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

[Saphroneth]

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,

Well, yes, if you start including people from a different (if short lived) country, of course you go over 25 million.
But I stated pretty clearly that it was you saying that it would take more than the entire male population of the US.

The entire male population of the US as of 1861 was 21.5 million divided by two by your numbers above, which is to say 10.75 million.


You're also standing by your statement that it would take 12.5 million to defeat the US.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

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[1]. Only minor wars are won by mere blockade, to win against the US you need boots on the ground.

Well I don't know the specifics of the war, and TBH I can't see a major war between France. Britain and the United States being plausible[2] in the 1880s. It would most likely be a war of a limited nature since sheer geography prevents one side from delivering a knock out blow to the other, which means that a blockade (coupled with a mishandled offensive in Canada) could lead to the US looking for peace.

[1] Slight quibble in that the US did not mobilize for total war in the 1812 conflict. The states in no way carried an equal share of the fighting or allotment of resources to the battle, and by the end of the war the US would have been hard pressed to fight on due to public opinion being against it as it stood in 1814 and the biting effects of the blockade.

[2] Yes I'm aware this is a discussion of tactics for an admittedly ASB scenario

 

[Saphroneth]

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.

You didn't even click through. I did provide the link, man.

 

[Johnrankins]

Well I don't know the specifics of the war, and TBH I can't see a major war between France. Britain and the United States being plausible[2] in the 1880s. It would most likely be a war of a limited nature since sheer geography prevents one side from delivering a knock out blow to the other, which means that a blockade (coupled with a mishandled offensive in Canada) could lead to the US looking for peace.

[1] Slight quibble in that the US did not mobilize for total war in the 1812 conflict. The states in no way carried an equal share of the fighting or allotment of resources to the battle, and by the end of the war the US would have been hard pressed to fight on due to public opinion being against it as it stood in 1814 and the biting effects of the blockade.

[2] Yes I'm aware this is a discussion of tactics for an admittedly ASB scenario

Sorry I meant since AFTER the War of 1812. My mistake in leaving out that word.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Sorry I meant since AFTER the War of 1812. My mistake in leaving out that word.

No worries

Though would it be fair to say that in all major conflicts the US has mobilized a fair share of resources to win? (I mean maybe excepting the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War)

 

[Johnrankins]

No worries

Though would it be fair to say that in all major conflicts the US has mobilized a fair share of resources to win? (I mean maybe excepting the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War)

True, but it has always been willing to so why wouldn't it do so in this instance? A mere blockade would do little. Not talking about the expense to the UK and French treasuries in cutting themselves off of US trade and maintaining a blockade along thousands of miles of coastline three thousand miles away. I am sure the British treasury office would be thrilled at the expense!

 

[Saphroneth]

True, but it has always been willing to so why wouldn't it do so in this instance? A mere blockade would do little. Not talking about the expense to the UK and French treasuries in cutting themselves off of US trade and maintaining a blockade along thousands of miles of coastline three thousand miles away. I am sure the British treasury office would be thrilled at the expense!

It's not cripplingly expensive, you know.

During the War of 1812, the RN's relative share of the British defensive budget actually contracted - the army increased in cost 1811-15 more than the total RN budget 1815.

The RN budget is 18-22 million pounds for 1811-15, and contracts to 17 and then 10 million in 1817. This is the highest it gets since 1805.

So... during the time the RN was blockading the entirety of Europe, and then when it was blockading some of Europe and the entire US coast, it ends up costing about as much again at most as the peacetime value.

The additional cost is about 3% of GDP.
By contrast, the Army approbations for the same period are consistently half again as large or more.

Blockades are not expensive, even ones at three-thousand-mile distances in the Age of Sail.


Similarly, the blockade of Germany in 1914-18 clearly did not cost vast amounts.

1913 spending: 44 million.
1914 spending: 49 million.
1915 spending: 52 million.
1916 spending: Budget is black from this point on. Total defensive budget is order two billion pounds, vast majority of which on army.


The Blockade of the Rio de la Plata caused no discernible strain on the RN's budget.

