USA vs UK 1914!
February 19, 2008 2:11 AM Subscribe
How did Britain and America compare militarily in 1914?
This provides some relevant info as to army stregnth and how quick the US was able to build up. This has a crazy amount of info on the Royal Navy and other navies of the period.
posted by biffa at 3:05 AM on February 19, 2008
posted by biffa at 3:05 AM on February 19, 2008
Chalk and cheese
Britain had been in an arms race with Germany France and Russia post 1870. Britain had a massive navy, but a smallish 'professional' standing army. Britain had been in almost perpetual conflict protecting and broadening it's empire as well as getting involved in foreign policy misadventure since the Napoleonic wars.
Britain could also draw upon Canada, India, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa.
The US had a large Navy but largely obsolete and a relatively small army.
When the US entered the First World War it's army was totally unprepared, and (a fact that forgotten in the recent US/French bashing) that if it wasn't for the experience of the French soldiers the early US encounters would have been far bloodier that they would have been otherwise.
Also, interesting US WW1 trivia. Who fired the last shot in two world wars? Harry S Truman. As an artillery officer in WW1 he had all his men hold a specially made lanyard so they could all fire the last shot of the war- Actually the first shot after the war as he ordered the gun fired after 11 AM. Truman was also Commander in Chief of US armed forces when he ordered the atomic bombing of Japan.
posted by mattoxic at 3:21 AM on February 19, 2008 [2 favorites]
Britain had been in an arms race with Germany France and Russia post 1870. Britain had a massive navy, but a smallish 'professional' standing army. Britain had been in almost perpetual conflict protecting and broadening it's empire as well as getting involved in foreign policy misadventure since the Napoleonic wars.
Britain could also draw upon Canada, India, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa.
The US had a large Navy but largely obsolete and a relatively small army.
When the US entered the First World War it's army was totally unprepared, and (a fact that forgotten in the recent US/French bashing) that if it wasn't for the experience of the French soldiers the early US encounters would have been far bloodier that they would have been otherwise.
Also, interesting US WW1 trivia. Who fired the last shot in two world wars? Harry S Truman. As an artillery officer in WW1 he had all his men hold a specially made lanyard so they could all fire the last shot of the war- Actually the first shot after the war as he ordered the gun fired after 11 AM. Truman was also Commander in Chief of US armed forces when he ordered the atomic bombing of Japan.
posted by mattoxic at 3:21 AM on February 19, 2008 [2 favorites]
On the Navy side of things the US was basically on par technology-wise with the Brits, having been the 2nd major power to construct Dreadnought-class ships during the aughts. But the European naval arms race between Britain and Germany was greatly intensified by the German Fleet Acts. In 1914 the Royal Navy already had Orion-class superdreadnoughts in service and was constructing Queen Elizabeth-class and Revenge-class superdreadnoughts while the U.S. Navy was still in the process of constructing its first Nevada-class superdreadnoughts.
posted by XMLicious at 4:21 AM on February 19, 2008
posted by XMLicious at 4:21 AM on February 19, 2008
I remember from some history class that at some point early in the 20th century, the US had the 18th largest army worldwide. Or something like that.
posted by gjc at 7:31 AM on February 19, 2008
posted by gjc at 7:31 AM on February 19, 2008
The American army in 1914 was absolute crap. Small and ready for little more than a calvary charge.
The US entered WWI in 1918 with an army of 130,000 regulars; by the end of the war, Americans had a modern war machine of about 2,086,000 million men. We are talking conscription of course, and extremely rushed training -- but a nonetheless pretty effective army.
I don't know the stats on Britain's army in 1914, but I should imagine it was fairly impressive.
Also interesting about WWI, Americans hated the British and were much better disposed towards the French, although the two armies did not always get along so well in the trenches due to dramatic differences in morale: Americans, new to war and self-styled as savoirs, were infatuated with daring and heroism; the French not particularly wanting to fight more than necessary after two years of bloodletting. They'd actually had mutinies in several divisions in 1917 and things hadn't improved much by the time of the American debut.
posted by bluenausea at 8:35 AM on February 19, 2008
The US entered WWI in 1918 with an army of 130,000 regulars; by the end of the war, Americans had a modern war machine of about 2,086,000 million men. We are talking conscription of course, and extremely rushed training -- but a nonetheless pretty effective army.
I don't know the stats on Britain's army in 1914, but I should imagine it was fairly impressive.
