Realistic CSA victory timeline

Just a quick question here. I'm working on a timeline that would involve a CSA victory and I'm thinking about French involvment without the aid of the British. Does anyone know of some good ways to convience Napolean III to aid the South without Britain's approval, or some other timelines that already involve this kind of situation? One interesting idea I have so far is what if he had some sort of religous reawakening and decided to get on the Pope's good side by helping the south since the Pope had already given the CSA his blessing. Ideas?

I made that same question once:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=75738

I'd go with something plain like a Trent-like affair but involving (a) French ship(s), maybe bound for Mexico, rather than something that esoteric.

Something that insults Napoleon III and France enough as to justify an intervention, and that makes Britain act like "sure, we aren't going in, but we understand if you do".
 
I made that same question once:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=75738

I'd go with something plain like a Trent-like affair but involving (a) French ship(s), maybe bound for Mexico, rather than something that esoteric.

Something that insults Napoleon III and France enough as to justify an intervention, and that makes Britain act like "sure, we aren't going in, but we understand if you do".
Thanks! I was hoping on makeing my POD later in the war during 1864 so do you having any suggestions on how to make that happen. The simpliest POD I can think of is that the CS government officialy recognizes Maximilian's authority in Mexico and so France warms up to the south and decides to trade with it which benefits the south economy and war effort. Any holes in that idea, or perhaps a better way to improve it?
 
A Chess Game

-Trent Affair goes wrong, Britain supports CSA
-USA masses an army and plunges into Canada
-US Army encounters more resistance than thought but takes most of Canada outside of Quebec, PEI, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia within 3 months. Vancouver results in a slaughter for both sides.
-France watches its main rival launch attacks against USA and makes plans for carving up the UK
-CSA gets reinforced by the Royal Navy and smashes many of the US ships but ironclads take a disproportionate toll, the USN survives enough to defend its own waters but the blockade does not
-Halifax falls before reinforcements arrive, US effectively controls most of Canada
-US Army moves most of its forces south to cut the CSA in half, western theater becomes area of critical importance
-UK forces battle with CSA forces at Vicksburg to a stalemate
-France moves against British possessions in India and northern Africa with invasions of Egypt, Pondicherry, and Tamil-Nadu. They encourage local revolutions while American gunrunners bring Spencer Carbines to Ireland and India.
-CS forces score a victory at Fredericksburgh but are unable to follow it up, RN lands at Halifax and begins massive siege with 30,000 troops and land/sea artillery
-US uses land-based artillery to subdue Vicksburg and takes both Indian Territory and Arkansas. Last connections along Mississippi are at New Orleans and it is under siege.
-UK has to pull back forces after Paris shells Dover in near-suicidal run. North German Federation believes that the UK is vulnerable and joins France, Russia decides to join the UK in exchange for recognition of conquests to come in Persia and Ottoman Empire.
-North German Federation liberates Poland but then the Russians bog them down while France defends her coast from a UK reprisal at Brest and La Rochelle. UK can not support the CSA at New Orleans and it falls to the USA, which decides to move inland along Jackson-Montgomery-Miledgeville-Charleston
-France takes much of Southern India thanks to local support. North German Federation reaches Brest Litovsk and Vilna, but Russian winter is again their best defense. France raids Cornwall in a raid but more as a shock tactic, they leave one flag near Tintagel at the very tip of the coast. Ireland is in full revolt.
-Halifax falls to the UK but without naval artillery and a resurgent US army of conscripts Nova Scotia becomes a killing field, but UK will win at a heavy cost
-CSA loses Montgomery and parts of Texas along with the whole of Louisiana, the land-based conquests are untenable and the goverment tries to negotiate as its soldiers are leaving in droves. With Georgia and South Carolina under threat it surrenders in 1863, the "stab in the back" myth becoming popular among Army of Northern Virginia veterans who are not actually beaten in the field. USA forces reconstruction on all states but Louisiana and Tennessee which are already under Union control. US gains most of Canada in exchange for serious reparations, Nova Scotia, PEI, Newfoundland, and Quebec remain in UK hands
-UK realizes that the US has a lot more of its army free to move about and offers peace, they are also tied up across their colonies as Hyderabad is now under pro-French control
-North German Federation unites Germany as the rest of the nation sees them as the focus of Russian aggression, and if one is threatened they are all at risk, or so a distorted quote from one of their diplomats makes it seem. Germany and Russia come to peace as Poland becomes a German Satellite and Lithuania becomes a German kingdom/state but otherwise nothing changes. France and Germany improve their relations dramatically though they will remain wary of each other as German nationalists view everything east of the Meuse, along with Franche-Comte, as theirs.
-France becomes the sole focus of UK aggression and are almost tossed out of Africa as Morocco and Senegal fall to UK forces. US leaders decide a modern navy is a linchpin for a global presence. Ironically US cotton becomes a staple for third party nations selling it to the UK for triple the prices as India is no longer able to supply BRitish textile mills
-UK forces rally and land at Calais, Cherbourg, and Bayonne. Germany, France, and UK make peace, the only territory changing hands being France gaining certain trade rights in India, Germany gets guarantees on its new conquests, and UK is amenable to a future conference to divide Africa up amongst themselves.
-US buys Alaska from Russia for $10 million.

