lets say, british politicians somehow come to the conclusion that the US and not Germany is the biggest thread to their empire and it comes to battle at sea. Who wins?
- 2
- 1
- 1
could the royal navy defeat the us navy?
- Thread starter arctus
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Depends on so many factors:
1) If the UK is in war with both Germany and USA?
2) Is the USA also in war with Japan or just UK?
3) Which of the 2 will act as the defensive? will the UK declare war to defend its colonies or to expand?
4) Will they make suprise attacks or will the USA have time to mobilize its industry?
5) The potential theatres of war?
6) Year?
1) If the UK is in war with both Germany and USA?
2) Is the USA also in war with Japan or just UK?
3) Which of the 2 will act as the defensive? will the UK declare war to defend its colonies or to expand?
4) Will they make suprise attacks or will the USA have time to mobilize its industry?
5) The potential theatres of war?
6) Year?
- 1
Ultimately, the US.
Britain might (much like Japan, although different circumstances) have some early successes, and being probably more experienced overall, etc.. but the US industrial power is going to squash them in the end.
Another very interesting difference between British and American way of thinking is in their carrier designs. British carriers had armored decks, and generally fairly low aircraft capacity (between 40 and 50 was probably most common). Later variants of their Implacable class carriers had a complement of 80 - 90 aircraft, but were heavily overloaded designs.
So in the air (in a carrier battle), the US will generally have a substantial numerical advantage. Add to this that the US aircraft were better than the British (for its carrier bombers, Britain mostly used the Fairey Swordfish until 1943 or so. Its a bi-plane..). Their fighters were also second rate, like the Fairey Fulmar (They did make a naval version of the Spitfire, the Seafire, but it was not a success as its airframe simply could not handle the stress of carrier landings).
So yeah.. i'd say that it would have played out much like it did in the Pacific versus the Japanese.. early British successes due to better quality crew and commanders, then as the US starts to flex its industrial muscle, its all downhill for the British.
Britain might (much like Japan, although different circumstances) have some early successes, and being probably more experienced overall, etc.. but the US industrial power is going to squash them in the end.
Another very interesting difference between British and American way of thinking is in their carrier designs. British carriers had armored decks, and generally fairly low aircraft capacity (between 40 and 50 was probably most common). Later variants of their Implacable class carriers had a complement of 80 - 90 aircraft, but were heavily overloaded designs.
So in the air (in a carrier battle), the US will generally have a substantial numerical advantage. Add to this that the US aircraft were better than the British (for its carrier bombers, Britain mostly used the Fairey Swordfish until 1943 or so. Its a bi-plane..). Their fighters were also second rate, like the Fairey Fulmar (They did make a naval version of the Spitfire, the Seafire, but it was not a success as its airframe simply could not handle the stress of carrier landings).
So yeah.. i'd say that it would have played out much like it did in the Pacific versus the Japanese.. early British successes due to better quality crew and commanders, then as the US starts to flex its industrial muscle, its all downhill for the British.
- 10
- 2
could the royal navy defeat the us navy?
Yes , a 'wet navy' beats a 'dry' one every time
Yes , a 'wet navy' beats a 'dry' one every time
- 17
- 7
- 2
The US would ultimately win no matter what year or relative strength of the navies. Though neither side really get anything out of "winning", but the US wouldn't suffer as badly afterwards as the UK no matter the outcome.
I'm not really sure how the US carriers designed for the Pacific would cope in the North Atlantic compared to the Pacific. They certainly wouldn't have as many planes operating off them as they did in the Pacific. The planes would certainly be better assuming the UK doesn't change it's technological advances to combat a different enemy then the ones they expected to face historically.
I'm not really sure how the US carriers designed for the Pacific would cope in the North Atlantic compared to the Pacific. They certainly wouldn't have as many planes operating off them as they did in the Pacific. The planes would certainly be better assuming the UK doesn't change it's technological advances to combat a different enemy then the ones they expected to face historically.
- 1
- 1
US kept it's navy up to full treaty standards with less urgency than the British, so early on (up until '40 or so?) British would enjoy some numerical advantage until US naval rearmament that began in earnest in '34 brought it's fruits to bear. On the other hand British shipbuilding had become relatively donwtrodden between the wars, obsolescent and apparently plagued by number of bottlenecks (gun mountings being a famous one) that limited output. In the long run British can expect to be outmatched by superior quality and quantity in most type of ship.
