AHC/WI: American Civil War with "vaguely" WW1 technology?

Saphroneth

Banned
I'm rather skeptical that they still be using smoothbore and muzzle loaders after Franco Prussian wars shows how much of advantage breechloading rifled artillery is.
Too bad, that's OTL. The first US Army breechloading artillery was the M1885, they built only a hundred of them (and the last regular army muzzle loader left service in 1892), and the NY National Guard (which, remember, was supposed to mobilize to being a proper army unit on short notice) was using smoothbore artillery in their artillery regiments in 1903.
The only breechloading artillery of any kind the US had (aside from the odd conversion of their ACW guns not considered good enough to roll out across the board) were a couple of dozen Hotchkiss guns, which are on the borderline between field gun and machine gun and certainly no substitute for a proper artillery park.

This is actually the point I was trying to get across, that it's a general US trend to be outrageously behind Europe in army equipment. Heck, the Napoleon (12 pounder smoothbore) didn't make it to the US until the British were messing around with rifled breechloaders.

I think the issue is that the CSA usually has worse financing and local heavy industry than the Union. So while the CSA may be able to get to the same quality as the Union; it doubtful it would be as uniform or as numerous due to less money, merchant marine, and industry to make their own artillery and shells.
The CSA were the ones who imported Whitworth guns (the most accurate guns south of Canada by some margin) and used them to fairly good effect for counter-battery fire, while the US pretty much refused to buy foreign and felt that their artillery was the best there was. It looks like they simply were not aware of the world standard.

If the CSA made a bulk buy of whatever was out there they might well end up with guns superior to the Parrott or Ordnance rifles in power and accuracy.

As for heavy industry, I'd be careful about that - Tregedar was really rather good, and the OTL US state of artillery production in the 1880s especially was utterly dire so it's not a very hard target. When the US tried to make a single modern heavy (12") gun around a rifled tube purchased from overseas, the South Boston Iron Works failed four times over the course of more than two years before the contract expired unfulfilled - and they were the best in the country.

Capability growth from a standing start is hard. In fact, if we assume for a moment that things suddenly kick off in 1888 (to pick a number out of the air) it's not likely the US would have a modern (or mostly modern) battleship in commission by 1892 - while the CS, purchasing a battleship from overseas, would get theirs in 1889 or 1890 based on contemporary construction speeds and it'd probably be better to boot. (This assumes the CS orders a ship from the builders. If they went with purchasing surplus they could get one in a month or two.)
 
This is actually the point I was trying to get across, that it's a general US trend to be outrageously behind Europe in army equipment. Heck, the Napoleon (12 pounder smoothbore) didn't make it to the US until the British were messing around with rifled breechloaders

When the most you are doing is massacring natives without a standing army, you don't really get to advance your tech that much.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
When the most you are doing is massacring natives without a standing army, you don't really get to advance your tech that much.
I think there was a general belief in the US that there was no need to have a strong standing army because MILITIA MYTH, but in reality of course that tends to lead to bad things. Heck, the British Army at the Somme suffered such large casualties in part because they'd not been trained intensively enough to be able to pull off the "correct" ways of attacking trenches as per 1905 (i.e. at a run, very distributed, no clumping up).
 
There is also the question of if the American Indian wars are resolved by the time if we're going with a delayed Civil War. That be much less of distraction and influences things in the Southwestern states.

Though, reading how Prussian infantry assaults were often costly failure during the Franco-Prussian war, simply having a breechloading rifle without a breechloading artillery gun with contact fuze may be enough to get a pseudo WW1 trench warfare if fire and movement tactics aren't developed(judging by the First Boer War).

When the US tried to make a single modern heavy (12") gun around a rifled tube purchased from overseas, the South Boston Iron Works failed four times over the course of more than two years before the contract expired unfulfilled - and they were the best in the country.
While most of your other points appear mostly valid, inability to make a 12" gun sounds a bit of a red herring considering we're talking about smaller land artillery guns rather than naval guns.

