Britannia's Fist: From Civil War to World War

[David S Poepoe]

Actually monitors could cross the Atlantic and did so several times. But, it was a very unpleasant trip and they were probably luck not to encounter any storms.
we are all talking about 15 inch guns, if memory serves, some were armed with large Parrot guns. these were rifled and firing elongated shells and shot . anybody know how the penetration was on these?

I believe that the US Navy predominately used Dahlgren guns in their monitors.

Also we are getting a bit far from the point of the debate about the book itself. I am a little disappointed that there are indications that this would be a multi-volume work.

 

[Weaver]

Mine is plainly labelled as first of a trilogy.

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Mine is plainly labelled as first of a trilogy.

Unfortunately, it wasn't advertised as such on Amazon.com. The cover helps if you're buying it in a bookstore -- it's even a nice-looking cover -- but I've had to include the fact that it's a trilogy in my Amazon review.

 

[robertp6165]

Why the interest in repeaters? It may be slightly counterintuitive, but until detachable box magazines are invented the repeater is not a better weapon than the breachloader. The rounds are still loaded individually, so the ROF of the two is about the same.

Um, no. That MAY be true for the Henry, where the rounds were loaded individually...although the process of loading the rounds in a Henry was MUCH simpler and quicker in the Henry than in a breechloader. It is definitely NOT true of a Spencer. Troops armed with the Spencer were issued ammunition in pre-loaded tubes which were then inserted into the stock of the rifle in a very quick and simple operation. Of course it was possible for troops to RELOAD the tubes manually with loose cartridges after they have fired away all their pre-loaded ammo, and troops may have done that on occasion, but that would not significantly have impacted the overall rate of fire.

And even for the Henry, it is certainly not true, given the way in which breechloaders...the Sharps being the prime example...were loaded at the time. Breechloaders, with one or two possible exceptions, did not fire metallic cartridges during the Civil War. They used paper or linen cartridges and a separate percussion cap. To load them, you have to open the breech, put in the paper/linen cartridge, close the breech, put the percussion cap on the nipple, cock the hammer, then fire. There is simply no way that this process results in a faster rate of fire than can be achieved with a Henry Rifle, where all you have to do is unlatch a tube underneath the barrel, quickly drop in 15 rounds, relatch the tube, and resume firing.

In fact the ACW repeater was a dead end in small arms design, they were unreliable, expensive and fired very underpowered rounds. They did have their uses (especially for mounted troops fighting on horseback), but were not a replacement for a full power rifle.

They were undoubtedly more expensive than muzzleloaders. The records of the units which were armed with repeaters during the Civil War would deny your argument that they were unreliable. As for the "underpowered" argument, that only matters in a long-range firefight. That almost NEVER HAPPENS in real-life combat. As armies eventually figured out, what matters most is how much lead you can put in the air, not how far that lead will travel. Repeaters were clearly superior in this regard, as they proved in EVERY engagement in which they faced longer-ranged muzzleloaders during the Civil War.

 

[Timmy811]

That's what I thought robertp6165.

The main problem with the Spencer from what I could remember was how much smoke they produced and the fact that it was difficult to supply the troops with the necessary volume of ammunition.

 

[Dave Howery]

Repeaters may not have been so good for the Union vs. Britain scenario here, since the Brits were used to fighting at longer ranges and with more artillery than the opposing sides did in the ACW. However, it would have been great for the Union vs. CSA conflict... this was fought at fairly short ranges, by European standards, and for the first few years of the war, it was fought with muskets, which have worse ranges than the repeaters even. Repeater rifles in Union hands in large numbers would have been superb... the Henry could have fired 15 volleys in a short time. The rifled muzzleloader may have had longer range than the early repeaters (debatable), but it didn't really matter in the ACW, since they fought at fairly close range anyway (undoubtedly due to lingering Napoleonic influences and simple lack of experience among the commanders). If the US hadn't been so hard up for weapons of any kind at the start of the ACW, repeaters might have been made in large numbers.

