggressive submarines working on the home ground, with land-based air support.

The OTL US Army was tiny, you need ASB's to make it have even a chance of being large enough.

And even without allies, you aren't fighting the UK - you are fighting the British Empire. There's a big difference.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

In 1938, the US share of world manufacturing output was 31.4 percent; that of the UK in the same year was 10.7 percent (numbers from Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers).

Population was 138.3 million in the US, 47.6 million in the UK.

Now, without explaining the politics that leads to the situation, posit that the US decides to mount a transatlantic campaign aimed at forcing a lasting political change in the UK.

To make the logistics within the realm of the possible, Ireland allies with the US.

Set aside any consideration of the historical military balance, etc. Presume both the US and UK have professional armed forces, and are equipped at relatively the same levels of technology; industrial production, of course, is a different question. Presume the production numbers mirror the manufacturing output numbers - essentially, 3-1 in favor of the US.

There are no foreign entanglements or alliances.

Thoughts on the prosecution and/or ultimate success of such a conflict?

Best,

Which is itself within the realm of the impossible, surely. The leaders of Ireland (whoever they are in TTL), provided that they retain some degree of sanity, are aware that if they declare war on the United Kingdom then the United Kingdom will overrun Ireland utterly, long before American forces can deployed to Ireland in sufficient numbers as to have any serious hope of preventing this, absent any long-ago PoDs with huge changes in the relative military strength of Ireland and the United Kingdom which are, themselves, prevented by the OP's specification.

I honestly don't see what the OP hopes to achieve by this post. Yes, of course if you create an ASB scenario in order to stack all the odds in the USA's favour then the USA will win; this is self-evident. Is that obvious fact the only thing the OP is hoping to gain from this thread?

In any real Anglo-American war scenario one would have to think of:

• Why is the conflict occurring, what does each side hope to gain, and, consequently, how strong is the political will on each side to fight to the finish rather than coming to some form of negotiated settlement that doesn't require an expensive trans-Atlantic war?
• What interest does the USA have in not just defeating the British Empire and conquering poor old Canada (ever the victim in Ameriwanks—AH Canada is North America's Poland) but invading the United Kingdom itself?
• How large are the two sides' navies pre-war? (The number of ships one can build isn't the only thing that's relevant to a naval war across the Atlantic; how many ships one already has at the start is also relevant.)
• What do the other European great powers—depending on the TL, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Spain, Austria, whoever else there might be—think about the prospect of an extremely powerful USA with apparently no regard for the sovereignty of great powers, let alone weaker nations, defeating a European great power and gaining a foothold right next to mainland Europe which can be used to project power into the rest of Europe?
• If it occurs in the context of a European conflict, who is involved in this conflict, why are they fighting it, and why on Earth do the United Kingdom's opponents possibly conclude that the sensible way to invade the United Kingdom is from across the Atlantic Ocean rather than across the English Channel or, if France and Belgium are allied with the United Kingdom and remain unconquered, the Bay of Biscay or the North Sea?

 

[TFSmith121]

So is the consensus that the U.S. cannot deploy

So is the consensus the U.S. cannot deploy sufficient forces to force a lasting political change upon the UK in such a transatlantic conflict?

Or that it can?

Again, set aside any preconceptions about existing force structures, simply that they presumably mirror the economic numbers.

Just for clarity, presume Canada is neutral.

Best,

 

[Derek Pullem]

So is the consensus the U.S. cannot deploy sufficient forces to force a lasting political change upon the UK in such a transatlantic conflict?

Or that it can?

Again, set aside any preconceptions about existing force structures, simply that the presumably mirror the economic numbers.

Just for clarity, presume Canada is neutral.

Best,

So ignore the historical US army size (and navy?). You really aren't very clear on the forces available to this "USA" in 1938

Ignore the fact that Canada is a staunch UK ally

Ignore the fact that Ireland is not an US ally

And now lets discuss the possibility of this "USA" imposing regime change on this "UK"

Why don't you just call them Blue and Red - it would make as much sense.

 

[TFSmith121]

Plan DEEP RED?

So ignore the historical US army size (and navy?). You really aren't very clear on the forces available to this "USA" in 1938

Ignore the fact that Canada is a staunch UK ally

Ignore the fact that Ireland is not an US ally

And now lets discuss the possibility of this "USA" imposing regime change on this "UK"

Why don't you just call them Blue and Red - it would make as much sense.

Plan DEEP RED?

I'm just curious if there is consensus on this one or not.

