|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 5:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Oops...forgot to reply..
| Quote: |
Unlike Japan Britain was/is self sufficient in energy.
|
You mean it was entirely self-sufficient for ALL materials necessary to wage war? Including petroleum and rubber?
| Quote: |
they only relied on Atlantic convoys because Germany had overrun Europe. In a potential war with America Britain could source any shortfalls in supplies from Europe.
|
Well, part of the premise of this is that we're going to consider the two countries in a vacuum. Once we start bringing in European nations trading with each other we also start considering things like "Whose side would Germany be on?".
And your point, while true, would also be unsustainable for Britain, long-term.
| Quote: |
Even if the US conquers one giant landmass, they would still have to take ten more.
|
I don't think so. If the British home islands go down, the rest of the empire would disintegrate. Colonial forces wouldn't be able to maintain their strength, and their domestic populations would likely rebel and overthrow them.
| Quote: |
| Firstly, British bases and strong points littered the Indian Ocean and troops from South African, Australian and India could be moved to counter any threat. These forces could be supported by large troop numbers from Britain because remeber in this scenario the British are freed from the need to build a huge army to fight on in the ETO |
These troops don't move at the click of a mouse button. That's a huge logistical undertaking. And as was said, the initial battles would take place on Canada and it is not likely the British could just pour in troops. The remaining battles would largely be fought at sea and at various islands, where a "pouring troops in" strategy is unfeasible.
| Quote: |
| The US has no logistical support for a blockade when their nearest bases are thousands of miles away and would be completely at the mercy of land based air power. Your retort about taking the Azores and Canaries was even more absurd, not because those empires had large fleets, but because British forces would then have access to an even greater number of naval and air bases from which to pummel the US forces. |
Yes, these things take time. Preceding all of this, you do things like island hop and work at destroying the British fleet.
Also, a greater number of bases is a diminishing return. Each base doesn't spawn a force like in some computer game, it just gives you different locations from which to maintain and support forces. You have to concentrate your forces somewhere.
| Quote: |
| Plus what is stopping British forces from unloading at Barcelona transporting across land to Bilbao and then shipping off again to the UK, or if not through Spain then through France. |
It becomes highly inefficient to do that.
| Quote: |
| The RN was far superior to the IJN in terms of size and unlike the IJN the RN grew by a factor of two during the war despite the huge damage caused by German air raids and threat of invasion. The RN had at all times a greater number of cruisers and destroyers as unlike the Japanese they actually placed a greater emphasis on defending supply convoys. |
The RN grew by a factor of two and the IJN did not because the US Navy put the IJN at the bottom of the ocean while working WITH the RN to secure its North Atlantic trade routes.
| Quote: |
| The RN was unarguably far better at ASW than the Japanese, so please disabuse yourself of the notion that the US could have been similarly successful in a submarine warfare campaign against the RN. The RN Merchant Navy was not only the largest in the world in 1939, representing 33% of total tonnage, it was also capable of fighting on despite huge losses and making good on those losses. |
The Germans conducted a damaging submarine warfare campaign that wasn't ultimately decided until America's entry into the war. You're ignoring the tremendous contribution the United States played in securing Britain's convoys and providing it with material support.
| Quote: |
The Iceland option not only flew in the face of historical reality, but also common sense. Taking Iceland would be a doddle for the RN and considering the proximity and the power of land based air power operating from both Scotland and Iceland itself, there is no way that even a weakened RN couldn’t prevent its seizure from a US navy whose nearest base was in Canada.
The US would not be able to firebomb London, or strike at the heart of British industry, or disable the huge shipyards, or interdict shipping in the Med, or deprive the Empire of its economic heartland in the Indian Ocean, or destroy the RN Merchant Navy piecemeal through commerce raiding without bases reasonably close to the British Isles.
|
Never say never. You say it would be impossible for the U.S. to land forces on Iceland or other places because it's nearest base is in Canada. Yet, the U.S. was able to seize islands and conduct campaigns across the Pacific from bases that were thousands of miles away as well.
But the conclusion that Britain has some sort of endless manpower and industrial capacity is ludicrous. Certainly not in comparison to the United States. |
Son, I already finished this thread by telling you how it actually was  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You mean it was entirely self-sufficient for ALL materials necessary to wage war? Including petroleum and rubber? |
I didn’t say it was entirely self-sufficient, I said it was far more self sufficient than Japan who had to ship 90%+ of all its vital war supplies from SE Asia. Britain needs supplies, but not to that extent, it has far more staying power.
| Quote: |
Well, part of the premise of this is that we're going to consider the two countries in a vacuum. Once we start bringing in European nations trading with each other we also start considering things like "Whose side would Germany be on?".
