USA vs Britain: Empire Edition

>>2248459
the american civil war started in 1861 idiot

this hypothetical is laughable.

just how do you propose that Britain, a constitutional monarchy with elected representatives, sell a cross Atlantic invasion of America to their populace? Besides that, there's about a 0% chance of Britain being able to invade & occupy America (which had a greater population than the UK at the time).

The war of 1812 is the best example of how a conflict between Britain & America would go. Limited invasions on both sides and naval duels on the high seas until a modus vivendi is reached so that both sides can get back to the business of economic prosperity.

>>2248459
The UK had already been working to end the slave trade by that time so I doubt the south would side with them. I dont see how the UK could hope to retake America.

>>2248489


>The war of 1812 is the best example of how a conflict between Britain & America would go.

Not really. The U.S. was massively stronger vis a vis Britain in the 1860s than it was in the 1810s. Just look at the numbers involved in battles shortly after the outbreak of the Civil War: Bull Run had about 70,000 men between the two sides, almost all volunteers.

It would be even less plausible of a fight, because Britain can no longer be sure of being able to triumph in the field on land, nevermind getting to a successful occupation, and if it somehow broke out, they'd almost instantly be thrown on the defensive to try to hold onto places like Montreal and Quebec.

>>2248476
States started seceding in 1860

>>2248459
The premise is stupid but I'll bite.

USA conquers Canada and smashes Royal Navy attempts to harass their coasts, Royal Navy controls sea lanes. France intervenes to negotiate a peace.

>>2248459
Prussia and Russia join the war on American side and mop the floor with Britain is what happens.

>>2248513
Russia would likely be the one to intervene. France was busy fucking around in Mexico.

>>2248510
>almost all volunteers.
I'm not sure if the same nationalistic fervor that inspired the mass volunteers of the civil war would happen in this hypothetical unless Britain initiated hostilities with some kind of sneak attack or actual invasion. Though you're right about America's armed forces being much stronger in 1860 than in 1812. I think one of the most important factors would be how much the US would be committed to the conflict. A war with Britain at the time would never be the same kind of existential threat that the civil war war, so I doubt the US could muster the same kind of force that it did in that conflict.

>>2248536
>he thinks all those fob Irish aren't going to sign up in droves to shoot pommycocks
Shit, they joined the civil war on the union side for the low low price of a hot and a cot. You think they wouldn't do it for the added bonus of shooting the people they hate the most?

>>2248543
Would they even be arriving in the US with British control of the high seas?

>>2248548
Probably with Russian intervention

>>2248562
Thinking about this more, there's an exactly a 0% chance of Britain occupying anything substantial and whether or not America annexes Canada is entirely dependent on how much commitment is invested by the US. The US had a much larger population situated directly next to Canada whereas Britain would have to ship nearly all of its men & material across the Atlantic to the relevant theater. Both being somewhat democratic as well as commercial trading partners neither side would actually want a war, let alone an existential 'total' war (though minor conflicts over disputes like the Oregon territory were possible around the same time) Of course this hypothetical would never happen because internal strife over Slavery was reaching its apogee.

>>2248510
>Bull Run had about 70,000 men between the two sides, almost all volunteers.
The Crimaen war, a small war for Britain saw 200.000 Brits operating in the black sea. Not saying that the Brits beat the USA for Manpower, but using bull-run as a comparison is not that usefull.

>>2248600

You're comparing an overall figure to a three year war to a volunteer call 3 months into a largely unexpected conflict. If you want to compare total strengh, well, the ACW had the Union alone put 2.2 million men under arms (albeit not all at the same time, that was about 700,000), and while I'm not sure what the Confederate numbers were, you'd have a lot more warmaking potential from a unified country.

Bull Run, however, is a useful comparison for how much manpower the U.S. could put together at very short notice, and thus determine who makes the first land attacks on the North American continent.

File: forts schuyler and totten.png (3MB, 1771x697px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1771x697px

>>2248489
>The war of 1812 is the best example of how a conflict between Britain & America would go
its also worth noting that as a reaction to how easily the british were able to just sail up the Chesapeake and burn down the white house, the US government undertook a massive effort of building coastal fortifications to deter seaborne assault of its cities.

For instance in this satellite picture I marked the location of two forts that were built during this effort to block access to new york city from the long island sound, a possible alternative to going directly up the hudson (which was protected by its own network of forts). Combined these forts had over 500 guns, and were defensible against ground assault as well.

Invading America would not have been in any way simple or easy.

>>2248517
fair enough