Grand Strategy: US vs. CS + UK, 1894

If the association between the British and CSA is largely accidental and the British heavily involved in a war(or wars!) elsewhere it seems the CSA may need to be wary of the British being willing to pay a price not to be too heavily involved in North America...with the CSA being the one to pay the price.

Indeed. If the US were to moderate its outlook with respect to the UK, and the UK gives the US some of what it wants, you could see this being a US vs. CS war by itself very quickly. To be honest, the CS vs. US strategy is what I'm most interested in.

Since there's a significant war elsewhere if it has been raging for a year or more then military technology may be closer to 1915 than 1894. There's also the potential problem of a nation at war being unable to completely re-equip when the army depends on older weapons while a nation not yet in the war may be able to seize an advantage.

The war is only six months old, so military tech is unlikely to have advanced too far, though by now everybody knows what a machine gun can do.

The American militaries are likely to have few machine guns at the outset of war, and poor artillery, but if it turns into a long war, that is likely to change.
 
Last edited:

67th Tigers

Banned
What are US tactics? The British do have the Maxim gun in standard use by this time, and if the US is on the offensive in the same old way, they could be in for a nasty shock. How much of the Indian army is available for use on the west coast?

Yes, one Maxim per battalion:

A Brigade was roughly 4,700 men strong, with a composition of:

  • Brigade Staff
  • 4x Infantry Battalions (ea. 29 officers and 1,003 men)
  • 1 Company of the Army Service Corps (Logistics)
  • 1 Company of the Royal Army Medical Corps and a Field Hospital

Fighting strength was roughly 3,520 riflemen and 4 Maxim machine gun teams

A Division generally consisted of 2 Brigades, plus the following assets:

  • 3 Batteries of 6 Field Artillery pieces (guns are 15 pounder breach loading rifles)
  • 1 Ammunition Column
  • 1 Field Engineer Company
  • 1 Squadron of Cavalry

  • 1 Company of the Army Service Corps (Logistics)

  • 1 Field Hospital
As for the Indian Army, the disposible force is roughly what it was in 1914, 9 British brigades (4.5 divisions in 1894) were released from India (replaced by the reservist 44th Home Counties Division), plus 9 Indian brigades (4.5 divisions in 1894) and 9 cavalry brigades for Europe, Egypt and Iraq. After 6 months new formations (eventually 20 brigades within a year) started to deploy for general service.

In 1894 terms, at the start of the war the Anglo-Indian Army would deploy 9 infantry divisions (3 Corps) and 3 cavalry divisions (as a Corps) as an army (probably 3rd (Indian) Army, as the British structures contained an existing 1st and 2nd (British) Armies), this will be followed with another 10 divisions over the following year.
 
The US should be on the offensive "in the same old way", but most of its troops are likely to be used against the CS.

The Indian Army is probably unavailable, as it's being used elsewhere, quite possibly in India itself.

So Britain is at war with Russia? So presumably allied with Germany? I am trying to get a feeling as to why Britain's global reach is truncated in your scenario.

If there is a global war, then unless it is a giant dogpile on Britain, which seems highly unlikely, given Eurpopean politics, then one of two things is true. Either, they are at war with Germany and in alliance with France, in some sort of early OTL Great War, with the alliances falling out similiarly. Or, they are allied with Germany and at war with France in some sort of Britain switches to the central powers timeline.

The first seems unlikely, given that Germany has not yet commenced her naval program, and France is still viewed with suspicion. But if this is the breakdown, then it would explain why Britain's army is somewhat busy. committed to France etc. But OTL India raised 1.5 million volunteers to fight in the Great War. 20 years earlier i am sure Britain could have gotten similiar numbers as India was even more stable. Eventually, the weight of Britain's empire will come into play. But more immediately, if this is the lineup, in 1894 the second biggest navy in the world was France's, and the third was Russia's. If France, Russia, and Great Britain are allied, a la Great War, the war at sea is a curbstomp, which gives Britan lots of options.

The more likely 1894 scenario has Britain at war with the Entente over some colonial/great game thing, in combination with Germany and her friends. That pretty much guarantees the Ottomans are in with her, and very possibly the Italians as well. In this scenario the naval balance is much more even, but i am trying to figure out how Great Britain's army is super occupied. Even if Russia makes a play for India they are coming through Afghanistan, and kind of busy in Europe presumably.
 
