Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
'What If' it had been the Americans and not the Germans who challenged british naval supremacy
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Here's a development on expat's 'what if' over on HH.
What would have been the outcome if, for example, Grant had interpreted the Monroe doctrine along similar lines as Roosevelt, namely that the entire Western Hemisphere was under their aegis?
Considering the development of new naval technologies during the civil war, such as the ironclads monitor and virginia, could the US rather than Germany have challenged the british naval supremacy? and if yes, could the British have adequately countered in any way?
Elistan -
Message 2
Posted by Brian_Dickson (U2941024) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
what if the british navy had developed anti ship missiles ?
-
Message 3
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
It is one of the stupiest thing i've ever heard. During the civil war this 75 year old former colony had more than enough to do to keep itself together. It was still groing up and asserting itself. It was satisfied with having its own domisphere, and did beneath it all carry a deep respect for Britain, from which it inherieted everything it needed on its further journey.
As developments show todAY IN IRAQ IT STILL HAS A LOT CAQTCHING UP TO DO, for instance learning how non-amaricans think. It is certainly in its self-interest to quickly catch up on this. -
Message 4
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
The industrial capacity was growing so on that level, by the end of the C19 it could, but there wasn't the strategic imperitive that the UK had to channel such vast sums into the navy.
If the US had decided that it wanted to use force to ensure it was the main creditor to Latin America rather than Britain then there may have been a major arms race but Britain would have found European allies who also had investment in S. America.
Even in the unlikely event that a C19 USA had won such an encounter, she'd be badly damaged by it and probably wouldn't have had the capital to invest in S America.
In the event the UK was so badly damaged by WW1 that Americas continued growth allowed it to take this role anyway.
Probably. -
Message 5
Posted by Disgruntled_Renegade (U530059) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Wasnt the Royal Navy still top dog on the Oceans until at least Ww1?
-
Message 6
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
It is one of the stupiest thing i've ever heard. Ìý
Welcome the wonderful world of 'What If', where the grass is purple and the sky is yellow.
More seriously, at the same time that the arms race was developing in Europe between Britain and Germany Teddy Roosevelt was beginning to flex America's colonial muscles within the Americas, with his view that Europe should stay out of the region.
Now, if that view had been expressed earlier, maybe not directly upon conclusion of the Civil War, but certainly after the Maximillian affair, it is conceivable that the American Government could have started on a naval program to protect its stance. To spend on a war footing into peace time to reinvigorate an economy is not unusual, nor is efforts to unite a people through the development of a 'siege' mentality, us against the world.
If Britain had reacted negatively to such manoeuvrings it could have exposed itself to German endeavours in the same direction. The reason I raised it is, as I said, due to the implication in epat's thread on a German-speaking America rethinking its foreign policy in relation to Europe.
Could the British navy have withstood two emerging industrial nations on an naval arms race. Correct me if I'm wrong, but British policy was to have twice as many ships as the next two largest navies. Germany pushed this, If the US had an equally belligerent view of British naval dominance, they could have tipped the balance.
As to the deepseated respect for all things british, this was the same country which had effective financed the confederacy in the civil war. If the South had received just a little more overt aid it is not inconceivable that post-war America would have looked very askance at British activities.
Technologically speaking the navies in the civil war had become more advance than their european counterparts. By the war's conclusion they had had their new ideas and developments tempered in the heat of battle against a foe of equal worth, something the British had not faced in two generations. They lacked numbers fleetwise, but look at the great railroad roll out or Carnegie's steelworks and one can see they did not lack the industry, resources or know-how to build a more modern fleet than Britains. They made a choice to look inwards during those crucial decades of 1870-1900, and it was noy until Europe was on the brink of war that Roosevelt shifted tack, by which the American Navy was back in catch-up.
Its all about cusp moments, when it could have swung the other way with the slightest of feather touches.
E -
Message 7
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Yes, the RN was supreme in the world at that time, and "monitor" types would have been uttely incapable of challenging them anywhere outside US coastal waters. I'd reckon that neither Britain nor France had anything to fear from the US Navy of that date. The two "Black snakes" would (judging from Hampton Roads) have been invulnerable to Monitor or Virginia's fire, and were true ocean-going vessels. The "Kinbourn" type floating batteries of 1856 vintage were at least the equal of Virginia, and Reed was well along the route that lead, via Cerberus, to Devastation and Thunderer. Provided Britain resisted the temptation to try conclusions on land, they had nothing to fear. Don't forget the very partial success of the US in the War of 1812 only occurred when Britiash forces were heavily committed to a continuing war against a far more powerful opponent - Napoleonic France.
