The North Atlantic War of 1938-??

[RodentRevolution]

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,

I can't believe that I'm doing this when on holiday
The OP has basically switched the conditions for either the ARW or UK joining the ACW and is getting us screaming that its ASB for the US to do this. He is eventually going to say "so exactly why does it work the other way then?"
Or am I too cynical and suffering from jet lag?

Jet lag, definitely jet lag...

So, your thoughts on the strategic situation as outlined above?

My thoughts are that this thread is not merely a False Flag but an utterly false flag. The reason being that not merely are you trying to contrive a situation that looks a tiny bit like the UK versus the USA in a hypothetical ACW intervention scenario but you are crafting it as deliberately as possible to both ignore the realities of the US_UK situation of 1938 and the US-UK situation of 1860.

My point about surpluses is pertinent and you answer about it has to result in a 3-1 situation upon the strategic map is not. The issue at stake is that in both scenarios the British have lower demands from population and infrastructure+internal transport requirements and in the 1938 situation America is arriving at 3-1 superiority in industrial output from a lower base while in 1860 Britain is descending from a higher base.

Further because of the differing balance of requirements and priorities in both scenarios if based on the realities of the day the British will commit a higher percentage of their resources to military ship building in particular and armaments in general.

It is quite simple really, Great Britain is a small island that just so happened to have roughly comparable population with the entire USA (including those bits temporarily in rebellion at one stage) up until about the end of the 1860s. Even in 1938 this is still having an effect as infrastructure projects tend to be good for about 100 years so Britain is still benefiting from some of its from before the ACW in 1938 while parts of America in 1938 are building infrastructure from scratch to reach British levels including parts that did not even have any in 1860.

Thus in 1860 the US face the theoretical problem that the Royal Navy has been building up its ocean going forces for decades ;the oldest steam battleship in its arsenal appears to have been commissioned in 1828 yet said vessel is still an overwhelming threat to most USN ones apart from a handful of ironclads in 1860. While in 1938 the US face the theoretical problem that the Royal Navy have been building their forces for decades, in OTL this of course meant that the oldest battleship in both navies were in their twenties but without the WNT the supply of British battleships would have been potentially much larger while the US's would not have grown nearly so much.

Not only that but in 1860 there was no such thing as an air force to worry about while in 1938 even if both sides built up to their full capacity then the British would be able to muster rather more than a third of the US number of planes due to have greater surpluses in their economy not directly required by the civilian population.

So on and so forth.

There is only one state in the industrial era that can be considered to have built its armed forces up to its maximum capacity and that is Imperial Japan and they effectively nerfed their economic development as a result. Which basically screws this scenario coming an going...as in option 1938 the US are screwed prior to 1938 and either abandon their war plans or fail to achieve 3-1 industrial superiority or in 1860 they go all industrial samurai and are as a result backwards come 1900 but in neither case are they likely to be any more successful than the Japanese in achieving their goals versus the big kid on the block.

You know sometimes patience is a virtue and waiting until the late fortes to take over the world is the smart move

 

[TFSmith121]

Except that...

Here's a few reasons why it works the other way.


1) Canada is bigger than Ireland, and touching the US so can be used to land troops in safety on the right landmass.
2) The US is less densely populated than the UK.
3) The tech level's different.
4) The UK in this scenario is not involved in a colossal four-year-long civil war!

1) Canada also amounts to the equivalent of Belgium in a Franco-German conflict in the event of an US-UK conflict;
2) Less population density also is a defensive advantage, however, because of dispersal.
3) Not in any real sense - if the baseline is, say, the Zulu vs. the Men of Harlech, then the comparison of the Old Guard vs. the Grenadier Guards is microscopic in comparison; the point here is to avoid the grognardish "my .30 is better/worse/the same as your .303, or vice versa."
4) Are you sure?

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Excellent points; appreciate the thoughtful response

Big fights over Bermuda, Greenland, Iceland, Faroe Islands and the Azores (the Portugese, Danes, and Icelanders will have to deal...). UK has to attack and occupy Ireland. Caribbean is a sideshow but potential to be a huge nuisance for the US with the Pacific being the same for both. The hard part for the RN is covering the globe to keep trade open with key commodities. They have little issue maintaining industrial trade with Europe but cut them off from oil from the mideast and the the RN gets extended shore leave.

As to the logistics, didnt the invasion force for either Iwo Jima or Okinawa depart from Hawaii? Of course by that point, the US had 3 years of practice with amphibious assaults, which they most likely wont have in this scenario.

Running off Saph's OOB, the over/under is 3 years before the US can most likely mount a significant invasion unless there's a big Mahanian battle and the Brits get whipped + fail to occupy Ireland. I'll take the over on 3 years.

As ASB's go, I would read this, particularly if you threw in enough politics to give it a few twists or at least drama (British and American ambassadors in the in Berlin or Paris simultaneously as the continentals play the two against each other etc.). Canada, Australia, India and the middle east offer some nice drama as well.

Oh yeah, one other consideration is how successful Mac is at distracting Roosevelt in the Pacific with his campaign to island hop from the Philippines to India..

Edit: As the civy of the group here, I'd love to see this get picked apart, as I am sure it will.

Excellent; thanks for the thoughtful response. The geographic focus is the key, I agree.

Certainly based upon the realities of 1917-18 and 1941-45 when it comes to deploying significant expeditionary forces across the North Atlantic.

Best,