AHC Britian and France join the ACW

most pods that get the Europeans in the war in support of the CSA would not be enough for them to throw their full weight into the war the challenge is to come up with a (semi)plausible in which both not only join but go into a near total war mentality.
 

Deleted member 93645

Other European powers feel threatened by the British-French alliance that has formed two times now after the Crimean War and now intervention in the ACW. This causes a European war, so France and Britain enter a total war mentality.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
most pods that get the Europeans in the war in support of the CSA would not be enough for them to throw their full weight into the war the challenge is to come up with a (semi)plausible in which both not only join but go into a near total war mentality.

Why on earth do you think the Europeans would need 'a near total war mentality?' The Lion does not even need to get his teeth bloody nor Marrianne take her cap off to drive the eagle to the floor and sunder its wings.

Seriously - why?
 
These threads somehow devolve into Brtiain and France and CSA vs USA, Germany (which gets unified by Prussia) and Russia.
 

Deleted member 93645

Why on earth do you think the Europeans would need 'a near total war mentality?' The Lion does not even need to get his teeth bloody nor Marrianne take her cap off to drive the eagle to the floor and sunder its wings.

Seriously - why?
The CSA, if extremely lucky, could have won with naval support, weapons, and supplies from Britain and France. But it is absolutely impossible for Britain to decisively defeat the US as a nation in the 1860s. The US had 31 million people, a modernized army, and the second strongest industrial base in the world. Britain could tire out the US enough for somebody like McClellan to accept the CSA being independent as the status quo, sure. But reconquering the US, or preventing the US from being a great power, was impossible at that point.

These threads somehow devolve into Brtiain and France and CSA vs USA, Germany (which gets unified by Prussia) and Russia.

It's unlikely, but if the ACW did somehow cause a European war, that's probably how it would go down.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The CSA, if extremely lucky, could have won with naval support, weapons, and supplies from Britain and France. But it is absolutely impossible for Britain to decisively defeat the US as a nation in the 1860s. The US had 31 million people, a modernized army, and the second strongest industrial base in the world. Britain could tire out the US enough for somebody like McClellan to accept the CSA being independent as the status quo, sure. But reconquering the US, or preventing the US from being a great power, was impossible at that point.

Yeah, but that's not what either power would be wanting. The British and French didn't try to annex Russia during the Crimean War.

As to "extremely lucky", I don't think it takes "extremely lucky" for a nation to win independence when supported by two of the greatest of Great Powers (including the two largest navies in the world as of PoD). If the British and French did supply weapons free of charge, the CS would rapidly become better equipped than the US (including with breechloading black powder artillery, possibly, which is weaponry the US didn't possess in any quantity until the 1880s!)


While I'm at it, a European War seems unlikely - the Polish crisis is keeping Prussia/Russia/Austria focussed on one another. For a European War to develop, it would take someone (probably Prussia given locations) to decide to self-immolate in order to give the Union relief.

(And before someone mentions either Bismarck or the might of the Prussian Army, both are anachronisms. There's actually an abdication crisis brewing in Prussia, Bismarck is not yet Chancellor, and the reforms of the Prussian Army which made it so powerful start in 1863... and the Prussian Army is not the German Army, the rest of the German Federation would not have gone along in OTL without the French making the first offensive move and in any case the German Federation is as yet split between North and South... the resolution of which comes in 1866.)
 
Britain and France would need very major reasons to support a slave-owning nation that offers virtually zilch in trade by comparison to the US, mostly requiring Lincoln to snort lead fillings on a daily basis and wear a tinfoil hat hollering the dangers of Franco-British conspirators supporting the South.

In short, close to impossible for the USA to do anything to anger both nations, and virtually guaranteed for the CSA to do the same just for its reasons to exist.
 

Deleted member 93645

Yeah, but that's not what either power would be wanting. The British and French didn't try to annex Russia during the Crimean War.

I agree they wouldn't be trying to conquer the US. But I thought that's what frlmerrin was trying to say by "drive the eagle to the floor and sunder its wings".

