US invasion of the U.K. Military Geography

There aren't many good invasion beaches in Ireland or the West of the UK. The US would need to seize a port like Cork and then build up air bases and deploy other forces the Irish road net even in the 1990's remained rudimentary compared to the UK; it wasn't until recently that road projects received serious investment (mainly by the EU).

The West of the UK has similar issues in that there are few suitable beaches in the South West or Wales, plus the road net in the 1940's was woeful consisting of one and two lane roads and rail both of which could be blocked with relative ease. Even in the 1960's the Motorway network was still limited west of Swindon and remained so until the 1970's by which time a lot more dual carriageways had been built. However, these still provided limited and easily blocked access to the rest of the UK.

luckily the US Army is really big on engineer units, from division sized groups to battalions assigned to divisions

construction is arguably the thing the 20th Century US Army is best at

but yes the relative poor development of Ireland is an issue, although it is still better developed than Iceland or for that matter anywhere in the Pacific during World War II, including a lot of Australia
 

Deleted member 94680

Okay so I am not as interested in the politics that makes this scenario possible, but how it would be achieved if the conditions for it occurred. Say the US and UK are at war for whatever reason or maybe the Nazis and conquered the country or there has been a communist revolution.

Unfortunately, the politics that "makes this scenario possible" are all important. Who are the American's allies? Which countries are on Britain's side? Is this at the end of a long war, or a lightning strike at the commencement of hostilities?

You mention the Nazis, so is this TL as OTL until 1933 at least? America in 1940/41/42 was outbuilding the rest of the world pretty much but in the 30s the American Army and Air Force (as part of the Army) was woefully small. There would need to be some period of years for the Americans to build the units and recruit the troops necessary for this operation, that would require a period of hostilities or deteriorating relations at least. That, in turn, would generate British anti-invasion preperations. And so on...

In short, Harry Harrison is full of crap.
 
Blockade her into submission and bomb her relentlessly.

England can be brought to her knees without ever having to conquer her directly.

Indeed, British planners in the first half of the 20th century theorized that if superior enemy fleet were to arrive at the British Isles then the UK would be forced to surrender very quickly.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Indeed, British planners in the first half of the 20th century theorized that if superior enemy fleet were to arrive at the British Isles then the UK would be forced to surrender very quickly.
While with the ring of truth, it also highlights that there was no superior enemy fleet to the Royal Navy in the first half of the 20th century, arguably until 1943.
 
Okay two separate issues keep coming up both somewhat related to this:
Unfortunately, the politics that "makes this scenario possible" are all important.

On blockade, it needs to be understood that under most circumstances the trade and vessels of the blockade target are not Poekmon, you do not have to get them all. If for example British trade was reduced to short range hops to European ports for transshipment elsewhere then in short order Britain would be brought to terms short of occupation.

In the case of invasion while not impossible, it is incredibly hard to achieve until after the paradigm shift in capabilities of the Two Ocean Navy and even then the growth in the effectiveness of air power actually makes an assault on Britain harder rather than easier. Indeed it might be worth noting that Britain developed jet bombers capable of reaching the continental USA from Russia before the Soviets did. Slightly scary in an age of nuclear weapons.

That said the US industrial and financial and technological resources are immense. So in theory an Anglo-Nazi Regime hell bent on permanent global conflict but lacking nuclear weapons might well merit the USA to commit to a multi-year build up and costly invasion but nothing short of that is sufficient motivation.

So really each possible scenario needs to begin at Stage I with the political background to the conflict.
 
If the US has a continental ally, then the logical approach is to use the continental ally's bases to attack the coast facing it. If France is an ally, that means the South coast. If Germany, then the East coast, and logistics means you probably want to land around the Tyne-Tees area or between the Humber and the Yorkshire Dales.

If the entire continent of Europe is allied against the US, then the first step is to invade France, then move north as above. In this scenario you want to take Ireland in a preliminary operation, as an analogue to OLYMPIC to be followed by CORONET against the South coast of England. This operation will be difficult because Britain has literally spent centuries fortifying against an invasion from France.

If Europe is neutral, then all bets are off. You'll still seize Ireland as a preliminary, then land either on the South or East coasts as discussed. The West isn't promising because of a lack of suitable beaches, and there's no sense landing in Scotland or Wales because of the mountains. It might, however, be worthwhile to take central Scotland in a follow-up amphibious operation rather than pushing North through the Southern Uplands.
 
The US and her Allies cut Britain off from trade to starve Britain until she surrenders. Then occupation troops take control of major cities as part of the piece agreement.
Does that mean the Americans take control of a piece of London, a piece of Manchester, a piece of Glasgow and a piece of the North East.
 
Top