-Overall results: US controls most of the continent north of the Rio Grande, UK loses some influence in India, Germany forms earlier with eastward expansion instead of a westward one, and France become better friends with Germany. Russia is in a tough spot but the fun of no freedom in journalism is that this will remain unknown for decades.

The CSA "wins" by not being totally destroyed and becoming part of a Greater USA.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Limited invasion... burn down NYC and Boston... :rolleyes:

From a 5 minute google search I came up with the basic facts that A: the US was very incredibly concerned with coastal defense, and B: had developed all manner of big, nasty guns to combat coastal invaders including a 20", 117,000 pound 'Rodman Gun', that was placed... in a NY harbor fort...

For the Brits to even get into NY harbor they can try and go through the East River... and invariably wreck themselves on the rocks... or go through The Narrows... which is called "The Narrows" because it only a mile wide... and was protected by Fort Hamilton, the place where the 20" Rodman guns eventually resided...

To think that taking out NYC, with over a million residents between it and Brooklyn would require anything less than Crimean War + levels of effort (especially since you don't have a major ally who is right across the Black Sea rather than the Atlantic) is insanity.

Ah, you do know they never fielded more than one 20"?

In 1863 the NY defences are armed as follows:

Ft Lafayette: 72x 32 pdrs, noted as having no bomb-proofs and thus being utter helpless against mortar fire

Ft Richmond (Staten Island): 60x 8" shell guns (Columbiads) en barbette

Ft Hudson: 32 "old fashioned guns" (probably long 24 pdrs? these were the standard fort piece), 1x new rifled gun (type not specified) and delivered but not mounted was a 15" Rodman gun.

Ft Tomkins: incomplete and unarmed

Ft Hamilton: 30x 32 pdr and 25x 24 pdr en barbette, 15x 32 pdrs in the casemates and 8x 24 pdrs and 1x 10" mortar in the redoubt.

Fort Shyler: unarmed

Not enough to stop a small squadron, let alone if Milne comes in with Warrior, Defence, Terror and the like.....
 

WeisSaul

Banned
Well considering the USA had been backing the Mexican republicans throughout the whole Franco-Mexican war:

-CSA recognizes Maximillian's government in Mexico
-France, Mexico, and Austria respond with recognition of the Confederate States of America. Franco-Mexican forces march through Texas towards New Orleans.
-The United States makes good on its claim to declare war on any country that recognizes the Confederacy, and declares war on the French, Mexican, and Austrian Empires
-Since the strongholds of Republican forces in Mexico had been in the North along the US/CS border, and in the South around Chiapas, the US is easily able to link up with the United Mexican States' forces in the North.
-American forces rally with Mexican forces on the border
-The USN wages unrestricted Naval warfare on France, the Confederacy, Mexico, and Austria.
-With transport and resupplying across the Atlantic becoming more and more difficult with the USN harassment, Texas becomes the primary point of supply going to Mexico.
-The Amero-Republican forces, led by Sherman, march into Texas from the west.
-Franco-Imperial-Texan forces meet Amero-Republican armies at Austin. The sun is hot, but the battle rages even hotter
-The USN, able to block any French naval supplementary forces from arriving up the Colorado River or landing at Corpus Christi, effectively plays the deciding factor in the battle for Austin. Amero-Republican forces capture Austin and effectively control the area between the Colorado and the Rio Grande, isolating Imperial Mexico from Texan supplies.
-The USN expands the war to the French Colonies. St. Pierre and Miquelon are occupied and French west indies territories and French Guiana are under siege. The government is planning on coordinating with Liberia to use their ports on the west Atlantic to attack French colonies and further harass France.
-Britain become anxious over the US controlling St Pierre and Miquelon at the mouth of the St Laurence river, effectively choking a large portion of Canadian trade.
-Russia become worried over British unease due to it having two fleets in New York harbor

I'll do more later, but you get the rough idea.
 