And your point, while true, would also be unsustainable for Britain, long-term. |
We don’t need to talk about European countries taking sides, but you need to recognize that countries like France and Germany would sit back and make a tidy profit from selling to the Brits.
How does America even begin to interdict that supply line? You can’t reach it from Iceland, the distances from the continent to Britain are tiny and any attempt to do so anyway would precipitate a war with both countries.
This is the difference between Japan and Britain; the British don’t need to hump supplies from Java to Tokyo and the straits of Dover are so narrow they can be swam across.
| Quote: |
| I don't think so. If the British home islands go down, the rest of the empire would disintegrate. Colonial forces wouldn't be able to maintain their strength, and their domestic populations would likely rebel and overthrow them. |
I agree, but that wasn’t my point. I was saying that to destroy the base of Britain’s Imperial strength would be an impossible task as the US land forces would need to invade huge landmasses on three different continents. In reality the British built the largest volunteer army in human history to defend India, so the US aren’t going to be able to do anything about the British lake that the Indian Ocean was at that time.
| Quote: |
| These troops don't move at the click of a mouse button. That's a huge logistical undertaking. And as was said, the initial battles would take place on Canada and it is not likely the British could just pour in troops. The remaining battles would largely be fought at sea and at various islands, where a "pouring troops in" strategy is unfeasible. |
Again you are misunderstanding my point. Colonial forces are already based in these areas and they could in time be reinforced by units from Britain. In reality Britain maintained armies made up of troops from Britain that numbered in the hundreds of thousands on three different continents at the same time whilst preparing for an invasion of Europe. Free of that responsibility Britain would be able to move even more troops to Africa and the sub-continent.
| Quote: |
| Yes, these things take time. Preceding all of this, you do things like island hop and work at destroying the British fleet. |
Island hopping that involves a bizarre invasion of Spain and Portugal. Face it, the ‘bottle up Gibraltar’ strategy belongs in a computer game.
Also, a greater number of bases is a diminishing return. Each base doesn't spawn a force like in some computer game, it just gives you different locations from which to maintain and support forces. You have to concentrate your forces somewhere. [/quote]
Well…yeah. It wouldn’t even get that far, if the RN is sunk game over the US wins.
But why would the RN line itself in neat little rows for the USN to destroy, the RN’s task in this scenario is to protect supply lines coming from the Indian Ocean through the Med and up to the western approaches. All of which can be done within close proximity to numerous existing British airbases and land based airpower.
All Britain has to do is keeping churning out hundreds upon hundreds of cruisers, destroyers and merchant naval ships. You could send as many essex class carriers as you want, the USN will not be able to overwhelm the air power operating from bases close to supply lines at choke points in the Red Sea, Suez, Straits of Gibraltar.
Also whilst not military juggernauts in their own right I am sure the Spanish and Portuguese could supply their own air and naval bases that are being used by an ally trying to defeat an aggressor.
| Quote: |
| The RN grew by a factor of two and the IJN did not because the US Navy put the IJN at the bottom of the ocean while working WITH the RN to secure its North Atlantic trade routes. |
The IJN’s entire merchant fleet in 1941 was only equal to half of the total losses incurred by the RN’s merchant fleet in WW2. It was much, much smaller and it wasn’t even defended by their navy.
This is again why the Japanese analogy is so poor, taking on the vastly bigger RN merchant fleet that is properly defended would be a completely different prospect from that of what the USN was up against in the Pacific.
| Quote: |
| The Germans conducted a damaging submarine warfare campaign that wasn't ultimately decided until America's entry into the war. You're ignoring the tremendous contribution the United States played in securing Britain's convoys and providing it with material support. |
I am not ignoring the contribution of the US to the Battle of the Atlantic, it’s just not pertinent to the discussion as supplies to Britain wouldn’t need to come from the US in this scenario.
| Quote: |
Never say never. You say it would be impossible for the U.S. to land forces on Iceland or other places because it's nearest base is in Canada. Yet, the U.S. was able to seize islands and conduct campaigns across the Pacific from bases that were thousands of miles away as well.
But the conclusion that Britain has some sort of endless manpower and industrial capacity is ludicrous. Certainly not in comparison to the United States. |
Britain would likely take possession of Iceland in the opening phases of a war and base significant air and naval power along with a ground force of over twenty thousand troops. The base of British sea power is at Scapa Flow directly facing Iceland and aircraft from numerous Scottish airbases could move back and forth.
To successfully take it by amphibious assault you have to first win control of the skies and seas around Iceland. How do you win the air battle when the RAF is within range and has a strong position on Iceland itself? How do you win control of the sea when you can’t strike Scapa? The weather is also not as nice at the weather in Saipan.
