Tactics of a Ango-French War with the US in the late 1880's

[TFSmith121]

Not to bring historical reality into this, but

Tintime again.What tactics would/could be used for a possible war between an Anglo/French against the US? I should think the first would be to blockade the US ports. Then more troops into Eastern Canada. I ask this question in relation to my ASB TL. Any help would be great.

Not to bring historical reality into this, but what is your delta - your point of departure?

As it was, in this universe, the relative shares of world manufacturing output in 1880 were (Bairoch via Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fal of the Great Powers):

UK - 22.9
US - 14.7
GE - 8.5
FE - 7.8
RE - 7.6
AHE - 4.4
IT - 2.5

Total Industrial Potential (UK in 1900 = 100):
UK - 73.3
US - 46.9
GE - 27.4
FE - 25.1
RE - 24.5
AHE - 14
IT - 8.1
JA - 7.6

Population (1890, but the relative rankings are presumably pretty much the same; the US census in 1880 found 50 million people)
RE - 117 million people
US - 63 million
GE - 49 million
AH - 43 million
JA - 40 million
FE - 38 million
UK - 37 million
IT - 30 million

Now, again, without any information on what has transpired in your universe, it is impossible to suggest what sort of relationship any of the above would have to your fictional world, but still - it suggests something of the relative war-making potential of the major powers.

Include the realities of the distances between the Americas and Europe, and it makes the likely course of events pretty clear - not something that will end in a "European" victory in the Americas.

Best,

 

[Saphroneth]

Include the realities of the distances between the Americas and Europe, and it makes the likely course of events pretty clear - not something that will end in a "European" victory in the Americas.

Best,

...

You don't think outnumbering the entire male population of the US with enemy soldiers is sufficient to cause a European victory in the Americas.

 

[robcraufurd]

Let's look at that Isandhlwana order of battle more closely, shall we?

You're going to have to go to more fundamental areas than that, unless you rewrote the post that you quoted to remove all the logic. For a start, Chelmsford probably didn't see mounted mobility as such a critical element as Custer did because Custer was fighting nomadic tribes of horsemen and Chelmsford was fighting people who grazed cattle and lived in kraals. If Crook hadn't mounted his infantry on mules, they wouldn't have even been at the Rosebud to get defeated; Chelmsford's infantry could march in the knowledge that their opponents weren't going anywhere. However, the British have recognised the need for mounted infantry in the South African wars since they converted the 7th Dragoon Guards to mounted infantry in 1843.

The statement is even more confusing because it completely ignores the mounted infantry units present at Isandhlwana: the Imperial Mounted Infantry, the Natal Native Police, the Natal Carbineers, the Newcastle Mounted Rifles, the Buffalo Border Guard and the Natal Native Mounted Contingent. There were 21 officers and 575 men of the two battalions of the 24th present on the day, but 7 officers and 368 men of the various contingents of mounted infantry. In fact, it's surprising that there's so many mounted infantry there in the first place, because Chelmsford has taken the main body of his column off to bring the Zulus to battle, leaving troops to guard the supply depot at Isandhlwana- hence the "rear elements" comment you correctly made.

That brings us to the second main point of confusion: it never seems to be acknowledged that the battle of Isandhlwana was fought to defend a supply depot, and the Zulus were the ones on the offensive. The entire British force was destroyed because, once the 24th were neutralised, the Zulus (who were attacking) swept on and destroyed the camp which was their original target. Reno and Benteen survived because, once Custer was neutralised, the Sioux (who were defending) skirmished in a desultory fashion with the remaining troops, who no longer posed any active threat to them. The British didn't "send troops into the situation"- the situation emerged around them. On the other hand, Custer divided his force in the face of the enemy and got half of it killed- so much for "effective scouting", though I suppose you could argue Custer just ignored their reports- and Crook blundered into an enemy force and had to retreat.

Given the number of times this battle is mentioned by those using it to criticise the performance of the British army, I would have thought people could get the basic facts about it right.

EDIT:

Anyone would think from this depiction that the British had more than two artillery pieces

I think you'll find there were also three 9pdr rockets of Brevet Major Francis Russell's battery (1 officer, 1 bombardier, 8 men detailed from C Coy. 1/24th).

 

[Saphroneth]

So, again, 950 British imperial troops (including at least 670 British Army regulars, infantry and artillery) armed with breechloading rifles, revolvers, and with artillery in support, overwhelmed and destroyed by men largely equipped with spears.

Anyone would think from this depiction that the British had more than two artillery pieces, or that there were less than twenty thousand men with spears.


Anyway.

Care to cite an example of the US engaging any enemy in this period at twenty to one odds and coming out of it intact?

