A change to ACW

Given some of the comments in the Franco-Prussian thread. What would be the POD for the Union to have had an Army at least as well organised in command structure and equipment as the French or British and preferably the Prussians. If they had, how long would the ACW last.( Sorry Dixie supporters the Confederacy would not have had enough time to set up this level of infrastructure.)
 
An easy pod to get a more "European" US army of any kind would imo involve some potential rival at the border, which leads to a perceived need for a stronger army. Perhaps a more stable, revanchist Mexico. On a state level it might also be possible that some state legislatures react to the growing tension within the US by expanding and reforming state militias along European lines. The Prussian pre-59 model is probably the most likely. Its main drawbacks (the political reliability of Landwehr units should not matter in the US) compared to the post-59 Prussian system would be a slower than possible mobilisation and less refined training. Prussian leadership concepts may or may not be included in a Prussian-style reserve system.

I am actually not sure how much closer to the French model you can get the US army. It was already very similiar, the main difference being the scale. In both France and the US a major deficit was the lack of trained reserves. The French army was much larger, meaning there were more trained higher officers. OTOH the smaller scale and bad promotion chances meant more junior officers cycled through the US army. A larger French style army pre-war probably means more and better trained officers, but less unassigned ones. On a basic level these changes should affect both sides of the ACW equally.
For the conduct of combat it probably means that officers are more confident in their ability, thus more willing to try new things on the battlefield. More military investment pre-war helps also in that. We might see more breech-loaders and other new weapons systems. The greater use of material favours the North in that case. OTOH the civilian background of a lot of American officers meant the US had better abilities in not directly military matters than France. The French were for example extremely slow to adapt to the use of railways or other modern logistics pre 70/71.

The Prussian system would make greater changes. The Prussian leadership was very good adapting to new circumstances because of its different leadership concept. They gave soldiers of all except the lowest ranks far greater leeway in the way they executed orders, giving them far better reactions. Führen durch Auftrag necessiated a thorough and steady training and education though. To a degree that prevented people from getting set in their ways. They were better prepared to think outside the box of traditional combat than the French, without the lack of military training hampering the USA.
Which leads to the second main benefit of a Prussian system. The existence of well-trained reserves. I guess in the US of the time it would most likely be done on a state-level, thus a lot of benefits depends upon which states have a functioning reserve systems. But if the majority of soldiers in the Union army is actually well trained at the outbreak of the war instead of the untrained bands of otl, it removes a major obstacle to a modern-operating army using modern quick-firing weapons. Again the resulting higher rate of material use favours the north even though the initial relative force levels might be similiar to otl.
 
Thanks. Would a more fractious relationship with Canada and hence with Britain lead the US to at least seek advice from another country such as Prussia?
 
Thanks. Would a more fractious relationship with Canada and hence with Britain lead the US to at least seek advice from another country such as Prussia?
I think it is not terribely likely. Especially not officially, since Prussia had fairly decent relations to Britain throughout most of the 19th century.
Furthermore until the world wars the US did not really realize how badly their system of a small regular army and volunteers called up only for war prepared them for a major conflict. The ACW was the only one they got involved in and there both sides dealed with the same limitations. Unless the tensions grow very suddenly very high it is more likely that they will expand the regular army gradually from within and not too much. To me it seems that the 19th century USA abhorred the idea of a large centralised army.

What I can see though in that situation is an expansion and professionalization of state militias, especially in the North East. And except some former army officers - which under these circumstances may return to the regular army or might not be willing to serve in peace time at all anymore - the 48ers are the most experienced soldiers available. They came mainly from the minor German states and due to their political opinion some leaned more to a Swiss style system, but the minor German armies, which were their military background, to a varying degree followed Prussian guide in training and doctrine in the 19th century. Some enterprising officers in Germany might also take an extended leave to serve privately as advisors. That was fairly standard practice right until 1933, before the Great War mainly driven by the rather bad pay German officers got.

That course is imo your best chance in lasting tension with the British Empire as the pecularities of the US military of the 19th century are retained (reserves are a state matter!), but the end result is far better preparation for a major war. In many ways it would be similiar to the German imperial army though far more decentralised and with more differences by state. The alternatives chosen by other European nations (large regular army as in France, total reliance on the navy for defense like Britain) I can not really see for the US in that time frame. The only alternative, which frankly is more likely, is a limited expansion of the regular army and retaining the useless militia system of otl.
 
Thanks again. I just wondered if a decently organised and officered army would have shortened the ACW and lessened the carnage( I am NOT impugning the intelligence or bravery of those who did just their experience). Obviously it would have done but conditions were not conducive to it with the USA set up as it was at that time, and to change that requires revisions of the constitution and governance back in the 1780s and 90s, not for what I was looking.
 
Thanks again. I just wondered if a decently organised and officered army would have shortened the ACW and lessened the carnage( I am NOT impugning the intelligence or bravery of those who did just their experience). Obviously it would have done but conditions were not conducive to it with the USA set up as it was at that time, and to change that requires revisions of the constitution and governance back in the 1780s and 90s, not for what I was looking.
Actually I think it is not all that much needed to significantly improve the availability of trained manpower. The Regular army was really tiny and even a modest increase in absolute numbers could have multiplied the number of available officers and NCOs. For an increase in the reserves it is even easier. You have to see it fundamentally on the level of individual states. Iotl few states had reason to keep an organised militia, much less a system of organised reserves and the volunteers were formed on a local ad hoc basis. Your example of increased tensions with Britain imo is a decent pod for a short TL. As it is entirely improvised it would need a serious review and fleshing out before I would call it well founded, but it can illustrate the idea:

Some minor problem of the Oregon dispute is not solved and crisis reappears in 1854. Tempers run high enough that Britain reinforces Canada. The governor of Connecticut gets concerned that the British march again on Washington and the time for forming and training volunteers may be too short. To be better prepared the legislature decides to permanently keep an infantry regiment active. Enlisted men volunteer for a two year term, thus each year one batallion will be trained and one be active. Reserve officers have to serve twice the time. Core officers and NCOs are career soldiers. Command is given to the former Brunswick officer Adolph von Steinwehr who establishes a strict training plan following the priniciples of his old army.

Tensions continue into 1855 and British warships are rumoured to cruise in front of New York. Franz Sigel raises a volunteer force of German immigrants as quick reaction force in case of an invasion. The legislature legitimises it and offers pay under the condition to open it for non-Germans. Sigel is confirmed as commander of the new infantry regiment. Later that year an artillery battery under the former artillery lieutenant Frederick Salomon is added on Sigels initiative. A similiar rotation and training concept to Conneticut is established

Within the next few month´ other states follow the example of those two. Training standards, strength and equipment greatly vary. On one end is the New Orleans City Militia of Brigade strength with a 6 month service term for everybody (formed due to a hugely popular remembrance of the 1812 battle), on the other the Rhode Island Guard battalion with a 3 years term of service for enlisted.

Over the course of the year the tension with the British Empire are solved. But most of the formations are not dissolved, be it through inertia, economic reasons or a genuine acceptance of their role.

In 1857 several Southern formations agree to use the VMI standards for their officers. The next year the New England states, distrustful of Southern intentions, agree on common standards for officers as well.

At the outbreak of the civil war, almost the same time as otl, the reserves are the first to be activated. The Union that way gains 14 well trained regiments, named as distinction to untrained volunteers "volunteer guards". The rest of the trained reservists are used as cadre for volunteer regiments. The confederacy integrates their 16 trained reserve regiments directly into the regular army, but otherwise uses them the same way.
 
Last edited:
Top