This blockade would be even easier - there's no enemy ships worth the name! The British have dozens of cruisers, the USN has naff-all that can stop them and can easily park an ironclad battleship outside the home ports of every single US ship newer than 1866.

 

[Johnrankins]

It's not cripplingly expensive, you know.

During the War of 1812, the RN's relative share of the British defensive budget actually contracted - the army increased in cost 1811-15 more than the total RN budget 1815.

The RN budget is 18-22 million pounds for 1811-15, and contracts to 17 and then 10 million in 1817. This is the highest it gets since 1805.

So... during the time the RN was blockading the entirety of Europe, and then when it was blockading some of Europe and the entire US coast, it ends up costing about as much again at most as the peacetime value.

The additional cost is about 3% of GDP.
By contrast, the Army approbations for the same period are consistently half again as large or more.

Blockades are not expensive, even ones at three-thousand-mile distances in the Age of Sail.


Similarly, the blockade of Germany in 1914-18 clearly did not cost vast amounts.

1913 spending: 44 million.
1914 spending: 49 million.
1915 spending: 52 million.
1916 spending: Budget is black from this point on. Total defensive budget is order two billion pounds, vast majority of which on army.


The Blockade of the Rio de la Plata caused no discernible strain on the RN's budget.

This blockade would be even easier - there's no enemy ships worth the name! The British have dozens of cruisers, the USN has naff-all that can stop them and can easily park an ironclad battleship outside the home ports of every single US ship newer than 1866.

3% of GDP is a lot of money 3% of the GDP of the US is $525 billion which is a lot of money in my book! Now it isn't crippling but I guarantee Westminster wouldn't be thrilled with the bill.

The cost to the US would be trivial, it really didn't need trade to survive. It would have an impact but US foreign trade at the time was a tiny percentage of GDP.

 

[Saphroneth]

3% of GDP is a lot of money 3% of the GDP of the US is $525 billion which is a lot of money in my book! Now it isn't crippling but I guarantee Westminster wouldn't be thrilled with the bill.

The cost to the US would be trivial, it really didn't need trade to survive. It would have an impact but US foreign trade at the time was a tiny percentage of GDP.

Well, the 3% example was during the total-war of the Napoleonic era.

Here's another way of putting it. If the 1914-5 blockade and other naval war excess expenses happened in 1880, twice over, they would be about 16 million from a GDP of 1.2 billion.
1.3% of GDP.

Once over and it's 8 million, which barely brings the Navy budget up to that of the Army.

 

[Johnrankins]

Well, the 3% example was during the total-war of the Napoleonic era.

Here's another way of putting it. If the 1914-5 blockade and other naval war excess expenses happened in 1880, twice over, they would be about 16 million from a GDP of 1.2 billion.
1.3% of GDP.

Once over and it's 8 million, which barely brings the Navy budget up to that of the Army.

That would still be the equivalent of about $200 billion of so. Countries don't spend that on a whim. That doesn't count the damage cutting off US trade costs GB. It isn't crippling either but you need a pretty good reason to do it!

Also the Brits were unable to stop the French from building ships during the Napoleonic Wars. It was unable to stop Germany from building ships in either World War as well. If it couldn't do that it couldn't stop the US from building ships 3000 miles away, more if they are made on the West Coast. If the war drags on more than three or four years it will start facing a real navy .

 

[Saphroneth]

That would still be the equivalent of about $200 billion of so. Countries don't spend that on a whim. That doesn't count the damage cutting off US trade costs GB. It isn't crippling either but you need a pretty good reason to do it!

Also the Brits were unable to stop the French from building ships during the Napoleonic Wars. It was unable to stop Germany from building ships in either World War as well. If it couldn't do that it couldn't stop the US from building ships 3000 miles away, more if they are made on the West Coast. If the war drags on more than three or four years it will start facing a real navy .

The point is, basically... The blockade is NOT expensive. It will take years for it to become contestable - heck, some US ships at this time are built on the Clyde!
If the Brits do want to prosecute this war, a blockade is not just obvious but pretty easy to sustain.
After that we get into "build an army" territory for both sides - which IS expensive.