And once again the question has to be asked, what then? What do you do from Iceland? You can’t interdict shipping in the channel from Iceland, you can’t bomb London or British industry and you can’t invade from Iceland. It sounds like the sort of strategy you would only see in a computer game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robbie_davies
Joined: 16 Jun 2013
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Americans weren't interested in attacking Britain itself in my opinion, what they obviously wanted was a continuation of dominance over their regional sphere, attack and invade Canada and relieve the British of the West Indian colonies like they did to the Spanish 30 years before.
The British West Indies, Belize, Guyana and Bermuda would have been massive prizes as would the Bahamas under US control, 40 miles away from Florida, no doubt it would have become a US state if it had all come off.
The problem with the Americans plan would have been stepping on the toes of the French and the Dutch. Also, the British and the French could have pre-emptied the Americans and attacked and seized the Panama Canal which they could have done pretty easily with the concentration of troops and ships based around there, the Anglo-French already had control of the Suez so having control of two of the most important shipping lanes in the world would have been a big prize for the British and the French.
| Quote: |
| We don’t need to talk about European countries taking sides, but you need to recognize that countries like France and Germany would sit back and make a tidy profit from selling to the Brits. |
French colonial power was too closely intertwined with Britains, wherever the British were, the French were neighbours more often than not. No chance do the French just sit by and let the British go it alone militarily when so many of their colonies in the Americas were under threat from the United States. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| robbie_davies wrote: |
The Americans weren't interested in attacking Britain itself in my opinion, what they obviously wanted was a continuation of dominance over their regional sphere, attack and invade Canada and relieve the British of the West Indian colonies like they did to the Spanish 30 years before.
The British West Indies, Belize, Guyana and Bermuda would have been massive prizes as would the Bahamas under US control, 40 miles away from Florida, no doubt it would have become a US state if it had all come off.
The problem with the Americans plan would have been stepping on the toes of the French and the Dutch. Also, the British and the French could have pre-emptied the Americans and attacked and seized the Panama Canal which they could have done pretty easily with the concentration of troops and ships based around there, the Anglo-French already had control of the Suez so having control of two of the most important shipping lanes in the world would have been a big prize for the British and the French. |
Yeah I agree the war against the British mainland itself would be as unlikely as a British invasion of the east coast.
The actual war plan that was written in 1930 seems quite limited and focused purely on a quick land grab. I think secondary operations against islands in the Caribbean would also be an option.
Although I get the feeling that if they had actually gone through with the plan it would have been a disaster. It would be interesting to speculate on the implications of the failure to win a quick war and public opinion in the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robbie_davies
Joined: 16 Jun 2013
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| robbie_davies wrote: |
The Americans weren't interested in attacking Britain itself in my opinion, what they obviously wanted was a continuation of dominance over their regional sphere, attack and invade Canada and relieve the British of the West Indian colonies like they did to the Spanish 30 years before.
The British West Indies, Belize, Guyana and Bermuda would have been massive prizes as would the Bahamas under US control, 40 miles away from Florida, no doubt it would have become a US state if it had all come off.
The problem with the Americans plan would have been stepping on the toes of the French and the Dutch. Also, the British and the French could have pre-emptied the Americans and attacked and seized the Panama Canal which they could have done pretty easily with the concentration of troops and ships based around there, the Anglo-French already had control of the Suez so having control of two of the most important shipping lanes in the world would have been a big prize for the British and the French. |
Yeah I agree the war against the British mainland itself would be as unlikely as a British invasion of the east coast.
The actual war plan that was written in 1930 seems quite limited and focused purely on a quick land grab. I think secondary operations against islands in the Caribbean would also be an option.
Although I get the feeling that if they had actually gone through with the plan it would have been a disaster. It would be interesting to speculate on the implications of the failure to win a quick war and public opinion in the US. |
I agree.
They might have got The Bahamas and the British Virgin Islands but a British-French naval taskforce could have easily got the Panama Canal Zone and the Americans would have gained 10 quid to lose 1000 pounds. The Americans would have been the ones who were actually
vulnerable as around the Caribbean was a sizeable European military presence who wouldn't have took too kindly to US meddling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robbie_davies
Joined: 16 Jun 2013
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chellovek wrote: |
| robbie_davies wrote: |
| chellovek wrote: |
| robbie_davies wrote: |
I am sure at the time, the French would have sided with the British with any war with the United States as the French had shared interests with the British in Africa, SE Asia, The West Indies and the Suez and no doubt would have had their eyes on the Panama Canal.
The US would have had their work cut out with the British, with the French navy as well... well, I will let you work that one out. |
Interesting but I personally don't necessarily think so.
