What is that ?
A German U-Boat flying a UK flag launching something resembling a nuclear V-2 ?
Why.......I would never think the Germans would be capable of something like that...would they ?
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
A German U-Boat flying a UK flag launching something resembling a nuclear V-2 ?
Why.......I would never think the Germans would be capable of something like that...would they ?
What is that ?
A German U-Boat flying a UK flag launching something resembling a nuclear V-2 ?
Why.......I would never think the Germans would be capable of something like that...would they ?
Nope. Hiter would cling to his ideology. He sees the Americans and British as fellow Aryans. Doesn't make sense to nuke them. the USSR on the other hand...
- 1
What if the Americans need to see the.....light ???
Well by that point the USSR is already conquered giving the Germans the perfect base needed to overthrow Anglo-American Hegemony. Just need to make more IC and use the extra leadership to tech up more and build more. Or would it just be Anglo Hegemony or American Hegemony if the two are at war with each other?
No USSR involved at all....Germany, not necessarily Nazi, lends a hand to UK fighting a naval war against USA.
Since UK developed the nuke by itself in the scenario discussed, it needs a launching platform and the Germans have the perfect delivery method that can circumvent USA air domination.
No USSR involved at all....Germany, not necessarily Nazi, lends a hand to UK fighting a naval war against USA.
Since UK developed the nuke by itself in the scenario discussed, it needs a launching platform and the Germans have the perfect delivery method that can circumvent USA air domination.
Well, the one you gave isn't likely as that's a bit too advanced for the 1930s and 40s. And as mentioned earlier UK couldn't hope to do so without bankrupting itself. However in any event I think the Germans are going to be the big winner in any UK-USA War.
The Germans had the V2 by 1944, the UK is very unlikely to develop the nuke by 1944, maybe 1945 but more likely 1946.
I doubt the UK could manage that if it went nearly bankrupt fighting Germany in WW2 even with US help. It'll almost certainly do so again or will go bankrupt fighitng the USA. Also it's not the V2 im referring to, but the ability to launch them from submarines and then make sure they hit their target which unless it's a stationary platform (Not possible at sea) is impossible for the 1940s tech wise.
In real life the Germans already scheduled U-boots capable, in theory, to launch V2 to be built in late 1944.
A lot of theory, I know.
The United States would win.
From the beginning on.
And here is the reason:
The United States has everything it needs to produce ships, aircraft e.t.c.
So, the USN does not have to control the sea.
On the other hand, the UK depends on imports. The RN has to control the sea.
A stalemate - the USN denying control of the sea to the RN and vice versa - will result in a defeat for the UK.
Consider this:
A powerful USN task force - 3 CVs and three BBs - leaving the US east coast.
What is the UK going to do? Form fleets that are of equal strength?
Or send a huge doomstack out there in the hopes of finding the US fleet?
So, without any land invasions (except for the US invasion of Canada), the US would simply disrupt the British sea lines of communication.
The result would be a dramatic drop in UK industrial capacity while the United States is able to continue building warships.
Heck, the UK would probably experience a mass starvation.
From the beginning on.
And here is the reason:
The United States has everything it needs to produce ships, aircraft e.t.c.
So, the USN does not have to control the sea.
On the other hand, the UK depends on imports. The RN has to control the sea.
A stalemate - the USN denying control of the sea to the RN and vice versa - will result in a defeat for the UK.
Consider this:
A powerful USN task force - 3 CVs and three BBs - leaving the US east coast.
What is the UK going to do? Form fleets that are of equal strength?
Or send a huge doomstack out there in the hopes of finding the US fleet?
So, without any land invasions (except for the US invasion of Canada), the US would simply disrupt the British sea lines of communication.
The result would be a dramatic drop in UK industrial capacity while the United States is able to continue building warships.
Heck, the UK would probably experience a mass starvation.
- 4
Then you need to go read his Second Book (the one never published during his lifetime).
