longsword14
Banned
No they did not. Not once did Britain try to use troops as you suggest.unlimited supply of manpower in India.
No they did not. Not once did Britain try to use troops as you suggest.unlimited supply of manpower in India.
Is the US land logistics better than British American (Canadian) land logistics + British Pacific logistics?In terms of logistics,I think the US is better,given that NA is their home turf.There’s also the fact that land in NA is probably more vital to US interest than it is to the UK.
Wrong. They used them like that against China in the Opium Wars, just as one example.No they did not. Not once did Britain try to use troops as you suggest.
Unlimited manpower indeed. A couple thousand at best, and that too is not a guarantee for overseas service.Wrong. They used them like that against China in the Opium Wars, just as one example.
Wrong. They used them like that against China in the Opium Wars, just as one example.
Given the absurdity of trying to supply logistics by land across North America, it seems like that's the likely source for at least some of the troops needed.
That is equally true for the US.
But a couple of thousand is more than enough in Oregon Country at that point.Less than 10,000 each time, to my recollection. And pre-WWI, I defy you to name a single example that didn't take place in either Asia or East Africa, and even those in limited numbers. They weren't in the Crimea, only white units from India fought the Boers, they just weren't there in situations when "unlimited manpower" would have come in handy.
But a couple of thousand is more than enough in Oregon Country at that point.
And that territory IS Asia/Pacific logistically.
Yes, because one end of the Pacific may as well be next door to the other. It's not like the distance between Hawaii and San Francisco is 2300 miles. From there to China is nearly double that distance, and another 1600 from Hong Kong to Calcutta. So, from Calcutta to San Francisco is over four times that between there and Hong Kong. Yeah, no.
I think the origin of those troops might be less important than the fact that the British have the logistical edge over the U.S. if it comes to war.
Snip
Silly but not necessarily beyond, considering British naval logistics could eventually see them deployed if for some reason the war lasts longer than we think plausible. The key words being "eventually" and "longer".Well, perhaps, but he originally spoke of “unlimited manpower”, which is beyond silly.
Silly but not necessarily beyond, considering British naval logistics could eventually see them deployed if for some reason the war lasts longer than we think plausible. The key words being "eventually" and "longer".
Crimea and SA were shorter than I had in mind but I see your point.As I said before, they still didn't see use in the Crimea or South Africa, despite how protracted those got. Naval logistics are better than those by land, but they're not the panacea people think they were. You still need to get off the boats eventually, and horses and extraordinarily difficult to transport by boat, so if anything, you're worse off than a land-based force once you start moving inland.
Yes, because one end of the Pacific may as well be next door to the other.
There were instances of sepoys refusing to serve in long expeditions. One such instance was during a deployment for Burma.And pre-WWI, I defy you to name a single example that didn't take place in either Asia or East Africa, and even those in limited numbers.