When was the last time that Britain could have defeated the US militarily?

For the point of arguement I am not counting swapping London for New York in a nuclear exchange as winning or losing, as both countries could cause unimaginable damage to the other.

I’m talking about conventional forces.

My WAG would be about 1913. At that time Britannia still (just about) ruled the waves and that was the best method of force projection available. I think our Fleet could have beaten the US fleet at that time. However we would have to have used our total Royal Navy strength, and Germany could have caught us napping.

With that advantage I think a coastal blocakade could have been organised, leading to eventual victory.

I can’t forsee a scenario (even using modern forces) where one country would invade the other.

So when was the last time we held the balance of power?

It depends whether it’s a straight count or would include real conditions. I suspect you’d have to go back a lot further (pre-Revolutionary War) for the last occasion when a land war could be won.

There were 14,000 British troops in Canada in 1861 at the time of the Trent Affair. If the diplomatic crisis hadn’t been resolved, Britain could have seized large portions of the Northeast United States, especially with Union forces tied up fighitng the civil war.

Depends a lot on the Empire, I’d have thought: Long Canadian border (and ports), the Caribbean bases to the South East, lots of potential to the West but the Pacific’s enormous (do we get to take Pearl Harbor ?).

Is the Empire in ?

Any other Allies ?

Would a blockade do it ?

If memory serves, the Royal Navy was more than a match in 1913.

Not for long. The USA was fielding multi-hundred thousand man armies nea rthe start of the Civil War. An additional consideration is the level of experience. USA troops and commanders were the best in the world at the end of the War, even if few others recognized it. All Britain would have done is open Canada up for counter invasion. A 14,000 man force was considered a small side army in the Civil War.

Surely some time before 1776…

The only way I could see it happening is by using the Royal Navy, using the Caribbean bases and Canada on the Atlantic and Canada on the Pacific (possibly taking Hawaii, which I think would have been possible for us in 1913).

There is no real possibilirty of taking territory, but of blockading (and possibly bombarding) so effectively the US came to make peace.

My WAG is not after 1820 or so, if we are to only count “one on one” situations.

I have no idea what the relative military strenghts were, but remember that for Britain to defeat the US, they must bring the war to them across the ocean, and they didn’t do it in the 1780s or 1812.

The population growth rate, whatever it was, surely was much, much greater for the US than Britain after 1820 and the general population was probably more armed in the US than in Britain.

I’m skeptical. The US has a lot of natural resources. What will the blockade deny the US that we can’t get here, somewhere? It better be something that prevents us from building more ships.

I think the OP has in mind a Britain thoroughly committed to defeating the US.

Zen Beam already alluded to this but to be a bit more clear:

Great Britain could have spanked the colonies in the Revolutionary War had it really tried. Remember that GB was a global empire at that point and had many places demanding its attention. Frankly, I handful of uppity colonies across the pond didn’t worry them overly much. Also realize that it took France’s intervention to really swing the tide in favor of the US.

Nope…had GB wanted to kick American ass in 1776 they could have done so (at least from a strictly military perspective even if it wouldn’t have worked from a political one).

Zen Beam already alluded to this but to be a bit more clear:

Great Britain could have spanked the colonies in the Revolutionary War had it really tried. Remember that GB was a global empire at that point and had many places demanding its attention. Frankly, I handful of uppity colonies across the pond didn’t worry them overly much. Also realize that it took France’s intervention to really swing the tide in favor of the US.

Nope…had GB wanted to kick American ass in 1776 they could have done so (at least from a strictly military perspective even if it wouldn’t have worked from a political one).

Silly question, really, because a war is NEVER like a boxing match or a football game, in which the rules and conditions are always the same, and you can make an intelligent prediction of the outcome based on the combattants’ relative strengths.

Wars are fought under drastically varying conditions in all kinds of locales, for all kinds of reasons. How can anyone say “The U.S. would win” or “Britain would win” without knowing (aomg other things):

  1. Where’s the conflict to take place?

  2. What would each side be fighting for, and how badly do they need to win?

  3. Which side has more forces on hand where the real fighting will be done? How easily can they be reinforced?

There are many other questions, of course, but those will suffice for now. Fact is, it doesn’t always matter how much bigger one side’s army or navy is. Sometimes, it’s a question of priorities. Other times, it’s a matter of location.

Is the U.S. much stronger than the U.K. today? Of course it is, just as the U.K. was much stronger than the U.S. in 1776. It doesn’t follow that the U.S. could successfully conquer the U.K. today, any more than the U.K. could simply crush the American Revolution. Launching an invasion across the Atlantic Ocean is no easier now than it was in 1776!

