At what point in history did the U.S. military eclipse the British military?

Waterloo50

Major
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Location
England
This subject has a tendency to crop up during discussions about potential British support for the CSA, some argue that the USA matched Britain in military strength during the 1860's others point out that the USA didn't surpass the British until 1943 when the US Navy became larger than the Royal Navy. I have even read that the USA only really became more powerful than Britain at the beginning of the Great War.
I'm genuinely interested to know what people think.
Thanks in advance.
 
I believe by the 1860s we were bigger than the British Army but this was all volunteer and stand by our regular Army didn't really become a significant military till after World War II. I once knew and some old-timers who had told me at the beginning of World War II there was still using World War I equipment.
 
World War II. It had had the potential since the Spanish-American War, but World War II is when it finally mustered all of its forces, military and economic, in such a way that it eclipsed Britain. Not to mention that the War and its aftermath left the Colonial Powers as mere shadows of themselves. It would not out of place to mention that in 1939 the U.S. had the 17th largest army in the world. At the end, it had the 2nd largest, behind the USSR, and a world-beating Navy and Air-Force, where it previously had been solidly behind the RN and RAF.
 
Last edited:
This subject has a tendency to crop up during discussions about potential British support for the CSA, some argue that the USA matched Britain in military strength during the 1860's others point out that the USA didn't surpass the British until 1943 when the US Navy became larger than the Royal Navy. I have even read that the USA only really became more powerful than Britain at the beginning of the Great War.
I'm genuinely interested to know what people think.
Thanks in advance.
I don't think the USA could match the UK in the 1860s. I think the main argument around the Britain's involvement in the war is focused on "how could they defend Canada?" Or how could they blockade the U.S. over such a long distance without too much cost of resources. At the start of the 20th century I think what made the U.S. so strong was its industrial capacity. By World War II we were pumping vehicles, ships, ammunition, for us and other countries like nobody's business. Countries around the world allied against the Axis were using Sherman tanks to some degree. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, U.S. industry went to maximum over drive especially thanks to the women who at times were at more at risk in their factories than troops on the front lines.
 
I don't think the USA could match the UK in the 1860s. I think the main argument around the Britain's involvement in the war is focused on "how could they defend Canada?" Or how could they blockade the U.S. over such a long distance without too much cost of resources. At the start of the 20th century I think what made the U.S. so strong was its industrial capacity. By World War II we were pumping vehicles, ships, ammunition, for us and other countries like nobody's business. Countries around the world allied against the Axis were using Sherman tanks to some degree. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, U.S. industry went to maximum over drive especially thanks to the women who at times were at more at risk in their factories than troops on the front lines.
Having searched various articles on this very subject it would seem that many people are in agreement with you. Churchill understood that the USA had resources that were vital to Britain's war effort. Britain's military were next to non existent following Dunkirk and our industrial centres were being pounded into dust, I'm thinking that the loses that the British expeditionary forces suffered was perhaps the point at which the USA surpassed us militarily. We still had a relatively decent Royal Navy but even that was suffering massive losses in the Atlantic blockade. We were only able to continue to fight on because of the supplies provided by the USA.
Interesting that you don't think that the USA could match the UK in the 1860's some argue that you could field a much bigger army, but I think what really counted was the naval capabilities of both sides, its probably fair to say that the USA in the 1860's could give the British army a good hiding but Britain had the edge at sea and that's what mattered most.
 
Interesting that you don't think that the USA could match the UK in the 1860's some argue that you could field a much bigger army, but I think what really counted was the naval capabilities of both sides, its probably fair to say that the USA in the 1860's could give the British army a good hiding but Britain had the edge at sea and that's what mattered most.
Bigger army? Of course. Better army? Don't think so. Foreign observers noted that the American Civil War, in European terms, were like mobs chasing after eachother. Poor training, poor marksmanship, etc. The only way I could see the American land armies defeating the British would be either through generalship, or experience. Experience is something very important to fighting capabilities especially at an officer level.
 