Ah, you do know they never fielded more than one 20"?

In 1863 the NY defences are armed as follows:

Ft Lafayette: 72x 32 pdrs, noted as having no bomb-proofs and thus being utter helpless against mortar fire

Ft Richmond (Staten Island): 60x 8" shell guns (Columbiads) en barbette

Ft Hudson: 32 "old fashioned guns" (probably long 24 pdrs? these were the standard fort piece), 1x new rifled gun (type not specified) and delivered but not mounted was a 15" Rodman gun.

Ft Tomkins: incomplete and unarmed

Ft Hamilton: 30x 32 pdr and 25x 24 pdr en barbette, 15x 32 pdrs in the casemates and 8x 24 pdrs and 1x 10" mortar in the redoubt.

Fort Shyler: unarmed

Not enough to stop a small squadron, let alone if Milne comes in with Warrior, Defence, Terror and the like.....


Yeah, so you make some rubble. The British can shell New York but they can't destroy it. As far as I know no major city was wiped out via bombardment short of using nuclear weapons. The UK can't destory America but it CAN piss it off. 50,000 troops is NOTHING!! The Union lost 350,000 OTL without the government falling and the US public was far less pissed off than they would be if the UK shells NY and Boston. They get chewed up, spit out and are gone. There is NO WAY the British public will accept 50,000 casualties from a war with a power on the other side of the ocean. The UK gave up when it took a fraction of the casualties in both the ARW and the War of 1812.
 

WeisSaul

Banned
Yeah, so you make some rubble. The British can shell New York but they can't destroy it. As far as I know no major city was wiped out via bombardment short of using nuclear weapons. The UK can't destory America but it CAN piss it off. 50,000 troops is NOTHING!! The Union lost 350,000 OTL without the government falling and the US public was far less pissed off than they would be if the UK shells NY and Boston. They get chewed up, spit out and are gone. There is NO WAY the British public will accept 50,000 casualties from a war with a power on the other side of the ocean. The UK gave up when it took a fraction of the casualties in both the ARW and the War of 1812.

Not only that, how the hell would the Russians react when Britain begins blockading and shelling New York city where the Russian Empire had two fleets that were there for the sole purpose of possibly fighting a war with Britain and France.
 
As you know Sherman ordered the civilians to leave before burning Atlanta. How the Brits are able to do that with a city the size of New York is beyond me! How the Brits get enough manpower to take the city in the first place is a real mystery to me. The US will fight tooth and nail for New York and 50,000 men are FAR from enough! He also seems to forget the MASSIVE INVESTMENTS the Brits had in the US. The second the war breaks out they can kiss those assets goodbye! I am sure THAT would please the merchants of London!!!

Not to mention again that razing cities to the ground when they're inhabited by *white* people is *not* acceptable to Europeans at this time. The British Empire would be seen as a Nazi Germany-style destructive malevolent force. No doubt he'll claim he never meant burning the five boroughs to the ground and Boston, too, even though he clearly said he did, however.

Ah, you do know they never fielded more than one 20"?

In 1863 the NY defences are armed as follows:

Ft Lafayette: 72x 32 pdrs, noted as having no bomb-proofs and thus being utter helpless against mortar fire

Ft Richmond (Staten Island): 60x 8" shell guns (Columbiads) en barbette

Ft Hudson: 32 "old fashioned guns" (probably long 24 pdrs? these were the standard fort piece), 1x new rifled gun (type not specified) and delivered but not mounted was a 15" Rodman gun.

Ft Tomkins: incomplete and unarmed

Ft Hamilton: 30x 32 pdr and 25x 24 pdr en barbette, 15x 32 pdrs in the casemates and 8x 24 pdrs and 1x 10" mortar in the redoubt.

Fort Shyler: unarmed

Not enough to stop a small squadron, let alone if Milne comes in with Warrior, Defence, Terror and the like.....

That means the city's bombarded. Bombardment and burning it to the ground are two very different things. One is a nasty side of war at the time, the other is what the Germans wanted to do to Leningrad and what was done to cities all over the imperial spheres of influence. Societies of the time will *not* take kindly to doing unto whites what was done to say, Bunroyo.
 