IF the Brits had seen fit to use all the might at their disposal to crush the American Revolution, there would be no U.S. today. ANd if the U.S.A. today wanted to conquer and subjugate Britain, we probably could… but in each case, the end result would be of dubious value, and would require a MUCH greater expenditure of money, manpower and lives than either side would ever be willing to make.

Point is, even in 1776, the relatively weak U.S. was capable of beating the British Army in some locations, under some circumstances. And even now, the relatively weak British forces could beat U.S. forces in some locations, under some circumstances. Situational logistics are key here.

huh?
I am lost at what the OP wants. Is this more of a debate?

In no time prior to US Civil War, can the US invade all of GB and its vast colonies. GB without its empire is another thing. But US was not militarily strong until after the industrial revolution when US flex its muscle as it has vast resources and large labor pool. Prior to US industrial revolution, US cannot field a navy and army strong enough from its aggie based economy to conquer GB.

There is very lil possibility that GB can conquer US after 1812. GB has proven that it cannot fight US warships in 1812 one on one. Only when GB concentrate its forces can they beat the US.

WW1 proved that US was king of the world. :stuck_out_tongue:
This is the starting period that US has economic, military strength over everyone. This is basically unrival even till today.
Soviet Union was able to rival on military strength but not combining economic and military.

Well that is my opinion.

astorian,

i agree with some of your ideas about how war is not a game, and even if it is a game, games need to be play out and you never really know the outcome.

i don’t agree with the premise that wars today are just as hard as back in 1776. it is a lot easier to conquer GB today than 1776. Talking about using conventional forces and no missiles flying over 50k ft altitude. US can whip GB. if you take politics out of the equation, US can produce and man more ships, planes, armored vehicles to conquer GB. Actually, they will just bomb GB to rubles.

Today’s weapons are more accurate and more destructive than ever. In the old days, you have to send in ground troops. Today, you can hit anyone on the surface from 20k ft in the air or even a few hundred miles away from coast line with cruise missiles. Even if GB bunker down, they will have a air/naval blockade and GB is not a self-reliant country that US is. GB will runout of ammunition.

The only time you can safely say wars of today is just as hard as in the past is when you pull the politics card. politics has change lil over time. we understand it more, but we manage it with similar technics.

well that is my opinion

Really now?

In 1775 and 1812 the British made decisions about how much they were willing to spend to suppress the Americans, and eventually decided the cost outweighed the benefit of winning. So they “lost”.

The assumptions astorian and others have suggested need definition before answering the OP are cogent, but aren’t they hiding a larger (and significant) question which is: When was the last time the British thought they could defeat the Americans, at the same time that the Americans thought the British could beat them? Because those two conditions together determine who’s “top dog” in the absence of actual war.

One can imagine the British and Americans thinking the British were superior until the end of World War One.

From Churchill, we gather that until the middle of the Second World War he thought Britain was playing on an even field with the US. By the end, he knew otherwise.

I think the OP needs refinement - the question of whether the war is taking place on GB or US soil is too great to come up with one date.

Um… yeah, really. Even launching an invasion of England from the continent of Europe has never been a small task- ask Hitler (who knew better than to try), or a survivor of the Spanish Armada (who learned first-hand that it’s a bad idea). You think the U.S. could pull off an invasion and conquest of England even now?

Never mind that it would be immoral, never mind that we have nothing to gain by doing so, never mind that the cost would be astronomical… do you actually think the U.S. currently has the capacity to do it? We don’t have NEARLY enough soldiers to take and occupy a country that size, unless we were to pull all of our troops from everywhere else in the world, and concentrate solely on the job of occupying Britain.

Do we have enough bombs to wipe Britain off the face of the Earth? I suppose… but that’s a different issue.

Really? A “global empire”? Exactly how many colonies did G.B. have in 1776 that "demanded its attention?

Depends what you mean by defeat. Take the armed forces of both sides and throw them together on a neutral field, I would say that the British would probably have won at any time up to the American Civil War and probably have lost at any time after that. The increase in manufacturing capability and increased knowledge of “modern” warfare brought about by the Civil War is to my mind the point where the US surpassed Britain militarily.

In the real world, I’m not sure there was ever a time the British could have defeated the U.S. Their supply lines would be too long, the territory they would have to control too large, and the number of potential hotspots for them in other parts of the world too great. Even if they were still a hundred years from the height of their empire, the English still had to maintain control of their settlements in Canada, New Zealand, India, Gibraltar, west Africa, and South America, plus the Scots, Irish, and Welsh. That’s a lot of territory to keep passive and to keep someone else from grabbing while fighting a rebellion thousands of miles away.