The repeaters weren't so unreliable... they had different problems from the caplocks. From experience firing replica early Winchesters (and what I've read), the main problem with the Henry is that bullets could sometimes drop down into the lever mechanism, and jam it up. And, apparently, those early brass cartridges had some problems. But then, caplocks had their own set of problems. As with any muzzleloader, they misfire too much; I have that trouble with mine, even using modern perfectly-sifted black powder. Plus, every so often, a big piece of the cap will break loose and lodge in the nipple; then, you have to use a wrench to remove the nipple and a pick to clear it. That must have been fun in the middle of a battle... I have a hell of a time doing it even when no one is shooting back at me...

 

[robertp6165]

Repeaters may not have been so good for the Union vs. Britain scenario here, since the Brits were used to fighting at longer ranges and with more artillery than the opposing sides did in the ACW. However, it would have been great for the Union vs. CSA conflict... this was fought at fairly short ranges, by European standards, and for the first few years of the war, it was fought with muskets, which have worse ranges than the repeaters even.

The ranges at which combats are fought tend to be dictated by the type of terrain in which they are fought. It is unlikely that American troops would have gone to Europe to fight the Brits, so the combat is going to take place in North America. The terrain in most of North America at the time of the Civil War was heavily wooded, and dictated relatively short-range combat. Unless you are positing that all the woods will suddenly disappear so that Her Majesty's troops can make better use of their longer range muzzleloaders and breechloaders, the ranges at which combats are fought will remain the same for fights between Redcoats and Bluebellies as they were for fights between Graybacks and Bluebellies. And troops armed with repeaters will have a clear advantage at those ranges.

 

[Dave Howery]

mmmm.... maybe somewhat... but from what I've read, the war was fought at short range mainly because they started the war with a lot of smooth bore muskets (50 yards is about all they'll do), and because the US hadn't fought a war against another 'modern' power since the Mexican War (which was dominated by Napoleonic tactics)... I always had the idea that it was lack of experience by the command on both sides that led to the war being fought the way it was...

 

[Looseheadprop]

I think a Franco-British intervention in the ACW would likely end in a stalemate. The british were never really interested in a war with america, the French were but wouldnt move without the brits, public opinion would likely turn against the war in a few months.

The US advantage is its control of railroads heading towards the fronts, economic concentration in defensible areas. im not sure about the US ability to launch an offensive into canada but is seems a possibility.

However this is compared the a Franco-British-Confederate alliance, which would combined the largest empires in the world, some of the best generals, armies and weapons available. A reinforced southern army could conceivably fight off the US. furthermore the Brits are pretty much unchallenged in the pacific, california and the western states would be nearly undefendable against any sort of concerted effort on the part of the British et al.

the real deciding factor is russia. a russian fleet was stationed in New York for most of the war and the Tsar was the only foreign leader to show any real support for the Union. Britain and France could defeat either the Union or the Russians individually but not both, its just too large a comitment over too much area of the planet.

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

the real deciding factor is russia. a russian fleet was stationed in New York for most of the war and the Tsar was the only foreign leader to show any real support for the Union. Britain and France could defeat either the Union or the Russians individually but not both, its just too large a comitment over too much area of the planet.

This element is an extremely key portion of the book.

 

[67th Tigers]

Three corvettes does not a fleet make. If Russia really wants to get involved against a Franco-British alliance (plus possibly Prussia, Austria etc. all of whom are prettymuch looking for an excuse to fight Russia) then frankly they're not a lot of help to the Union.

There are plenty of open field combats in the ACW. Yes, fighting in woods happened (although no more than in Napoleons time), but the average British infantryman outranged US artillery...

Repeaters (and breachloaders to a lesser extent) are horribly prone to malfunction, especially as powder starts to buildup (the breachloading Sharps was typically so fouled after 5 rounds that the rounds had to be rammed in). Metallic cartridges tended to rupture upon firing, making them impossible to extract (a problem as late the 1879, the Martini-Henry had a mean rounds before stoppage of 35), making the weapon useless.