I won't repeat the racist and antisemitic rants, but the short version is that the United States was seen by Hitler as a Jewish controlled state that must ultimately come to blows with Germany even if it wasn't within his lifetime.
The USA, in video game terms, was to Hitler what raid boss is to gamers: something to be completely wiped out and farmed for end-game widgets.
The great irony is that the UK spent time and effort creating propaganda to make it look like Germany would come for the US one day, but if they had copies of Hitler's Second Book, they wouldn't have had to make anything up.
EDIT: He wasn't seeing the US as Aryan in any meaningful sense of that term.
- 3
Thats pretty much the way the Nazi's viewed every state that wasn't facist. Including Germany before the Nazis came to power. If it was capitalist it was Jewish Capitalism and if it was Communism it was Jewish Bolshevism. Blow's aside Hitler pretty much admired the USA and said that only "mistake" the US made was freeing it's slaves and would try to have "normal" relations once the this so called "control" by Jews is removed.
- 2
This is something I didn't comment on as the thread was about USN Vs RN but, of course, this would be the case as Japan was on a collission course with the USA anyway AND was on VERY good terms with Britain too, coming in on the side of The Entent a week or so after Britain declared war on Germany. It is reasonable to assume that they would also honour the 1902 treaty again, taking the oportunity to expand on their WW I gains at the expense of Britain enemies.
I agree with some of this, but not the dates. It would be have been highly unlikely for Britain to have develeoped a working fission bomb before 1948.
On the other hand... again, without the Tizzard mission, the US doesn't even start a nuclear program at all. Sorry guys, they thought it as impossible. OK they may start one eventually. But it's likely to be after a WTF was THAT moment.
As stated The Manhatten project wouldn't have occured in the same timeframe and without the information gained from the Tube Alloys project, it would have been many years after 1945 that a workable fission device could have been produced.
It might give the USN something to think about. I mean... on paper, the Italian battleships look pretty good and it's not until you comit to a fight that you find out they can't hit anything.
Not in ANY sense of the term. From what I know, Hitler had a particular disrespect for the USA as a melting pot of racial impurity.
- 1
Actually, I believe both UK and USA considered each other the biggest threat after world war I and a naval arms race was kicking off when it was agreed to seek the first naval agreement on fleet size.
I was allowing for the possibility that he might see German-Americans as counting as Aryan, but your point is well taken. (It's been awhile since I've read portions of that book.)
Couldn't Britain divide it's navy into two parts one to the usa east coast and one to panama. Then the British in panama could launch explosives into the canal, permanently destroying it while the British on the east coast fire chemical weapons and highly explosive things into major cities like New York specifically aimed at civilians. Then the British could call on Japan to fight USA in the pacific, destroying the American navy there as well as potentially launching a successful pearl harbour (with British support) and even decimating Los Angeles.The Americans would likely invade Canada where the British could have been secretly building defensive fortifications for a couple years, thus Canada could hold on for a while despite being severely outnumbered. By destroying the American manpower through these tactics the British can stall until they can successfully bring over large amount of conscripts with machine guns from British India to Newfoundland. Then the British could use these troops to launch a lightening attack (similar to the blitzkrieg) against what is left of the the American coastline until finally reaching the Appalachians and hunkering down. They could then offer the Americans a peace offer that would see the expansion of Canada into Maine and Alaska as well as the restoration of Mexico, the handing over of the phillipeans to japan and Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the East coast to Britain. How would the Americans be able to refuse with half their population dead, the Japanese dominating the pacific and Britain with total control of the east coast. This all assumes of course that Britain is the aggressor and does not care about the laws of war
Last edited:
Chemical weapons on cities? No that would never be done because it invites the same retaliation in kind and WW1. And no Canada could not hold out. Britian realized and accepted that in event of another war with the U.S.A after the War of 1812 Canada would be lost. This is why she didn't fight another war with the USA in North America.
Also American manpower won't be destroyed because the range of battleships is only effective as 20 miles maximum effective range. Most of the population doesn't live within 20 miles of the coast because of that nice vast interior.