I would not underestimate the skill of American sailors and their commanders either, as this seems to have generally been high past the 1st year of Pacific War.
I would not underestimate the skill of American sailors and their commanders either, as this seems to have generally been high past the 1st year of Pacific War.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
Britain might be able to win at first, but the US will ultimately just build more ships and eventually win through sheer production power. That is, unless the Royal Navy receives outside support or is supported by a land invasion of US ports...
- 2
- 1
Lets say for this scenario, UK is allied with germany after british forces are destroyed at dunkirk. Right wing government got to power in uk and is allied to germany now. So its 1940 and japan is allied to germany but not yet at war with us.
Japan, UK, Germany and Italy plan for invasion of US. Could that coalation make it?
This is how it would go.
Remember the Tizard mission? So no early RADAR for the USN owkay. That's important.
Also, the early USN torpedoes really were terrible.
But... what is Britain supposed to do without all that overseas resource not coming in from the USA?
Can we assume they get resources from the continent? Sweden, perhaps & the USSR?
So...
The RN wins pretty much every engagement, quite convincingly, despite severe fuel shortages etc. etc. up until about mid 1943 when a serious number of Essex class CV, Baltimores, Gatos, etc. etc. start to appear.
Then, with large numbers of modern naval aircraft, the RN would get hammered.
Not to mention the US ability to build as many destroyers as the UK can build tanks.
And 100 CVEs
It just starts to get silly.
Remember the Tizard mission? So no early RADAR for the USN owkay. That's important.
Also, the early USN torpedoes really were terrible.
But... what is Britain supposed to do without all that overseas resource not coming in from the USA?
Can we assume they get resources from the continent? Sweden, perhaps & the USSR?
So...
The RN wins pretty much every engagement, quite convincingly, despite severe fuel shortages etc. etc. up until about mid 1943 when a serious number of Essex class CV, Baltimores, Gatos, etc. etc. start to appear.
Then, with large numbers of modern naval aircraft, the RN would get hammered.
Not to mention the US ability to build as many destroyers as the UK can build tanks.
And 100 CVEs
It just starts to get silly.
- 8
Highly unlikely.The USN with the huge superiority in naval aircraft would probably destroy the RN quite quickly. IJN vs RN would be more of a contest,although I think that the IJN was more advanced and better suited to modern warfare.
- 2
If USA and UK went to war I am pretty sure the battle would be judged in Canada to be honest, I mean if they lose their land in America they cant really make an attack unless they somehow invade through south America-Caribbean or something similar.
What if japan attacked from the pacific with half UK and Germany from other side?
And somehow they control the strait of panama with uk? they can block the USA from moving ships one way around thus making the war extremely hard for them.
But from the moment USA mobilizes there is pretty much no contest.
What if japan attacked from the pacific with half UK and Germany from other side?
And somehow they control the strait of panama with uk? they can block the USA from moving ships one way around thus making the war extremely hard for them.
But from the moment USA mobilizes there is pretty much no contest.
Was american ships even suited for the atlantic, I have heard that they had stability problems which would be a hugh disadvantage. I have also heard that the british considered the american ships to be underarmored. British had as good fire control as the americans and have better anti aircraft designs (Pompom was better then the americans anti aircrafts designs) if you discount the foreign designs, at least US would not have kerrison predictors if hostility started in the 30s.
British would probably be able to hold of the americans in the atlantic.
British would probably be able to hold of the americans in the atlantic.
- 1
Evryone in this thred make one mistake. You are writing like both sides simply pruduce ships and fight somwere in the midle of atlantic.
I take that there is no hitler in this scenario and USA didynt start to build up. Becouse this is only scenario that could lead to such thing.
There are few thinks to considere first.
1. Usa navy have two fleets pacific and atlantic that are balanced. Brits if i remember corectly had their capital ships more concetrated on atlantic.
2. Second Land forces of Usa until what 1942? was simply weak.
3. Panama canal
4. Washington was on atlantic side.
How would it start if UK would atack?