I certainly have an example of the British engaging men with spears and some rifles - at 10:1 odds - and surviving, or even a singular case of the British engaging men with spears at 20:1 odds and surviving.

I also have an example from 1882 of the British engaging a force with modern weapons, training and artillery, with slightly more men than the British do. Tel el-Kebir, in which the ratio of losses was about twenty-to-one or more.

 

[Johnrankins]

...

You don't think outnumbering the entire male population of the US with enemy soldiers is sufficient to cause a European victory in the Americas.

There weren't nearly that many soldiers in all Europe not taking just GB and France. You would need literally 30 million of so soldiers to equal the male population of the US.

 

[Saphroneth]

There weren't nearly that many soldiers in all Europe not taking just GB and France. You would need literally 30 million of so soldiers to equal the male population of the US.

No, I'm referring to a post from his TL where he puts 12.5 million soldiers as the requirement for the US to be defeated in a British intervention in the American Civil War.

By contrast, the total population of the US at that time was about 22 million, half male.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I'm sure very few nations would do well when some of their rear elements are surprised at close range by an enemy capable of moving at cavalry trot speeds who outnumber them ten or more to one.

When the same nation has time to prepare, you get Roark's Drift.

The two illustrate both the ways in which breech-loading weapons can do extremely poorly (when not able to exploit their advantages) and extremely well (when they are able to do so).

One could equally cite, say, Little Big Horn as an example of how US troops - when surprised - can be comprehensively smashed by a force not much larger than their own and with an array of weapons from modern breechloaders to stone age arrows and clubs.

To my own mind there needs to be little more said on the matter than this. Citing either Isandlwana or Little Big Horn as being somehow emblematic of the combat prowess of either the United States or Great Britain.

What really ought to be taken away is that overconfidence kills...lots of people.

 

[Saphroneth]

EDIT:

I think you'll find there were also three 9pdr rockets of Brevet Major Francis Russell's battery (1 officer, 1 bombardier, 8 men detailed from C Coy. 1/24th).

Whoops, missed those.

Any idea how good they were?

 

[TFSmith121]

Sorry, what?

...

You don't think outnumbering the entire male population of the US with enemy soldiers is sufficient to cause a European victory in the Americas.

Population of the US in 1880 is 50 million; presumably half (25 million) were male.

Britain and France are going to mobilize 25 million men and send them across the Atlantic? Out of their populations in 1880 of roughly 37 million (France) and 35 million (Britain and Ireland)?

That would be something.

Best,

 

[EnglishCanuck]

The problem is that the US by this time has already spread from Maine to Florida to California to Washington State, is the second largest economy in the world, is 3,000 miles away from Europe, has a population of millions and is totally connected by rail. They will be able to blockade the US at great cost but landing troops is suicide.

That would be pretty well known I would imagine (though assaults on places like San Francisco or Portland would not be beyond the minds or means of strategists in London or Paris). The war would have to primarily be naval.

No one is arguing that but to blockade thousands of miles of coastline from three thousand miles away would be very expensive even if the US didn't have a navy at all.

Expensive, but with the two largest navies in the world stepping up to the plate its rather doable. The French and the British have bases in North America and the Caribbean to take advantage of, and can easily strangle US coastal trade while cutting off the important foreign trade that greases the wheels of US capitalism.

Also the US was very self reliant. It is big enough that it isn't really dependent on imports. It produces enough food, coal, iron, timber, nickel , copper etc. to run itself. It would make it poorer, but it wouldn't bankrupt it by a longshot.

This leads into my next point in that even though the US is rather self-reliant, blockade would hurt. That's an economic and political weapon to be thrown around, which is somewhat the point. If the US finds itself with dissatisfaction at home with the whole 'war with Europe' thing then I can't imagine people are going to be willing to settle down for a long war.

If the invasion of Canada doesn't go swimmingly I can imagine they might decide to ask for an armistice.

 

[Saphroneth]

Population of the US in 1880 is 50 million; presumably half (25 million) were male.

Britain and France are going to mobilize 25 million men and send them across the Atlantic? Out of their populations in 1880 of roughly 37 million (France) and 35 million (Britain and Ireland)?

That would be something.

Best,

I can literally quote you claiming it would take 12.5 million men to beat the Union in 1862.

The 2nd SA war shows the British required some 450,000 men in theater to actually defeat a Western force of 90,000 fighting on their home ground, roughly 5-1 odds, and this was with the difference in military, transportation, and communications technology between 1861 and 1899, and the impact of Cardwell et al upon the British Army. Obviously, the South Africans had no coastlines; the British had absolute supremacy at sea.