As to "extremely lucky", I don't think it takes "extremely lucky" for a nation to win independence when supported by two of the greatest of Great Powers (including the two largest navies in the world as of PoD). If the British and French did supply weapons free of charge, the CS would rapidly become better equipped than the US (including with breechloading black powder artillery, possibly, which is weaponry the US didn't possess in any quantity until the 1880s!)

France was a bit distracted with Mexico, who, considering the technological and economic disparity, was thoroughly kicking Maximilian's ass even after the French briefly took Mexico City.

I doubt Britain and France would supply weapons free of charge, they would sell them. After all, the only reason Britain and France would support the CSA would be to get cheap cotton for their textile industries, driven by economic needs.

Even if the CS was better equipped than the US (unlikely; smugglers would still supply weapons to the US) they still had terrible railroads, a nearly nonexistent industrial base, and a third of the population. The Union still has more advantages in this fight.

Also, come to think of it, the CSA getting European support would make them seem much more traitorous in the eyes of the Union Democrats, so even if they were more successful by 1864, Lincoln would still win the election decisively against McClellan.

Britain and France would need very major reasons to support a slave-owning nation that offers virtually zilch in trade by comparison to the US, mostly requiring Lincoln to snort lead fillings on a daily basis and wear a tinfoil hat hollering the dangers of Franco-British conspirators supporting the South.

In short, close to impossible for the USA to do anything to anger both nations, and virtually guaranteed for the CSA to do the same just for its reasons to exist.

I largely agree, but it isn't impossible to believe that Britain would support a plantation-based export economy for their own interests. After all, that's why they equipped Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina in the War of the Triple Alliance. Paraguay was quickly industrializing and modernizing, which was a huge threat to the powerful pro-British landholders in South America.

Since that began in 1864, I don't see the British mentality being much different in 1862.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Saphroneth

Banned
I agree they wouldn't be trying to conquer the US. But I thought that's what frlmerrin was trying to say by "drive the eagle to the floor and sunder its wings".

I think he means to remove the ability of the US to prosecute the war to a successful conclusion.



Britain and France would need very major reasons to support a slave-owning nation that offers virtually zilch in trade by comparison to the US, mostly requiring Lincoln to snort lead fillings on a daily basis and wear a tinfoil hat hollering the dangers of Franco-British conspirators supporting the South.

In short, close to impossible for the USA to do anything to anger both nations, and virtually guaranteed for the CSA to do the same just for its reasons to exist.

Certainly not close to impossible, because they came very close to pissing the British off that much OTL. Trent was pretty serious - when you threaten the ability of the British to send ships between their own ports in time of peace, you're really annoying them! (Of course, Lincoln and Seward between them managed to decide to back down. But there was a time Lincoln was distraught over the death of his son and unable to function in government, so sync them up and there you go.)

As to slavery, both hold slaves.

As to trade, the French and British actually prefer the CSA as a trade partner since the CSA doesn't manufacture its own goods (so will import) and exports things they need (the famine du coton caused significant unrest in both nations).
 
I think he means to remove the ability of the US to prosecute the war to a successful conclusion.





Certainly not close to impossible, because they came very close to pissing the British off that much OTL. Trent was pretty serious - when you threaten the ability of the British to send ships between their own ports in time of peace, you're really annoying them! (Of course, Lincoln and Seward between them managed to decide to back down. But there was a time Lincoln was distraught over the death of his son and unable to function in government, so sync them up and there you go.)

As to slavery, both hold slaves.

As to trade, the French and British actually prefer the CSA as a trade partner since the CSA doesn't manufacture its own goods (so will import) and exports things they need (the famine du coton caused significant unrest in both nations).

I see. Well, besides the point on slavery, given the North, for all its slave ownership, had the abolitionists anyway. I think having the CSA not push Britain and France too far with export cuts on cotton might have kept them from simply changing sources (and hence cost the CSA any actual support). That, and the US blockade, might piss off the Europeans to send more support. Still not sure it'll lead to war, especially since Britain had Canada to fret about.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I see. Well, besides the point on slavery, given the North, for all its slave ownership, had the abolitionists anyway. I think having the CSA not push Britain and France too far with export cuts on cotton might have kept them from simply changing sources (and hence cost the CSA any actual support). That, and the US blockade, might piss off the Europeans to send more support. Still not sure it'll lead to war, especially since Britain had Canada to fret about.