The circumstances of any potential war were seen as being similar to those of 1812, if the UK tried to forcefully stop a neutral USA from trading with Europe during a general European war. It would have depended on whose side France was on at the time.
Like I say, on both sides it was never imagined as being a full-blown fight to the end. |
The war that never happened in 1930 would have been over the US wanting to trade in Africa, the Carribean and Asia (as well as Europe of course) and 'The Sterling Area' which the Americans hated dealing with. In my opinion - with the French sharing so many interests with the British in 1930, the French would have realised they would have been next, that and the fact that France has been a solid ally of Britain's since the beginning of the 20th century. It would be harder to see France staying out of this bunfight that throwing their lot in with the British with so much for them to lose. |
Yeah I think you're right in saying it would have started over trading rights in other parts of the world, but to call France a "solid ally" is stretching it a bit. The Entente Cordiale wasn't an alliance as such, it was a settlement of colonial spheres of influence, the same thing happened with the UK and Russia too. It was a settling of differences so that two traditional rivals, and Russia, could focus on the perceived threat of Germany. |
Sorry, didn't see your reply there Chellovek.
It is not the French were massive allies of the British rather that their colonial empire was too closely intertwined with the UK's - The French have always guarded their empire jealously and even to this day will put soldiers in their spheres of influence such as Mali, the CAR and the Congo. I couldn't see them standing by as the Americans took the British Empire in the Americas in the way, they bought the Virgin Islands off the Danes, they defeated the Spanish and took their colonies, if they had defeated the British the French and the Dutch would have been next on the list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
This is the difference between Japan and Britain; the British don’t need to hump supplies from Java to Tokyo and the straits of Dover are so narrow they can be swam across.
|
They still have to pay a premium for all those materials. In a short war of course, this wouldn't be a problem. In a long one? It's doubtful the European countries would have been as generous as the Lend Lease program was from the United States to Britain.
| Quote: |
| I was saying that to destroy the base of Britain’s Imperial strength would be an impossible task as the US land forces would need to invade huge landmasses on three different continents. In reality the British built the largest volunteer army in human history to defend India |
That's great, but while good for maybe at most, a corps. You aren't going to get a full army out of India, certainly not with the restless state of domestic politics at the time. And as I mentioned, the Americans would be FAR FAR better at fomenting rebellion and upheaval than the Japanese or Germans
| Quote: |
| Colonial forces are already based in these areas and they could in time be reinforced by units from Britain. In reality Britain maintained armies made up of troops from Britain that numbered in the hundreds of thousands on three different continents at the same time whilst preparing for an invasion of Europe. Free of that responsibility Britain would be able to move even more troops to Africa and the sub-continent. |
This was due in large part to the drastic difference in size and quality of the Italian and German navies vs. the British pre-Dec. 7th, and the Japanese Navy being primarily occupied by the Americans once they entered the war, as well as American assistance in the North Atlantic.
With that same American navy as a foe, Britain would have a much tougher time.
| Quote: |
| Island hopping that involves a bizarre invasion of Spain and Portugal. Face it, the ‘bottle up Gibraltar’ strategy belongs in a computer game. |
No, the Azores and Canaries or possibly North Africa, and ONLY following the defeat of the Royal Navy at sea. Or even not invading them and simply relying on a carrier task force or two.
| Quote: |
| But why would the RN line itself in neat little rows for the USN to destroy, the RN’s task in this scenario is to protect supply lines coming from the Indian Ocean through the Med and up to the western approaches. All of which can be done within close proximity to numerous existing British airbases and land based airpower. |
So the British strategy is to sit idly by while Canada, the Caribbean, and SE Asia are lopped off by the U.S.?
| Quote: |
| All Britain has to do is keeping churning out hundreds upon hundreds of cruisers, destroyers and merchant naval ships. |
So the British strategy vs. the Americans is one of attrition?
| Quote: |
You could send as many essex class carriers as you want, the USN will not be able to overwhelm the air power operating from bases close to supply lines at choke points in the Red Sea, Suez, Straits of Gibraltar.
|
Yeah, its not like fleets with Essex-class fleets overwhelmed any bases during WWII....