The US mobilized some 2.5 million men during the Civil War; unless one can assemble an Anglo-Confederate-Canadian-New Brunswick-Nova Scotia-PEI-Newfie-etc. order of battle totalling 12.5 million men and get them all to North America, I think we can safely say the liklihood of a "British victory" in North America in the mid-Nineteenth Century is remote.

The US population at the time (1861) was considerably less than 25 million.

 

[robcraufurd]

Any idea how good they were?

Not fantastic. More accurate than the Congreve, but the Royal Artillery didn't bother practicing with them in peacetime. Their main advantage was that they were light, so easy to transport in colonial campaigns, and potentially unnerving to troops who hadn't experienced them before.

Citing either Isandlwana or Little Big Horn as being somehow emblematic of the combat prowess of either the United States or Great Britain.

True, but have you ever seen someone argue that America would lose a war with the UK in the 19th century because of Little Big Horn?

EDIT:

POD's? Quite a few. In the TL there are not ASB's as such, but ASB science.

If you're doing a naval war, I wish you all the best coming up with something more ASB than HMS Polyphemus.

 

[tallthinkev]

Not to bring historical reality into this, but what is your delta - your point of departure?

Best,

POD's? Quite a few. In the TL there are not ASB's as such, but ASB science. Britain have a number of flying machines, not large and not built for war.
Britain - Victoria is still Queen, Sailsbury is still PM
France - Napoleon IV is top dog
German - The Emperor is Henry
USA - Cleveland is POTUS, however with the election coming up there is a bloke called Edison making trouble home and abroad.

It's the planning of a war that I wish to have help with, whether it comes to that is something I will look into.

The main arch of the TL, at the moment is one side UK and France, with Germany a possible ally.
On the other USA and Russia.

More a case of keeping the US down and not letting them get the advance they had OTL.
If you wish to read the TL (The Sun Never Sets) in the ASB part, you may get the idea.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

True, but have you ever seen someone argue that America would lose a war with the UK in the 19th century because of Little Big Horn?

Fair point.

 

[TFSmith121]

Actually, it's not...

No, I'm referring to a post from his TL where he puts 12.5 million soldiers as the requirement for the US to be defeated in a British intervention in the American Civil War. By contrast, the total population of the US at that time was about 22 million, half male.

Actually, it's not, IIRC...

It was from one of the pre-BROS discussions, and was based, as indicated, on the ratio between the British/Imperial troops deployed in the 2nd South African War and those raised by the South African republics.

The numbers are 450,000 vs. 90,000, which is a ratio (at least in my universe) of roughly 5-1.

US enlistments (not commissions) in 1861-65 are officially listed as 2,778,304, including, in the Army, 2,489,836 whites, 178,975 men of (designated) African ancestry, 3530 of designated "Indian" ancestry, and 105,963 in the Navy and Marines.

Given that some men could have enlisted in the 1861 short service call (75,000) and served their term, and then the 1862 long-service call (500,000) and served their term, and then re-enlisted again as "veteran volunteers" in 1865, there is undoubtedly overlap; estimates of how many individuals served run from 1.6 million to 2.2 million in the US army (including RA, USV, USCT, etc., but excluding state troops and militia not credited with federal service, but which would be expected to be in the front lines in the event of a European intervention, for harbor defense service, lines of communications duties, etc). As to the navies, the USN totaled 132,554 enlistments; note that officers and men of the Revenue Marine, the state troops and organized militia (as opposed to muster sheet numbers), and the like are not included.

A grand total is any case an estimate, but with roughly 2.8 million army and 100,000+ navy enlistments, and presuming the availability of 100,000 or more state troops or militia available at any given moment for short service and rotation into fixed defenses and lines of communication positions in the event of a European intervention, that's 3 million "enlistments" - cut that by a half million for overlaps, overcounts, cushion, whatever - and that yields 2.5 million.

2.5 million multipled by five is, indeed, 12.5 million.

At least in my universe.

Best,

 

[Johnrankins]

That would be pretty well known I would imagine (though assaults on places like San Francisco or Portland would not be beyond the minds or means of strategists in London or Paris). The war would have to primarily be naval.



Expensive, but with the two largest navies in the world stepping up to the plate its rather doable. The French and the British have bases in North America and the Caribbean to take advantage of, and can easily strangle US coastal trade while cutting off the important foreign trade that greases the wheels of US capitalism.



This leads into my next point in that even though the US is rather self-reliant, blockade would hurt. That's an economic and political weapon to be thrown around, which is somewhat the point. If the US finds itself with dissatisfaction at home with the whole 'war with Europe' thing then I can't imagine people are going to be willing to settle down for a long war.

If the invasion of Canada doesn't go swimmingly I can imagine they might decide to ask for an armistice.

The US never asked for an armistice in its history after being attacked. Any attack on the US itself has historically resulted in the US mobilizing for total war since the War of 1812. Only minor wars are won by mere blockade, to win against the US you need boots on the ground.