Actually, Britain thinks (thanks to Seward) that the US is going to try to annex Canada anyway, because Seward has been telling them - sometimes in so many words.



"She [Canada] cannot refuse if you tender her annexation on just terms, with indemnity for the struggle she may expect with Great Britain" (Seward, 31 January 1856)

"Hitherto, in common with most of my countrymen, as I suppose I have thought Canada — or, to speak more properly, British America — a mere strip lying north of the United States, easily detachable from the parent State, but incapable of sustaining itself, and therefore ultimately, nay, right soon, to be taken into the Federal Union, without materially changing or affecting its condition or development. (Seward, Albany Journal, 1857)



"Now that the confederacy is about to be shorn of more than half its strength in territory, and more than a third of its population, it is necessary to repair the loss, else we would sink to a third or forth-rate power. By peaceable means or force, therefore, Canada must be annexed... such is the decree of manifest destiny, and such the programme of William H Seward premier of the President Elect"- New York Herald, February 1861

"What, then, is the American Government to do with the immense fighting mass which will be left on its hands when the Southern war is over?... Cuba and Canada must be annexed at one blow to the United States." New York Herald, January 1862

Trent is the standard issue flashpoint - and taken seriously. Via Robcraufurd:


In 1860 Seward had informed the Duke of Newcastle at a public function that as soon as he got into office he would insult England. In April 1861, he issued a memorandum urging Lincoln to foment a foreign war as a means of reuniting North and South against a common enemy- a suggestion that was rapidly picked up by the New York Herald, at the time the most widely circulated paper in the world. When the Trent is boarded, both official and popular opinion in Britain believes that this is the final act in a long succession of American insults. These insults have been deliberately orchestrated to spark a war, with the purpose of either persuading the South to come back into the fold or to give Lincoln's administration the excuse of abandoning a civil war which it knows it can't win, in the hope of picking up territory in Canada by way of compensation. The whole point of the British military response to the Trent is to make it clear to the Union that they will not back down before a threat of war, and that such a war is not an easy way out of the Union's predicament.


“From the outset of the crisis some cabinet members had believed war to be inevitable. They admitted that Lincoln and Seward might not have authorized the Trent incident but reasoned that the ‘mob’ would not permit them to disavow it… the ‘only chance’ of avoiding a collision was for reports of British war preparations to reach Washington before Russell’s despatch could be rejected.” (Brian Jenkins, Britain and the War for the Union, p. 214)
“The ‘refined’ bishop’s [Charles McIlvaine] influential friends and the tone of the press convinced him that the commissioners had to be released if war was to be averted.” (Britain and the War for the Union, p.222)
“He [Mercier] went of his own accord to see the secretary [Seward]. Compliance with the demands or war were the choices open to the United States, he insisted.” (Britain and the War for the Union, p. 225)
“the chances for England’s accepting arbitration would have been minimal at best… Palmerston and Russell staunchly refused to permit another nation to pass judgement on their government’s behaviour.” (Howard Jones, Union in Peril, p. 91)
"Although public opinion was unquestionably largely behind the Palmerston government's ultimatum that Mason and Slidell be returned or a rupture would take place, it is impossible to tell whether or not an offer of arbitration from the Union would have been accepted in Britain." (DA Campbell, English Public Opinion and the American Civil War, p. 85)
“They resolved to leave the drafting of the letter to Russell. He was to state the facts of the case, and demand the restoration of the Commissioners along with an apology for the outrage. Failure to do so within seven days of receiving the letter would mean the immediate departure of Lord Lyons to Canada and war between the two nations.” (Amanda Foreman, A World on Fire, p.178)
"Russell wanted him to be tactful but unequivocal: the release of the prisoners would negate the need for atonement, but no words or species of apology would appease Britain's anger if the prisoners were retained." (A World on Fire, p. 180)
"Seward let him speak without interruption and then asked to know the truth: what would happen if the government refused or requested further discussion? 'I told him that my instructions were positive and left me no discretion,' reported Lyons." (A World on Fire, p. 190)
American public opinion will "make it impossible for Lincoln and Seward to grant our demands, and we must therefore look forward to war as the probable result" (Palmerston to Russell, 6 December 1861).
"Lord John Russell was put to work drafting an ultimatum for presentation to the United States. Its terms were simple: either an abject apology, including surrender of the seized Confederate emissaries, or war." (Shelby Foote, Fort Sumter to Perryville, p. 157)
"Had we no ground for thinking that it was very doubtful whether our demand would be complied with? And will any man tell me who remembers the indignant feeling that prevailed throughout the whole country at the insult and outrage which had been committed that the people of Great Britain would tamely have submitted to a refusal? Well, then, if that refusal came, we should have been bound to extort by the usual means, as far as we were able to do so, that compliance which had been refused to a courteous application." (Lord Palmerston, HC Deb 17 February 1862 vol 165 cc390-1)