Also interesting about WWI, Americans hated the British and were much better disposed towards the French, although the two armies did not always get along so well in the trenches due to dramatic differences in morale: Americans, new to war and self-styled as savoirs, were infatuated with daring and heroism; the French not particularly wanting to fight more than necessary after two years of bloodletting. They'd actually had mutinies in several divisions in 1917 and things hadn't improved much by the time of the American debut.
posted by bluenausea at 8:35 AM on February 19, 2008
Another note about the differences in land forces: the U.S. was a little bit imperial, but in contrast in 1914 the British Empire still stood and controlled all of India, all of Australia, the Dominion of Canada and British Honduras, large parts of Africa, Indonesia, Polynesia, and the Middle East and at least claimed much of Antarctica, and also had pieces of South America and its spheres of influence in China and Indochina. Not to mention little bits all over the place like Tristan de Cunha and Malta and claims to Svalbard.
So if you're really entertaining the outcome of a war between the US and Britain in 1914 as the title of your post suggests: during or just after the U.S. Civil War it would have been one thing, but in 1914 I would say that were Britain to not worry about rebellion in its more tenuously held colonies it could easily project enough force against the U.S. to overturn the American Revolution. I think it was around this time the U.S. had some difficulty dealing with Mexican incursions into its territory.
posted by XMLicious at 8:47 AM on February 19, 2008
So if you're really entertaining the outcome of a war between the US and Britain in 1914 as the title of your post suggests: during or just after the U.S. Civil War it would have been one thing, but in 1914 I would say that were Britain to not worry about rebellion in its more tenuously held colonies it could easily project enough force against the U.S. to overturn the American Revolution. I think it was around this time the U.S. had some difficulty dealing with Mexican incursions into its territory.
posted by XMLicious at 8:47 AM on February 19, 2008
The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy goes into this in detail (and compares other countries as well).
posted by languagehat at 9:12 AM on February 19, 2008
posted by languagehat at 9:12 AM on February 19, 2008
XMLicious
Not wanting to be chatfilter, but Britain did not control all of Australia nor Canada at all. These were independent countries.
However, Australia and New Zealand were very loyal to Britain, and soldiers willingly went to fight for Britain. There was no conscription in Australia.
Most of Polynesia was either US, or Australian or New Zealand Protectorates. Not British.
Indonesia, was exclusively controlled by the Dutch and Portuguese. Britain had no influence in this area.
Indochina was almost exclusively French.
Britain had no pieces of South America, apart from the Falklands.
posted by mattoxic at 3:00 PM on February 19, 2008
Not wanting to be chatfilter, but Britain did not control all of Australia nor Canada at all. These were independent countries.
However, Australia and New Zealand were very loyal to Britain, and soldiers willingly went to fight for Britain. There was no conscription in Australia.
Most of Polynesia was either US, or Australian or New Zealand Protectorates. Not British.
Indonesia, was exclusively controlled by the Dutch and Portuguese. Britain had no influence in this area.
Indochina was almost exclusively French.
Britain had no pieces of South America, apart from the Falklands.
posted by mattoxic at 3:00 PM on February 19, 2008
I thought that the Brits took Java at some point, didn't they? Oh, whoops, they lost it a couple of decades later.
But they did have British Guiana in 1914. And Burma, which is a pretty large chunk of Indochina, was a British colony. And don't they speak English in Singapore today?
Canada and Australia and New Zealand were still considered colonies of the British Empire at that point; check out the first couple of paragraphs of History in Wikipedia's entry on the British Commonwealth. Especially the bit about the Balfour Declaration - that was a new thing in 1926 I believe, to formally state that. Yes, they had declared independence, but it's kind of like the relationship of the Warsaw Pact states to the Soviet Union.
posted by XMLicious at 3:38 PM on February 19, 2008
But they did have British Guiana in 1914. And Burma, which is a pretty large chunk of Indochina, was a British colony. And don't they speak English in Singapore today?
Canada and Australia and New Zealand were still considered colonies of the British Empire at that point; check out the first couple of paragraphs of History in Wikipedia's entry on the British Commonwealth. Especially the bit about the Balfour Declaration - that was a new thing in 1926 I believe, to formally state that. Yes, they had declared independence, but it's kind of like the relationship of the Warsaw Pact states to the Soviet Union.
posted by XMLicious at 3:38 PM on February 19, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
In googling for an answer, the New York Times had a hit, and delivered forth this article (PDF, Reg. Req) on the Kaiser's WWI troop strength in 1918. NYT's new online archive continues to amaze.
posted by Slap*Happy at 2:19 AM on February 19, 2008