In fictional world, a nuclear apocalypse has destroyed old nations and ravaged civilization. Refugees (and colonial settlers from before) from the mainland fled to unaffected Africa and North America/Greenland. The two Americas are not connected via land (South America merged with Antarctica in the ice age) in this alternate world. A large Alps-sized mountain stands between Africa and Europe. No airplanes have been made for centuries as the skies have been very hazardous after the nuclear war.

2-2.5 centuries have passed and the radioactivity has vanished completely. The two sides have gradually built two empires of different culture and almost same technological level. After explorers declare Europe and Asia suitable for living, both sides, aware of each other's existence but unaware of their military capability, race towards the mainland with their navies. N. America has a navy the size of current US navy, 90s tech. African navy is twice as big in tonnage but 60s tech. In an all out naval war, who would win and how exactly?

I'm gonna make things a little more clear..

1.The African empire is not exactly African as it is ruled by a nobility of European ancestry from the pre-nuclear war colonial times.European leaders and soldiers make up the majority of the military and political leadership.

2.North American empire is similar to the USA but with a fascist-theocratic government.The African empire is an absolute monarchy with mostly European aristocracy.

  • $\begingroup$ It's somewhat of a wall of text, can you break it into paragraphs for ease of reading. Welcome to the site, when you have the time, please take the tour and read-up in our help center about how we work. Could you tell us which African navy you might be referring to, many African countries have never possessed a navy of any tech level whatever? Also, why would they have different tech levels when you have specifically stated that they developed similar levels? At the moment your question need to be better defined. Voting to put on hold as opinion based until you can edit to clear-up the issues. $\endgroup$ – Tantalus' touch. Aug 23 '19 at 16:28
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Mr.Dojo, and welcome to Worldbuilding! Interesting question, but as Chickens points out it's very broad. Can you help us give you useful answers by narrowing it down to a specific, answerable question? The Sandbox and this Meta question might be helpful understanding what additional information we'll need. $\endgroup$ – Dubukay Aug 23 '19 at 16:34
  • $\begingroup$ "Who would win" depends entirely upon your criteria for what a "win" looks like, and it's very possible that each side may have very different measures of success. For example: A may want to destroy a specific capability of B, while B may want to deny A access to a certain area. Unless one side has spent a generation building a fleet of transports and a vast army, the goals of both sides (and the definitions of "win") will be limited. $\endgroup$ – user535733 Aug 23 '19 at 17:01

I think the back history and the geography are almost completely irrelevant.

Two navies.

  • One with 1990s technology (except for aviation, which is missing).
  • One with 1960s technology (except for aviation, which is missing).
  • The lower-tech navy has twice the tonnage.

If both navies have submarines, the 1990s navy will win. The modern subs will first hunt and kill the old subs and then the surface fleet.

If there are no submarines and the 1990s ships are mostly unchanged, the 1960s navy may win. Without aviation, it could come down to a gun duel which the 1990s navy is ill prepared to fight. Of course, if the naval architects have half a brain the 1990s ships will not be unchanged. Big guns plus 1990s fire control will beat twice the number of 1960s big guns.

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks.I think that'll help. $\endgroup$ – Mr.Dojo Aug 23 '19 at 16:45

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.