Paging TFSmith ... ;)
Please don't, he's rather prone to call me a racist and I'd rather we keep this relatively civil.
 
Perspective from untrained eyes:

*The Trent affair is played by the CSA, instrumentalising mobs to pressure the government in England. Plenty of poor workers ready to yell a bit at the government in exchange for a few dollars.
*This does not lead to war but definitely to a more defiant attitude in Britain.
*France, trying to consolidate its hold on Mexico (which was not slipping because of battles but because of the devastating yellow fever) decides to back the CSA in return for access to their ports, for food and recognition of French Mexico as a legitimate power
*The UK, after that escalated Trent, agrees to stay neutral in the thing, focusing on the defense of Canada (which means some US troops have to be stationned there as it becomes more tense)
*France sends money and ammo to the CSA. While not enough to win the war (France isn't that invested in that particular conflict) it's enough to discourage the US, leading to a two-country peace treaty backed by the UK and France.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Trent is hard to lead to an elevated situation, IMO - either it's war or it's not. Either the US disavows the actions of their captain and releases the prisoners (de-escalation) or they don't (and that's something the British would go to war for).

Though, that said, the British simply refusing to sell arms to the Union more or less cripples their ability to raise the large armies of 1862-3 even more than it would do so to the CSA (436,000 Enfield rifles went to the North, only about 80,000 South) and a blockade of the North would be ruinous on their ability to prosecute the war.

Think of the British as the equivalent of the US in WW1, except that Britain never got involved in the OTL ACW - and that the British fleet is able to completely destroy the US one without really straining itself, especially in late 1861 and early 1862. Until 1862 there's only one ironclad in the Americas - she's called HMS Terror.)



Incidentally, should we have a quick discussion of the existing British and French ironclads - and steam liners - versus the very few US ironclads of 1862? It should help frame the naval combat, I think.

(It's also the naval avenue in which the US theoretically has a chance - the British and French war fleets are so superior to the US blockade fleet it's a little comical, since only Britain and France have any large numbers of steam line-of-battle ships and much of the US blockade fleet is actually gunboats or even sailing ships.)
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
So, ships.

First - paddle wheel ships are distinctly second rank at this point, they obscure the broadside and are vulnerable to enemy fire.

Second - wooden ships are uniquely vulnerable against the RN at this point because of Martin's Shell. This is a kind of RN superweapon - it's not perfect, it can be fired from regular shell-firing guns but has a long reload time compared to just using shell and as such can only be fired from a gun or two... but it amounts to an idealized "hot shot".
It's basically a hollow iron shell full of molten iron, which is cool enough at first to easily load and fragile enough to break open on contact with the sidewalls of an enemy ship - resulting in auto-ignition temperature iron sprayed over the enemy ship.


Third - shell firing guns are very powerful but not perfect. Sinope and the Crimea show this, ships are repeatedly hit by shells but do not simply blow up.