 

[Saphroneth]

True, but it has always been willing to so why wouldn't it do so in this instance? A mere blockade would do little. Not talking about the expense to the UK and French treasuries in cutting themselves off of US trade and maintaining a blockade along thousands of miles of coastline three thousand miles away. I am sure the British treasury office would be thrilled at the expense!

...

Wait.
How is there so little trade the US does not need to care AND so much the UK is seriously expensed by the cutoff?

 

[Johnrankins]

...

Wait.
How is there so little trade the US does not need to care AND so much the UK is seriously expensed by the cutoff?

Like I said it is NOT crippling but it adds to it. The question is WHY does it do this? It can, in theory, do it but it better have a good reason! The US, even in the 1890s isn't Zaire.

It would be the equivalent of spending hundreds of billions of dollars for no real reason at all. Unless it can put boots on US soil the US will not do whatever GB wants. Wars aren't started for "bragging rights" but to compel the enemy to do something and the Brits would be in no position to compel the US to do anything at all. So why is it spending the money?

 

[Johnrankins]

The point is, basically... The blockade is NOT expensive. It will take years for it to become contestable - heck, some US ships at this time are built on the Clyde!
If the Brits do want to prosecute this war, a blockade is not just obvious but pretty easy to sustain.
After that we get into "build an army" territory for both sides - which IS expensive.

A decade or two should do. Again the UK is in no position to compel the US to do anything. A blockade by itself will do nothing.

 

[Saphroneth]

A decade or two should do. Again the UK is in no position to compel the US to do anything. A blockade by itself will do nothing.

Like I said it is NOT crippling but it adds to it. The question is WHY does it do this? It can, in theory, do it but it better have a good reason! The US, even in the 1890s isn't Zaire.

It would be the equivalent of spending hundreds of billions of dollars for no real reason at all. Unless it can put boots on US soil the US will not do whatever GB wants. Wars aren't started for "bragging rights" but to compel the enemy to do something and the Brits would be in no position to compel the US to do anything at all. So why is it spending the money?

I don't happen to know why it is that the UK (and France) want to fight the US here.
That's OP's business.
He did, however, ask for help on what the UK/French approach would be assuming the war.
So - step one, blockade. The blockade would, counter to what you've said, not be cripplingly expensive.
Step two... ground troops. Defending Canada.

Step three... there I'm not sure, at that point it does matter the nature of the ASB.

 

[Johnrankins]

I don't happen to know why it is that the UK (and France) want to fight the US here.
That's OP's business.
He did, however, ask for help on what the UK/French approach would be assuming the war.
So - step one, blockade. The blockade would, counter to what you've said, not be cripplingly expensive.
Step two... ground troops. Defending Canada.

Step three... there I'm not sure, at that point it does matter the nature of the ASB.

I never said it would crippling expensive but that it would be expensive. $200 billion is expensive.

 

[RodentRevolution]

A decade or two should do. Again the UK is in no position to compel the US to do anything. A blockade by itself will do nothing.

You are aware of the US economic situation in the 1880s? If not I suggest you study it as it was not good though it was recovering after an absolute nadir and the force pushing this recovery I hear you pertinently ask? Why foreign trade!

 

[Saphroneth]

I never said it would crippling expensive but that it would be expensive. $200 billion is expensive.

Don't forget that that number is essentially pro-rata'd for an entire economy a century away, and based on the assumption that the only thing the RN did in 1915 that it didn't do in 1913 was a blockade.

 

[Tanc49]

If I was general of a Franco-British force at the time, I would make a blockade, or at least a big show of it on the East Coast. Probably bombard New-York, Boston, the big cities...

Then I'd establish a beachhead somewhere, heavily defended, but not meant for the offensive.

After a month or so, when troups started to be mobilised in this area, I would conduct an attack on San Francisco and Los Angeles with colonial troups from Indochine, Australia and Hong Kong/Formose, especially if it's after 1886 and the end of the second Franco-Chinese war, freeing a lot of troups in the area. Well, not that many but well equipped, supported by the Navy and veterans.

With that, you take big population areas, you seize the gold fields and liberate a front for Canada. If you're good enough diplomatically, you can get Mexican support, or at least acceptance of the situation. What about food supply against a bit of the South?

