The North Atlantic War of 1938-??

[Perfidious Albion]

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?

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:

[snip]

There is no real war where you can presume that everything occurs in a vacuum, with lots of other places that would realistically be likely to be involved apparently not existing and with no data on how the war is supposed to have started, why it is being fought and what each side is aiming for from it. If you are really going to attempt to strip everything of real life from this scenario and turn it into "X vs Y: Deadliest Warrior-Nation" then it belongs in ASB.

 

[Saphroneth]

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,

Does it mean they start with one?
That's not very historical for the US, the US has never had a large standing army.

For example - the British Army on the outbreak of WW2 was roughly 900,000 men, this up from 380,000 the previous year with a low of 317,000 men in the depths of the Depression.

The US army was 175,000 men strong in 1939.
Thus it can be seen that the British idea of a standing army was six times larger by population size than the US one.

This is not a minor matter.



As for the navies OTL...


RN 1938
12 BB + 5 constructing (KGV)
3 BC
7 CV + 4 constructing (Illustrious)
15 CA
38 CL + 6 constructing
8 CL-AA + 11 constructing
(Note that in the case of CL and CL-AA, many more ships were already ordered and would begin construction by the end of 1939.)
113 modern DD + 24 constructing (WW2 start numbers)
68 old DD
53 modern SS + 11 constructing (WW2 start numbers)
12 old SS


The USN had:
15 battleships + 2 constructing (NorCal)
0 BC
5 CV + 0 constructing (Hornet laid down 1939)
17 CA + 1 constructing (Wichita)
17 CL + 2 constructing (St Louis)
4 CL-AA (possibly, can't find which type) + 0 constructing
119 DD (approx) + 15 constructing (approx.).
approx. 90 SS

The USN has rough parity in ships in the water of CA and above, inferiority in CL and DD, superiority in SS, and much, much less construction in the pipeline.

 

[TFSmith121]

I'm just looking for some thinking on the

There is no real war where you can presume that everything occurs in a vacuum, with lots of other places that would realistically be likely to be involved apparently not existing and with no data on how the war is supposed to have started, why it is being fought and what each side is aiming for from it. If you are really going to attempt to strip everything of real life from this scenario and turn it into "X vs Y: Deadliest Warrior-Nation" then it belongs in ASB.

I'm just looking for some thinking on the time and distance factor; is such a campaign seen as possible or not, given the geography, economics, and technology correlation suggested above...

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Look at it entirely on the macro-scale

Does it mean they start with one?

Look at it entirely on the macro-scale.

If the US has three blanks (battleships, infantry divisions, fighter squadrons), the UK has 1.

Best,

 

[Saphroneth]

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,

Since your (5) is your agreeing that we should just work things out based on population and construction capability, allow me to show a few wars that should have gone differently.

WW2 phase 1 (Germany versus France + Britain)
France and Britain win.

American Revolutionary War (Britain versus Continentals)
Britain win.

Vietnam War (USA + South Vietnam versus North Vietnam)
USA win.

Soviet-Afghanistan War (USSR versus Afghanistan)
Soviets win.

Iran-Iraq War (Iran versus Iraq)
SOMEONE wins.




You can't just flatten everything down to population and industry, other things like... well, geography for a start... also have an effect.

And just to bring it up, this calculation would mean that in a Trent War the British would win quite handily, on account of having three times the industry and the same population of the metropole.

 

[Mike D]

I'm just looking for some thinking on the time and distance factor; is such a campaign seen as possible or not, given the geography, economics, and technology correlation suggested above...

Best,

Well considering you want to invent force levels available, despite the RN and USN being roughly of a strength and the British Army being much stronger than the US Army at the time (no idea on the RAF vs USAAC, but the USAAC is fairly irrelevant in a trans-Atlantic war anyway), just pretend it is possible and that the US walk straight into the UK with no opposition. Job done.

 

[TFSmith121]

Geography certainly is in play; there's a reason I titled

Since your (5) is your agreeing that we should just work things out based on population and construction capability, allow me to show a few wars that should have gone differently.

You can't just flatten everything down to population and industry, other things like... well, geography for a start... also have an effect.

Geography certainly is in play; there's a reason I titled this what it is...

Consider population to be equivalent between the US/etc and UK/etc. No significant differential whatsoever.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

No, there's a big blue thing in the middle...

Well considering you want to invent force levels available, despite the RN and USN being roughly of a strength and the British Army being much stronger than the US Army at the time (no idea on the RAF vs USAAC, but the USAAC is fairly irrelevant in a trans-Atlantic war anyway), just pretend it is possible and that the US walk straight into the UK with no opposition. Job done.

No, there's a big blue thing in the middle...

Best,

 

[Saphroneth]

Look at it entirely on the macro-scale.

