WI US / British War of 1837?

[67th Tigers]

Doubtful, the US doesn't have the men to be able to pull it off without the British seeing it coming.

Halifax and Quebec are the two most fortified positions in the Western hemisphere. Taking either is a major undertaking.

 

[DoleScum]

The control codes of the Tridents are in British hands, so if the Government wanted to fire a nuke at DC, there's nothing stopping them.

But why?

Says who?? The whole process of Anglo-American nuclear co-operation is tip-top secret, no-one knows exactely how it works.

Personally I find it doubtful that the US would simply hand nukes over to Britain without retaining some failsafe for preventing them being used against American targets.

Why would an Anglo-American war happen now? It probably wouldn't, our governments got its head so far up washington's jacksey that it would be as likely as the US dropping pork sausages on Tel Aviv.

 

[Darkling]

Halifax and Quebec are the two most fortified positions in the Western hemisphere. Taking either is a major undertaking.

Exactly, I think the British would notice when the US assembles its fleet, a fleet of transports and a force several times the size of its regular army.

 

[JLCook]

Make the date May 1, 1965

And compare Active, trained, SEASONED, US forces vs whatever Great Britain wishes to bring .

I don't think that anyone, worldwide, on that date would have had a snowball's chance in h*ll of winning.

It would take months to over a year for the RN to secure the Atlantic and by that time, they'd no longer have anything left on the American side of the Atlantic to secure!

 

[Tyr]

Nukes make such a war a disaster for both nations, even if the US does destroy the UK they would be left with the economic and military might of Mexico (if that).

Even without nukes, the presence of air defences and the limitations of quantity and quality of aircraft that the carrier fleet can deploy also raise serious doubts about whether the US can overwhelm the UK.

It certainly wouldn’t be an American walk over (although there are points in that time period which would be far easier than others), if these wills till the days before air craft became so important the US advantage would be more telling but they aren’t and it isn’t.

Truth but...meh its not really worth discussing as such a scenario is highly theoretical.

On Americans having British nuclear codes and all that- very dodgy situation but that just proves how utterly theoretical the scenario is, I think you could safely assume that the US president wouldn't wake up one day and go 'I know, lets invade the UK!' there would be a decline in relations first and as part of that Britain would make other nuclear arrangments.



For more on topic stuff...
British commitments around the world are vastly over-exagerated. I can see how it happens, the situation was pretty damn complex and if you try to equate modern US commitments too much to the 19th century situation...Well...
The parts of the empire usually ran themselves. There were only a few hundred Brits governing India most of the time with most of the work falling to loyal Indians.

 

[Darkling]

And compare Active, trained, SEASONED, US forces vs whatever Great Britain wishes to bring .

Yeah they would probably be about par, shame it would take years for the US to get them and the British can just place more troops in theatre (especially since the UK gets to chose).

I don't think that anyone, worldwide, on that date would have had a snowball's chance in h*ll of winning.

Evidently, the question is whether you have anything to factually support your position.

It would take months to over a year for the RN to secure the Atlantic

And your reason for believing the greatest maritime power of the age would require this long?

and by that time, they'd no longer have anything left on the American side of the Atlantic to secure!

Yes I imagine the Royal navy going AWOL for some reason would put a crimp in British planning, I don’t see it happening though.

 

[Timmy811]

US population 1837: 15,843,000

British total :27,072,000

Britain has 170% of US population.

UK per capita industrialisation is double US, thus 340% of US total comparing countries.

Not only is the US not in the same league as Britain, they may not even be playing the same sport.

Not enough given the logistics involved. The Union had four times the white population of the South as well as four times the industry and could supply their forces over land and look how long that war lasted. Britain has to supply it's troops over a 3,000 sea line because Canada won't be able to supply the forces needed by itself and it most keep substansial forces posted in Indian and other posts around the world.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Plenty of the Napoleonic generals were knocking about; I wouldn't be banking on the British officer class being worse than the US one, the British ones had actually been trained whilst the expanded American army is likely to have people picked based upon how friendly they are with the governor.

If the US military had lots of "friends of the governor," then I'm sure the British military had lots of aristocratic incompetents who bought their commissions (I read it took the Crimean War to put a stop to that).

 

[MerryPrankster]

Says who?? The whole process of Anglo-American nuclear co-operation is tip-top secret, no-one knows exactely how it works.

Personally I find it doubtful that the US would simply hand nukes over to Britain without retaining some failsafe for preventing them being used against American targets.

I was under the impression the Brits built their own bombs and the US supplied the missiles. Wikipedia agrees (and no, I didn't go change it to win the argument).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom

Thus, the US would not be able to prevent the Brits from using nuclear weapons (against the US or anyone else). The US could refuse to maintain the Tridents of course, but that won't really have any effect for awhile.

 

[Darkling]

If the US military had lots of "friends of the governor," then I'm sure the British military had lots of aristocratic incompetents who bought their commissions (I read it took the Crimean War to put a stop to that).

Doesn’t matter even those who bought their commissions had to have been trained first and the amount of commission purchasing is overblown.

