Before I go any further, I'd point out that my knowledge of this comes from a course on British Foreign Policy that I took last term, not in depth studies of the Royal and US Navies. That said, in my opinion, it isn't going to be as clear cut as the US Navy partisans seem to think.
The UK didn't want to offend the USA. Getting on its good books was a very, very high priority-they had WWI debts to remove, and an Empire to keep satisfied by standing up to the "Yellow Peril". This is why they decided to adopt the Washington Naval Treaty: to get close to the USA. If anyone's going to be starting an offensive war here, it certainly isn't the UK, and I can't think of many reasons why the isolationist USA would want to either. Neither side is going to have public opinion backing it for very long. Both had a vague suspicion of the other as Damn Yankees going to take over the world with their industries/Damn Limeys taking over the world with their imperialism, but they'd just helped each other out in WWI. This is also the era of Locarno, the League of Nations and Isolationism for the USA. In my opinion, the mentality for another prolonged war between Great Powers (not a scare about France or the Soviets, but an actual shooting war, especially a prolonged war of blockade and bombardment like this one will probably turn out to be) just isn't going to be there.
In terms of naval technicalities, all I know is that according to Ferris the Royal Navy was reckoned capable of taking Japan + any European power in the 1920s, the British Armed forces were generally at the forefront of technological development up to about 1930 (even afterwards, the Experimental Mechanised Force-a sort of armoured division- was a British innovation), and that, whilst the USA could theoretically match the Royal Navy, it didn't choose to do so. On the other hand, a naval race against America and Japan was also feared in the early 20s-again, hence Washington. I don't know the figures, but this suggests that the USA probably could outbuild the UK in the long run. Naval engagements could be flashy and spectacular, but there may not be many of them. Unless ASBs do some serious poking at the actual politicians and publics of the time, (who will presumably be in charge unless you want the navies to be changed appropriately, which makes it a pointless discussion) the whole thing peters out after a few skirmishes. Neither side will have the will to take the inevitable massive casualties that would be involved in driving the war into the enemy's heartland.
I'm presuming the 1920s is the period being discussed in particular, because in the 1930s both parties are so gutted by the Great Depression that an aggressive war between them simply wouldn't happen. They have their economies to deal with. Dull but true. Besides, 1920s/interwar militaria is pretty cool anyway.
The UK didn't want to offend the USA. Getting on its good books was a very, very high priority-they had WWI debts to remove, and an Empire to keep satisfied by standing up to the "Yellow Peril". This is why they decided to adopt the Washington Naval Treaty: to get close to the USA. If anyone's going to be starting an offensive war here, it certainly isn't the UK, and I can't think of many reasons why the isolationist USA would want to either. Neither side is going to have public opinion backing it for very long. Both had a vague suspicion of the other as Damn Yankees going to take over the world with their industries/Damn Limeys taking over the world with their imperialism, but they'd just helped each other out in WWI. This is also the era of Locarno, the League of Nations and Isolationism for the USA. In my opinion, the mentality for another prolonged war between Great Powers (not a scare about France or the Soviets, but an actual shooting war, especially a prolonged war of blockade and bombardment like this one will probably turn out to be) just isn't going to be there.
In terms of naval technicalities, all I know is that according to Ferris the Royal Navy was reckoned capable of taking Japan + any European power in the 1920s, the British Armed forces were generally at the forefront of technological development up to about 1930 (even afterwards, the Experimental Mechanised Force-a sort of armoured division- was a British innovation), and that, whilst the USA could theoretically match the Royal Navy, it didn't choose to do so. On the other hand, a naval race against America and Japan was also feared in the early 20s-again, hence Washington. I don't know the figures, but this suggests that the USA probably could outbuild the UK in the long run. Naval engagements could be flashy and spectacular, but there may not be many of them. Unless ASBs do some serious poking at the actual politicians and publics of the time, (who will presumably be in charge unless you want the navies to be changed appropriately, which makes it a pointless discussion) the whole thing peters out after a few skirmishes. Neither side will have the will to take the inevitable massive casualties that would be involved in driving the war into the enemy's heartland.
I'm presuming the 1920s is the period being discussed in particular, because in the 1930s both parties are so gutted by the Great Depression that an aggressive war between them simply wouldn't happen. They have their economies to deal with. Dull but true. Besides, 1920s/interwar militaria is pretty cool anyway.