-
Message 8
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Elistan what if your grandmother had wheels? It would certainly be a pretty sight, and you 2 could make a nice roll.
-
Message 9
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Nick,
great to see you getting into the spirit of speculation, though I think that scenario would better placed over on the S&N boards!
-
Message 10
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Cheers Turnwrest,
So the US 'ironclads' were only coastal vessels? Was Britain close to developing a more Oceanic version, or who came up with that first?
E -
Message 11
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
E
Welcome the wonderful world of 'What If', where the grass is purple and the sky is yellow.
May I add
and Alan is President of the world for life.
Matt. -
Message 12
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Elistan,
Once the North got in gear there was very little chance of a Southern victory. The Union was fighting with one hand behind its back. The ironclads did very little but bounce ball off each others hull. No way could the United States have won a fight at sea with the RN in the 19th century. Had we adopted German as our national language I still can't see any kind of alliance with Germany verses the UK. Language is not the mould for a nation’s character although it can influence it. In that time frame we were still very thankful to the French which I think even influenced our decision to enter WW1.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 13
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Matt,
I agree. It was just an intellectual goof to look at it.
However it is curious that the British were complicit in Confederency plans and France was active in Mexico, and yet it was the Germans that Teddy R. was most afraid of with his corollary.
Europeans for ye! Can't trust any of them -
Message 14
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
The French (wooden ships with iron armour applied) were first with Gloire and Couronne, the British were a few months behind with Warrior and Black Prince (iron ships with teak armour backing), then half a dozen "iron frigates". The first mastless ship in the Empire's order of battle was the breastwork monitor HMVS Cerberus (Her Majesty's Victorian Ship) built for the colony of Victoria. She made the trip (with additional rigging to get her there) out to Australia. Her remains are still (just about) there, with two of the three (I think) remaining Coles type turrets, which were markedly different from the USN's Ericsson turrets. There are a number of interesting models of early Coast Defence ships on
-
Message 15
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Wasn't HMS Warrior the first effort at an ocean going ironclad (or was it the French pre-decessor La Gloire). Warrior was basically the ultimate weapon for a while anyway. A fully metal hulled battleship, with turret mounted breech loading guns. She may have looked like an old style "ship of the line" from a distance, but she was a truly scary ship to come across.
I can't quite remember the quote, but some famous figure at the time described her as being a "creation of hell" or something like that.
Going on to the "what if" aspect, the Royal Navy prior to World War One had the doctrine of maintaining twice as many battleships as the next two biggest fleets combined, to ensure numerical superiority. With the creation of Dreadnought, and steam turbine technology (both early 20th Century creations), the outcome of a naval clash between the US and UK in say 1910, well the US would have suffered greatly. Its fleet would have been incapable of defeating the British fleet at the time, and blockade of the US coast would have been the result.
However, the US would have mobilised its industrial might eventually, and they would have won in the end. They were simply too populous a nation, with too much power in the way of natural resources. The war would however have economically ruined both the US and the British Empire.
DL -
Message 16
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Matt,
I agree. It was just an intellectual goof to look at it.
However it is curious that the British were complicit in Confederency plans and France was active in Mexico, and yet it was the Germans that Teddy R. was most afraid of with his corollary.
Europeans for ye! Can't trust any of themÌý
Elistan,
I figure the British were complicit in Confederency plans because that was where the cotton came from for British mills.
Cheers. -
Message 17
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
I figure the British were complicit in Confederency plans because that was where the cotton came from for British mills.
Cheers. Ìý
Cotton was starting to come in from other resources. It was grown within the Empire and Russia was starting to grow it in her Asian colonies. So although there were links to the south and its cotton, it wasn't all that important. I also vaguely remember that the cotton industry was in a bit of a recession anyway and so a few mills closing here and there wouldn't have harmed the industry much.
Some people in Britain also genuinely believed in the rights of the individual states to secede. Those in favour of the south tended to be powerful aristocrats.
Counter to that there was also popular support for the north. Britain at the time had a large working class which was politically active and often fired by moral indignation. Abolition of slavery in Britain enjoyed massive popular support. Many of the workers felt exploited and thus had plenty of sympathy for the oppressed slaves. Amongst the upper classes, there were many who had money invested in Union industries and so even among the owning classes cheap cotton wasn't the only concern.