So, here's the US screw battle line.
(Nothing.)

And here's the US screw frigate line as of 31 December 1862 .
Wabash
Roanoke
Colorado
Minnesota
Niagara


So, five ships of force. They either have a moderate broadside of 9" guns or a small but heavy broadside of 6 11" guns on each side. (The larger guns will take longer to load.)
Aside from this the USN has some sail frigates, steam and sail sloops, and a sail battleship. Everything else afloat as of 1 Jan 1862 is essentially a gunboat.



To get some idea of the problem facing the wooden US Navy, let's look at the Royal Navy's screw ships as of Dec 31 1861. Line of battle ships only.
n.b. not all of them are able to cross the Atlantic due to duties like coast guard, but I have endeavoured to avoid listing hulks or the like. This is because a coast guard ship still frees up a mobile liner.

Conversions

4 Duke of Wellington
1 Royal Albert
1 Windsor Castle
2 Orion
1 Caesar
1 Algiers
2 Princess Royal
3 Rodney
1 Nelson
2 Royal George
5 Saint George (?)
3 Albion
2 Queen
1 Cressy
10 Majestic
1 Bombay
1 Sans Pareil
4 Bleinheim
5 Cornwallis

Purpose built

2 Victoria
1 Saint Jean D'Acre
1 Conqueror
2 Duncan
1 Agamemnon
4 James Watt
4 Renown
1 Defiance

(total 66 incl. 16 purpose built)

And the ironclads in the water by the end of 1861:
Warrior x2
Defence x2
Aetna x2
Broad beam Aetna x2 (incl. HMS Trusty, first turret ironclad)
Lengthened Aetna x1
ED: I forgot the three later iron battery ironclads, the Terror, Thunderbolt and Erebus. Though this is partly offset by the way a couple of the wooden Aetnas had rotted somewhat.

(The French also have their own steam line and their own ironclads, due to a recent naval race the French started and kind of lost.)


Since the USN has a few steam frigates to fight this lot plus all the British frigates, I'm sure you can see the incredible problem the USN has.


Making it worse is that the 68-lber gun the British used for their ironclads was considerably better at penetrating armour than the 11" gun the US used on their own ironclads (the 11" gun could not penetrate the armour of Warrior at any range when tested, even when worryingly overloaded with powder and using an AP shell the US did not possess at point blank range.)

Now, with that said, the US ironclads could potentially be useful against a liner. The main problem that Monitor and her kin have here is simple rate of fire - the Monitor's rate of fire is terrible, and a 40-gun-a-side second rate could deliver something like a hundred times the hits on Monitor that Monitor can deliver on her at the same range. The turret opening is going to be vulnerable to that sheer disparity of fire rate.
The British liners tended to have a single 68-lber pivot gun, which absolutely can rack plates off Monitor's armour at battle ranges - which is rather amusing, actually, one turret gun per ship doing most of the hard work!
 
Last edited:
I have the memory of a very similar discussion some months ago about a War between the US and France/UK in the 1880's.

Let's remember that tactically the French and Brits are experts at gunboat diplomacy and power projection. At this time, both armies have been engaged in wars for a long time, with both naval and land fronts, which includes counter insurgency.

However I don't think it would come to that level of engagement, at least for France. They had other things on their plate at the time, like the pacification of Cochinchina, Mexico, Syria, not mentioning the ever-lasting pacification of Algeria (which should however slow down by that point).

Gun running and blockade busting on the other hand, I could see the French do that. Diplomatically it's also justifiable by protecting historically French territories, acting in the name of the lasting bond and friendship between Louisiana and France and yadda yadda.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I think the French providing naval assistance seems quite probable as the extent of it - it lets them test their new ships, too, and against relatively minor targets. (And in return for a little consideration in Mexico.) And basing out of New Orleans was I believe considered seriously.
Mind you, a few dozen French sous-officers and sergeants would have the potential to considerably improve CS (or US!) drill, making them a much more effective military - the French practice a balls-out charge at this point and if carried through properly it can smash right through an army not trained in long range accurate sharpshooting.

