alternatehistory.com

This thread is partly because I've been guilty of pulling ACW threads off course into discussion on the relative effectiveness of other armies.

So - I'll do my utmost to use this thread instead.



As a bit of a starter, I'll note the following.

As of the ACW era, each army is as such:


The British have had two wars in the last ten years, and have developed (and are perfecting) a doctrine focused on the Rifle-Musket to the limits of the capacity of this weapon. They have unusually high troop numbers for them (220,000 to 230,000 regulars alone over the period of the ACW) and good, accurate breech loading artillery.

The French have also had multiple recent wars, and their doctrine at this time is focused on offensive action. They have some skirmish units, but most of what they do is based on a heavy assault - almost literally a sprint. Their artillery is rifled, but not used as it should be (they're using them as more accurate smoothbores without exploiting their range). They also use the rifle-musket.

The Prussians have not had a particularly recent war. They're using the Dreyse needlegun, an early breechloader and one which has problems of range and accuracy which make it essentially little different from a faster, somewhat longer ranged smoothbore - but starting around 1863 they reform their accuracy training so as to ensure that they can use the Dreyse very effectively.

The Austrians have recently been defeated by the French, and as such they change their doctrine wholesale to use assault instead of ranged fire. Their artillery is starting to modernize with Krupp guns (as are the lesser German states) and they are armed with a quite serviceable rifled-musket.

The Russians are still reforming after the Crimea (that is, in my understanding).

The Union and the Confederacy share many strengths and weaknesses. Among the strengths is a well motivated population, while the weaknesses largely stem from how a prewar army of ~16,000 is having to provide training and structure to an army which, adding North and South, is over fifty times this size. Accuracy training and bayonet assaults are both poor, and early in the war the weapons are dire.




Useful comparison statistics would be appreciated.
Top