Then again, the low quality Minie rounds used by both sides tended to break apart in the barrel, leading to the rounds not seating correctly, and the weapon becoming useless.

 

[Timmy811]

Three corvettes does not a fleet make. If Russia really wants to get involved against a Franco-British alliance (plus possibly Prussia, Austria etc. all of whom are pretty much looking for an excuse to fight Russia) then frankly they're not a lot of help to the Union.

The Prussians were looking for an excuse to fight Russia? With Bismarck at the helm? Why would he want that? Nothing that he did while in charge leads me to believe that.

He was looking for an opportunity to pull the Austrians down from their position as master of Germany. If the Austrians had attacked Russia why would Bismarck not have used this an opportunity to attack the Austrians. The Italians who desired Venice would have likely followed the Prussian lead.

 

[67th Tigers]

The Prussians were looking for an excuse to fight Russia? With Bismarck at the helm? Why would he want that? Nothing that he did while in charge leads me to believe that.

He was looking for an opportunity to pull the Austrians down from their position as master of Germany. If the Austrians had attacked Russia why would Bismarck not have used this an opportunity to attack the Austrians. The Italians who desired Venice would have likely followed the Prussian lead.

In 1863, yes, Russia was viewed as the main threat to the German Confederation, and especially to Prussia as they (Russia) lost control over Poland and threatened to spill over into East Prussia.

The Prussians certainly didn't want to fight Austria in 1863-4 (when, of course, they fight a war as allies), and were trying not to do it in 1866, but had little choice in the matter. Partially because they thought they'd lose (and indeed very easily could have lost).

Also in 1863, Prussia's army is half the size it would be in 1866 (and that half the size again as the 1870 army). They no match for the German Confederation.

 

[Timmy811]

Well the first sentence in the book say "The Anglo-American War of 1863 that ignited the Great War, which, in turn, dragged in all the great powers and nearly ruined Western civilization is a tale never before told", so I assume there will be more belligerents than just the USA, CSA, Mexico and the British, French and Russian Empires.

 

[benjamin]

In 1863, yes, Russia was viewed as the main threat to the German Confederation, and especially to Prussia as they (Russia) lost control over Poland and threatened to spill over into East Prussia.

The Prussians certainly didn't want to fight Austria in 1863-4 (when, of course, they fight a war as allies), and were trying not to do it in 1866, but had little choice in the matter. Partially because they thought they'd lose (and indeed very easily could have lost).

Also in 1863, Prussia's army is half the size it would be in 1866 (and that half the size again as the 1870 army). They no match for the German Confederation.

67th Tigers...Almost this entire post is completely incorrect. In 1863, and especially during the Polish uprising, Prussia supported Russia. They did not want to see Polish nationalism spread as east Prussia held many Poles thanks to the previous partitions of Poland. Prussian support emboldened Czar Alexander II and angered Napoleon III. Prussia's major rival was and had generally always been AUSTRIA. The smaller states of the German Confederation choose sides but to say that they saw Russia as the primary threat ignores a whole laundry list of other geopolitical rivalries that affected the pre-unification German states.

The Schleswig-Holstein War of 1864 saw Austria and Prussia as temporary allies due to skillful diplomacy by Bismarck. He (Bismarck) never saw Austria as anything but a rival until after the Prussian victory in the Seven Weeks' War (1866). As for the start of that war Bismarck/Prussia was chomping at the bit to have a go at Austria. Moltke's reforms had done wonders for the Prussian Army and with Italy as an ally, Prussia instigated the war with complete confidence of victory.

As for how Bismarck would react in Britannia's Fist, I cannot see him missing the opportunity to jump in against Austria if Austria becomes involved in a fight against Russia. And given Napoleon's secret (at the time) negotiations with Austria this is entirely likely as it gives the allies a broader land front to move against Russia than trying to force the Crimean yet again. Of course France and Britain could just hire the disgruntled McClellan and be assured of victory!