What you think that magically Britain can just move 500 panes from Gibraltar to Malta to Port Said or keep 500 at each? Heck, for a while Malta was defended by 3 Gloster Gladiator biplanes. Now while that may work while the Italians bumble their way through things, against a US Navy carrier task force, that won't hang.
| Quote: |
This is again why the Japanese analogy is so poor, taking on the vastly bigger RN merchant fleet that is properly defended would be a completely different prospect from that of what the USN was up against in the Pacific.
|
But again, we have to remember the MASSIVE assistance and cooperation the RN got from the USN. While the RN would be a more dangerous foe than the IJN, they would still face the same strategic dangers any island empire faces, as well.
| Quote: |
| I am not ignoring the contribution of the US to the Battle of the Atlantic, it’s just not pertinent to the discussion as supplies to Britain wouldn’t need to come from the US in this scenario. |
But you're using numbers and successes in WWII as a point to justify success from the RN in a hypothetical war. The problem with that in the case of Britain is that those successes and numbers owe themselves in large part to the cooperation with the United States that Britain received economically and militarily.
| Quote: |
Britain would likely take possession of Iceland in the opening phases of a war and base significant air and naval power along with a ground force of over twenty thousand troops. The base of British sea power is at Scapa Flow directly facing Iceland and aircraft from numerous Scottish airbases could move back and forth.
To successfully take it by amphibious assault you have to first win control of the skies and seas around Iceland. How do you win the air battle when the RAF is within range and has a strong position on Iceland itself? How do you win control of the sea when you can’t strike Scapa? The weather is also not as nice at the weather in Saipan. |
Well to be sure, a move against Iceland would come towards the end, not at the beginning as British strength starts to ebb, as it inevitably would in any protracted war against the United States. It would likely have to be a surprise attack and success may not be guaranteed. The U.S. could choose instead to go with the North African-Mediterranean strangulation strategy. Instead of island hopping, it might decide to go coastal hopping up Africa.
Or the U.S. could hope to destroy the major surface combatants of the RN, seize some islands in the Caribbean, maybe SE Asia, and Canada and call it a day. Let time take care of the rest as the Indian situation is ultimately untenable, and Egypt isn't far behind.
The goal for the U.S. isn't conquest of the British Isles. The goal is the demise of the British Empire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robbie_davies
Joined: 16 Jun 2013
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
You are no military strategist Steelrails - you are conducting this war as if it was a game of Risk. 
The United States could not have attacked the United Kingdom, too far away though the British could have attacked the United States (bombing New York by the sea) via Bermuda which would have been unwise and why do that when they could just invade and take over the Panama Canal Zone and do twice as much damage. As for the Far East, America would have been in a vulnerable position there too having to contend with Britain, Australia, New Zealand, The Dutch, Portugal, France and probably Japan. You had bases in the Philippines and Guam but would have been overwhelmed.
The reason the Americans were able to successfully contribute to the invasion and liberation of Europe was because they used the UK as a base
to fight from, if they hadn't had the UK to launch an attack on the Nazi's then it could have never been done from the United States.
So this leaves the US to attack the British West Indies and Canada but they leave themselves vulnerable to losing the Panama Canal. A successful invasion of Iceland is still too far for the Americans to attack Britain, and more than likely the British would have got there first like they did in invading the Faroe Islands, getting there before the Nazi's in world war 2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| robbie_davies wrote: |
The United States could not have attacked the United Kingdom, too far away though the British could have attacked the United States (bombing New York by the sea) via Bermuda which would have been unwise and why do that when they could just invade and take over the Panama Canal Zone and do twice as much damage.
|
So let's get this straight, the British are able to attack America with impunity, and maintain lines of supply, but the Americans, who possess the very same technology as the British, and a far greater manpower and industrial base, are unable to do the same to the British (over time)?
Britain can close of the Panama Canal but America can't possibly close off Gibraltar? Wouldn't it stand to reason that if one is eventually vulnerable, the other is as well?
I think over a period of 4-5 years, one country or the other would be able to whittle down the other and slowly make its way over. However, the numbers favor America.
As for Bermuda, while they may be able to reach New York, that leaves 2400 miles of the American interior.
| Quote: |
The reason the Americans were able to successfully contribute to the invasion and liberation of Europe was because they used the UK as a base
to fight from, if they hadn't had the UK to launch an attack on the Nazi's then it could have never been done from the United States. |
Well this is certainly true to a degree, however, we must remember that the U.S. had invaded Italy in 1943.
[/quote] A successful invasion of Iceland is still too far for the Americans to attack Britain, and more than likely the British would have got there first like they did in invading the Faroe Islands, getting there before the Nazi's in world war 2.
| Quote: |
So wait a second, the British are able to bomb Boston/New York from Bermuda, but the Americans are unable to bomb Liverpool/Glasgow/London from Iceland? This despite the fact that the two distances are identical and that the Americans possess the same technology as the British?
And you just accused me of "Risk" generalship?
I'm certainly not saying any move against Gibraltar or the Home isles would come quickly. It would be a long war, a war of attrition. But it would eventually be done.
Yes, the RN had more ships and was better at protecting convoys at the Japanese, but that just buy's it time. The same fate would eventually befall it.