And Napoleon isn't that far behind as it entered French service in 1853 with a rifled gun appear in 1858. Prussia didn't have a breechloading artillery gun until after the Austria Prussia war and neither did France until 1870.
USA may not be at the cutting edge, but nor were they super behind in military equipment except perhaps for the 70s/early 80's when they also had to pay for Reconstruction and then the Panic of 1873 further hurt things economically.
In fact, if we assume for a moment that things suddenly kick off in 1888 (to pick a number out of the air) it's not likely the US would have a modern (or mostly modern) battleship in commission by 1892 - while the CS, purchasing a battleship from overseas, would get theirs in 1889 or 1890 based on contemporary construction speeds and it'd probably be better to boot.
Question is, who would sell the CSA a modern battleship and could they actually afford it? They might be able to purchase raiders and other smaller ships, but a modern battleship sounds like a much taller order. A delayed Civil War does mean CSA is richer, but would it be enough to purchase a battleship and then have a crew operate the ship?

There is also the fact we likely can't be able to be too reliant on how OTL went in the 70's to 90's to predict things since the USA spent a large amount of capital in fighting the Civil War and the rebuilding during the Reconstruction. With a postponed Civil War, the entire nation would have far more time to modernize and develop both its industry and its military equipment instead of relying on old Civil War surplus. And it is likely that the industrial, population(especially after the 1880's immigration wave), and capital gap between the North and South would only grow further apart with not just industrial development, but also the further development of the Mid West and Western states who will be able to contribute a much greater amount.

I think there was a general belief in the US that there was no need to have a strong standing army because MILITIA MYTH
I heard distrust of the Federal government is another.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Though, reading how Prussian infantry assaults were often costly failure during the Franco-Prussian war, simply having a breechloading rifle without a breechloading artillery gun with contact fuze may be enough to get a pseudo WW1 trench warfare if fire and movement tactics aren't developed(judging by the First Boer War).
That's rather hard to do as the British had breechloading artillery with percussion shells before they had breechloading long arms. Of course, if the breechloading artillery gun with percussion shells isn't accurate enough to hit the target (and US ACW guns were very poor on this) then you get "positions magnifiques" working fine anyway.

And Napoleon isn't that far behind as it entered French service in 1853 with a rifled gun appear in 1858. Prussia didn't have a breechloading artillery gun until after the Austria Prussia war and neither did France until 1870.
Though there were other 12 pounder field guns knocking around for the rest of the world at the time - as far as I can tell the main pre-ACW US field piece was a 6 pounder.

There is also the fact we likely can't be able to be too reliant on how OTL went in the 70's to 90's to predict things since the USA spent a large amount of capital in fighting the Civil War and the rebuilding during the Reconstruction. With a postponed Civil War, the entire nation would have far more time to modernize and develop both its industry and its military equipment instead of relying on old Civil War surplus.
But there's no indication of any trend towards modernization being present before this point, either, at least not in anything like the right scale. It's not like Reconstruction lasted into the 1880s and 1890s.
It seems to just be something intrinsic to the US in the 19th century to not really care about the military outside wars - look at the situation with the navy, which when the Civil War broke out had about half a dozen frigates and no steam liners. Or for that matter the fact that the Utah Expedition absorbed so much of the available US military capability (during a decade of repeated war scares with Britain) that the total regular army troops east of the Mississippi was about half a regiment of artillery acting as infantry.
Same reason half the US's pre Civil War long arms were ex-flintlock smoothbores, there just wasn't the will to spend money on it.


While most of your other points appear mostly valid, inability to make a 12" gun sounds a bit of a red herring considering we're talking about smaller land artillery guns rather than naval guns.
It's the example I have to hand, and remember that at the time the US wasn't making modern field guns at all. They also took many years to produce the first 100 M1885 guns, with some of them not being made until 1892 or so.
 
But there's no indication of any trend towards modernization being present before this point, either, at least not in anything like the right scale. It's not like Reconstruction lasted into the 1880s and 1890s.
You mean military modernization? If you mean not enough production of near modern equipment, then yes that is a valid point.
But you were saying they wouldn't be producing any near modern equipment which what I'm disputing.