Douglas, as Deckhand just noted, unless this POD somehow created one or more powers whose fleets can rival the Royal Navy the US is at a massive disadvantage at sea and in terms of vulnerability to amphibious operations.

Also, the scenario means that the British have been building up and equipping a much larger army under war time conditions for a few months, a potentially huge advantage.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
The more likely 1894 scenario has Britain at war with the Entente over some colonial/great game thing, in combination with Germany and her friends. That pretty much guarantees the Ottomans are in with her, and very possibly the Italians as well. In this scenario the naval balance is much more even, but i am trying to figure out how Great Britain's army is super occupied. Even if Russia makes a play for India they are coming through Afghanistan, and kind of busy in Europe presumably.

If at war with a Franco-Russian alliance then the old Cherbourg Strategy is applicable. This envisioned using overwhelming naval power to smash France's naval bases and occupying them ("the British Army is a weapon to be launched by the Royal Navy"), securing the Mediterranean route to India and fighting the Russians in Afghanistan, whilst (Turkey permitting) smashing the Russian position in the Black Sea.
 
So Britain is at war with Russia? So presumably allied with Germany? I am trying to get a feeling as to why Britain's global reach is truncated in your scenario.

If there is a global war, then unless it is a giant dogpile on Britain, which seems highly unlikely, given Eurpopean politics, then one of two things is true. Either, they are at war with Germany and in alliance with France, in some sort of early OTL Great War, with the alliances falling out similiarly. Or, they are allied with Germany and at war with France in some sort of Britain switches to the central powers timeline.

The first seems unlikely, given that Germany has not yet commenced her naval program, and France is still viewed with suspicion. But if this is the breakdown, then it would explain why Britain's army is somewhat busy. committed to France etc. But OTL India raised 1.5 million volunteers to fight in the Great War. 20 years earlier i am sure Britain could have gotten similiar numbers as India was even more stable. Eventually, the weight of Britain's empire will come into play. But more immediately, if this is the lineup, in 1894 the second biggest navy in the world was France's, and the third was Russia's. If France, Russia, and Great Britain are allied, a la Great War, the war at sea is a curbstomp, which gives Britan lots of options.

The more likely 1894 scenario has Britain at war with the Entente over some colonial/great game thing, in combination with Germany and her friends. That pretty much guarantees the Ottomans are in with her, and very possibly the Italians as well. In this scenario the naval balance is much more even, but i am trying to figure out how Great Britain's army is super occupied. Even if Russia makes a play for India they are coming through Afghanistan, and kind of busy in Europe presumably.

Douglas, as Deckhand just noted, unless this POD somehow created one or more powers whose fleets can rival the Royal Navy the US is at a massive disadvantage at sea and in terms of vulnerability to amphibious operations.

Also, the scenario means that the British have been building up and equipping a much larger army under war time conditions for a few months, a potentially huge advantage.

Since there apparently isn't a way to discuss the American front without showing alliances in Europe, the sides in the European war are:

UK + France + Italy + Ottomans

vs.

Super-Germany + Russia

The UK's army is busy all across the world and in Europe, while its navy is busy with operations in the Baltic and Mediterranean. France got carried away with its Jeune Ecole-equivalent, and is therefore practically incapable of projecting power. "Super-Germany" has colonies in Africa and in Indochina, and Russia is facing off against the Ottomans and trying to make some progress against India.

Britain has been building up somewhat, but can't put probably more than 100,000 additional troops into North America in the next six months due to other commitments.
 
To be honest, US vs. CS strategy is what I'm most interested in.

Douglas

OK, a bit more detail to work with. Going to be interesting for the allies going against an enlarged Germany, Russia and the rump US. However would be surprised that such a combination at this point would be a serious threat to Britain and allies at sea.

With the main N American fronts the US is very confident to pick fights with both Britain and the CSA at the same time, even with Britain already involved in a sizeable war. This suggests their going to be the primary aggressor on most fronts. Whether they have the resources to actually do this is another matter. In OTL WWI, when the initial quick victory failed to materials every nation, even the most militarised, quickly ran into shortages. Also, presuming that the US has large scale immigration as OTL, although probably somewhat less than OTL, they would [or should] have doubts on the willingness of many of those to fight for US wars of expansion, especially with Britain and Italy on the other side. However I would expect the US to do the bulk of the attacking, at least in the 1st year or two. Given the culture of the offensive that was widespread in the western world at the time and probably more so in N America than elsewhere I suspect the CSA will also try some attacks. Britain/Canada less so because they have less resources and commitments elsewhere. Also it sounds like there's not an existing alliance with the CSA so no combined action is likely early on.