I don't think if anyone were to seriously examine the two nations and their capacity for war against the other, that anyone would seriously consider taking the British against the Americans. As I said, you never want to be on the side who has time going against it.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robbie_davies
Joined: 16 Jun 2013
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
So let's get this straight, the British are able to attack America with impunity, and maintain lines of supply, but the Americans, who possess the very same technology as the British, and a far greater manpower and industrial base, are unable to do the same to the British (over time)? |
Where did I say the British could attack the American mainland with impunity? I am sure they could have done on sporadic occasions but the chances of Britain doing damage to the US mainland was more of a threat than the other way round. Bermuda was the home of the Caribbean fleet, it would have been heavily fortified and armed.
| Quote: |
| Britain can close of the Panama Canal but America can't possibly close off Gibraltar? Wouldn't it stand to reason that if one is eventually vulnerable, the other is as well? |
No.
Why?
Because the British had a massive military presence in the West Indies whereas the Americans had no military presence around Gibraltar. The French and the Dutch would have also been there with their military and would reacted negatively to the Americans making a beeline for British colonies.
| Quote: |
| I think over a period of 4-5 years, one country or the other would be able to whittle down the other and slowly make its way over. However, the numbers favor America. |
If the Americans had kept it regional around their backyard then maybe, attacking Europe and the Far East would have been a bad bad idea.
| Quote: |
| As for Bermuda, while they may be able to reach New York, that leaves 2400 miles of the American interior. |
The British wouldn't have been able to make regular bombing runs to New York but they could have done it a damn sight easier than the Americans could have bombed London, Liverpool or Glasgow.
| Quote: |
| Well this is certainly true to a degree, however, we must remember that the U.S. had invaded Italy in 1943. |
Via Tunisia which was liberated by British, Commonwealth and Free French forces, basically, the US would have needed a base.
| Quote: |
| So wait a second, the British are able to bomb Boston/New York from Bermuda, but the Americans are unable to bomb Liverpool/Glasgow/London from Iceland? |
They could have got to Scapa Flow for sure but they wouldn't have been able to bomb Liverpool or London with any great degree without going through the Irish/North sea which would have made them sitting targets for British submarines.
And that is the big IF - if the Americans could have got to Iceland before the British.
| Quote: |
| This despite the fact that the two distances are identical and that the Americans possess the same technology as the British? |
You wouldn't have got to Iceland before the Brits, measure the distance between the US and Iceland and the UK and Iceland. Big assumption that you could have got there first and utilised it. (Without upsetting the Danes of course, good job the Brits have a royal family related to the Danish crown).
| Quote: |
| And you just accused me of "Risk" generalship? |
You were talking about attacking Gibraltar and winning in the Far East. Unwinnable at best for the Americans.
| Quote: |
| I'm certainly not saying any move against Gibraltar or the Home isles would come quickly. It would be a long war, a war of attrition. But it would eventually be done. |
Stretching supply lines defeated the Nazis and would have been the undoing of the Americans if they had tried attacking Europe. They were better off attacking Canada and trying to relieve the British of the West Indies.
| Quote: |
Yes, the RN had more ships and was better at protecting convoys at the Japanese, but that just buy's it time. The same fate would eventually befall it.
I don't think if anyone were to seriously examine the two nations and their capacity for war against the other, that anyone would seriously consider taking the British against the Americans. As I said, you never want to be on the side who has time going against it.
|
Again, you forget the French.
They wouldn't have stood by and let America take British colonies in the Americas off them knowing they would be next.
More than likely, the French would have joined in and it wouldn't have been a UK vs USA affair but a UK/France vs USA affair - especially in the Caribbean.
Last edited by robbie_davies on Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:31 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| They still have to pay a premium for all those materials. In a short war of course, this wouldn't be a problem. In a long one? It's doubtful the European countries would have been as generous as the Lend Lease program was from the United States to Britain. |
Britain's reliance on lend lease and the US during WW2 was a direct result of the European continent being overrun and Axis forces bringing forces to bear on the critical supply lines to the empire in the Med.
Europe was far more important to Britian than North America economically. With trade and commerce still open to Britian and no European aggressor threatening the Med, Britain wont be the basket case it was in 1940.
Add to this the fact that Britain was the most efficiently managed nation during the war it becomes clear how difficult it is to a) strangle her and b) compare her to Japan.
At full mobilization Britain was growing 75% of its own food and through efficient management was actually expanding its yield of domestically sourced supplies of iron ore and steel. In addition British industry was vastly expanding the size of the RN and RAF despite huge bombing raids from a Nazi dominated continent.
Japan on the other hand was poorly mobilized for the war and depended on tenous poorly defended supply lines for 90%+ of its vital war materials.
