could the royal navy defeat the us navy?

[angelosnau]

Wow!Now we are learning that the Manhattan project and the atomic bomb was actually a British project at aberdeenshire somewhere and not at New Mexico. Thankfully Churchill was well aware of the true power relationship between the UK and the USA.

 

[Alpha2518]

Well I'm going to jump straight to the End and say the USA. USA has greater shipbuilding and industrial capacity and manpower reserves. Even during WW2 it completely eclipsed the Royal Navy as the largest and most powerful navy in the world.

As to the above. The Manhatten Project was an American Project with the support of the UK and Canada as it was under the US Army Corps of Engineers with its HQ at Oak Ridge, Tennesee.

 

[FOARP]

You must be great in debates.

Well, let's look at what the actual question was:

"could the royal navy defeat the us navy?"

Clearly the answer is yes - if you frame the question as being strictly about whether or not one navy could defeat the other in a battle. If you instead throw in the industrial potential of the two sides and ask whether one side could win an all-out war against the other, then you might decide that the answer is no.

So yes (or no), it's basically a silly question the answer to which depends on how you want to frame the question.

 

[Alpha2518]

Well, let's look at what the actual question was:

"could the royal navy defeat the us navy?"

Clearly the answer is yes - if you frame the question as being strictly about whether or not one navy could defeat the other in a battle. If you instead throw in the industrial potential of the two sides and ask whether one side could win an all-out war against the other, then you might decide that the answer is no.

So yes (or no), it's basically a silly question the answer to which depends on how you want to frame the question.

Doesn't matter if they win a few battles here and there. They can't sustain losses or produce to the same level and the commonwealth is useless vs the USA. Most industry is in Britian so all that manpower doesn't matter if equipment and raw materials can't get too Britain and the USA will have a much easier time then Germany in this.

In short, Davids may win battles but Goliath's win wars.

 

[Axe99]

Wow!Now we are learning that the Manhattan project and the atomic bomb was actually a British project at aberdeenshire somewhere and not at New Mexico. Thankfully Churchill was well aware of the true power relationship between the UK and the USA.

Actually, the UK was pivotal in getting the US to see the potential of nuclear technology from a warfare perspective, sent key scientists to it and they had their own nuclear program to boot. However, as per the (very interesting, although I think it sells the US a little short - supplying anything on Newfoundland in the face of US subs would be tough, and it was very nice of Japan in the hypothetical timeline to hit the US while it was down but leave the Brits alone) hypothetical from @levithan123 , it would probably have bankrupted the empire to build it (not something the Brits were averse to doing, just look at their financial behaviour in WW1, although without the US to borrow from it may have been harder to pull off). I'm also not convinced that the UK would regularly strategic bomb somewhere like New York, let alone drop an atomic bomb on it.

However, and it's a huge however, just contemplating war between the US and UK in this time period, and even more contemplating 'total war' of the 'someone doesn't surrender until they have an A-bomb dropped on them, or is mostly occupied' is kinda crazy in the first place, so given that's the starting point, a hypothetical where the UK basically bankrupts themselves to build an A-bomb isn't really that crazy, in context .

 

[Alpha2518]

Axe brings up a point i forgot to mention. The UK was nearly bankrupted by WW2 and probably would certainly be if it did the manhatten project on it's own in addition to fighting the USA. There's a reason why the USA was the only country with money to spare, more clothes then it can wear, more steel then it can use, more food then it could eat, and had the atom bomb in WW2.

 

[Duke Von Hannover]

My point was that America would have got the Bomb on its own, but it got it when it did because of British scientists I did make the point that building the bomb would have bankrupted the Empire (the only way the empire then survives is based on reperations from America. The British in 1941 were asked by the Americans to join them in the Manhattan project (this is after Britain gave America there nuclear knowledge and other science goodies) Britain ignored them until a paper showed up effectively saying if we want a nuclear weapon we cant afford it without America.