I would expect by far the heaviest fighting to be on the east of the front as that's where the bulk of the population and industrial base for each side is. Also Washington could be a red flag for the north. Furthermore, if the south is likely to be able to make a decisive offensive it would again be in the east. Both because their main resource base is here and because its here they could do most damage to the north.

I'm guess there wouldn't be heavy fighting in the west. They don't have the population base on either side nor probably the ability to get larger forces there. Also if only one US trans-continental, not established until the 1890's they probably don't have a line going deep into their exposed pocket in the SW, which is nearly encircled by CSA territory. Hence an attack on California from there would be unlikely. [Could see them having a line to the neck of the area to prevent the south cutting it off]. Most likely activity here might be an attempt by the CSA and possibly Canada to link up by cutting off Washington state/territory, but would expect the US to oppose this. Also possibly attacking on rail lines by small raiding forces in the thinly populated prairies. [Presuming that there is also a Canadian trans-continental]. Here you could well have a war of manoeuvre with small cavalry forces hitting each other's vulnerable targets.

In the longer term, as you say the US will be vulnerable to a British blockage, especially if it can deny the US access to nitrates. That would increasingly cripple the US army. [If really nasty for them they manage to build up a large artillery force and train the men to overcome defences just in time for them to become largely useless due to lack of propellant.;)]

In the Euro-Asian conflict that will of course have a huge effect on the battle in N America. Could be a total bloodbath on the western front and possibly in the Balkans and Po valley. Can't see the Russians seriously threatening India because of the combination of terrain, population and technology at this point. However possibly seriously pressure on the Ottomans and advances through Persia, although the latter may be more of a token threat. If Japan has developed as OTL I would expect Britain to be quickly seeking to ally with it.

In all areas the relative efficiency and tactics of the various powers will have a big impact. If anyone tries to force a breakthrough against a reasonable depth of defence, even with just repeater rifles let alone Maxims, their going to be in for a world of hurt.:(

Steve
 
Douglas

OK, a bit more detail to work with. Going to be interesting for the allies going against an enlarged Germany, Russia and the rump US. However would be surprised that such a combination at this point would be a serious threat to Britain and allies at sea.

With the main N American fronts the US is very confident to pick fights with both Britain and the CSA at the same time, even with Britain already involved in a sizeable war. This suggests their going to be the primary aggressor on most fronts. Whether they have the resources to actually do this is another matter. In OTL WWI, when the initial quick victory failed to materials every nation, even the most militarised, quickly ran into shortages. Also, presuming that the US has large scale immigration as OTL, although probably somewhat less than OTL, they would [or should] have doubts on the willingness of many of those to fight for US wars of expansion, especially with Britain and Italy on the other side. However I would expect the US to do the bulk of the attacking, at least in the 1st year or two. Given the culture of the offensive that was widespread in the western world at the time and probably more so in N America than elsewhere I suspect the CSA will also try some attacks. Britain/Canada less so because they have less resources and commitments elsewhere. Also it sounds like there's not an existing alliance with the CSA so no combined action is likely early on.

This is all pretty much correct. I wonder whether or not it would be better for the US to try to overrun the British quickly, but the way I've posited this war, the main effort at war's opening will be to the South.

I would expect by far the heaviest fighting to be on the east of the front as that's where the bulk of the population and industrial base for each side is. Also Washington could be a red flag for the north. Furthermore, if the south is likely to be able to make a decisive offensive it would again be in the east. Both because their main resource base is here and because its here they could do most damage to the north.

Oddly enough, the only theater in which the US is likely to gain significant ground, by my judging at least, is in the far East near Washington. Assuming that the US mobilized troops from the New England states, New York, and eastern Pennsylvania are the ones used on this front, and that a further 100,000 of these are used for defense against the Canadians or in slow cautious advances, the US will have (assuming 2,000,000 men strength overall after mobilization) 750,000 troops to deploy in the relatively narrow theater between the Atlantic Ocean and the Appalachian mountains. The CSA, assuming a more drawn-out but also more extreme (greater % of white males) mobilization, can still only get 500,000 troops to the Eastern theater even if every soldier from the states touching the Atlantic gets to the front. Earlier in this thread I posited five different plans for the CS to consider, but after some more consideration, the first two are unlikely to occur because of the disparity in numbers and the more rapid speed of US mobilization.