As long as Europe is open for trade, the British economy will still be able to function and the US won't be able to starve the home islands.
| Quote: |
| That's great, but while good for maybe at most, a corps. You aren't going to get a full army out of India, certainly not with the restless state of domestic politics at the time. And as I mentioned, the Americans would be FAR FAR better at fomenting rebellion and upheaval than the Japanese or Germans |
British and commonwealth forces defending India during WW2 numbered over half a million and the Indian forces themselves numbered over 2.5 million. India was defended.
As for rebellion, you need to show your working. How would they go about doing that?
| Quote: |
This was due in large part to the drastic difference in size and quality of the Italian and German navies vs. the British pre-Dec. 7th, and the Japanese Navy being primarily occupied by the Americans once they entered the war, as well as American assistance in the North Atlantic.
With that same American navy as a foe, Britain would have a much tougher time. |
Actually one foe thousands of miles away is less threatening than three foes right on your doorstep.
The Italians and the Germans could at least bring their power to bear upon British supply lines in the Med. Again how are US forces going to project their power when their nearest bases are in the Caribbean?
I know you are going to retort Canaries! The Azores! French North Africa! but this is not a serious solution. I dont see the point of continuing this line of argument seeing as to get bases close enough to the Med would precipitate war with the entirety of Western Europe.
The US would not start invading the French Empire, Spain and Portugal just to get at the British base at Gibraltar.
| Quote: |
| No, the Azores and Canaries or possibly North Africa, and ONLY following the defeat of the Royal Navy at sea. Or even not invading them and simply relying on a carrier task force or two. |
The US only attempted to blocakde the Japanese when they had bases close enough to project air and sea power. An unsupported naval taskforce, no matter how powerful, is not going to be able to maintain a blockade for any length of time.
US forces are going to have get their hands dirty and directly assault Gibraltar, Malta, Corfu, Egypt, the Levant and Cyprus if they want to cut off the Med.
| Quote: |
| So the British strategy is to sit idly by while Canada, the Caribbean, and SE Asia are lopped off by the U.S.? |
Britain can adopt whatever strategy it wants to prevent itself from being cut off and starved. A defensive strategy is as good as any other and it is not as though the colonies in the western hemisphere mean anything.
Although why is this war going on for longer than a year or two? Do you expect the land war in Canada to take that long?
| Quote: |
| So the British strategy vs. the Americans is one of attrition? |
As long as Britain maintains its supply lines it cannot be defeated. During the 1930s the RN is a superior fighting force in comparison to the USN. See my arguments above for why US forces couldn't cut Britain off.
| Quote: |
| Yeah, its not like fleets with Essex-class fleets overwhelmed any bases during WWII.... |
Isolated islands that had already been cut off and starved of supplies, reinforcements and support.
Where is Britain's Saipan, Guam and crucially Okinawa? You take Okinanwa you deprive the Japanese of 90%+ of its vital war supplies. Where do you send your fleet to do the same to Britain?
| Quote: |
| What you think that magically Britain can just move 500 panes from Gibraltar to Malta to Port Said or keep 500 at each? Heck, for a while Malta was defended by 3 Gloster Gladiator biplanes. Now while that may work while the Italians bumble their way through things, against a US Navy carrier task force, that won't hang. |
I like how in this discussion the US forces are at 1945 levels of mobilization and equipped with carriers from the 1940s, but Britain has to make do with 1930 era tech and disposition of forces.
We use the WW2 examples to give an idea of the potential forces at full mobilization. Britain produced nearly 3000 Lancaster bombers in 1944 alone, so yeah if needed they could concentrate quite a few sqaudrons.
Obviously the US produced more, but they need the bases from which to bring that power to bear.
| Quote: |
| But again, we have to remember the MASSIVE assistance and cooperation the RN got from the USN. While the RN would be a more dangerous foe than the IJN, they would still face the same strategic dangers any island empire faces, as well. |
The batte of the atlanctic was won by tech and tactics. Even with US assistance losses were only halted by aircraft that could fly further, escort carriers and advancements in ASW doctrine.
That and the German threat to Britain has been overblown, they were never in a position to cut Britain off.
Also remind me again why this matters? Britain is getting supplied from the Empire coming through the Indian Ocean-Med route and from Europe in this scenario.
| Quote: |
| But you're using numbers and successes in WWII as a point to justify success from the RN in a hypothetical war. The problem with that in the case of Britain is that those successes and numbers owe themselves in large part to the cooperation with the United States that Britain received economically and militarily. |
As stated above, Britain needed that support because Europe was overrun. Britain is a European nation that even during the imperial heyday maintained a large amount of trade between itself and the continent.
