Yes, because Britain has such experience with massive trans-Atlantic amphibious operations. The world is actually a game of Victoria, where all you have to do is get the transports and order the troops to disembark onto an empty province.
I've never played that game but yes, there is no problem with the British loading 40,000 men onto transports and disembarking them at any point they like, and in 1896 the US couldn't do a thing about it.
There's absolutely no problem with the enemy somehow detecting the invasion flotilla and making use of the most densely railed territory outside of Europe to disrupt the landing.
Yep, because 12" naval guns firing Lyddite shells aren't going to demolish any opposition. If a US force tries to oppose a British landing force that is under the cover of naval artillery then that US force will be destroyed.
Just like in Victoria, the U.S. Navy will have committed suicide against the RN, instead of conserving their strength for just such an opportunity.
What US Navy? There are the newly built Armoured Cruisers
Maine and
Texas, and the Battleship
Indiana (plus, if we're charitable, the
Massachusetts and
Oregon might be finished in time), plus the unarmoured cruisers
Chicago, Charleston, Baltimore, Oympia, Cinncinnati, Raleigh, Marblehead, Columbia and
Minneapolis. The USN is so weak the RN actually withdrew all their battleships from the area as there was no need for them. The RN has 18 modern battleships in full commission with the Channel and Mediterranean Squadrons for immediate deployment, excluding the guardships and the reserve fleet.
Mines, the North Atlantic weather, local garrisons that may not be great soldiers but more than capable of messing up landing boats, none of it matters.
Oh, they matter, but the US has no mines (although could build some given time), the weather simply imposes delays, and local garrisons will literally evaporate under lyddite shells.
None of the problems with the army demonstrated in the Boer War a few years down the line exist.
What problems are these. The Boers had a larger military force than the United States and were far better armed. They could shoot better than the US (whose army still trained for volley fire at 100 yds in an era where the British were dropping massed targets at about 2.5km), had more field artillery than the US, and better artillery (better than the British).
It interesting to note all the Boer successes were in the early period where they had about a 3:1 advantage in manpower in theatre (70,000 Burghers vs 22,000 British and South Africans).
Of course, you may benefit from the fact that a lot of British rifles had faulty sights. Even with faulty sights, firing at entrenched targets over 500m away the British still hit with more than 1 round in 100, twice the hit rate the achieved by ACW infantry against massed targets 50 yds away.
There would be no major problems with sending such a large proportion of the British regular army across the Atlantic instead of supporting all of Britain's other commitments.
You do known the British had 6 Army Corps in the Home Islands? This isn't stripping the cupboard bare. The British have (going by Boer War forces and deducting the garrison of SA) 10 full infantry divisions and 2 large cavalry divisions available without stripping India or the like of any forces.
Once the Corps lands in a matter of hours in perfect fighting shape, they can then march inland through hostile territory and a heavily armed hostile populace without any fear for their lines of supply to burn industry mostly owned by British investors. Smashing victory.
What heavily armed populace?