Counting the US soldiers from western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana gives me a total of roughly 520,000 men to be deployed along and across the Ohio River. How difficult is it going to be to cross the Ohio River in the first stages of the war? Turtledove discussed it, but with a bit of handwaving. Is the river going to be a barrier to operations, if, say, barges and what-not haven't been collected as part of mobilization for an amphibious crossing? Facing the US will probably be the 425,000 or so more slowly mobilized Confederates from all of the remaining states east of the Mississippi River.

The most interesting theater that I ran into was the Trans-Mississippi Kansas-Missouri theater. Missouri and Texas are the largest Confederate states in terms of population, which results in equality on this front against the US, though, of course, not at the very opening of war. The US troops from Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa number 500,000. I have no idea how this front will play out, especially with the big salient of Confederate territory...any takers?

I'm guess there wouldn't be heavy fighting in the west. They don't have the population base on either side nor probably the ability to get larger forces there. Also if only one US trans-continental, not established until the 1890's they probably don't have a line going deep into their exposed pocket in the SW, which is nearly encircled by CSA territory. Hence an attack on California from there would be unlikely. [Could see them having a line to the neck of the area to prevent the south cutting it off]. Most likely activity here might be an attempt by the CSA and possibly Canada to link up by cutting off Washington state/territory, but would expect the US to oppose this. Also possibly attacking on rail lines by small raiding forces in the thinly populated prairies. [Presuming that there is also a Canadian trans-continental]. Here you could well have a war of manoeuvre with small cavalry forces hitting each other's vulnerable targets.

Agreed. Mobilizing everything west of what has already been mentioned leads to a grand total of 125,000 US and 100,000 CS troops for this entire theater. The Canadians may well hold on this front, even if the US goes on the defensive everywhere else in the West.
In the longer term, as you say the US will be vulnerable to a British blockage, especially if it can deny the US access to nitrates. That would increasingly cripple the US army. [If really nasty for them they manage to build up a large artillery force and train the men to overcome defences just in time for them to become largely useless due to lack of propellant.;)]

This is very possible, but the British may well be vulnerable to losing access to the same resources due to surface raiders of their opponents.

In all areas the relative efficiency and tactics of the various powers will have a big impact. If anyone tries to force a breakthrough against a reasonable depth of defence, even with just repeater rifles let alone Maxims, their going to be in for a world of hurt.:(

Steve

That especially could happen in Europe, though the Eastern front in America seems to be the only place that could suffer from a certain kind of trench warfare.
 
If the US has Cuba, I'd imagine there'd be a British attempt (If not CSA one) to bring about some trouble there to take away some attention from the mainland.
 
Who is prepared for the war and mobilizes first is going to be a big deal-the British may have the initial advantage enough to try and launch a suprise attack, since they are already in full war mode. In terms of USA and CSA, even if the CSA mobilizes first, I don't think a surprise attack is possible. In the long term, the Union is going to be the one getting shit done, so after the push into Maryland and perhaps a few other offensives in the Western theater, the USA is going to try and launch a kill move at some point. I would bet on a repeat of the Civil War strategy; move down the Mississippi River and blockade CSA ports. Whether the British will allow them to do it is up to you; I don't know enough about the war or pre-war Union Naval buildup. In the long term, splitting the CSA in two via the Mississippi River will essentially lead to the Union Capture of everything in the West of the CSA. Also, offensives may be specifically launched in slave states just to precipitate a slave rebellion. Freeing slaves is good propaganda for the Union. Whether the Union can pull off this offensive is another question; despite being outnumbered, the Confederates would be defending deep in their own territory. But even if the plan fails, the Union will still be the one sitting on large chunks of Confederate Territory. The only real strategy would be to try and convince the Union to end the war; perhaps by freeing slaves and ceding some under-populated Western lands while making the war as bloody as possible. The populist leader you mentioned may be a good person to do this-he could be a Stalin figure, asking his people to fanatically defend the motherland.:eek:
 