Blitzkrieg probably won't happen because 1) The British stopped all armor experiments about armored exploitation which was picked up by Germany and 2) Their WW1 experience generally wouldn't allow from it as they drew different lessons then the Germans.
You clearly don't understand Americans. To quote admiral Yamato "You cannot invade America. There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass." As such in addittion too the regular army now you got the good old american guerilla to contend with. Good luck with stopping that.
Finally Japan would not be called on for help. Western Powers were quite content on keeping everything as it is and not expanding anyones power. Especially Japan who looks hungrily down upon the East Indies.
Woodrow Wilson to Colonel House about the British Empire in 1915 said:
The British and Americans had parity under the Washington Naval Treaty. Probably the British had Naval superiority while it was in effect, I think the Limeys indisputably had the best practical navy in the world. It's possible that Japan matched, or even surpassed, British quality ton for tonne. But the 5:5:3 ratio was not in Japan's favor. Indeed the Japanese were the first to denounce the treaty.
Once the Treaty was invalid, the Americans eventually left the British in the dust. Once the USA mobilized, the British were not be able to compete.
Last edited:
There you go again, wishcasting your nonsense about the importance of the Tizzard mission, which I think I effectively demonstrated in your prior thread was predominately hype and British post-war puffery. Most of the technological wonders you claimed were bequeathed to the US were prior American inventions or were already submitted to the the US patent office. American Radar was every bit as advanced as British with the sole exception of the cavity magnetron which was a big deal with microwave spectrum radar but which was purely theoretical at the time as far as the British were concerned, and they shared it with the US precisely because they needed American expertise to get practical applications actually manufactured. I am sure it would have been discovered by the US research teams in about 30 days once they were put on its trail. The Americans were way ahead in manufacturing techniques and practical applications. It was the US that managed to solve the miniaturization that could survive the acceleration and centrifugal forces of an artillery shell to make the proximity fuse more than an oddity useful for non-rotational rockets shot at test balloons.
And it is true that the US was not that urgent about the bomb -- prior to December 7, 1941. But for some mysterious reason the US got serious after that date, and when they did, the investments and the rate of the advances amazed the Brits, who at first refused to cooperate but then after it was clear they were being passed by, begged to be a part of the program. The US had the money, the scientific infrastructure, and the brilliant foreign scientists. The US was simply the only nation capable of developing the bomb in the time frame of the game.
But I guess this entire thread is all about completely implausible scenarios based upon equally implausible counter factual presumptions. So, why don't we just presume Fermi emigrates to England instead of the US and builds a reactor for Cambridge instead of Chicago. Then a redcoat raider party seizes all the gold in Ft. Knox so the Brits can afford their own Manhattan Project. We can always just assume away whatever gets in the way of our anti-American fantasy.
- 2
- 1
I read this entire thread. I'm not really a naval guy, but in my non-enthusiast opinion it appears the US submarine fleet is getting short shrift.
Given the historical havoc American submarines inflicted on the Island Nation of Japan...
Given the historical havoc U-Boats inflicted on the UK...
Given the staggering industrial shipbuilding potential of the United States...
Given the fact that the mainland of the USA in turn won't topple if it cannot be supplied by sea...
Given that my pomposity has gone on long enough...
It seems to me that even if the UK could (temporarily) stand toe-to-toe with the USA, submarine interdiction would be the writing on the wall for the British.
This is literally the only direct mention submarines get. I'm not surprised the one acknowledging their due is @Axe99.
Given the historical havoc American submarines inflicted on the Island Nation of Japan...
Given the historical havoc U-Boats inflicted on the UK...
Given the staggering industrial shipbuilding potential of the United States...
Given the fact that the mainland of the USA in turn won't topple if it cannot be supplied by sea...
Given that my pomposity has gone on long enough...
It seems to me that even if the UK could (temporarily) stand toe-to-toe with the USA, submarine interdiction would be the writing on the wall for the British.
Last edited:
- 1
- Status