Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
War Plan Red-Orange Scenario
Topic Started: May 11 2014, 07:38 AM (292 Views)
Delta Force

War Plan Red-Orange dealt with a war between the United States (Blue) against the combined forces of the British Empire (Red) and Japan (Orange). Unlike with War Plan Red and War Plan Orange, an operational plan was never drawn up for Red-Orange, and the plan would have drawn on elements from the individual war plans.

For Red-Orange to realistically happen, it seems likely the Anglo-Japanese Alliance would have to survive past 1923. That might butterfly the Washington Naval Treaty into something different, if it occurs at all. That probably works to America's advantage with regards to Japan (the Treaty artificially capped American production), but perhaps not with the British.

Assuming an outbreak of war sometime in the 1930s or 1940s, how could the United States fight this two front war? It seems likely that the United States would lose territory in the Pacific, but would it be able to make up for those losses in Canada, the Caribbean, and elsewhere in the Americas? Who would win the war and what would the peace settlement look like?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Delta Force

A few more thoughts/questions on this. I suppose the question is how well the United States could do in a war where it is almost entirely cut off from international trade. Before 1950 it was an exporter of petroleum and I think other materials as well, so it might be doable. The bigger issue for a peaceful resolution is that both sides are going to want to permanently prevent a major war from breaking out in North America again, because defending Canada was always a problem for the British and having Canada as a British base was always a problem for the United States.

Naval Campaign:

1. The key to the strength of the United States Navy is the Panama Canal, which allows forces to be easily transferred between the Atlantic and Pacific. The Anglo-Japanese force would want to capture, neutralize, or destroy the Canal as soon as possible. Capture and destruction would be difficult, but would Royal Navy forces operating out the Caribbean be able to neutralize the Canal? It seems some of the earliest fleet actions would be between Royal Navy and USN forces for control of the Caribbean and the approaches to the Canal.

2. Loss or neutralization of the Canal would severely compromise USN assets in the Pacific. There would be no ability to receive reinforcements from the Atlantic where the majority of American naval forces and industry are located. The USS California (BB-44) was the only dreadnought battleship constructed on the West Coast at Mare Island Naval Shipyard. It probably will continue to build large warships in any scenario where Red-Orange is possible, but the Pacific Fleet might be forced to fall back to California and act as a fleet in being with the Canal lost.

3. The Battle for the Atlantic would be a mess. I imagine American merchant ships would simply stay at home to avoid being attacked by the Royal Navy, but the British don't really have that option. Cruiser and submarine attacks on British shipping could help tie down some Royal Navy assets, and the Lexington class battlecruisers would even tie down a disproportionate amount of Royal Navy heavy assets because you need more ships for defense on the high seas than offense.

Land Campaign:

1. Maintaining some of the Canadian naval bases will be vital for Royal Navy operations off America's Atlantic Coast. Population dynamics make even a REFORGER level sealift of forces to defend Canada's Atlantic provinces and Newfoundland impossible, but Anglo-Japanese forces would stand a better chance in the Pacific. British Columbia and Vancouver are far more defensible, and parts of Alaska and the Aleutians (perhaps even Washington, Oregon, and the Plains) could be taken to make up for losses elsewhere in North America. Canadian war plans called for raids into Washington, Oregon, and the Plains in the event of war, and wrecking havoc on the national railroad network could further complicate America's two front war and buy time for reinforcements to arrive in Canada.

2. The Philippines and other American Pacific territories are going to be able to put up a bigger fight in this scenario, because without the Washington Naval Treaty the United States will be able to more strongly reinforce them. Depending on the stance of the Pacific Fleet, there might be less naval resistance to the Japanese advances. Hawaii is probably a lot more vulnerable in this scenario, especially since it is a major importer of food, energy, and other supplies simply to maintain the local population.

3. The British could always try to do a Zimmerman Telegram with Mexico. It would open up yet another front for the United States, and it might be more seriously considered by Mexico because it wouldn't be fighting it alone in North America. I don't think annexing too much territory would be a realistic option, or even be something the United States would consider (it requires permission of the state and federal governments for a state to leave the Union). Mexico might sit this one out and make money selling food and petroleum to both sides, perhaps even shipping supplies to the Southwest though the border.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John
Member Avatar

There are some scenarios that are not likely, but still realistic. Some aren't realistic, but they're technically possible. Some are just not even possible. This is one of those. A war between the USA and the British/Japan would not occur. It would require the United States to actually attack one of the two in order for the alliance to be activated, which the USA wouldn't do. That means we're down to either a war with the British or Japan.

The Japanese would never attack the USA without a real reason. This means that Japan still has to go to war with China--realistc. It still has to invade Indochina--is France at war with Germany and distracted? Regardless, US and France v. Japan now. Britain is not going to be thrilled by Japanese actions in China anymore than historical. Ultimately, the Pacific War goes pretty much the same or worse for Japan.