That means the city's bombarded. Bombardment and burning it to the ground are two very different things. One is a nasty side of war at the time, the other is what the Germans wanted to do to Leningrad and what was done to cities all over the imperial spheres of influence. Societies of the time will *not* take kindly to doing unto whites what was done to say, Bunroyo.

Also what would bombarding NYC and Boston accomplish for the Brits other than infuriate the US populace who will be highly motivated to kick GB out of Canada to punish the Brits? It will have the same effect that the bombing of London did in the BOB except it will have less economic damage than the LW was able to inflict. It would highly counterproductive .
 
Also what would bombarding NYC and Boston accomplish for the Brits other than infuriate the US populace who will be highly motivated to kick GB out of Canada to punish the Brits? It will have the same effect that the bombing of London did in the BOB except it will have less economic damage than the LW was able to inflict. It would highly counterproductive .

Indeed. There would be much better ways for the British to employ that naval monopoly and their qualitative superiority over both the Union and Confederate armies than what he's proposing. One is a Rape of Nanking-style "Now you've ensured we never get a peace. Oh crap." type of stupid use of force, but for instance attacking the USA through the upstate New York region to strike into the heart of the USA and underscore it has no military ability to strike back at the British Empire, OTOH......
 
Indeed. There would be much better ways for the British to employ that naval monopoly and their qualitative superiority over both the Union and Confederate armies than what he's proposing. One is a Rape of Nanking-style "Now you've ensured we never get a peace. Oh crap." type of stupid use of force, but for instance attacking the USA through the upstate New York region to strike into the heart of the USA and underscore it has no military ability to strike back at the British Empire, OTOH......

Course there is always the chance that turns into another Saratoga...

That's the whole problem I have with a UK vs USA war... the UK can, on paper, defeat the US in any number of ways, but that is ONLY if it goes whole hog. 'Limited' engagements will only piss the US off for absolutely no gain and/or lead to disaster and misadventure both in their abroad holdings and at home if, for instance, that foray into upstate NY gets lost/encircled/outmaneuvered/commits an atrocity and subsequently gets mauled/captured/destroyed/widens the war.

I mean at Bull Run, both sides thought the war would be both short and 'cheap', but it wasn't. I could see the UK thinking the same thing if it gets involved... and maybe at the end of the multi year, possibly world-war it instigates if it is somehow able to stay to the finish it will have 'won' (at least in North America), but the nature of the victory will be such that Pyrrhus of Epirus's name would be taken off and Palmerston replacing it. And if the UK doesn't have the political will to see things through they probably aren't going to get a 'status quo ante bellum' like 1812.

As for 67th's post... if the US was at war with the UK, does anyone think the US would not beef up its defenses around its major harbors over what they had OTL? Consider that Washington DC had a single fort protecting it at the outset of the war... and it had a 37 mile ring of fortifications by the end of it (which were never used). NYC, Philly, Boston, Chicago and other major industrial cities are a lot more suited to building up fortifications.

The most the UK can do if it ever wants to see anything good come from really intervening in the ACW is break the blockade unless it goes in with the absolute intent of laying the US low (which is politically unfeasible without a grand European coalition as with the Crimean War)
 
Indeed. There would be much better ways for the British to employ that naval monopoly and their qualitative superiority over both the Union and Confederate armies than what he's proposing. One is a Rape of Nanking-style "Now you've ensured we never get a peace. Oh crap." type of stupid use of force, but for instance attacking the USA through the upstate New York region to strike into the heart of the USA and underscore it has no military ability to strike back at the British Empire, OTOH......


I don't think that would work either by 1860. It is far too late for that as the US is highly industrialized and 50,000 troops is far from enough to accomplish much. The best use of its power would be simply to break the blockade, send troops to Canada to reinforce the garrison to prevent any attacks into that country and send some troops to the South to reinforce the CSA. This is assuming you want to use troops AT ALL. The safest, least costly solution would probably be merely reinforcing Canada and breaking the blockade. The only thing GB is truly interested in is restarting the cotton trade. All out war with the US is not required for that and the British government would try to avoid that.
 
Course there is always the chance that turns into another Saratoga...

That's the whole problem I have with a UK vs USA war... the UK can, on paper, defeat the US in any number of ways, but that is ONLY if it goes whole hog. 'Limited' engagements will only piss the US off for absolutely no gain and/or lead to disaster and misadventure both in their abroad holdings and at home if, for instance, that foray into upstate NY gets lost/encircled/outmaneuvered/commits an atrocity and subsequently gets mauled/captured/destroyed/widens the war.