In 1812 the army officer corps was made up of 60% who joined without purchasing their commission, 20% who were promoted from NCO's (based on merit) and 20% who were new officers who bought a commission.

Promoting within the ranks by purchasing was also becoming rare as only commissions which had been purchased could be sold and then only in seniority within the regiment.

 

[Darkling]

Not enough given the logistics involved. The Union had four times the white population of the South as well as four times the industry and could supply their forces over land and look how long that war lasted.

The US was trying to occupy the south (and the South crippled itself trying, if the US had offered the South a peace where they, the CSA, lost bits they had claims on, like Kentucky, the war would have been over far sooner because it isn't worth crippling your economy just to hang on to some lightly settled regions) Britain is going to be trying to conquer the US, just seize bits around the edges they want and then force the US to the table.

Anyway I see your civil war and raise you a war of 1812 where pitiful British forces (in quantity) were able to handle the US with ease.

Britain has to supply it's troops over a 3,000 sea line because Canada won't be able to supply the forces needed by itself and

Guess what you need to supply an army in a foreign country, Ports at home and abroad (Portsmouth, Plymouth, Falmouth, Bristol, Liverpool, Belfast, etc etc etc and Quebec, Halifax on the other side) and ships (now I think Britain might have some of those about but I could be round, does anybody recall whether Britain had any trading vessels about that they might be able to hire???).

it most keep substansial forces posted in Indian and other posts around the world.

How substantial?

And given that the UK starting available forces are bigger than the US and that the UK has a bigger population (and economy and industry) I would back them to be able to field the bigger army.

 

[King Gorilla]

Guess what you need to supply an army in a foreign country, Ports at home and abroad (Portsmouth, Plymouth, Falmouth, Bristol, Liverpool, Belfast, etc etc etc and Quebec, Halifax on the other side) and ships (now I think Britain might have some of those about but I could be round, does anybody recall whether Britain had any trading vessels about that they might be able to hire???).

Yes it has alot of ships but how many of those ships would be needed soley for the purpose of establishing supply lines and protecting them? Furthermore, how many ships will be needed to blockade the american coast? Now consider how many ships will be needed to conduct bombardment campaigns on american coastal cities (not that they would be terriably effective) There is no question Britain industrially and militarily out numbers the US at this point of time but can it translate those advantages over 3000 miles.

 

[Darkling]

Yes it has alot of ships but how many of those ships would be needed soley for the purpose of establishing supply lines and protecting them? Furthermore, how many ships will be needed to blockade the american coast? Now consider how many ships will be needed to conduct bombardment campaigns on american coastal cities (not that they would be terriably effective) There is no question Britain industrially and militarily out numbers the US at this point of time but can it translate those advantages over 3000 miles.

Britain blockaded the US during the war of 1812, supplied forces in Canada, and supplied forces in Spain and the Med, in addition to blockading Europe and keeping ships available to watch the French.

Anyway the concern expressed wasn't over warships available but civilian ships available to transport food, considering that about two and a half decades later Britain was importing enough wheat for 6 million people I doubt they will have that much trouble supplying food enough for a couple percent of that (at ridiculous high end 5 or 6%).

Especially given that Canada would have food available since they produced food as a central plank of their economy.

 

[Nicole]

Also, could Halifax be taken by surprise naval attack before the RN can get into the area to prevent such a thing from happening?

Halifax is the RN's base in the region- why do they have to "get there" at all?

 

[Darkling]

Halifax is the RN's base in the region- why do they have to "get there" at all?

The question is whether the ships there could hold off the US fleet.

Anybody got an ORBAT for the US navy at this time?

 

[Darkling]

Looking at Wikipedia’s ship list, there appear to be nine US frigates at this time and seven ships of the line.

So the question becomes what is a Royal Navy ORBAT at this time?

 

[67th Tigers]

Quoted from US Senator Sumner

RN has: 88 Ships of the Line
109 Large Frigates
190 small frigates, corvettes, sloops and brigs
65 steamers (generally cruisers, in 1838 there were already steam warships in RN commission)
3 troopships

France has: 40 ships of the line
50 frigates
40 steamers
19 small craft

In fact, Sumner discusses the strength of the European powers circa 1837 in general: http://www.members.tripod.com/medicolegal/sumnervwar.htm

 

[Dave Howery]

as in all questions about a 19th century US/UK war, it comes down to 'when?' In 1837, the US just can't compete against the UK.... by the ACW, the US could compete on land, but not at sea.... after the ACW, it starts to become more of an even contest....

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Why all these assumptions that a war just happens? Far more likely is that one or both countries have been preparing and building up. Give the British an advance fleet in Halifax and the US will be very unhappy in short order.

 

[srv fan]

Haha, you have to love it when people start busting out the whole array of American mythology to explain how we could possibly beat GB in any way before the very late 1800's. But all Americans were wily outdoorsmen who could shoot better than trained professionals and they fought harder because they were fighting for their rights and...

I think Imajin and Dave Howery summed it up pretty well. Before ACW, GB wins. Post-ACW to 1898, 60/40 on GB. 1898-1918, 60/40 on the US. After that, walk in the park.