That's rather hard to do as the British had breechloading artillery with percussion shells before they had breechloading long arms.
Okay.
That doesn't hold true for other nations however. Like Prussia, France, or the OTL United States.
And the British would actually switch back to muzzle loading artillery in 1865 and wouldn't go back to breechloading until 1885(same time as USA).
Same reason half the US's pre Civil War long arms were ex-flintlock smoothbores, there just wasn't the will to spend money on it.
And the other small part were rifled muskets. And post war, a switched over to breechloading rifles.

I'm not disputing that the US would have lots of older equipment and relatively small numbers of modern equipment. I'm disputing that a delayed Civil War would have CSA would be able to buy artillery equality with the Union and the idea that the USA would still be using 1860 artillery in 1883 despite no Civil War and Reconstruction to tie up military resources.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
You mean military modernization? If you mean not enough production of near modern equipment, then yes that is a valid point.
But you were saying they wouldn't be producing any near modern equipment which what I'm disputing.
By the time of the Civil War in America, half of Europe was using rifled breechloading artillery. The US seemingly didn't even try even by the end of the war.

That doesn't hold true for other nations however. Like Prussia, France, or the OTL United States.
In the case of the Prussians it's because they adopted the breechloading rifle very early, in the case of the French because they kept their muzzle loading artillery quite late.

And the British would actually switch back to muzzle loading artillery in 1865 and wouldn't go back to breechloading until 1885(same time as USA).
Yes, though it's worth noting that the British replaced their Armstrongs with the Shunt gun - a piece of similar accuracy to the Armstrong and a broadly similar rate of fire. The US was still using relatively inaccurate field guns into the 1890s.
When the British did switch over, it took them a few years - the Americans took about a decade, or two if you count the National Guard.

And the other small part were rifled muskets. And post war, a switched over to breechloading rifles.
Yes, though the number of new weapons produced (pre ACW) was fairly small and your argument was that they didn't have the resources to spend post ACW! If they had the money to spend on 200,000 plus breechloading rifles post Civil War, why couldn't they spend the money on getting rid of their artillery smoothbores?

Incidentally, despite starting to rearm in 1885 OTL the Union still had massive trouble arming a 300,000 man army with modern weapons in 1898. This suggests to me that, as per usual, the US didn't really grasp the scale of the equipment needed or it didn't really think it needed much.


I'm disputing that a delayed Civil War would have CSA would be able to buy artillery equality with the Union and the idea that the USA would still be using 1860 artillery in 1883 despite no Civil War and Reconstruction to tie up military resources.
Why wouldn't the CSA be able to buy artillery equality with the Union? The CSA was willing to buy overseas and overseas weapons were demonstrably superior.
As for the US using 1860 artillery in 1883, well, Reconstruction ended in 1877 and it's not as if it was so expensive it would have blocked purchase of domestic military equipment (the US purchased from overseas during this period). US equipment in OTL 1877 wasn't so out of date as to cause the US to panic and resupply.
 
Question is, who would sell the CSA a modern battleship and could they actually afford it? They might be able to purchase raiders and other smaller ships, but a modern battleship sounds like a much taller order. A delayed Civil War does mean CSA is richer, but would it be enough to purchase a battleship and then have a crew operate the ship?
.
Brazil was able to afford two modern battleships built in Britain (At a time when the country still had slavery) in the 1880's.
Which briefly gave them a more powerful navy than the USN, it provoked the US into building USS Maine.
(Which was not completed until 12 years after Riachuelo)
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The entire RN in the 1890s (construction, maintenance, crew pay etc) cost about £13M a year, which would be about $65M at the time. Obviously this is a bit much, but the value of the cotton crop for the US in 1913 (exports only) was on the order of $500M, and a lot of it was spent inland.

If we assume only $200M total cotton exports in an ATL (which is quite low, it was $250M in the OTL Civil War) then assuming a 5% tax that's about $10M or £2M. That's enough for two totally modern battleships all-up.
OTL the CSA spent about $1000M on the Civil War (about $250M per annum, or £50M) and so could certainly buy a foreign-built battleship or two - indeed, if the US had done that OTL it would have gotten an ironclad navy for a lot cheaper.
If the CSA had purchased £1M worth of "Crimean" type ironclads (if that were possible, meaning if enough were going spare) it would have had about fifteen ships each individually capable of fighting on even terms with most US monitors. Buying from the people who are more experienced at manufacturing things is much cheaper short term, though it means you can't grow your home capabilities.
 