 

[Saphroneth]

Actually, it's not, IIRC...

It was from one of the pre-BROS discussions,

Bolded for complete falsehood.

That post was from BROS. It's post 320 of the thread BURNISHED ROWS OF STEEL: A History of the Great War (Foreward)
Which is thread ID 301246.

and was based, as indicated, on the ratio between the British/Imperial troops deployed in the 2nd South African War and those raised by the South African republics.

The numbers are 450,000 vs. 90,000, which is a ratio (at least in my universe) of roughly 5-1.

US enlistments (not commissions) in 1861-65 are officially listed as 2,778,304, including, in the Army, 2,489,836 whites, 178,975 men of (designated) African ancestry, 3530 of designated "Indian" ancestry, and 105,963 in the Navy and Marines.

Given that some men could have enlisted in the 1861 short service call (75,000) and served their term, and then the 1862 long-service call (500,000) and served their term, and then re-enlisted again as "veteran volunteers" in 1865, there is undoubtedly overlap; estimates of how many individuals served run from 1.6 million to 2.2 million in the US army (including RA, USV, USCT, etc., but excluding state troops and militia not credited with federal service, but which would be expected to be in the front lines in the event of a European intervention, for harbor defense service, lines of communications duties, etc). As to the navies, the USN totaled 132,554 enlistments; note that officers and men of the Revenue Marine, the state troops and organized militia (as opposed to muster sheet numbers), and the like are not included.

A grand total is any case an estimate, but with roughly 2.8 million army and 100,000+ navy enlistments, and presuming the availability of 100,000 or more state troops or militia available at any given moment for short service and rotation into fixed defenses and lines of communication positions in the event of a European intervention, that's 3 million "enlistments" - cut that by a half million for overlaps, overcounts, cushion, whatever - and that yields 2.5 million.

2.5 million multipled by five is, indeed, 12.5 million.

At least in my universe.

Best,

Anyway, it's good to see you still stand by those calculations.

 

[TFSmith121]

The US population in 1860 was

I can literally quote you claiming it would take 12.5 million men to beat the Union in 1862. The US population at the time (1861) was considerably less than 25 million.

The US population in the 1860 census was 31,443,321, including 3,953,761 slaves; the US population, as split between the loyal states and rebel states, was as follows (at least according to the National Park Service, but what would they know?):

18.5 million + 3 million (border states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri) totals 21.5 million; add any percentage one wishes of the 3.5 million enslaved in the rebel states (~90,000 USCTs were enlisted, historically, south of the border states in 1862-65) plus whatever percentage one wishes of the Unionist/anti-confederate population in the rebel states (remember, some 100,00 white southerners enlisted in the US forces during the war - source is Richard N. Current's Lincoln's Loyalists) and one gets to 25 million quite easily.

One other point on the "Southern" loyalist population, enslaved and free, is that it essentially should be subtracted from the rebel total of 9 million (including, of course, 3.5 million), as Current makes clear...

Note the NPS enlistment figure above is a reduction from the historical (as included in the OR and Dyer, for example, which includes more than 101,000 in the Navy and Marines) of 2,778,304.

Realize that all of the above is done in an era of pen and paper (Hollerith machines didn't come in until 1880) but it seems reasonable enough for a bar discussion.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Aircraft in 1880?

POD's? Quite a few. In the TL there are not ASB's as such, but ASB science. Britain have a number of flying machines, not large and not built for war.
Britain - Victoria is still Queen, Sailsbury is still PM
France - Napoleon IV is top dog
German - The Emperor is Henry
USA - Cleveland is POTUS, however with the election coming up there is a bloke called Edison making trouble home and abroad.

It's the planning of a war that I wish to have help with, whether it comes to that is something I will look into.

The main arch of the TL, at the moment is one side UK and France, with Germany a possible ally.
On the other USA and Russia.

More a case of keeping the US down and not letting them get the advance they had OTL.
If you wish to read the TL (The Sun Never Sets) in the ASB part, you may get the idea.

Aircraft in 1880? Okay, sorry, thought you were serious.

Why not make it dragons?

Signing off for obvious reasons.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

IF I RECALL CORRECTLY...

Bolded for complete falsehood.

That post was from BROS. It's post 320 of the thread BURNISHED ROWS OF STEEL: A History of the Great War (Foreward)
Which is thread ID 301246.


Anyway, it's good to see you still stand by those calculations.

IF I RECALL CORRECTLY... as in, IIRC. Sorry if that disappoints you.

But given the OP is fantasy, then sure, the Royal Loamshires will triumph because of their trusty Vickers-Henrys, in .280 caliber...

Enjoy the day.