The British are, it could be argued, less likely to get involved of their own initiative (because they're worried about Canada and because Britain tended not to get involved anyway) but more likely to be provoked (Trent!) and more likely to engage in a big way if they did get involved, since the best way to protect Canada is to provide troops to defend it from land and force the US to give up on the war by way of a vigorous blockade.

(67th Tigers, an ex-poster on here, once pointed out that the DuPont powder works are actually right up against a navigable river without extensive defences. If the RN really wanted to, it could sail upriver with some gunboats and blow up the main US gunpowder supplier... but I don't think they would, seeing the war as a more limited one for which blockade and the occasional naval landing is sufficient.)
 
Mind you, a few dozen French sous-officers and sergeants would have the potential to considerably improve CS (or US!) drill, making them a much more effective military - the French practice a balls-out charge at this point and if carried through properly it can smash right through an army not trained in long range accurate sharpshooting.

Imagine a CSA army trained by the Foreign Legion...

That said, beside the Foreign Legion and a couple elite corps, would the French army be adapted to a war like the ACW? I remember reading quite a few times that 1871 was caused because they didn't have the experience of "regular" conflict, as they had mostly fought colonial wars?

Of course, drills and the like are still very useful and the officers/sous-officiers corps would have been used to working with conscripts. Do you think they'd be good enough to make slave regiments? They were used to working with colonial troups after all.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Imagine a CSA army trained by the Foreign Legion...

That said, beside the Foreign Legion and a couple elite corps, would the French army be adapted to a war like the ACW? I remember reading quite a few times that 1871 was caused because they didn't have the experience of "regular" conflict, as they had mostly fought colonial wars?

Of course, drills and the like are still very useful and the officers/sous-officiers corps would have been used to working with conscripts. Do you think they'd be good enough to make slave regiments? They were used to working with colonial troups after all.
They won the Franco-Austrian war quite handily - and those colonial conflicts include Algeria, which was a major developmental factor in modern light infantry tactics of the time. The French are quite experienced in it.

Now, the Prussians had a number of advantages against the French, but the single most important one was their magnificent breech-loading artillery. Accurate to a breathtaking degree for the time, it meant the Prussians could blast the longer-ranged French troops out of their trenches and take their assault columns under fire for a very long time before arrival.

The Union simply does not have this scale of equipment - the German states are only just rearming with Krupp guns, and the British have the RBL 12 lber, but everyone else is using RML or SBML guns (meaning Rifled or SmoothBore Muzzle Loader guns).


The French tactics of the time are actually a more refined and better version of the American tactics of the time (not surprising, the Americans were basically copying the French). The idea behind the French tactic is to close through the beaten zone FAST - muzzle loading rifles are slow firing, one shot every 20-30 seconds, and you'll only take a few volleys if you run before reaching bayonet range, at which point you can rout your enemy.
This was effective enough against most (the Russians in the 1850s for example), and the thing which made it not work in the Americas was simple - the American troops slowed to fire back.
The French did not.
In fact, the French tactical system - if carried through by well drilled troops - would simply crush any American position, US or CS. Fire wasn't opened until about 100 yards at Gettysburg, for example, and at that range someone running will take maybe two volleys before reaching hand to hand combat.
(A fast target is also a harder target for artillery.)

The counters to this French tactical system are: long range rifle fire, high rate of fire, or lots of long range rifled artillery - either to kill them from a long way off or to deliver a sudden burst of fire as they get close. The Union and Confederacy of the ACW do not have these.
(Prussia, as of 1866, did, and massacred the Austrians who'd copied the French system. The French promptly tried to copy the Prussian system, but it didn't get it quite right and the vulnerability to artillery remained along with a few new problems. This army is the one the Prussians beat.)



As to slave troops, I've no idea - sorry. I suppose it's possible (certainly there were slaves in the CS army, it's how they managed to maintain a similar front line strength because their army could deploy all the "free" troops to the front) but it might take some serious politicking to get it through the CS government.
 
Top