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

It depends (as I mentioned in another thread) if one is talking about raw numbers and latent power, or power projection capability. China, for instance, has always had an enormous supply of manpower, but the ability to project any of that power much beyond the borders has been (until very recently) almost nil.

Until the advent of effective strategic airpower-- 1940s-- global power projection was all about naval force. And Britannia ruled the waves, because of a number of reasons, including but not limited to:
  • Effective worldwide logistical network. To some extent, the "empire" existed to serve the military needs, rather than the other way around. A number of far-flung areas were placed under British control not from any real desire for conquest, but from a need to have a coaling station in a strategic spot.
  • Capable shipbuilders and powerful ship construction industry.
  • A long and continuously-improved tradition of ship and military/naval design.
  • Experienced commanders and manpower.
Much of this can be attributed to what James Dunnigan and Albert Nofi in their books (such as How to Make War) call a "tradition of victory," which, if carefully cultivated, can become in effect self-sustaining. If an organization sincerely believes that it can and will win, it is all the more ready to do the things necessary to achieve that win, in effect boot-strapping itself to victory. But nobody has quite figured out how to instill that into an organization that hasn't got it; it usually takes a fortunate combination of leadership, resources, and opportunity. (Dunnigan says that the US Navy and Marine Corps have it, and the Air Force is developing it. Yet the US Army, for all its past successes, has not. Obviously, this is something of a subjective judgement.)

The most serious challengers to British naval mastery in the post-Napoleonic period came in the early 20th Century, with the rise of the navies of first Germany, and then the United States and Japan. The German navy was taken care of by the Great War, and the Washington Naval Conference and related treaties dealt with (or attempted to deal with) the others.
 
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).
Our WW2 American army was pretty lax when it comes to defense but nobody on earth could have stood up to us very long when we were pushing. The Russians would have quickly learned the same hard lesion that the German army had to learn. You can not move troops or supplies by rail or road and you especially can not do that in daylight operations. Eastern Europe would have thanked us if we had followed Patton's advice.
 
Question should be divided into army and navy components. The British military advantage was traditionally based on its sea power to protect the homeland and its economic interests, and which remained dominant until WWII. The smaller British army was mostly used as a colonial force until WWI when they enacted conscription. Because of geography, the US, on the other hand, relied on coastal fortifications until WWII for homeland defense, and was able to raise sufficient land forces by volunteering or conscription to meet internal or external threats.
Obviously by the end of WWII, the US had eclipsed Britain in both areas.
 
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,
Thanks for your response.
Choose your favorite. I can't vouch for either. It may be that the larger number counts both sides in the conflict just as some sources combine casualty lists.
 
A note to our Moderator: Although this is an interesting- and enlightening- discussion, one that I have gladly participated in, it appears to have little to do with the American Civil War.
 
A note to our Moderator: Although this is an interesting- and enlightening- discussion, one that I have gladly participated in, it appears to have little to do with the American Civil War.
It has everything to do with the Civil War, as I have already stated, the subject of Britain supporting the CSA during the civil war often crops up in conversation, I asked the question in my OP in order to gain enough information to enable me to make my own mind up. Not everyone enjoys the 'What ifs' but I do and I wanted to enjoy future threads armed with a little more information. If you really are upset at my OP or if you think that it is in appropriate then perhaps you could contact a moderator directly, either way I have enjoyed the responses including yours and thank everyone for their thoughts.
 
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.
By the end of WWII the US Navy was as large as the rest of the world's navies combined and with the large number of aircraft carriers, of much higher quality.
 
By the end of WWII the US Navy was as large as the rest of the world's navies combined and with the large number of aircraft carriers, of much higher quality.
Thanks Jimklag, It seems that people have their own views about the point in time when the USA surpassed Britain militarily and from what I gather people aren't necessarily confident that a combined CSA and British force would have been a push over.
 
It has everything to do with the Civil War, as I have already stated, the subject of Britain supporting the CSA during the civil war often crops up in conversation, I asked the question in my OP in order to gain enough information to enable me to make my own mind up. Not everyone enjoys the 'What ifs' but I do and I wanted to enjoy future threads armed with a little more information. If you really are upset at my OP or if you think that it is in appropriate then perhaps you could contact a moderator directly, either way I have enjoyed the responses including yours and thank everyone for their thoughts.
Thanks for your response.
The exchange has been interesting. You will notice that I posted more than one earlier comment responding to your direct question.
Even then, as I was typing WWI and WWII troop levels, I was questioning the relevancy to our Forum.
Once postings started debating the Red Army versus US and British forces at the end of WWII, I thought it might be time to seek advice from our Moderator before someone posted British armed forces reductions in this century.
Let's let the Moderator decide....
 