It depends on your criteria.
By the end of the Civil War, the United States had the largest Navy in the world. But this is misleading, since so many US ships were suitable only for river use or- at best- coastal use. Britain's Navy numbered 421 ships in 1865. <http://www.navyandmarine.org/ondeck/1862foreignnavies.htm> By 1870 the US Navy numbered 186 ships.
< https://www.bluejacket.com/usn_ship_list_1870.htm>
By 1898, the US Navy had 160 ships. By the end of WWI, 774 ships. At the end of WWII, 6768 ships. <https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/us-ship-force-levels.html>
Britain entered WWI with the wold's largest Navy, which included 500 warships. <http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/naval_warfare> At the beginning of WWII, the Royal Navy had 332 warships; by 1945, 607 warships. <http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignRoyalNavy.htm> (Note: Warships only: I do not have the overall strength for all Royal Navy vessels.)
"The U.S. Army underwent an enormous expansion during the Civil War (1861–65), growing from a peacetime strength of about 16,000 officers and men in December 1860 to a maximum size of 1,000,000 by 1865. The Confederate army may have reached a strength of 500,000 men at its height."<https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-United-States-Army>
At the same time, the British army numbered about 100,000 men.
Following the Civil War, the US drastically reduced its Army. Congress, on July 28, 1866, voted an establishment of 54,302 officers and enlisted men. Actual strength reached about 57,000 on September 30, 1867, a peak until 1898. In 1869 Congress cut the authorized strength to 45,000. In the reorganization of 1876 limited the total authorized force to 27,442, an authorization that remained virtually the same until the Spanish-American War. <http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH-V1/ch13.htm>
At the outbreak of WWI in August 1914, Britain had 975,000 men active and in reserve. The US had 200,000 men active and in reserve. After mobilization, Britain had a force of 8,905,000 men, the US 4,355,000 men. <http://spartacus-educational.com/FWWarmies1914.htm>
Between the World Wars, nations once again reduced forces. But by 1939 the regular British Army had a strength of 227,000 men, supported by 428,000 in the Territorial Army. <https://ww2-weapons.com/british-and-empire-armies-1939/>
In the US, in June 1920, the Regular Army numbered about 200,000. In January 1921 Congress directed a reduction in enlisted strength to 175,000, and in June 1921 to 150,000, as soon as possible. A year later Congress limited the active Army to 12,000 commissioned officers and 125,000 enlisted men, not including the 7,000 or so in the Philippine Scouts, and Regular Army strength continued at about this level until 1936. <http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH/amh-19.htm>
In WWII, the US had total armed forces of 12,364,000, Britain 4,683,000.
 
I would put it this way. The British Army was a better fighting force than the US Army all through 1942. By mid 1943 they were about even. By June of 1944 the US Army was a better fighting force than the Brits but not yet better than the Wehrmacht and thank heavens Patton did not get us into shooting war with the red Army in 1945.
 
I would put it this way. The British Army was a better fighting force than the US Army all through 1942. By mid 1943 they were about even. By June of 1944 the US Army was a better fighting force than the Brits but not yet better than the Wehrmacht and thank heavens Patton did not get us into shooting war with the red Army in 1945.
Actually the Red army had the numbers but were almost used up. Their war had been much harder on them than ours.
 
Actually the Red army had the numbers but were almost used up. Their war had been much harder on them than ours.
True, but they still would have been able to push the Allies back behind the Rhine, if not further. They had been facing the larger part of the German war effort, and their forces were far larger as a result. The Germans had almost 150 divisions on the Eastern Front, with a little over half that number in the West. Of course, the Allies would have a massive advantage in the air and at sea (not to mention the bomb).
 
"The U.S. Army underwent an enormous expansion during the Civil War (1861–65), growing from a peacetime strength of about 16,000 officers and men in December 1860 to a maximum size of 1,000,000 by 1865. "<https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-United-States-Army>
At the same time, the British army numbered about 100,000 men..
The NPS say 600k-650k at its largest. That was reached in early 1863 and the level was the same for the rest of the war (with the quality decreasing)
And that number makes much more sense.
Lets say that on 1st July 63
Meade got 100k
Rosecrans got 100k
Grant got 100k
Another 100k in smaller operations across the Continent.

That another 200k was in the army, on paper at least I can accept.
But not that 600k more was,
 
Until the creation of Kitchener's New Army in World War I, the British Army had been a small force, though highly trained, and very professional. It was the Royal Navy that maintained Britain's position as a world power. IMO it was not until World War II with the huge expansion of both the American Army and Navy, that Britain was eclipsed as a major military power.
 
I would put it this way. The British Army was a better fighting force than the US Army all through 1942. By mid 1943 they were about even. By June of 1944 the US Army was a better fighting force than the Brits but not yet better than the Wehrmacht and thank heavens Patton did not get us into shooting war with the red Army in 1945.
And then of Course you have the Marines in the Pacific.
 
Back
Top