America vs Britain

>>1845914

>Could America have built a navy to rival Britains in the late 19th century (1880s to 1900)?
Yes, very probably.

>Why didn't they?
Because it would've been too expensive and the West was not yet sufficiently settled and the Panama Canal hadn't been built so coordination would've been a clusterfuck.

>Could Britain have sustained an arms race with the Yanks and Germans both?
Probably, honestly.

>And lastly, how did American ship designs of the era rate against Royal Navy vessels?
They were ok

>>1845914
>Why didn't they?
Until Spanish-American war USA was largely isolationist until Theodore "War is fun" Roosevelt joined the game.

America GDP was rising quick near the end of 19th century. It easily surpassed China and India (as well as UK).

So it had the economic muscle to out produce warships if they needed.

>>1845967
You mean Theodore "fuck the world powers" Roosevelt?

>>1846044
I mean Theodore "I'm six and what is this?" Roosevelt

>>1845914
>Could Britain have sustained an arms race with the Yanks and Germans both?
They wouldn't have to, the British were quite happy that the United States was becoming a naval power. The Great Rapprochement was well underway by the time the Great White Fleet toured the world, and the British perceived American naval growth as a reduction of Britain's naval vulnerability and responsibilities in the Western Hemisphere.

>>1845914
>Could America have built a navy to rival Britains in the late 19th century (1880s to 1900)?
No, but they could lay the foundations for such.

>Why didn't they?
Isolationist Congress cut their funding to below pre-Civil War levels, so they found themselves barely treading water with old designs and not building any modern ships. Congress starved them of funding so much they were expected to use Civil War-era muzzleloader-armed monitors as frontline vessels in the 1890s because "We paid so much for them 30 years ago! They're still good!"

>Could Britain have sustained an arms race with the Yanks and Germans both?
Wouldn't have needed to. America's policy in the 19th Century was essentially "Don't start any new shit in the Americas, Europe." And since Britain was happily building its empire in Africa, India, and Asia during that timeframe, they would have seen America's growing naval power as doing their job for them as >>1846134 mentioned.

>And lastly, how did American ship designs of the era rate against Royal Navy vessels?
Fairly poorly. However, that was because Congress starved the US Navy of new ships for decades while the Royal Navy got enough funding to continuously launch top-of-the-line warships. American naval architects just plain didn't have the design experience to compete. But once Congress got the rod out of their ass and gave the Navy funding again, American ship designers quickly picked up the slack. The USN had overcome its weak starting point and were launching world-class ships by 1905.

>>1846158
I should clarify, the Royal Navy maintained its top position because it continuously got enough funding to retain its naval and design tradition. Money alone won't magic a naval tradition out of thin air, as the Imperial Japanese Navy eventually proved.

>>1845914
>Could America have built a navy to rival Britains in the late 19th century (1880s to 1900)?

Almost certainly.

>Why didn't they?

Didn't really need to. They weren't looking for a fight with the UK, and navies are expensive. Plus, strategically, if they did get into a war with the UK for some bizarre reason, they wouldn't really need naval parity at the outset.

For starters, the Americans can overrun Canada without too much trouble, and don't need a fleet to do so; which already puts quite a bit of hurt on the Empire to lose a valuable dominion like that. Secondly, it's not immediately clear what the Royal Navy could DO to the U.S. Yes, they'd have an enormous advantage if you fight some big battleship to battleship battle. However, the Americans likely wouldn't be stupid enough to do that; and with a bit less than 20,000 kilometers of coastline (although this counts Alaska, of which there weren't a lot of naval bases) blockading American ports to the point that sorties can't come out is impossible, even for the RN.

Which means that a naval war is likely to be one of commerce raiding; the Brits will have the advantage of a larger fleet, but they also have the vulnerability of a larger shipping base and a greater need for it. The Continental U.S. is more or less self sufficient. Britain will starve without food imports, which in turn necessitates a lot of Britain's energy going to protecting their own lines rather than taking the fight to the Americans.

>Could Britain have sustained an arms race with the Yanks and Germans both?

Not if the Americans are really really serious about it, but they likely won't be.

>And lastly, how did American ship designs of the era rate against Royal Navy vessels?

Considerably inferior in the time period mention. They didn't really start to catch up until you had the HMS Dreadnought and everyone started copying it.

>>1845914
>could Anerica have
They did.
By the turn of the century the US was one of the top 3 naval powers. And it's navy was never particularly weak prior to that either.

>>1845914
Britain couldn't have competed with America and Germany at the same time.

>>1845914
>Could the Americans have built a navy to rival Britain's in the late 19th century?
>What is the Great White fleet

>>1845914


I want to make baby americans with Bull Halsey chan and milk her for delicious freedom.

>>1845914
As we plainly saw in WW1, Britain was ultimately a paper tiger, partly due to having to spread their relatively small military over the entire world.

>>1847516
>Great White Fleet
>1907
>comprised of all predreadnaughts

Don't get me wrong, it was an impressive display of force, but it was the naval equivalent of putting 200 T-55s on parade. Europe had better ships.

>>1847739
>Britain
>naval paper tiger

That's the one area they dominated in in every theater.

>>1847792

Not either of them, but it does make me curious: Assume for the second that there is some sort of naval war in the late 19th/early 20th century between the UK and the U.S. No outside parties intervene (I know, unlikely)

The UK has a better fleet, but they also need a better fleet in a lot of ways, because they have to defend their shipping lines. If the end result is both sides raiding each other and cutting off large segments of overall shipping, that hurts the British a hell of a lot more than it hurts the Americans.

I'd be curious as to how much of an overall superiority the British would need to actually "tie" the naval war.