UK vs US

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.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Ignoring butterflys....

The USN is a much less powerful fleet than the RN during this period OTL, despite having "tonnage equality" after 1922.

However, 41 years is a wide spectrum to be discussing. The verities of such a war for the whole period are essentially that the US can eventually grind out an occupation of much of Canada (although it will be bloody and require a massive US buildup) but will be defeated at sea and her coastal cities exposed to bombardment and invasion. The US has no other way to hurt the UK (other than not trading with her, and whilst US wheat is not a factor in the 1860's by the early 1900's it is) except attacking Canada. Meanwhile the US will be falling apart due to trade warfare and the destruction of her ports - without massive nitrate imports from Chile she'll suffer massive crop failures and literally starve.

Too possibilities:

1. Short war where the US gets spanked and learns that bigs boys games are played by big boys rules. Return to the antebellum status.

2. Long war where the US population learns the real meaning of hunger and hence probably undergoes a revolution to a Communist state.


Bull Cookies.

The U.S., while finding nitrate fertilizers a boon, could readily have fed its population without them. We are talking about a country that is still largely rural, and with a a population of 120 million, not a heavily urbanized one with 300 million as is the case today. The RN would also have had enormous problems blockading the Pacific Coast, even if you accept that the RN could blockade the Atlantic Seaboard, which I seriously doubt. If a country in this scenario needs to worry about food, it isn't the U.S.

The U.S. understood big boy rules quite nicely. The U.S. understood the rules better than anyone the world had ever seen before or since. It also, IOTL, proved that it understood exactly how your destroy an Island Empire with a large fleet (the Germans tried to starve the UK to death twice and came up short, the U.S. tried it once, against an enemy much further away than the UK, and succeeded to the point its submarines were reduced to attacking fishing boats because there wasn't anything else left to sink).

In the pre-WW I period the USN would have had difficulty with the RN, even during the war the match was not very promising, mainly due to the disparity in light forces. By the 1920s, along the Eastern Seaboard, the difference was not so much. Along the Pacific Coast, the USN would have flat stomped the RN. American 16" gun ships had a advantage in throw weight and would be operating with clean bottoms and zero supply issues.

If anyone in the Pacific wound up blockaded (and this assumes that Canada has decided that fighting a country that it shares a 3,000 mile unfortified land border with and that has 12 times the population is a good idea) it would be the RN in Vancouver. After Vancouver the next closest RN base is Hong Kong. Good luck supplying a force at that range & no Western Hemisphere country with a lick of sense is going to do anything to seriously piss the United States off, payback being the bitch that it is, by providing basing rights along the Pacific Coast. For that matter, if Canada decided to sit this one out, the RN wouldn't have a place within 1,500 miles of the U.S. coast in either ocean to hang its hat in fairly short order, unless Bermuda and the Bahamas can be turned in Iwo Jimas in a few weeks time.

The U.S., BTW, has both repair and construction facilities on both coasts that can handle anything up to, and including Battleship construction (while Mare Island only produced on BB, USS California, that doesn't mean that it wore itself out in the effort).

The U.S. is also, in the period in question, the World's largest oil EXPORTER, and by a huge percetage. That went for most strategic materials, although rubber is going to be an issue initially.

As far as design issues, the U.S. BB did have issues, as did the RN (cough...Hood...cough) as the WW II period nears the qualitative gap between RN & USN designs does nothing but increase, until, by 1943, the gap is quite literally a chasm.

The RN was a terriffic force, with great traditions and justifiable pride. So was the USN. One of the most striking differences between RN and USN fans seems to be that the USN fans can accept that the RN was a excellent fleet and RN fans simply can't. I can imagine any number of possible reasons for this, but this isn't the place to speculate upon them.
 
IMO the RN's history at this point is a disadvantage it hadnt fought an opponant on aproaching equal terms in almost 100 years by this point and it officially encouraged officers to not show any inititive and to obey orders no matter how unreasonable which lead to serval tragic accidents and failures.

My knowledge of naval affairs is VERY limited so it is ONLY MY OPINION.
 
¡ Hi !:

To Couldson Eagle: ¡ THANKS !:).

As for mylself, i think and i belived if somebody writte one timeline about this scenario, that timeline maybe will it be a magnificent, and pure awesome´s tale;):cool::eek::cool:.

Good luck:):cool:.
 
Two more points from my end spring to mind about the Royal Navy. On the one hand, they had just had the experience of fighting at Jutland; notably more experience than the US Navy has had in Dreadnought battles. On the other, without the Singapore base constructed (although this could have been hastened if the diplomatic situation with the USA went this far downhill), the Royal Navy will be at a severe disadvantage in the Pacific.

EDIT: one trap that both sides could be falling into here is assuming that, despite the obviously very different diplomatic situation emerging, neither side's politicians or Admirals change their policies. The USA doesn't conduct an enormous building programme, the UK doesn't develop more naval bases. In our timeline, the Great Depression stopped the democracies from doing this sort of thing. (And even then, Britain held a defence review in the early 1930s, identified Germany as the main threat, and started to, slowly, rearm. It was just that Chamberlain felt financial soundness to be more important in a long war than masses of armaments, and opted for air defence rather than offensive arm with what little funding he had.) Presumably, for either side to contemplate an offensive war, this either isn't as much of a factor, or the action is taking place in the 1920s.
 
Last edited:
Top