In our scenario the loss of food stuffs from North America would initially be a severe shock, but Britian would adapt and with supplies and trade from Europe and the Empire, it would go on and expand.
| Quote: |
| Well to be sure, a move against Iceland would come towards the end, not at the beginning as British strength starts to ebb, as it inevitably would in any protracted war against the United States. It would likely have to be a surprise attack and success may not be guaranteed. The U.S. could choose instead to go with the North African-Mediterranean strangulation strategy. Instead of island hopping, it might decide to go coastal hopping up Africa. |
I am going to be genorous and give you Iceland. You still haven't answered how forces from Iceland could do anything to the home islands. Again, Iceland is not Okinawa.
| Quote: |
| Let time take care of the rest as the Indian situation is ultimately untenable, and Egypt isn't far behind. |
To even be in a position to forment rebellion in either India and Egypt you are actually going to have to land forces in those colonies.
| Quote: |
| The goal for the U.S. isn't conquest of the British Isles. The goal is the demise of the British Empire. |
Actually the goal as stated in the war plan was to take Canada and quickly.
In the US in the 1930s was there a great appetite to embark on a global crusade against the far flung British Empire? When the bodies of dead Americans fighting Sikh soldiers in Madras start to pile up, how much longer is the the US public going to support this war of naked conquest? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails, my next literary purchase will be Shelby Foote's Civil War series. What sources do you recommend for WW1-2 era history? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
metalhead
Joined: 18 May 2010
Location: Toilet
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I had no idea Steelrails was such a tactical genius - I would love to find some of his university lectures on youtube, anyone got a link? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Steelrails, my next literary purchase will be Shelby Foote's Civil War series. What sources do you recommend for WW1-2 era history? |
It's been awhile since I picked up a WWII book. Most of what I learned about WWII was when I was in elementary-middle school and books whose names I have long since forgotten. In college was when I got into The Civil War and that has primarily occupied my attention, though lately I have been paying more attention to the Inter-war period, mostly the Reichswehr. These days my primary WWII source is wikipedia and the occasional web article...
Stormtroop Tactics: Innovation in the German Army, 1914-1918 by Bruce I. Gudmundsson. Great book about how German infantry started to move away from massed assaults as a way to break through entrenched lines and was beginning to develop its theory of maneuver warfare.
Also Martin VanCrevald's Fighting Power. It really looks at the doctrinal difference between the American and German militaries in WWII.
And while I haven't read this, its a similar topic to a book my military history professor taught from (name escapes me at the moment), The Roots of Blitzkrieg: Hans von Seeckt and German Military Reform by James S. Corum. I used parts of it in a paper I wrote.
As far as a general history of U.S. Military history, I'd recommend For the Common Defense by Millet & Mazlowski and The American Way of War by Russel F. Weigley.
As for a Civil War book, a good one volume introduction is the classic Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson. However, my personal favorite and one that really gets into the personalities of the generals and the nature of leadership and military decision making is Douglas Southall Freeman's Lee's Lieutenant's. By the end of the book you feel that you don't just know the generals as historical figures, but you know them as people. You even feel a touch of personal sadness when you read about their deaths. And one more for a firsthand study of the war is E. Porter Alexander's Military Memoirs of a Confederate. Perhaps the most accurate and dispassionate first-hand account of the war by a general officer.
| Quote: |
| had no idea Steelrails was such a tactical genius - I would love to find some of his university lectures on youtube, anyone got a link? |
Le sigh. I'm no genius, just a lifetime of studying military history. Aq8kynus is handling the discussion well. If there is some point he raised and I haven't directly responded to it, it probably means he made a good one and I can imagine there are more than a couple there. You know how an internet debate goes.
Anyways, my current employer is related to national security and military affairs (though primarily education) so that's that. Apparently I passed muster enough when it comes to what I know for them to hire me.
===================
Maybe its the Kloud talking, but I kinda wish I didn't have this whole apologist deal going on so I could just post on here about CE stuff and Korean military-related affairs without people worrying about my agenda and people in the "real world" finding out who I am and the Dave's psycho lurker randomly taking issue with me. What a crappy bed I made for myself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Steelrails"]
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Steelrails, Maybe its the Kloud talking, but I kinda wish I didn't have this whole apologist deal going on so I could just post on here about CE stuff and Korean military-related affairs without people worrying about my agenda and people in the "real world" finding out who I am and the Dave's psycho lurker randomly taking issue with me. What a crappy bed I made for myself. |
I just want to say thanks for the discussion, apologies if I have been a bit disrespectful, I do tend to forget that I am talking with a real person.
I studied military history at uni and although I would run a million miles in the other direction from a real war I do enjoy the subject.
Personally these types of threads are the ones I like best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