I mean at Bull Run, both sides thought the war would be both short and 'cheap', but it wasn't. I could see the UK thinking the same thing if it gets involved... and maybe at the end of the multi year, possibly world-war it instigates if it is somehow able to stay to the finish it will have 'won' (at least in North America), but the nature of the victory will be such that Pyrrhus of Epirus's name would be taken off and Palmerston replacing it. And if the UK doesn't have the political will to see things through they probably aren't going to get a 'status quo ante bellum' like 1812.

As for 67th's post... if the US was at war with the UK, does anyone think the US would not beef up its defenses around its major harbors over what they had OTL? Consider that Washington DC had a single fort protecting it at the outset of the war... and it had a 37 mile ring of fortifications by the end of it (which were never used). NYC, Philly, Boston, Chicago and other major industrial cities are a lot more suited to building up fortifications.

The most the UK can do if it ever wants to see anything good come from really intervening in the ACW is break the blockade unless it goes in with the absolute intent of laying the US low (which is politically unfeasible without a grand European coalition as with the Crimean War)

Exactly, and both the ARW and the War of 1812 shows there were real limits to what the Brits were willing to spend in fighting in America. I don't think the government could possibly take 50,000 casualties . Also a war with the US would instantly crash the London Exchange. The government would not be thrilled with that idea either.
 

amphibulous

Banned
In order for the confederacy to win, it would require either outside intervention or a g-dsend. I'm gonna go with the former.

Considering the British in OTL were very close to personally marching into the south and backing the confederacy, along with invading from the north and blockading American ports/breaking the American blockade

This nonsense of the lowest grade - ASBs are more plausible.

- There is no evidence that the British even considered this

- They didn't have the land forces to make a difference

- Slavery was much more morally abhorred in the UK than in the Northern states; it would have been like allying with cannibals

- During this period the UK relied on Northern grain imports to avoid starvation.

- The UK made a fortune from the war as an arms supplier and because of the expansion of its merchant shipping to replace - which it did for decades following - US losses.

- Canada would have been extremely difficult (to impossible) to defend

- The British didn't really have much to gain - not compared to the cost.

- The US was already one of the preferred places for the investment of British capital. Getting said capital confiscated would have been moronic.

Southerners never faced up to the above because they were a nation of strategic imbeciles, but there is no need for anyone else to be contaminated by their stupidity.
 

amphibulous

Banned
Course there is always the chance that turns into another Saratoga...

That's the whole problem I have with a UK vs USA war... the UK can, on paper, defeat the US in any number of ways, but that is ONLY if it goes whole hog.

This is still untrue.

- How is an ACW sized army supplied from the UK???

- How is it possible for a British army to force surrender on a territory the size of the US? It's much too big to occupy.
 
Course there is always the chance that turns into another Saratoga...

That's the whole problem I have with a UK vs USA war... the UK can, on paper, defeat the US in any number of ways, but that is ONLY if it goes whole hog. 'Limited' engagements will only piss the US off for absolutely no gain and/or lead to disaster and misadventure both in their abroad holdings and at home if, for instance, that foray into upstate NY gets lost/encircled/outmaneuvered/commits an atrocity and subsequently gets mauled/captured/destroyed/widens the war.

I mean at Bull Run, both sides thought the war would be both short and 'cheap', but it wasn't. I could see the UK thinking the same thing if it gets involved... and maybe at the end of the multi year, possibly world-war it instigates if it is somehow able to stay to the finish it will have 'won' (at least in North America), but the nature of the victory will be such that Pyrrhus of Epirus's name would be taken off and Palmerston replacing it. And if the UK doesn't have the political will to see things through they probably aren't going to get a 'status quo ante bellum' like 1812.

As for 67th's post... if the US was at war with the UK, does anyone think the US would not beef up its defenses around its major harbors over what they had OTL? Consider that Washington DC had a single fort protecting it at the outset of the war... and it had a 37 mile ring of fortifications by the end of it (which were never used). NYC, Philly, Boston, Chicago and other major industrial cities are a lot more suited to building up fortifications.