Benjamin

 

[Timmy811]

I've read it.

First the criticisms, it's far too short and unless the next two books are three times as long I can't see this series ending with three books. Secondly, it often read more like a history book than a novel, though that's not likely going to bother the audience of this work. Thirdly, as mentioned in other reviews he does have a fetish for weaponry, naval ordinance in particular.

However all that being said, the scenario laid forth in this book is vastly superior in its detail and plausibility to any book I can think of. The maps and the footnotes are of excellent quality and add great historical flavor. Although American victory is foreshadowed, the opening phase of the conflict is certainly balanced with both sides inflicting serious defeats upon each other.

SPOILERS




VERY DETAILED SPOILERS - IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW, DON'T READ ON






The Americans defeat the British attempt to seize Portland, Maine and crushed the British attempt to break the blockade at Charleston. This happened because the British underestimated the American fleet and split their fleet sending half towards the Chesapeake.

Albany has been taken by the British and it's factories burned. Copperheads failed to free the Confederate prisoners at Camp Morton but succeeded in liberating Camp Douglas and the thousands of prisoners, once armed, seized Chicago. The Army of the Cumberland is besieged at Chattanooga. (not really a spoiler that last bit)

20,000 French troops have crossed into Texas.

The Russian fleet heading to New York to winter there, stop to render aid to a wounded US warship, and the British squadron in pursuit attacks them. Russia then openly allied itself with the Union in an attempt to thwart British world hegemony.

Within a week of war being declared 10,000 Irish enlisted in New York City alone as their hatred of Britain boils over.

Hooker has been given command of the Army of the Hudson which consists of the XI and the XII Corps. VI was sent to reinforce Portland, which had been saved by the Maine regiments of the AotP.

The Army of the Potomac now with only 60,000 men will surely be attacked by Lee's 53,000. I predict he will defeat Meade and then make the unwise decision to attack Washington (foreshadowed in a footnote) and get chopped to pieces.

 

[67th Tigers]

67th Tigers...Almost this entire post is completely incorrect. In 1863, and especially during the Polish uprising, Prussia supported Russia. They did not want to see Polish nationalism spread as east Prussia held many Poles thanks to the previous partitions of Poland. Prussian support emboldened Czar Alexander II and angered Napoleon III. Prussia's major rival was and had generally always been AUSTRIA. The smaller states of the German Confederation choose sides but to say that they saw Russia as the primary threat ignores a whole laundry list of other geopolitical rivalries that affected the pre-unification German states.

The Schleswig-Holstein War of 1864 saw Austria and Prussia as temporary allies due to skillful diplomacy by Bismarck. He (Bismarck) never saw Austria as anything but a rival until after the Prussian victory in the Seven Weeks' War (1866). As for the start of that war Bismarck/Prussia was chomping at the bit to have a go at Austria. Moltke's reforms had done wonders for the Prussian Army and with Italy as an ally, Prussia instigated the war with complete confidence of victory.

As for how Bismarck would react in Britannia's Fist, I cannot see him missing the opportunity to jump in against Austria if Austria becomes involved in a fight against Russia. And given Napoleon's secret (at the time) negotiations with Austria this is entirely likely as it gives the allies a broader land front to move against Russia than trying to force the Crimean yet again. Of course France and Britain could just hire the disgruntled McClellan and be assured of victory!

Benjamin

There's a fair amount of rewriting of historical intent above, assuming that what happened was planned.

It's very wrong to conflate Bismarck with Prussia as a whole, especially in 1863 (where the deeply unpopular Bismarck could very easily have been got rid of, indeed, had there been another option the King would have fired him in 1863).

In 1863 the Polish question is of course key, but while tacitly supporting Russia, Bismarck is considering whether he can use the disruption to gain territory at Russia's expense.