1. Small strike team to blockaded Panama
2. Big naval atack on Atalntic USA fleet won by UK
3. Land atack from Canada (remeber side that atacks is always better off)
4. Washington falls alot of commanding centers also.
5. Remeber alot of USA industry and all shipyards are on the cost in range of all those batteships and landing parties.
I take that there is no hitler in this scenario and USA didynt start to build up. Becouse this is only scenario that could lead to such thing.
There are few thinks to considere first.
1. Usa navy have two fleets pacific and atlantic that are balanced. Brits if i remember corectly had their capital ships more concetrated on atlantic.
2. Second Land forces of Usa until what 1942? was simply weak.
3. Panama canal
4. Washington was on atlantic side.
How would it start if UK would atack?
1. Small strike team to blockaded Panama
2. Big naval atack on Atalntic USA fleet won by UK
3. Land atack from Canada (remeber side that atacks is always better off)
4. Washington falls alot of commanding centers also.
5. Remeber alot of USA industry and all shipyards are on the cost in range of all those batteships and landing parties.
- 11
- 7
Already mentioned Panama and Canada in my post, and to be honest the war would be kinda judged in the Atlantic since UK would try to supply Canada through there.
Also we need to bear in mind that the USA will be on the defensive side so it would make sense for them to invest in aircrafts instead of the navy and maybe infantry as well.
Also we need to bear in mind that the USA will be on the defensive side so it would make sense for them to invest in aircrafts instead of the navy and maybe infantry as well.
Now conversely, could the Americans attack Britain? Assuming the same rules apply and Weimar still rules Germany etc?
- 1
No they would attack the colonies in southeast asia, it doesn't make sense to invade Britain, Britain doesn't have anything worth, if you break their empire they will break as well. So in that sense its better if they attacked colonies like India/Singapore.
But if they did want to I guess the USA could establish air bases in Azores,Iceland and attack from there and basically bombard the hell out of them. I doubt they would attempt making an invasion due to distance.
The UK couldn't get away with a surprise attack; there would definitely be rising tension (and massing troops in Canada would be picked up by the US right away, since there is no other reason to deploy them there other than to attack the US). So the US is also starting to mobilize, and shifting forces to the Atlantic.
The UK can't support a reasonable amphibious assault force across the Atlantic, and British amphibious assaults were generally unsuccessful up through Overlord (their doctrine was terrible, as e.g. Dieppe and the Dodecanese both demonstrate), while the East Coast of the US is heavily fortified (and with tensions rising and the British massing, they would be manning those fortifications). So an assault on Washington is right out.
The USN is too big to be destroyed in a single decisive battle (ditto the RN), so destroying the fleets would involve a prolonged campaign, which plays in the US's favor (since their industry is far greater, even if we assume that a Canadian invasion somehow captures/destroys a significant chunk of it). Furthermore, any operations against the US mainland will by definition be within range of US land-based air; the largely obsolete British carrier aircraft wouldn't have a chance, and unlike Germany/Japan, the US has plenty of oil, so fuel will not be a concern.
Eventually the mobilized US forces drive into Canada and take the inhabited parts (and remember, unlike the US, essentially everyone in Canada lives relatively close to the US-Canadian border; the British can hang out in the extreme north all they want, but there are no ports and no supplies there). Then they can try and seize bases in the Old World and hop their way across until they can build up for an eventual invasion of the UK. Since they are outproducing the British by a wide margin, the UK is slowly being ground down by attrition, and eventually blockades (and later sustained strategic bombing) cripple the British Isles.
- 5
- 1
Well this is one topic no doubt intend to cause fireworks. Who would win would depend just like it did in the pacific, who found who first and had the most to throw at the fleet when they did.
Britain went with more armored carriers than Japan or USA who favored speed. However all sides showed their carriers would sink. That said, USA also had issues with early war torpedoes.
Britain went with more armored carriers than Japan or USA who favored speed. However all sides showed their carriers would sink. That said, USA also had issues with early war torpedoes.
Last edited:
WWII naval warfare at its most advanced form was all about air power and aircraft carriers.The USN had better carriers, better aircraft and much superior production capabilities,as well as strategic depth and human resources.Some people are quite convinced that the RN would win the 1942 battles(first year of american involvement in WWII). I'm not convinced at all.
- 1
- Status