The most the UK can do if it ever wants to see anything good come from really intervening in the ACW is break the blockade unless it goes in with the absolute intent of laying the US low (which is politically unfeasible without a grand European coalition as with the Crimean War)

Nonsense. The Union Army of the US Civil War took four long years to crush an enemy who made abysmal use of his greatest resources (having to defend and *not-win* in order to win), and an enemy whose concepts of reconnaissance were feeble at best. An enemy whose discipline was never good and corroded the more the war went on. The British are a professional, disciplined army extremely good at European-style warfare (and ignoring the minor issues of completely economically screwing up the Union's war effort that would come of this prior to 1864 and the problems of how the USA finds the manpower to fight a war on a scale of the entirety of continental Western Europe *and* the UK at the same time given the problems it could and did have raising the manpower for just *one* thing without massive numbers of new, green troops stomped by British forces). The British will have plans and actions much more complicated than the brute-force frontal assaults CS generals favored, they understand better than either Civil War army the use of cavalry, they have far superior ability to carry out and sustain attacks.....

Simply put, defeating Lee and Bragg is hardly a precondition for fighting the superpower of the day any more than defeating Hongzhang and Kuropatkin meant Japan would be able to defeat the USA.

I don't think that would work either by 1860. It is far too late for that as the US is highly industrialized and 50,000 troops is far from enough to accomplish much. The best use of its power would be simply to break the blockade, send troops to Canada to reinforce the garrison to prevent any attacks into that country and send some troops to the South to reinforce the CSA. This is assuming you want to use troops AT ALL. The safest, least costly solution would probably be merely reinforcing Canada and breaking the blockade. The only thing GB is truly interested in is restarting the cotton trade. All out war with the US is not required for that and the British government would try to avoid that.

Simple mass on its own does not win wars. The USA would have more troops, yes, but it's learned modern war against an enemy that frankly put, was fair when it was good and was utterly, frankly, totally, and completely horrible when it was bad. The British have far more even quality about them and understand war in a much better and more sophisticated way than any of the CSA's generals ever did, and won't be so busy feuding over who commands what division according to what plan that the USA just goes ahead and attacks before the British can react to.

This is still untrue.

- How is an ACW sized army supplied from the UK???

- How is it possible for a British army to force surrender on a territory the size of the US? It's much too big to occupy.

The British don't need to force surrender, recognizing the Confederacy and fighting the USA, which outright *requires* withdrawing troops from CS soil to face the bigger enemy, added to the severe economic dislocations and the difficulties the USA will experience against an enemy far more competent than any of the CSA's generals were (no Robert E. Lee style issuing "suggestions" and then being surprised when someone fails to see a suggestion as an order if it was meant to be an order) will do the job in its own right. If fighting civil wars qualified a nation to defeat the British Empire, then the Qing should have walked all over the British and French in 1860.
 
Nonsense. The Union Army of the US Civil War took four long years to crush an enemy who made abysmal use of his greatest resources (having to defend and *not-win* in order to win), and an enemy whose concepts of reconnaissance were feeble at best. An enemy whose discipline was never good and corroded the more the war went on. The British are a professional, disciplined army extremely good at European-style warfare (and ignoring the minor issues of completely economically screwing up the Union's war effort that would come of this prior to 1864 and the problems of how the USA finds the manpower to fight a war on a scale of the entirety of continental Western Europe *and* the UK at the same time given the problems it could and did have raising the manpower for just *one* thing without massive numbers of new, green troops stomped by British forces). The British will have plans and actions much more complicated than the brute-force frontal assaults CS generals favored, they understand better than either Civil War army the use of cavalry, they have far superior ability to carry out and sustain attacks.....

Simply put, defeating Lee and Bragg is hardly a precondition for fighting the superpower of the day any more than defeating Hongzhang and Kuropatkin meant Japan would be able to defeat the USA.



Simple mass on its own does not win wars. The USA would have more troops, yes, but it's learned modern war against an enemy that frankly put, was fair when it was good and was utterly, frankly, totally, and completely horrible when it was bad. The British have far more even quality about them and understand war in a much better and more sophisticated way than any of the CSA's generals ever did, and won't be so busy feuding over who commands what division according to what plan that the USA just goes ahead and attacks before the British can react to.



The British don't need to force surrender, recognizing the Confederacy and fighting the USA, which outright *requires* withdrawing troops from CS soil to face the bigger enemy, added to the severe economic dislocations and the difficulties the USA will experience against an enemy far more competent than any of the CSA's generals were (no Robert E. Lee style issuing "suggestions" and then being surprised when someone fails to see a suggestion as an order if it was meant to be an order) will do the job in its own right. If fighting civil wars qualified a nation to defeat the British Empire, then the Qing should have walked all over the British and French in 1860.