Unfortunately for the CSA and british things look bad for them during the first 6 to 12 months, this scenario posits a US president and government with strong central authority and a strong desire for a fight, under those circumstances I see no reason why the US military won't be quite modern by current standards, if they were expecting a large war, and they are still stinging from defeat in the ACW they are almost certain to maintain a large and mordern military. The CSA even if it matches numbers with the US is going to have a qualitative disadvantage, cultural and political factors in a victorious CSA, especially one which had an easier time than OTL are going to favor a 18th century style US government system with more decentralized power in the federal government with the military being comprised mostly of state militias rather than a standing army. I suspect that confederate weapons will be a variety of weapons due to different strategies adopted by different state governments, which will complicate logistics for them. I forsee a US strategy that aims to take quebec and montreal and then aims to take BRitish possessions in the carribean and then sue for peace with them to knock them out of the war early, which may very well work, since the British probably won't be prepared to supply or deploy large forces in the western hemisphere.
 
Do you have a world map?

No, I'm not really concerned with the rest of the world. The thread is titled Grand Strategy: US vs. CS + UK, and I regret having ever added the UK. What I wanted to talk about is US vs CS strategy.
 
No, I'm not really concerned with the rest of the world. The thread is titled Grand Strategy: US vs. CS + UK, and I regret having ever added the UK. What I wanted to talk about is US vs CS strategy.

Douglas

The problem is that, even if you had only made it an attempt by the US to conquer the CSA the rest of the world would still be significant, at least politically. Grand Strategy by definition would force its inclusion.

Steve
 
This is all pretty much correct. I wonder whether or not it would be better for the US to try to overrun the British quickly, but the way I've posited this war, the main effort at war's opening will be to the South.

Its a possibility but could face some serious problems. [I remember one dodgy TL that had the US dow Britain in 1915 over the allied blockade. Someone then pointed out to the author that at that stage Canada had more men under arms [in Canada] than in the US army]. Less likely to be the case in TTL as we have a far more heavily militarised US. More to the point probably is that with Britain distracted and the huge territories they lost to the CSA I would expect the US to concentrate on the south. Especially the politically important target of Washington.

Oddly enough, the only theater in which the US is likely to gain significant ground, by my judging at least, is in the far East near Washington. Assuming that the US mobilized troops from the New England states, New York, and eastern Pennsylvania are the ones used on this front, and that a further 100,000 of these are used for defense against the Canadians or in slow cautious advances, the US will have (assuming 2,000,000 men strength overall after mobilization) 750,000 troops to deploy in the relatively narrow theater between the Atlantic Ocean and the Appalachian mountains. The CSA, assuming a more drawn-out but also more extreme (greater % of white males) mobilization, can still only get 500,000 troops to the Eastern theater even if every soldier from the states touching the Atlantic gets to the front. Earlier in this thread I posited five different plans for the CS to consider, but after some more consideration, the first two are unlikely to occur because of the disparity in numbers and the more rapid speed of US mobilization.

A lot would depend on leadership, forces, equipment etc and plans, both military and political. One key point would be the comparative strengths of the expected CSA fortifications and any US siege train. Given how close this front will be and presuming that all sides have modern repeater rifles and possibly some machine guns it will take a considerable advantage in skill, equipment or logistics to make significant progress, although a lot would depend on the defender realising this, which they may not. You could get a CSA version of Plan XVII, which could totally screw them.

Counting the US soldiers from western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana gives me a total of roughly 520,000 men to be deployed along and across the Ohio River. How difficult is it going to be to cross the Ohio River in the first stages of the war? Turtledove discussed it, but with a bit of handwaving. Is the river going to be a barrier to operations, if, say, barges and what-not haven't been collected as part of mobilization for an amphibious crossing? Facing the US will probably be the 425,000 or so more slowly mobilized Confederates from all of the remaining states east of the Mississippi River.

If those figures are accurate I would say the US wouldn't have the superiority to force a break-through here. Provided they gain some surprise and have boats and the like ready they may well cross the river. However the difficult bit would probably be any breakout from the bridgeheads. Thinking in comparison of WWI situations where the initial break-through was often quite possible but getting news back to HQ and reserves committed to support the advance proved very difficult. This would be especially the case if the CSA has fortified key crossing points.

One word of caution here is that I don't know the area but the Ohio does look a pretty big river so would provide a formidable obstacle to any attacker.

