overlapping Crimean/US Civil War

Doesn't matter how the Crimean War gets delayed, but if it overlaps the civil war, what effect does this have? I'm guessing the US benefited from sales of basic goods (cotton/foods/etc) during crimean war, which may not be available to the Europeans (using the term loosely to include all combatants). The US North imported lots of rifles/military stock from the Crimean combatants. I'm guessing the source dries up if England is sending it's rifles to Crimea. How does this affect the civil war? The North barely held on OTL. take away a huge chunk of their weapons, I'm guessing there's a butterfly.
 
You do realise that UK industrial capacity had excess capacity at the time so nay problem there at all. Just means slightly less war surplus although what proportion sold to the states was second hand, as opposed to specific commissioned production, no idea.
 
Well,
I pondered that. Yes, Britain had plenty of industrial capacity, but how much excess? Enough to supply 2 wars going on at the same time? If the answer is yes, that's some serious excess capacity. If I ran a factory that could double output at the drop of a hat, I'm in a business that doesn't have enough market, or I'm a bad businessman, or both.
 
There would have been more of a bottleneck if the American Civil War had broke out in 1854: Britain had to place orders overseas, and only about 30,000 P53 Enfields had been received by April 1855. In the case of a later Crimean War, however, Britain would have already fully rearmed with Enfields and their ability to supply the Union would have been exactly the same. And, of course, the Confederacy would have received fewer good weapons as well: the same share of a much smaller pie.

As for Britain's ability to supply two wars at the same time, the people who could really answer the question of why there was so much spare capacity are probably long dead. I imagine these factories spent their time making revolvers and the like for the civilian market, recruiting new staff and working shifts when the Civil War broke out. However, the numbers are quite indicative: there were 25,000 solders in the British army that fought at the Alma and the London Armoury Company and the Birmingham Arms Company combined could turn out about 15,000 Enfields per month.
 
commerce raiders

It might also mean that the confederacy wouldn't be able to get their famous commerce raiders, like the C.S.S. Alabama, the C.S.S. Florida, and the C.S.S. Shenandoah. Also a lot of small arms won't be able to reach the Conferacy.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Actually, the UK ordered 25,000 M1853s in the

US in 1855; these were manufactured by Robbins and Lawrence in Windsor, VT, and are generally known as the Model 1853 "Windsor Enfield" in .577. The British cancelled the order when the war ended, when about half were manufactured, which ruined R&L.

A total of 16,000 were manufactured in Windsor before R&L went under; some went to the UK, but most stayed in the US, and were used by both the US forces and the rebels. The US tooling had been purchased by Colt, and was used to manufacture about 150,000 M1861 "Colt Special" models, which was basically a modified M1853, and was not interchangeable with the M1861 Springfield .58.

As far as the impact on the belligerants in the ACW of a prolonged or delayed European war, the heaviest impact would have been on the rebels, who had no industry in 1861, unlike the US. Weapons on hand on both sides in the US in 1861 included more than 400,000 US Army pattern percussion rifles, muskets, and carbines in US hands; the equivalent in rebels hands were about 100,000 long arms.

Best,

 
My understanding of the arms supply situation is that Queen Victoria signed a ban on Britian supplying either side with arms or any of her subject joining up to fight. That means all those Irish in the Union would be breaking the law, but I don't suppose that they would care a fig about that ;)

On the main PoD at the time of the ACW there was a reduced Russian grain so Britian was partially dependant on imports from the Union, one reason why she remained even handed. If the Crimean War occured at the same time as OTL ACW you can expect no Russian grain imports and thus even more reason for Britain to be nice to the Union.
 
My understanding of the arms supply situation is that Queen Victoria signed a ban on Britian supplying either side with arms
No ban on weapons, hence the 436,000 Enfields shipped to the North during the conflict. The main bar to trade during the conflict is the blockade. The lack of a ban fits previous American policy:

"the laws of the United States do not forbid their citizens to sell to either of the belligerent powers articles contraband of war or take munitions of war or soldiers on board their private ships for transportation; and although in so doing the individual citizen exposes his property or person to some of the hazards of war, his acts do not involve any breach of national neutrality nor of themselves implicate the Government. Thus, during the progress of the present war in Europe, our citizens have, without national responsibility therefor, sold gunpowder and arms to all buyers, regardless of the destination of those articles." -President Franklin Pearce, 31 December 1855

That means all those Irish in the Union would be breaking the law, but I don't suppose that they would care a fig about that ;)
Nor did the large numbers of Canadian and British volunteers who fought for the Union: by one estimate, Irish immigrants were actually less likely to fight for the Union than those from the rest of Britain.

even more reason for Britain to be nice to the Union.
In fact, the concurrent conflicts may work to both sides' advantage. If the Crimean war is later, the British wouldn't have been able to excuse the fitting out of the Alabama with reference to the construction of the S.S. America for Russia in New York during the war. Moreover, the US would not have been in the embarrassing position of having refusing to sign the Treaty of Paris on blockade and privateering, only to announce when war broke out that it had changed its mind and wanted to follow the treaty's terms. With both states at war, Britain would have been unlikely to attempt to recruit soldiers in America, nor would the Union have recruited soldiers in Ireland (both breaches of neutrality, both causing a degree of bad feeling).

Delay the Crimea, and British sympathy towards the North may be more widespread. This isn't just because the partiality of democratic America for autocratic Russia during the conflict makes many in Britain suspicious of the tyrannical nature of democracy. From what I've seen and read, the general trend of public opinion in Britain is to believe Civil War is about slavery when it breaks out, then move away from this theory when newspapers report that Lincoln has disclaimed any wish to interfere with slavery and started sacking abolitionist generals. With a war in the Crimea to distract them, people may retain their original impression of an abolitionist North versus a slaveholding South.
 
Top