If the US has three blanks (battleships, infantry divisions, fighter squadrons), the UK has 1.

Best,

Oh, I see, so this is a completely ASB world where the 1938 timescale means absolutely nothing whatsoever except a rough tech base.

Where the Great Depression, alliance systems, the historical higher UK defensive budget which is why they had a larger starting force, most of the actual empire which was an integral part of the UK at this time... have all been wiped away.
But the economic differential, for some reason, has not. And the population differential has been recast so it's not 458 million British Empire versus 140 million US, but 140 million US versus 40-odd million Great Britain.

...can we try doing The British Empire versus Washington D.C. next? It's not much sillier.

 

[TFSmith121]

No, there's no population differential; if the US/etc

Oh, I see, so this is a completely ASB world where the 1938 timescale means absolutely nothing whatsoever except a rough tech base.

Where the Great Depression, alliance systems, the historical higher UK defensive budget which is why they had a larger starting force, most of the actual empire which was an integral part of the UK at this time... have all been wiped away.
But the economic differential, for some reason, has not. And the population differential has been recast so it's not 458 million British Empire versus 140 million US, but 140 million US versus 40-odd million Great Britain.

...can we try doing The British Empire versus Washington D.C. next? It's not much sillier.

No, figure there's no population differential; if the US/etc has 140 million to draw on, so does the UK/etc, or if the UK has 458 million to draw on, so does the US.

Pick whatever number you wish.

Best,

 

[Saphroneth]

Fine then, here's how I set it out.

The US army is sixteen million strong, and they have no navy. DONE.

Or the US Navy is six times the size of the Royal Navy, but they have no army. DONE.

Or perhaps the US armed forces are sixteen million strong, then demob riots start because the economy's actively imploding trying to support them.

 

[nbcman]

Geography certainly is in play; there's a reason I titled this what it is...

Consider population to be equivalent between the US/etc and UK/etc. No significant differential whatsoever.

Best,

If you want to simply make up a scenario of a 3-1 advantage, why not just play:

 

[TFSmith121]

I did say a "rational" force structure;

Fine then, here's how I set it out.

The US army is sixteen million strong, and they have no navy. DONE.

Or the US Navy is six times the size of the Royal Navy, but they have no army. DONE.

Or perhaps the US armed forces are sixteen million strong, then demob riots start because the economy's actively imploding trying to support them.

I did say a "rational" force structure; so the US, presumably, concentrates on expeditionary forces, the UK on defense forces.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

The blue thing in the middle needs to be larger

If you want to simply make up a scenario of a 3-1 advantage, why not just play:

The blue thing in the middle needs to be larger.

Seriously, real geography, with the industrial production stats as stated (3-1 US advantage), and equivalent population to draw from for mobilization (air, military, naval).

There are three strategic factors of note to set the boundaries; what strategies and/or outcomes suggest themselves?

Best,

 

[RodentRevolution]

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,

What is the relative industrial surplus...how much of US capacity is required to support the US population and infrastructure versus that of the UK?

 

[Mike D]

I did say a "rational" force structure; so the US, presumably, concentrates on expeditionary forces, the UK on defense forces.

Best,

Why would the UK do that when they have an Empire which covers a third of the globe to defend, a resurgent Germany, an Italy determined to rebuild the Roman Empire and an expansionist Japan to worry about?

Why does the US want to invade the UK? Why would the US population accept force levels far higher than they had in real life or the change from isolationism to expeditionary warfare against one of the most powerful nations on earth?

 

[TFSmith121]

Whatever amount one wishes, as long as the 3-1 advantage

What is the relative industrial surplus...how much of US capacity is required to support the US population and infrastructure versus that of the UK?

Whatever amount one wishes, as long as the 3-1 differential in deployable forces is maintained...

Consider it a wash for each.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Consider all the "foreign" or "imperial" issues a

Why would the UK do that when they have an Empire which covers a third of the globe to defend, a resurgent Germany, an Italy determined to rebuild the Roman Empire and an expansionist Japan to worry about?

Why does the US want to invade the UK? Why would the US population accept force levels far higher than they had in real life or the change from isolationism to expeditionary warfare against one of the most powerful nations on earth?

Consider all the "foreign" or "imperial" issues a wash for each, as long as the 3-1 differential in deployable forces is maintained...



Best,

 

[Saphroneth]

I did say a "rational" force structure; so the US, presumably, concentrates on expeditionary forces, the UK on defense forces.

Best,

Okay, why don't you set one up. What do you consider rational?

 

[Mike D]

Consider all the "foreign" or "imperial" issues a wash for each, as long as the 3-1 differential in deployable forces is maintained...

Just tell us how you'd like the war to end then. It makes as much sense as anything you've written so far.