The 1864 war of the German Confederation against Denmark was no temporary alliance. The GC was a long standing body best compared today to a mixture of NATO and the early EEC. Austria and Prussia were long standing allies of some 70 odd years (and hadn't fought since Frederick the Great's time).

France supported Prussia against Austria in 1866, and didn't consider that Prussia may be hostile until well into 1867.

Moltke? You're about 50 years out. You're thinking of Roon, and yes, he actually made Prussia's Army worth a damn. The Prussian Army of 1862 would be hard pressed to field a 70,000 maneuver force.

 

[67th Tigers]

The Americans defeat the British attempt to seize Portland, Maine and crushed the British attempt to break the blockade at Charleston. This happened because the British underestimated the American fleet and split their fleet sending half towards the Chesapeake.

My first question is how? Portland is practically undefended OTL (and indeed indefensible). Half the British NA&WI Sqn massively overpowers any USN Sqn. Did they provide ship numbers? I suspect (in common with many US written ACW AH's) there's a massive underestimate of British naval strength.

Albany has been taken by the British and it's factories burned. Copperheads failed to free the Confederate prisoners at Camp Morton but succeeded in liberating Camp Douglas and the thousands of prisoners, once armed, seized Chicago. The Army of the Cumberland is besieged at Chattanooga. (not really a spoiler that last bit)

Albany? That's further than the OTL warplan envisioned, although understandable if the thrust through NE has failed....

The Russian fleet heading to New York to winter there, stop to render aid to a wounded US warship, and the British squadron in pursuit attacks them. Russia then openly allied itself with the Union in an attempt to thwart British world hegemony.

Russia, engaged in Poland, decides to fight the British as well? Well, realistically it's an independent Poland then....

Within a week of war being declared 10,000 Irish enlisted in New York City alone as their hatred of Britain boils over.

Which is probably overstating things. However, since US recruitment agents now can't recruit directly from Ireland it's a net loss of US manpower.

Hooker has been given command of the Army of the Hudson which consists of the XI and the XII Corps. VI was sent to reinforce Portland, which had been saved by the Maine regiments of the AotP.

Something I have trouble believing. Even if all the Maine troops were recalled to Portland they barely have a strong brigades worth of men....

The Army of the Potomac now with only 60,000 men will surely be attacked by Lee's 53,000. I predict he will defeat Meade and then make the unwise decision to attack Washington (foreshadowed in a footnote) and get chopped to pieces.

Lee only has 53,000? In 1863? His command has lost some 20,000 men then somewhere.....

 

[Timmy811]

My first question is how? Portland is practically undefended OTL (and indeed indefensible). Half the British NA&WI Sqn massively overpowers any USN Sqn. Did they provide ship numbers? I suspect (in common with many US written ACW AH's) there's a massive underestimate of British naval strength.

Well, I don't know if it was half, I do know they split their forces. There Order of Battle in Appendix B says there was the IF Black Prince, IF Resistance, SL Sabs Pareil, SL St. George, Fr Phaeton, Fr Mersey, Fr Donegal, Fr Shannon, Fr Ariadne, Fr Melpomene, Cv Racoon, Cv Challenger, Cv Cadamus, Cv Jason, Sl Bulldog, Sl Desperate, Sl Barracouta, Gb Alacrity, Gv Algerine.

IF=Ironclad Frigate, IM=Ironclad Monitor, IR=Ironclad Ram, SL=Ship of the Line, Fr=Frigate, Cv=Corvette, Sl=Sloop, GB=Gunboat, Gv=Gun vessel

The USN had the IM Leigh, IM Montauk, IF New Ironsides, IM Nahant, IM Catskill, IM Patapsco, IM Weahawken, IM Passaic, IR Atlanta, Fr Powhatan, Fr Wabash, Sl Canandaigua, Sl Pawnee, Sl Housatonic, Gb Seneca, Gb Conemaugh, Gb Mahaska, Gb Sonoma, Gb Ottawa, Gb Cimarron, Gb Paul Jones, Gb Unadilla and an experimental submarine.

