The War of 1812: Overwhelming United States victory.

[Grimm Reaper]

If the British win the Napoleonic War then any US victory is going to be in the short term only. Once Europe is at peace the British inevitably arrive in sufficient force to break the US.

Against a truly vengeful UK the US could well lose Montana, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Idaho, Washington State, and Michigan while New England probably secedes with or without New York. Later the UK props up Mexico against the US and the Mexican Northwest never changes hands...


Once again, if the US doubles or triples the standing army and navy there WILL be a British response and the British can far more easily divert existing forces to Canada than the US can invent forces from scratch.

 

[sonicwind123]

If the British win the Napoleonic War then any US victory is going to be in the short term only. Once Europe is at peace the British inevitably arrive in sufficient force to break the US.

Against a truly vengeful UK the US could well lose Montana, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Idaho, Washington State, and Michigan while New England probably secedes with or without New York. Later the UK props up Mexico against the US and the Mexican Northwest never changes hands...


Once again, if the US doubles or triples the standing army and navy there WILL be a British response and the British can far more easily divert existing forces to Canada than the US can invent forces from scratch.

I tend to disagree with you on this issue. First of all, the British at that time already dislike the US, and are already looking for ways in which to check US advancement, it is part of the reason, they recognized Texas later on. The British even have a real excuse to go to war with the US in OTL, in 1819.

Also, a total US victory in the War of 1812, means Brittan does not have Canada, because the conquest of Canada was a major goal of the war. Add on to that, you can not just assume that the British can move all of their resources so easily. There army was never really big in the first place, and they are pretty well spread out. Add on to that, even the war of 1812, the fighting was done in the east, not the areas, which you claim that the US would lose.

If you look at a later war, the US is stronger each year in OTL, where as if the two would of gone to war in 1898, the British would of been crushed in Canada.

 

[burmafrd]

Have to laugh at the 67th thinking that brits could have transported or supplied 140,000 troops across the Atlantic. They had a tough time just doing it across the Channel.

 

[67th Tigers]

Have to laugh at the 67th thinking that brits could have transported or supplied 140,000 troops across the Atlantic. They had a tough time just doing it across the Channel.

Any idea the dispositions of the ca 1,000,000 troops the British were supplying OTL? The British were supplying the Spanish, Portuguese and Prussian Armies as well as their own. The force in the home islands was only 120,000, there were 250,000 troops in Europe, the Americas or southern Africa, in addition to 250,000 Spaniards, 100,000 Portuguese, 50,000 Canadians.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

If the British were trying to put down the US then they would have seized an opportunity for war in 1819, insisted that Texas was still Mexican or propped Mexico up in 1845, thus keeping the entire Oregon Territory AND depriving the US of Texas and the American Southwest.

It is folly to imagine the US significantly expanding the regular military without a British response. For that matter, a slightly faster response by the British foreign ministry would have prevented the war entirely.

The British Army was vastly larger than what the US had in the war and once Napoleon was down the ability of the UK to deploy vastly superior forces was not in doubt.

British victories early in the war effectively left Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan uncontrolled or in British hands while Idaho, Oregon and Washington State were claimed by the British until 1846. If the British are less friendly there is literally no chance of the US successfully seizing the Oregon territory by force.

In any event, since the US was not remotely capable of seizing all of Canada and actually failed to gain any ground the army necessary to seize even the best parts while the British are still in Europe's conflict would be far beyond the interest of the US to raise. If the War Hawks announce that they need a standing army of 20,000 to meet their goals, they might as well forget about their plans.

Whether the US, with a puny standing army, could beat Canada in 1898 is possible, given great time and effort, but it means the US Navy and merchant marine destroyed, no colonies or bases overseas including Hawaii, an end to dreams of a Panama Canal and quite possible further losses, perhaps Alaska, once the British seize Long Island or land in California with the Japanese.

 

[67th Tigers]

The British Army was vastly larger than what the US had in the war and once Napoleon was down the ability of the UK to deploy vastly superior forces was not in doubt.

The British Army had 330,000 effectives, of whom 200,000 were dedicated to garrisons (120,000 of them in the UK). The remaining 130,000 were the disposable force.

OTL the disposable force was concentrated in 4 armies, the largest being Wellington's in Spain/ France (ca 60,000, ca 64 Inf Bns and 19 Cav Regts), the next largest was in Canada (49,000 over garrisons, 37 Inf Bns and 5 Cav Regts, including Canadians), then Graham's Army of the Low Countries (10,000, 23 Bns and 2 Cav Regts) and Bentinck's Army of Italy (10,000, 26 Inf Bns and 1 Cav Rgt)

The disposition of the regiments was: http://www.geocities.com/littlegreenmen.geo/1814.htm

 

[DuQuense]

This is easy
Whe need a reason for the US to have A larger Military. A war is always a good reason.

POD
1803
Spain closes the port of New Orleans to US shipping. [OTL]
In Response the Governor of Mississippi Sends in the Mississippi Militia.
[OTL He was under pressure to do so]
As there are less than 1.000 Spanish troops in the City, the Militia easily takes the city and the territory of Lower Louisiana.
As word of this spreads north the Tennessee and Kentucky Militias cross the Mississippi and seize the Spanish outposts on the West Bank.

Jefferson is appalled, and sends a delegation to Madrid to negotiate a Apology.
When the delegation arrives they discover that the Spanish King, in a rage has declared war on the US and sent orders to Havana and Mexico City for an attack to get New Orleans back.

With the US at War Jefferson has no Choice but to expand the Military.
The following two Years teaches the Infant Nation several sharp lessons about Military Preparedness.

Forward to 1812, The diplomats on both sides are working hard to prevent another misunderstanding like 1803.
Unfortunitly due to poor timing measured in several days War does start.

The lower rank Officers in 1803 are now middle rank, and the middle rank from '03 are now the Senior Officers.
There are more trained Troops, available for reactivation.

The US force that enters Canada is a lot larger, better equipped and more Professional than OTL's.

 

[Dave Howery]

experience is a real issue too. The Brits were experienced in modern warfare against modern opponents, way beyond anything the US had done recently. In fact, 1812 was the first time the US army went up against a modern power, and we certainly didn't shine in that conflict (except for New Orleans). The US military really didn't get itself modernized and up there with everyone else until late in the ACW...

 

[JimmyJimJam]

This is a bit spammy but it has the right idea. The U.S. beating Britain totally in 1812 is much like Japan beating the U.S. totally in WWII, close to impossible.

Ive said it before and Ill say it again. The colonies beating the Empire in the war of independence was close to impossible too. So was North Vietnam winning the Vietnam conflict in the 1970s. People at the time had a hard time imagning either one could happen.

 

[67th Tigers]

Ive said it before and Ill say it again. The colonies beating the Empire in the war of independence was close to impossible too. So was North Vietnam winning the Vietnam conflict in the 1970s. People at the time had a hard time imagning either one could happen.

The latter was considered inevitable, at least on this side of the water.

The former was very unlikely until it became a general war.

 

[Tyr]

This is one of those WIs where to get it you need to make changes that dwarf the subject of discussion- namely having the French win Trafalger (or rather the entire naval war, even if Britain lost there big style it wouldn't have destroyed them)