Probably more important than southern cotton were grain imports from the northern states which fed Britain's industrial revolution. Britain hasn't been self-sufficient in food since shortly after the Napoleonic wars. Expensive bread would have been far more disasterous for Manchester mill owners than paying a bit more for cotton.
What really upset Britain was the North's attempts to embargo the south and intercept ships on the high seas. This was considered to be totally unacceptable by all sectors in British society (yes, I know that the RN were happy to do this themselves, but hypicracy was a great Victorian virtue).
-
Message 18
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Wasnt the Royal Navy still top dog on the Oceans until at least Ww1?Ìý
yep, it still was by wws to. even by ww2, in a deep sea fleet engagement we could have defeated a combined german, frech and america or jap fleet. it most certainly would have been a pyrrhic victory and ended our time as a naval power, but we'dve won -
Message 19
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Wasn't HMS Warrior the first effort at an ocean going ironclad (or was it the French pre-decessor La Gloire). Warrior was basically the ultimate weapon for a while anyway. A fully metal hulled battleship, with turret mounted breech loading guns. She may have looked like an old style "ship of the line" from a distance, but she was a truly scary ship to come across.
I can't quite remember the quote, but some famous figure at the time described her as being a "creation of hell" or something like that.
Going on to the "what if" aspect, the Royal Navy prior to World War One had the doctrine of maintaining twice as many battleships as the next two biggest fleets combined, to ensure numerical superiority. With the creation of Dreadnought, and steam turbine technology (both early 20th Century creations), the outcome of a naval clash between the US and UK in say 1910, well the US would have suffered greatly. Its fleet would have been incapable of defeating the British fleet at the time, and blockade of the US coast would have been the result.
However, the US would have mobilised its industrial might eventually, and they would have won in the end. They were simply too populous a nation, with too much power in the way of natural resources. The war would however have economically ruined both the US and the British Empire.
DLÌý
under a straight blockade, it would have taken the americans so long to gather said resourses that theyd have had to capitulate before they could have challenged us again -
Message 20
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
It is one of the stupiest thing i've ever heard. During the civil war this 75 year old former colony had more than enough to do to keep itself together. It was still groing up and asserting itself. It was satisfied with having its own domisphere, and did beneath it all carry a deep respect for Britain, from which it inherieted everything it needed on its further journey.
As developments show todAY IN IRAQ IT STILL HAS A LOT CAQTCHING UP TO DO, for instance learning how non-amaricans think. It is certainly in its self-interest to quickly catch up on this.Ìý
Nick-Rowan: With respect I must say that in 1866 the U.S. was, arguably, the strongest military power in the world. With the breach loading riffeled cannon with exploding shells mounted on ironclad ship, we could have taken on any navy in the world. I agree we don't know how to be diplomatic or get along with others, but we know how to kill.
-
Message 21
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
the reason i say what i say is cos everyone seems to un derestimate how incredibly powerful britain was at that time, especially if it had its industries and armies at a war footing (which it didnt do in either war, for a while at least), i read a book that once said if we could have completely mobilised and used our industries at 100% efficiency (or near enough) that we wouldve won both wars in short order. it also said that at the time it wouldve been impossiblr to do so considering how centralised it all was.
-
Message 22
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
the reason i say what i say is cos everyone seems to un derestimate how incredibly powerful britain was at that time, especially if it had its industries and armies at a war footing (which it didnt do in either war, for a while at least), i read a book that once said if we could have completely mobilised and used our industries at 100% efficiency (or near enough) that we wouldve won both wars in short order. it also said that at the time it wouldve been impossiblr to do so considering how centralised it all was.Ìý
marduk_report: With respect, at no time during WWII did you have any main battle tanks (MBT) that could hope to successfully challenge the German MBT of the moment on a one-to-one scale. While you had a good fighter in the Spitfire, your bombers were more or less a joke. I don't care if you had been able to double your industrial output, had there been any type of land bridge connecting England with the continent, Hitler would have had tea in Westminister.
-
Message 23
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Hi cloudyj,
Re: message 17.