Tsouras goes into the armaments of these ships in excessive detail (caliber, shot weight, powder charges, etc all footnoted to real books), showing that the British ships were under gunned and would have had great difficulty penetrating the armor of American ironclads except at extreme close range.

Albany? That's further than the OTL warplan envisioned, although understandable if the thrust through NE has failed....

They brush aside militia at the border and used the rail system. Also, the warplan is revised to take into account developments in the last 18 months.

Russia, engaged in Poland, decides to fight the British as well? Well, realistically it's an independent Poland then....

The Russians had the Poles well in hand by now. But it's too early to have seen developments on this front, so I don't know how the British or France plan on intervening there. The Prussians won't be happy with the prospect of an independent Poland though.

Something I have trouble believing. Even if all the Maine troops were recalled to Portland they barely have a strong brigades worth of men....

They did recall all the Maine troops. They repulsed a regimental scale landing on the Portland docks. And then they repulsed the lead brigade (composed of a mix of British regulars and green Canadians) of an attack from the north and then retreated to a trench line they had the militia dig behind a creek.

Lee only has 53,000? In 1863? His command has lost some 20,000 men then somewhere.....

They're in Tennessee with Longstreet

 

[67th Tigers]

Well, I don't know if it was half, I do know they split their forces. There Order of Battle in Appendix B says there was the IF Black Prince, IF Resistance, SL Sabs Pareil, SL St. George, Fr Phaeton, Fr Mersey, Fr Donegal, Fr Shannon, Fr Ariadne, Fr Melpomene, Cv Racoon, Cv Challenger, Cv Cadamus, Cv Jason, Sl Bulldog, Sl Desperate, Sl Barracouta, Gb Alacrity, Gv Algerine.

IF=Ironclad Frigate, IM=Ironclad Monitor, IR=Ironclad Ram, SL=Ship of the Line, Fr=Frigate, Cv=Corvette, Sl=Sloop, GB=Gunboat, Gv=Gun vessel

The USN had the IM Leigh, IM Montauk, IF New Ironsides, IM Nahant, IM Catskill, IM Patapsco, IM Weahawken, IM Passaic, IR Atlanta, Fr Powhatan, Fr Wabash, Sl Canandaigua, Sl Pawnee, Sl Housatonic, Gb Seneca, Gb Conemaugh, Gb Mahaska, Gb Sonoma, Gb Ottawa, Gb Cimarron, Gb Paul Jones, Gb Unadilla and an experimental submarine.

Tsouras goes into the armaments of these ships in excessive detail (caliber, shot weight, powder charges, etc all footnoted to real books), showing that the British ships were under gunned and would have had great difficulty penetrating the armor of American ironclads except at extreme close range.

Well, that is certainly not "half the fleet", nor half the local squadron. 1 1st class and 1 2nd class ironclad, a couple of steam battleships and a few big frigates? This is not a large force at all.

I'm sure Tsouras has footnoted, but the question is to what? I can find a dozen books that have erroneous data on armour penetration.

They brush aside militia at the border and used the rail system.

Aye, but OTL warplans were to stop at Lake Champlain and force the US to attack them on defensive ground.

The Russians had the Poles well in hand by now. But it's too early to have seen developments on this front, so I don't know how the British or France plan on intervening there. The Prussians won't be happy with the prospect of an independent Poland though.

OTL the French (and Prussians) were trying to get British support for an allied intervention against Russia there. ITTL there's no reason they won't.

They did recall all the Maine troops. They repulsed a regimental scale landing on the Portland docks. And then they repulsed the lead brigade (composed of a mix of British regulars and green Canadians) of an attack from the north and then retreated to a trench line they had the militia dig behind a creek.

Under the guns of an RN squadron? They'd be lucky.

They're in Tennessee with Longstreet

Fair enough.