The most interesting theater that I ran into was the Trans-Mississippi Kansas-Missouri theater. Missouri and Texas are the largest Confederate states in terms of population, which results in equality on this front against the US, though, of course, not at the very opening of war. The US troops from Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa number 500,000. I have no idea how this front will play out, especially with the big salient of Confederate territory...any takers?

This could well be an area where the US could make some big gains. The fact its a salient does mean the CSA has interior lines to some degree but the force/territory ratio is probably big enough that deep inroads could be made, especially in the Kansas/Missouri region. This would also make less vulnerable the US salient to the west. Hence possibly later either drives into Texas or the Arizona/N Mexico region to isolate the CSA Pacific region. Or if they really want to stretch the CSA and have the resources, especially the logistical support, do both.

Agreed. Mobilizing everything west of what has already been mentioned leads to a grand total of 125,000 US and 100,000 CS troops for this entire theater. The Canadians may well hold on this front, even if the US goes on the defensive everywhere else in the West.

I would expect the Canadians to hold here as the US would also possibly have to consider threats to their Pacific coastline - although not a massive amount of that.

One other thought I forgot here. What's the status of Alaska. Probably not greatly important, although if still in Russian hands the Canadians will probably 'liberate' it before the US joins the conflict.


This is very possible, but the British may well be vulnerable to losing access to the same resources due to surface raiders of their opponents.

May be vulnerable to disruption of supplies but should still get a fair amount through while they can probably, between political, economic and naval power, pretty much cut their enemies off totally from supplies. Which would be virtually fatal without the Haber Process in a longer war. If nothing else Britain could always fall back on the traditional approach of convoying, at least for vital items such as nitrate imports, which would make raiders impotent against the supply lines.

That especially could happen in Europe, though the Eastern front in America seems to be the only place that could suffer from a certain kind of trench warfare.

I would say so but I would probably define east here as everything east of the Mississippi. Given the longer range of weapons, especially artillery, you could well have a very constrained front. A bit like the eastern front in WWI. here breakthroughs were more possible than in the west but most of the front was fortified and large areas stationary for much of the war.

Steve
 
@Douglas

My post was in response to 67th who was trying to say that California was on the verge of secession and was entirely pro-southern only begrudgingly staying within the Union IOTL. When he was arguing with other posters, and my own response included, were not considering the 1851 POD.

As was said before, our point was that California would not be contained in the Confederacy without an earlier POD or a better description of the Confederacy such as "slavery is optional." Otherwise, California would be its own republic or a destroyed and decimated state within the Confederacy's military control. Your Confederacy is improbable. The Union could very EASILY ally with Mexico, smash through Arizona and divide the country in two, allying with Californian rebels before sending their massive industrial armies straight through Virginia.

And how the fuck did they get Nebraska? Sorry, this CSA is too ASB for me.
 
@Douglas
And how the fuck did they get Nebraska? Sorry, this CSA is too ASB for me.


He want's his TL to have a moderately evenly matched rematch between the CSA and USA. At least that's what I can tell from what he has said. Unfortunately the shape of the CSA here makes little sense based upon what he has said, and is highly unlikely with a POD a mere ten years before OTL's ACW. I will withhold final judgement until he actually posts his TL, but as of right now I have read nothing mentioned here that actually makes the situation plausible. Also, it seems kind of silly to add such territory to the CSA in order to make it stronger, more territory != more power. TTL's CSA would be wasting manpower and resources occupying the largely hostile states of missouri and California, and possibly also Kentucky depending on how events progressed in this TL. If nothing else this actually weakens the CSA by spreading its forces out and forcing it to counter insurgency within its own borders as well as defending against an invasion by the Union.

Personally I think any rematch between the Union and Confederacy in a victorious CSA TL that happens before the turn of the century is probably going to end in Confederate humiliation. For an OTL analogue of this conflict you can look at Imperial Germany versus Imperial Russia during WWI, you had one heavily industrialized nation with a strong central government and modern economy and military against an economically backwards, largely agrarian, quasi-feudal nation with a most likely poorly equipped military. the only good thing the CSA has for it that the Russians didn't was the possibility of a competent officer corp, and that is no guarantee. Any defeated Union from an ATL is almost definetly going to be paranoid and well prepared for war, especially if Britain was involved during the first go around. The union is going to be well prepared for a second round, and may even have a large stockpile of nitrates if again Britain was involved in the ACW(a saltpeter embargo by the british would have happened OTL if the trent affair blew up.)
 
Top