China of 1860 weren't the US of 1860 by a long shot. The problem is logistics. It will be damned difficult to supply such a large army in a heavily industrialized and geographically large country. The Brits made their share of mistakes in both the Crimean and Boer Wars and would also make mistakes here. Quick raids across the borders, sure. Plunging straight into the heartland? No. If they are going to use troops on the attack they probably be better used in tangent with Lee's troops in VA.
 
Nonsense. The Union Army of the US Civil War took four long years to crush an enemy who made abysmal use of his greatest resources (having to defend and *not-win* in order to win), and an enemy whose concepts of reconnaissance were feeble at best. An enemy whose discipline was never good and corroded the more the war went on. The British are a professional, disciplined army extremely good at European-style warfare (and ignoring the minor issues of completely economically screwing up the Union's war effort that would come of this prior to 1864 and the problems of how the USA finds the manpower to fight a war on a scale of the entirety of continental Western Europe *and* the UK at the same time given the problems it could and did have raising the manpower for just *one* thing without massive numbers of new, green troops stomped by British forces). The British will have plans and actions much more complicated than the brute-force frontal assaults CS generals favored, they understand better than either Civil War army the use of cavalry, they have far superior ability to carry out and sustain attacks.....

Simply put, defeating Lee and Bragg is hardly a precondition for fighting the superpower of the day any more than defeating Hongzhang and Kuropatkin meant Japan would be able to defeat the USA.



Simple mass on its own does not win wars. The USA would have more troops, yes, but it's learned modern war against an enemy that frankly put, was fair when it was good and was utterly, frankly, totally, and completely horrible when it was bad. The British have far more even quality about them and understand war in a much better and more sophisticated way than any of the CSA's generals ever did, and won't be so busy feuding over who commands what division according to what plan that the USA just goes ahead and attacks before the British can react to.



The British don't need to force surrender, recognizing the Confederacy and fighting the USA, which outright *requires* withdrawing troops from CS soil to face the bigger enemy, added to the severe economic dislocations and the difficulties the USA will experience against an enemy far more competent than any of the CSA's generals were (no Robert E. Lee style issuing "suggestions" and then being surprised when someone fails to see a suggestion as an order if it was meant to be an order) will do the job in its own right. If fighting civil wars qualified a nation to defeat the British Empire, then the Qing should have walked all over the British and French in 1860.

Seriously, stop trying to equate the US to the Qing or saying the US would somehow collapse quickly simply due to 'the economic pressures' (not to mention being exactly what Hitler thought would happen to the USSR with Barbarossa) that's as bad or worse than 67th Tigers making his ridiculous claims that the Brits could sail into Boston and NYC harbors, 'burn them to the ground' and then sail out with nary a scratch. :rolleyes:

If the Brits invaded the US from Canada they'd face exactly the same hardships you and the rest of the 'UK uber alles' like to gleefully point out when people speculate on the US would invade Canada... there's exactly jack squat for infrastructure in upstate NY, and nothing of critical or even moderate value until you hit Albany. Any amphibious invasion along the Union's Eastern seaboard would either be so out of the way as to be laughable or an absolute bloodbath. Fighting shoulder to shoulder with the CSA is probably a non starter for the troops on the ground, and the CSA isn't exactly a peach at fighting as you point out graphically, the only CSA Army capable of carrying out offensive operations is the ANV, and we all know how well that turned out... so if the US has to transfer forces and put things on hold to fight/contain the Brits they can do that.

More importantly the Brits are attacking, invading, the US has the home field advantage and, as massive as it is that's a pretty damn big home field. If the Brits want to get frostbite in the Adirondacks the US is probably going to let them do just that.
 
China of 1860 weren't the US of 1860 by a long shot. The problem is logistics. It will be damned difficult to supply such a large army in a heavily industrialized and geographically large country. The Brits made their share of mistakes in both the Crimean and Boer Wars and would also make mistakes here. Quick raids across the borders, sure. Plunging straight into the heartland? No. If they are going to use troops on the attack they probably be better used in tangent with Lee's troops in VA.