Brazil was able to afford two modern battleships built in Britain (At a time when the country still had slavery) in the 1880's.
Which briefly gave them a more powerful navy than the USN, it provoked the US into building USS Maine.
(Which was not completed until 12 years after Riachuelo)

For that matter, the Manchus were able to buy battleships and even get advisors to go along with them. If the money is there, and the desire to influence the locals, the Europeans are willing to sell just about anyone battleships.

Not that it helped the Manchus much in the 1st Sino Japanese War
 
For that matter, the Manchus were able to buy battleships and even get advisors to go along with them. If the money is there, and the desire to influence the locals, the Europeans are willing to sell just about anyone battleships.

Not that it helped the Manchus much in the 1st Sino Japanese War
There's also the benefit of expanding European markets and for Britain weakening the potential future rival of the US.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Actually, on the battleship front, something it's worth thinking about is that the list of nations able to build battleships entirely off their own bat is quite small in the 1880s. In fact, there's three powers who can - the British, the French and the Russians. Everyone else imports some major component of the design, such as the Italians importing British guns, or just buys outright from another power.
In the 1890s this list expands somewhat, with the Germans and United States adding to it, and of the two the Germans have by far the less troubled entry into the club. US battleships all have some kind of serious design flaw (apart from the one-off Iowa) until the turn of the 20th century, though one suspects the reason for the delay is because the US didn't have a pre-existing industry of making ship parts for other nations (while the Germans did).
 
Confederate submarines after the war might develop to the point of being rather advantageous in a future conflict, especially if a certain Spaniard decides to emigrate about 1867. Not that his designs would be replicated, just that his ideas of teardrop hulls and other prognostications might give an independent CSA a rather significant if specific military edge.
 
The entire RN in the 1890s (construction, maintenance, crew pay etc) cost about £13M a year, which would be about $65M at the time. Obviously this is a bit much, but the value of the cotton crop for the US in 1913 (exports only) was on the order of $500M, and a lot of it was spent inland.

If we assume only $200M total cotton exports in an ATL (which is quite low, it was $250M in the OTL Civil War) then assuming a 5% tax that's about $10M or £2M. That's enough for two totally modern battleships all-up.
OTL the CSA spent about $1000M on the Civil War (about $250M per annum, or £50M) and so could certainly buy a foreign-built battleship or two - indeed, if the US had done that OTL it would have gotten an ironclad navy for a lot cheaper.
If the CSA had purchased £1M worth of "Crimean" type ironclads (if that were possible, meaning if enough were going spare) it would have had about fifteen ships each individually capable of fighting on even terms with most US monitors. Buying from the people who are more experienced at manufacturing things is much cheaper short term, though it means you can't grow your home capabilities.

In 1890, the Royal Navy cost about £15 million a year, not £13 million. By 1900, the Royal Navy cost about £26 million a year. By 1910, the Royal Navy cost about £36 million a year. Where are you getting your numbers?

US cotton production in 1860 was $192 million, not $250 million. Where are you getting your figures? A 5% tax on cotton exports would yield about 9.6 million, but the Confederacy still has the whole rest of their government to pay for. Adding up the numbers in William Davis Look Away, the Confederacy racked up about $2.7 billion in debt. (Where do you get your $1 billion figure?) Even using your figure, that means interest on Confederate debt would be about $50 million a year. In The Confederacy as A Revolutionary Experience, Emory Thomas noted that "...by 1863 Confederate civil servants were 70,000 strong. Ironically the Richmond government employed more civil servants than its counterpart in Washington." So running the Confederate bureaucracy would cost about $60 million a year. Then there's the cost for defense - if the Confederates are spending 10% of what the Union was in 1866, that's another $34 million. Combined, that's $144 million a year in expenses before the Confederacy decides to buy any ships.
 
Top