 

[angelosnau]

First UK nuclear detonation 1952. 7 years after the Americans and 3 years after the Russians.They were clearly not that close during WW2. And regarding naval aircraft? Swordfish?That's WWI technology.

 

[Duke Von Hannover]

First UK nuclear detonation 1952. 7 years after the Americans and 3 years after the Russians.They were clearly not that close during WW2. And regarding naval aircraft? Swordfish?That's WWI technology.

Regarding Aircraft in general Britains focus historically was entirely on developing landbased aircraft to counter the luftwaffe. American aviation was focussed primarily on defeating the Japanese - we already know what the Americans can do when they focussed on a type of aircraft and theatre. Im merely assuming that the energy and focus that Britain put into fighter command for landbased aviation would have been replicated against the Americans at leasting bringing British naval aviation up to parity.

 

[Secret Master]

It's a silly question.

So basically, this:

 

[steve213]

So basically, this:

precisely. on a separate note. (in italian american accent) that's a nice fleet you have there. it would be a shame if it were to meet with an unfortunate incident.

 

[Shatterfury]

RN alone can`t beat the USN, what if the Italian Navy joins the RN against USN ?

 

[Uniform764]

RN alone can`t beat the USN, what if the Italian Navy joins the RN against USN ?

Why are we handicapping the RN further

 

[Shatterfury]

Why are we handicapping the RN further

Oh come on !

I didn`t want to say Imperial Japanese Navy because that would give RN more than fighting chance so I went with the Italians.

Fine, that it`s the Kriegsmarine than.

 

[Secret Master]

that's a nice fleet you have there. it would be a shame if it were to meet with an unfortunate incident.

"If you're part of the Anglo-American Alliance, nobody ever tells you that they're going to sink your navy, doesn't happen that way. There weren't any arguments or curses like in the movies. See, your murderers come with smiles, they come as your allies, the countries who've fought with you in world wars. And they always seem to come at a time that you're at your weakest and most in need of their help."

 

[Katarian]

First UK nuclear detonation 1952. 7 years after the Americans and 3 years after the Russians.They were clearly not that close during WW2. And regarding naval aircraft? Swordfish?That's WWI technology.

The UK was far too busy during WW2 trying to stay alive and almost bankrupted itself. Historically it could not afford to develop nuclear weapons alone, wrongly assumed the Americans would share technology and so didn't even start until after the war.

In a situation where a war between the US and UK kicks off, or even looks likely, the UK isn't going to develop it's forces and technology in the exact same manner they did historically. Given the likelihood of that war starting was nil it's hardly outrageous to leap to other virtually impossible scenarios and assume the UK develops it's own nuclear weapons first and uses them on the US.

 

[Alias72]

The whole nuclear bomb project seems a bit unnecessary when you consider that much of america's key infrastructure was on the east coast. If Britain could secure naval superiority then it could begin the systematic annihilation of american cities from the sea. Now that's a MAJOR if but that would be the strategy that they would go for. It leverages their sea-power and minimizes risk to British manpower. I doubt America would trade New York and Boston for Toronto and Montreal.

 

[Alpha2518]

The whole nuclear bomb project seems a bit unnecessary when you consider that much of america's key infrastructure was on the east coast. If Britain could secure naval superiority then it could begin the systematic annihilation of american cities from the sea. Now that's a MAJOR if but that would be the strategy that they would go for. It leverages their sea-power and minimizes risk to British manpower. I doubt America would trade New York and Boston for Toronto and Montreal.

Oh yes the devastation from the sea...after America sinks the Royal Navy with it's land based aircraft, including carrier aircraft taking off from airfields that are in land. No way that's happening.

 

[Alias72]

Oh yes the devastation from the sea...after America sinks the Royal Navy with it's land based aircraft, including carrier aircraft taking off from airfields that are in land. No way that's happening.

Hence MAJOR if. Plus the window for that would be about a year after the start of the war before America builds up its air-force.

 

[jdavis86]

http://www.fleetorganization.com/1939intro.html

http://www.naval-history.net/xDKWW2-3908-01RNships.htm

Let your imaginations run wild.