I have my own opinion, of course - this is more just to see where the differences are...

Thanks.

Best,

 

[Derek Pullem]

Plan DEEP RED?

I'm just curious if there is consensus on this one or not.

I have my own opinion, of course - this is more just to see where the differences are...

Thanks.

Best,

I think what we are all struggling with is the initial premise. What exactly does

Again, set aside any preconceptions about existing force structures, simply that they presumably mirror the economic numbers.

mean?

 

[Saphroneth]

Should we also assume that India, large chunks of Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Burma, Malaya and the Palestinian Mandate are neutral? (Those affect the economic calculations, some significantly, because the UK's manufacturing power is less than that of the whole British Empire put together - India in particular was quite industrialized).

Should we assume the US is pulling itself out of a great depression?

Should we assume that the US has a navy three times that of the RN? (That alone makes this parodically silly, the RN happened to be the world's largest OTL in 1938).

Should we assume the US has instituted the peacetime draft for the first time in its history?

...or should we just assume that the only things that matter are raw numbers of factories and of population, in which case the outcome of quite a lot of historical wars go rather differently than OTL...

 

[TFSmith121]

Means the US can sustain a total force structure three

I think what we are all struggling with is the initial premise. What exactly does

mean?

Means the US can sustain a total force structure roughly three times the size of that of the UK, in any combination of aviation, naval, and military strength.

Best,

 

[Mike D]

Means the US can sustain a total force structure roughly three times the size of that of the UK, in any combination of aviation, naval, and military strength.

Best,

Only if the American people want to. Why would the population of the US wish to pay the taxes required to sustain a force three times the size of the UK in order to invade the UK against what was still the largest navy afloat (I believe) in 1938?

For the UK this is a war of survival. It's not for the US. The people of the UK are going to be willing to make sacrifices for the war that the people of the US have no reason to make.

 

[TFSmith121]

Not much heavy industry outside of the UK in 1938...

Should we also assume that India, large chunks of Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Burma, Malaya and the Palestinian Mandate are neutral? (Those affect the economic calculations, some significantly, because the UK's manufacturing power is less than that of the whole British Empire put together - India in particular was quite industrialized).

Should we assume the US is pulling itself out of a great depression?

Should we assume that the US has a navy three times that of the RN? (That alone makes this parodically silly, the RN happened to be the world's largest OTL in 1938).

Should we assume the US has instituted the peacetime draft for the first time in its history?

...or should we just assume that the only things that matter are raw numbers of factories and of population, in which case the outcome of quite a lot of historical wars go rather differently than OTL...

1) Not much heavy industry outside of the UK in 1938...
2) Economic history simply reflects the 3-1 US advantage;
3) Total force structure and mobilization capabilities are 3-1 in favor of the US, but you can assume any rational split of air-land-sea you wish.
4) Personnel policies are whatever you wish, with the end result of 3, above.
5) Simplest approach, certainly.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Interesting point...

Only if the American people want to. Why would the population of the US wish to pay the taxes required to sustain a force three times the size of the UK in order to invade the UK against what was still the largest navy afloat (I believe) in 1938?

For the UK this is a war of survival. It's not for the US. The people of the UK are going to be willing to make sacrifices for the war that the people of the US have no reason to make.

Interesting point...

Best,

 

[nbcman]

1) Not much heavy industry outside of the UK in 1938...
2) Economic history is as historical;
3) Total force structure and mobilization capabilities are 3-1 in favor of the US, but you can assume any rational split of air-land-sea you wish.
4) Personnel policies are whatever you wish, with the end result of 3, above.
5) Simplest approach, certainly.

Best,

Your response to item #2 means that the 3-1 US-UK force imbalance can only occur due to outside intervention (ASB). If the US equipped such a force, the Depression in the US would be finished due to the needs of supplying that force. And the intervening force would have had to been feeding the UK lead based tea for them not to notice the US buildup and trying to compete with the US buildup.

 

[TFSmith121]

I tweaked it to try and make my response clear

Your response to item #2 means that the 3-1 US-UK force imbalance can only occur due to outside intervention (ASB). If the US equipped such a force, the Depression in the US would be finished due to the needs of supplying that force. And the intervening force would have had to been feeding the UK lead based tea for them not to notice the US buildup and trying to compete with the US buildup.

2) Economic history simply reflects the 3-1 US advantage;

as in, either its equally lousy for the US and UK or its equally good. Bottom line is the US has three times the industrial production of the UK.

Best,