Thanks for your response.
You will notice that I posted more than one, earlier comment responding to your direct question.
Even then, as I was typing WWI and WWII troop levels, i was questioning the relevancy to our Forum. Once postings started debating the Red Army versus US and British forces at the end of WWII, I thought it might be time to seek advice from our Moderator before someone posted British armed forces reductions in this century.
Let's let the Moderator decide....
Sorry, why do we need a moderator, how is a harmless and sensible debate which I may add has relevance to the forum impacting on you, why are you even concerned. The moderators view all threads and if they decide that a thread is inappropriate they will let us know, If I were you, I would trust the mods on this and you could perhaps just enjoy the forum.
 
Sorry, why do we need a moderator, how is a harmless and sensible debate which I may add has relevance to the forum impacting on you, why are you even concerned. The moderators view all threads and if they decide that a thread is inappropriate they will let us know, If I were you, I would trust the mods on this and you could perhaps just enjoy the forum.
Attaboy!
 
Sorry, why do we need a moderator, how is a harmless and sensible debate which I may add has relevance to the forum impacting on you, why are you even concerned. The moderators view all threads and if they decide that a thread is inappropriate they will let us know, If I were you, I would trust the mods on this and you could perhaps just enjoy the forum.
Thanks for your response.
I'm not going to get into a pi$$ing contest with you over this. I've given my opinion, you have yours.
 
Thanks for your response.
Choose your favorite. I can't vouch for either. It may be that the larger number counts both sides in the conflict just as some sources combine casualty lists.
I will take NPS over www.britannica.com
And using common logic I simply can't get the 1.000.000 number to make sense when we look at the strengths of the field armies.

But I fully agree that some better source is needed. Some historian looking into the question.
(For the 2nd Sleswig war we have the strengths of every single danish regiment for the first day of each month)
 
I will take NPS over www.britannica.com
And using common logic I simply can't get the 1.000.000 number to make sense when we look at the strengths of the field armies.

But I fully agree that some better source is needed. Some historian looking into the question.
(For the 2nd Sleswig war we have the strengths of every single danish regiment for the first day of each month)
Thanks for your response.
To complicate (or clarify) matters further, here are excerpts from two other sources:
1. "With an actual strength of 1,080 officers and 14,926 enlisted men on June 30, 1860, the Regular Army was based on 5-year enlistments. Recruited heavily from men of foreign birth, the United States Army consisted of 10 regiments of infantry, 4 of artillery, 2 of cavalry, 2 of dragoons, and 1 of mounted riflemen. It was not a unified striking force. The Regular Army was deployed within seven departments, six of them west of the Mississippi. Of 198 line companies, 183 were scattered in 79 isolated posts in the territories. The remaining 15 were in garrisons along the Canadian border and on the Atlantic coast."<Richard W. Stewart, Editor, American Military History. (Washington: Center of Military History, United States Army: 1989), p. 185.>
"On May 1, 1865, there were 1,034,064 volunteers in the Army, but by November 15, 800,963 of them had been paid, mustered out, and transported to their home states by the Quartermaster Corps. A year later there were only 11,043 volunteers left in the service, most of whom were United States Colored Troops. These were almost all mustered out by late October 1867."<Richard W. Stewart, Editor, American Military History. (Washington: Center of Military History, United States Army: 1989), p. 282.>
2. Selected dates from a table with explanation from "The Civil War Day By Day" by E.B. Long.
Jan. 1, '61 Union Total: 16,367; Union Present: 14,663; Union Absent: 1704
May 1, '65 Union Total: 1,000,516.
Dec. 31, '62 Confederate Total: 253,208; Confederate Aggregate Present: 304,015; Confederate Present and Absent: 449,439; Confederate Absent: 145,424.
There is a complete table showing troop levels at various dates. <http://civilwarhome.com/armysize.htm>
 
I am saying 1814. The potential of america and its armies keeps foes away from here on out.

Dave, just trying to clarify your comment...because I can see it going a couple directions.

Is it really the potentiality of America's armed forces?

Or, is it the geography of it all...which persisted up to at least WWII?.....And what I mean (further) by that is: it's a logistical pain in the butt to ship forces across 2 oceans (pick which one) to engage North America.
 
Both.America's ability to quickly raise good troops and the opponent is going to have to compensate for the expansive terrain and support troops there.
 
The distinction of greatest military power on earth passed from Britain to the United States in mid- 1943.
The British Empire sacrificed herself to save democracy and freedom from the onslaught of a merciless and monstrously evil totalitarian enemy. She stood alone, buying precious time for the United States to grow in strength and become ready to join the fight.
For this the world should ever be grateful.
 
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)

What NPS source says this?

Based on the strength returns in the Official Records, the size of the US army reached its maximum size in April 1865 [OR Series 3 - Volume 4, page 1283].
At that time, the totals were 622,102 present for duty; 733,752 aggregate present; and 1,052038 aggregate present and absent.
At the start of 1863 the totals were 555,958 present for duty; 664,163 aggregate present; and 868,591 aggregate present and absent [OR Series 3 - Volume 2, page 957].
 
Back
Top