The British would have no reason to attack the USA and would have far more to lose (Canada). I cannot possibly imagine a realistic set of circumstances that would result in their feeling a need to go to war with us. If Nazi Germany is still threatening in Europe around 1936-1939, then there is absolutely no way it happens. Barring that, there is still nothing to be gained in a war. Canada WILL be lost and excised from the Empire, at a minimum, even if the British Navy can quickly eliminate the bulk of the US Navy in the Atlantic and seize the Panama Canal or destroy it. Of course, this all assumes that in a scenario where US-British tensions exist, the US would not have a much larger navy during the 1930s.

This scenario may be fun, but I just don't think it could happen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vonar Roberts
Member Avatar

Vancovuer Island is pretty defensible, and provides the British with a good base to control the flow of traffic out of the strait of juan de fuca. I know for a fact that pre-war there were at least 2 or 3 batteries of the BL 9.2 inch gun Mk IX–X Naval guns in the naval base at Esquimalt and in forts around the city, some of which are open to the public and the land around the naval base which is a lot smaller now due to the post war downsizing of the RCN then it would have been in the 1920's and 1930's. They also would have had several smaller caliber weapons in concealed positions overlooking the beaches.

Eventually I'll go over to the public sites and take pictures of them giving you guy's a general idea of how effectively placed they are.

I'm less familiar with Vancouver, BUT most of the land right up to the border is used for agricultural purposes which also happens to be great terrain for tanks and other mechanized forces. There is also a fair number of roads that go north south along the border so Vancouver may be less of a natural defensive position then many people assume it would have been.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Delta Force

Escalating alliances are likely to be a trigger, because I don't really see great powers just attacking each other. Of course, the United States was historically rather hesitant to sign alliances or otherwise intervene in foreign wars. Perhaps in a situation in which Imperial Russia survives the United States would concerned about Japanese attacks in Eastern Russia, because that would severely disrupt the balance of power in the region and threaten China. The British are also involved in the conflict with Russia, and tensions escalate as American shipping gets intercepted by the Royal Navy and perhaps the IJN.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
I'd fall in John's camp on this one. The likelihood of an Anglo-American conflict seems remote after 1920, given the economic and cultural ties and the legacy of Great War intervention.

To posit one, you would probably need a different lead-up beginning at least in the 1890s. This would affect the perception of Britain and the growth of American naval power. Wilson had already thrown down the gauntlet to some extent with the Naval Act of 1916. In a world where Britain was perceived as a much bigger rival, the USA might have been willing to take the gloves off, and by that stage it could afford to. The only obstacle was political will.

Without the imports of American oil, the Japanese are also going to be in a tough position as in the real Pacific War, depending on how much they can replace by trade with a neutral Netherlands and from British supplies. If memory serves, it wouldn't be enough, however.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Appears I might have been mistaken on that count. The Dutch East Indies produced over 60 million barrels in 1940, which theoretically ought to have been enough for Japan. The question is how much of it they could get.

As in @, tankers and other shipping would also matter. The United States would probably conduct unrestricted warfare on Japanese merchantmen, but would lack the advance bases to make good on all opportunities. I'm assuming the Pearl Harbor oil facilities would either be attacked or would not be able to hold as much fuel, due to the supply lines coming under attack from California.

An interesting question is whether an invasion of Hawaii would be attempted. That would be a costly affair given the coast defenses in place. They may decide to bypass and strangle the islands instead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Delta Force

There was a strong debate on the issue of where to base the fleet during the early 1940s. Admiral James Richardson was opposed to basing the fleet out of Pearl Harbor instead of San Diego because he felt it would be too vulnerable, especially since Japan often carried out attacks with minimal warning. In a more dangerous environment they might not base the fleet in Pearl Harbor because the military risks would be higher than the political gains.
Edited by Delta Force, May 13 2014, 07:50 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
That is a matter of key importance. There are multiple directions of approach to Hawaii, but far fewer towards San Diego, which can also call upon considerable shore based air support.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Basing the entire fleet in Hawaii probably wouldn't happen. It would remain a key base for operations against Japan, but those would be limited to submarine raids in the absence of command of the seas between Esquimalt and Colon. The Alaska-Hawaii-California triangle must first be secured before any offensive action could even be considered.

The simplest solution would be an invasion of British Columbia, bypassing Vancouver Island entirely if necessary and mining the entrances to the Juan de Fuca Strait and the other straits separating it from the mainland. Any remaining ships, port facilities and air fields could be neutralized through air power. Due to the sheer distance to the next allied base, it would be a logistical challenge to mount a relief expedition.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · Alternate History · Next Topic »
Add Reply