That was a very educational post for me. I knew tobbaco was being exported to the UK I had no idea that grains were also. A super post.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 24
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 13th January 2006
the reason i say what i say is cos everyone seems to un derestimate how incredibly powerful britain was at that time, especially if it had its industries and armies at a war footing (which it didnt do in either war, for a while at least), i read a book that once said if we could have completely mobilised and used our industries at 100% efficiency (or near enough) that we wouldve won both wars in short order. it also said that at the time it wouldve been impossiblr to do so considering how centralised it all was.Ìý
marduk_report: With respect, at no time during WWII did you have any main battle tanks (MBT) that could hope to successfully challenge the German MBT of the moment on a one-to-one scale. While you had a good fighter in the Spitfire, your bombers were more or less a joke. I don't care if you had been able to double your industrial output, had there been any type of land bridge connecting England with the continent, Hitler would have had tea in Westminister.Ìý
John,
Agreed on the MBTs ( A German tank crewman captured once said that "It always took 4 Shermans to take on one Tiger. The problem was that there was always five Shermans").
However, your comment on bombers? If we're talking pre 1942 then yes, I agree. But after that? The Lancaster was a finer bomber than anything else in the entire war (with maybe the exception of the B29), and it definitely beat anything German!
Had Britain been connected to the continent of Europe by land, then yes, we would have lost. The fact that we are an island gave us time to recover and re-arm, to the extent that by the end of 1940, a German invasion was impractical.
DL -
Message 25
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Friday, 13th January 2006
DL: I agree with your post. I have received a lot of pleasure reading all the posts from people who think England could have eventually defeated Germany alone. IMO had there been no U.S., Germany would have won. And if the U.S. had suffered a major defeat at the battle of Midway, I would not like to beat on the outcome of WWII. Although IMO the outcome would have been the same, but not until 1946 or 47.
-
Message 26
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 13th January 2006
the reason i say what i say is cos everyone seems to un derestimate how incredibly powerful britain was at that time, especially if it had its industries and armies at a war footing (which it didnt do in either war, for a while at least), i read a book that once said if we could have completely mobilised and used our industries at 100% efficiency (or near enough) that we wouldve won both wars in short order. it also said that at the time it wouldve been impossiblr to do so considering how centralised it all was.Ìý
marduk_report: With respect, at no time during WWII did you have any main battle tanks (MBT) that could hope to successfully challenge the German MBT of the moment on a one-to-one scale. While you had a good fighter in the Spitfire, your bombers were more or less a joke. I don't care if you had been able to double your industrial output, had there been any type of land bridge connecting England with the continent, Hitler would have had tea in Westminister.Ìý
with respect, look up the word "navy", it might help you. and do you actually think a land bridge would be anything short of twenty odd miles of impenetrable fortification, with a defending army any less than the size of the entire b.e.f before dunkirk? humph
-
Message 27
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Monday, 16th January 2006
Actually, in 1940, the British Matildas were fully the equal of their German counterparts on the battlefield. Agreed, from then until the arrival of the first Comets, we had nothing to compete with the German tanks.
The Spitfire, in my opinion, was outdated (even with the Griffon engine) by the end of the European war, but the Tempest was available, and, if the war had looked like carrying on, at least two other fighters could and probably would have become operational - the Spiteful/Sea Fang and the Fury, which would have been at least a match for any German piston-enginned aircraft.
That, of course, doesn't affect the original topic, which related to navies in the 3rd quarter of C19th. -
Message 28
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 16th January 2006
John,
I disagree on your post. Had the US not entered WW2, then yes Britain would have lost, but not to Germany. We would have been "welcomed" into Uncle Joe Stalin's Europe-wide USSR. The Russians would have eventually defeated the Germans, with or without help from the US. The result of the US staying out of the war would have meant that the Iron Curtain simply re-located to the middle of the Atlantic, with the whole of Europe under Soviet domination.
Germany had only one opportunity to defeat Britain, and that was in 1940. By 1941, it was quite capable of repelling an invasion, which would have been impossible to mount anyway.
We saw the massive industrial effort that was required for the US and UK to invade Europe on D-day, and the Germans were simply not capable (in terms of industrial capacity and marine vessels) of mounting such an assault. By 1941, Britain was re-armed sufficiently to defend itself.
The best Hitler could have hoped for was a negotiated peace (which after all, was his intention-he had no intention to destroy the British Empire provided Britain let him do what he wanted in mainland Europe). With Churchill in charge, that negotiated peace would never have happened.
DL -
Message 29
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Monday, 16th January 2006
DL's right, modern tacticians reckon that even after dunikirk and before operation barbarossa, the germans didnt have the military werewithal to defeat us-at best they could have got a peace treaty that favoured them.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.