True, the Taiping were raising armies of musket-using infantry in the hundreds of thousands, where most individual Union armies were 40,000-60,000 and the CS armies somewhere in the 30,000-60,000 range. While the Qing Empire fought a civil war uninterrupted from the 1850s into the 1860s which neither the USA nor CSA would have ever come close to managing. This is still the age of linear war, there are no machine guns to take the bite out of the enemy. The CSA is, simply put, huge, and the USA needs to hold down and occupy it to win that war, while its manpower reserves are not inexhaustible. And I repeat that what works against Bragg and Lee is a recipe for disaster against the British, who *do* understand reconnaissance, artillery, and logistics.

Seriously, stop trying to equate the US to the Qing or saying the US would somehow collapse quickly simply due to 'the economic pressures' (not to mention being exactly what Hitler thought would happen to the USSR with Barbarossa) that's as bad or worse than 67th Tigers making his ridiculous claims that the Brits could sail into Boston and NYC harbors, 'burn them to the ground' and then sail out with nary a scratch. :rolleyes:

If the Brits invaded the US from Canada they'd face exactly the same hardships you and the rest of the 'UK uber alles' like to gleefully point out when people speculate on the US would invade Canada... there's exactly jack squat for infrastructure in upstate NY, and nothing of critical or even moderate value until you hit Albany. Any amphibious invasion along the Union's Eastern seaboard would either be so out of the way as to be laughable or an absolute bloodbath. Fighting shoulder to shoulder with the CSA is probably a non starter for the troops on the ground, and the CSA isn't exactly a peach at fighting as you point out graphically, the only CSA Army capable of carrying out offensive operations is the ANV, and we all know how well that turned out... so if the US has to transfer forces and put things on hold to fight/contain the Brits they can do that.

More importantly the Brits are attacking, invading, the US has the home field advantage and, as massive as it is that's a pretty damn big home field. If the Brits want to get frostbite in the Adirondacks the US is probably going to let them do just that.

My argument's hardly "UK Uber Alles", it's that the Union Army did well against a crappy enemy and the UK is anything but crappy at this point in time. What works against Braxton Bragg, Sterling Price, and Robert E. Lee does not work against a well-disciplined, well-trained army that knows how to use all arms together appropriately and more crucially is guaranteed to actually be able to execute battle plans with clear, decisive orders instead of "Oh, BTW, I suggest X plzokthnx bai."

My argument is also not that the USA necessarily collapses quickly, I've had arguments with Tigger about that and pointed out to him that nothing says that the collapse would be quick. My argument is simply put that civil wars won against incompetent enemies are no precondition to take on the largest empire in the world and win against that empire. Defeating the CSA is not really an endorsement of military might in any serious sense.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Seriously, stop trying to equate the US to the Qing or saying the US would somehow collapse quickly simply due to 'the economic pressures' (not to mention being exactly what Hitler thought would happen to the USSR with Barbarossa) that's as bad or worse than 67th Tigers making his ridiculous claims that the Brits could sail into Boston and NYC harbors, 'burn them to the ground' and then sail out with nary a scratch. :rolleyes:

Well, in mid 1863 the whole defences of NY mounts 243 guns, not all mutually supporting. The rule of thumb was 1 gun under steam (wooden steamer) = 1 gun in a shore battery.

The force assigned to blockade the narrows in event of war was 2x line of battle, 2x frigates, 2x sloops, 2x gunboats = ~330 guns. By the contemporary planning figure the local blockade commander had enough firepower to take NY (without the Long Island squadron of 1x line of battle, 1x frigate, 2x sloops, 2x gunboats).

Now Milne planned a much more powerful attack, with two armoured frigates in the van which he was going to have steam right upto the forts either side of the narrows as close as possible and smash them.

In September 1864, after much rearmament the defenses of Boston mounted:

Ft Warren: barbette =30x 32 pdrs, 12x 8" shell guns, 1x 10" mortar and 4x 15" Rodmans, casemate = 16x 8" shell guns, 14x 6.4" Parrotts

Ft Independence: barbette = 27x 32 pdrs, 13x 24 pdrs, 2x 10" mortars, casemate = 8x 10" shell guns, 6x 8" shell guns (and another 3 unservicable), 14x 24 pdr howitzers

Ft Winthrop: 18x 10" Rodmans, 4x 10" shell guns, 7x 8" Columbiads and 7x 24 pdrs

= 187 guns (albeit with some heavier ones) vs an assigned blockading squadron of 1x line of battle, 2x frigates, 2x sloops, 2x gunboats = ~ 230 guns. Again, it's possible the local commander could take the forts without the particular service squadrons' assistance.
 
Top