The next step depends on your goal: occupation or destruction. If it's the latter, you march East, burning everything on your way and gutting the agricultural potential and every big population center.If you're really good, you can have Fifth column type actions with the various groups of immigrants and potential veterans from the Civil War looking for a bigger share of the pie. (depending on the cause of agression).

In the meantime, I would send a fleet of gunboats up the Mississipi river to blockade it and control interiors supply, cutting the country in two. Once the situation is stabilised enough on the States West of the river, I would march East and finally wipe out final resistance.

Such a movement would be based on classic colonial tactics, used in 1886 in the Franco-Chinese war, so a war in enemy controlled territory with a modern-ish army with artillery and rifles, and numeric superiority. Forces were 2-1 in favor of the Chinese (15/20000 French, 25/30000 Chinese) and deads were 5-1 in favor of the French (2100 killed or wounded French force, 10000 killed or wounded Chinese). One of the biggest acts of this war was the Ambush of Bac Lé where the Chinese ambushed the French from a covered position, 22 dead French and 70 wounded against 300 KoW Chinese.

ABout naval superiority, look at the battle of Fuzhou were a French fleet wiped out a Chinese fleet twice as numerous in half an hour, in the Chinese port. To give an idea of the French fleet in the Pacific, here's the breakdown of the Escadre d'Extrême-Orient

• Cuirassés : Bayard, La Galissonnière, Turenne, Triomphante, Atalante (en)
• Croiseurs (1re classe) : Duguay-Trouin, Villars, d'Estaing, Lapérouse, Nielly, Magon, Primauguet, Roland
• Croiseurs (2e classe) : Champlain, Châteaurenault, Éclaireur, Rigault de Genouilly
• Croiseurs (3e classe): Kerguelen, Volta, Duchaffaut
• Avisos-transports : Saône
• Canonnières : Lutin, Vipère, Lynx, Comète, Sagittaire, Aspic, Jaguar
• Transports (1re classe) : Annamite, Tonkin
• Croiseurs auxiliaires : Château-Yquem
• Torpilleurs (2e classe) : no 44, 45, 46 et 509.

 

[robcraufurd]

Don't forget that that number is essentially pro-rata'd for an entire economy a century away, and based on the assumption that the only thing the RN did in 1915 that it didn't do in 1913 was a blockade.

If this is an Anglo-French war, shouldn't the cost be divided between them? The Royal Navy was blockading Europe on its own in the Napoleonic Wars, and Germany on its own in the First World War.

As an aside, from a semi-related thread:

The Springfield 1873 By contrast was originally a conversion of civil war Muzzle loading Rifle muskets, analogous with the British Snyder breech loading conversation for the 1853 Enfield. However most Springfield 1873's were of new manufacture instead of conversations,

I wanted to point out that some of the Sniders were newly built: by January 1873, the proportion was 589,678 converted to 292,424 new guns. Also worth bearing in mind is that the British authorised one Maxim gun per battalion in 1890 and two in 1891.

Have you tried looking into invasion fiction for some ideas? The War of 1886 (written in 1882) is available online, as is The Great War Syndicate (1889). The Stricken Nation (1890) isn't, unfortunately, but I can give you a précis:

The accession of James G. Blaine to the presidency, and his refusal to sycophantically adhere to British policy, leads Britain to engineer a conflict with the United States. Using a fishing dispute as a casus belli, Britain declares war: an unprepared America, lacking modern rifles and artillery, finds itself unable to invade Canada. The Royal Navy swiftly demolishes obsolete American coastal fortifications, demands New York pay $500,000,000 in 24 hours or face destruction, and when the money fails to appear shells the city to ruin on 4th July 1892. It claims similar ransoms from Chicago and Philadelphia ($300m each); destroys Boston and Cleveland, and captures Portland, Baltimore, New Orleans, and San Francisco. On 25th August, Congress signs a peace treaty whose terms include a $10,000,000,000 war indemnity, British annexation of California, Oregon, Florida, parts of Louisiana, and whatever forts on the seacoast they designate, and disarmament of all US forces except a limited number of state militia.

If you're going for ASB, good luck beating that.