Realistic CSA victory timeline

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.



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.


In 1860 China was barely industrialized and the US heavily industrialized which makes a big difference. Virtually the entire country is connected by rail and is capable of generating plentiful supplies. Meanwhile the Brits have an entire ocean to cross for their supplies and then hundreds of miles back through Canada and into the US. The supply train is long, expensive and vulnerable. Both the ARW and the War of 1812 show that the British public was unwilling to suffer truly high casualties in America and the Union Army is perfectly capable of inflicting that.
 
In 1860 China was barely industrialized and the US heavily industrialized which makes a big difference. Virtually the entire country is connected by rail and is capable of generating plentiful supplies. Meanwhile the Brits have an entire ocean to cross for their supplies and then hundreds of miles back through Canada and into the US. The supply train is long, expensive and vulnerable. Both the ARW and the War of 1812 show that the British public was unwilling to suffer truly high casualties in America and the Union Army is perfectly capable of inflicting that.

No, half of the USA was tilting into an industrial revolution, half of it had a rudimentary at best industrial sector with a predominantly cash-crop economic basis. The USA's industrial development was set *back* by the Civil War as a whole, with the Union's industry developing in the North over a long process. It took the full four years to transform the North thus, a war with the UK will produce serious disruption. The problem with both the ARW and 1812 as analogies is that the bulk of British troops in both wars after a certain point were fighting the French. In *this* scenario, the bulk of British troops will not be so occupied.
 
Another problem is that the RN will have little difficulty breaking the blockade, a great boon to the CSA, while imposing one on the Union. Cutting the North off from nitrates for gunpowder and explosives, which had to be imported from overseas, could well cost the Union the war.


In terms of soldiers just how many men will the US need to guard the coasts and the Canadian border, let alone invade Canada, and what effect will this have on any prospect for finishing the CSA?
 
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.



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.

The problem with your supposition is that it leads back to the UK being involved in a total war.

The Qing were involved in the bloodiest conflict of the century and, more importantly, their arms were supplied by Europe, things would have gone differently if the Qing Dynasty had even the feeble industry of the CSA and could afford to tell the Euros to fuck off. The US has a good industrial base, a strong transportation network in its core areas, a massive agricultural base and the UK's main vector for invasion to reach anything of value is through darkest New York.

And while the US army is not the greatest in the world at the time, especially wrt leadership it's not like you are pitting green conscripts armed with slings against SEAL Team 6... The Brits are hardly infallible, nor are ITS manpower reserves a bottomless pit either, with there being 23 million people living in Great Britain compared to 22 million in the Union. I'd guarantee the Union's manpower problems would be a lot less if the UK jumped in since there's nothing better for recruitment efforts than an unambiguous 'enemy', which the UK would instantly become. Meanwhile the UK troops would be fighting an aggressive war basically on behalf of a bunch of slave owners so they can keep owning slaves.

The UK can't intervene at the drop of a hat, either. They can't just magically teleport their troops to their starting lines. If the war starts over the Trent Affair they have to wait 4-5 months for Winter to end or else it really does become Napoleon's advance into Russia. Or they have to start 'reinforcing' the CSA, which bumps into all those wonderful whale sized political issues of the CSA leadership being loathsome doucebags from top to bottom even before you start trying to coordinate the armed forces. Heck, even if the UK is able to pull things together it's possible or even probable their supposed allies end up being their worst enemy since the UK has to coordinate their forces on an even more massive scale than the US does, both from Canada and the CSA and I don't doubt the CSA's logistics are going to tax the UK mightily in 'lost supplies' and such.

The US army is probably inferior to the UK's at the start of any British offensive, but what's to stop Grant, Sherman, Rosecranz, Thomas or any number of excellent Union generals from learning from their opponent and from the US army rising to the challenge?
 
No, half of the USA was tilting into an industrial revolution, half of it had a rudimentary at best industrial sector with a predominantly cash-crop economic basis. The USA's industrial development was set *back* by the Civil War as a whole, with the Union's industry developing in the North over a long process. It took the full four years to transform the North thus, a war with the UK will produce serious disruption. The problem with both the ARW and 1812 as analogies is that the bulk of British troops in both wars after a certain point were fighting the French. In *this* scenario, the bulk of British troops will not be so occupied.

In 1860 the US was the SECOND MOST industrialized country on the planet. This is not an economy with just a rudimentary level of industrialization. Sure most of its economy was still agricultural, so was everyone else's. The industrial revolution did not take overtake agriculture overnight in the US or anywhere else.
 
The problem with your supposition is that it leads back to the UK being involved in a total war.

The Qing were involved in the bloodiest conflict of the century and, more importantly, their arms were supplied by Europe, things would have gone differently if the Qing Dynasty had even the feeble industry of the CSA and could afford to tell the Euros to fuck off. The US has a good industrial base, a strong transportation network in its core areas, a massive agricultural base and the UK's main vector for invasion to reach anything of value is through darkest New York.

And while the US army is not the greatest in the world at the time, especially wrt leadership it's not like you are pitting green conscripts armed with slings against SEAL Team 6... The Brits are hardly infallible, nor are ITS manpower reserves a bottomless pit either, with there being 23 million people living in Great Britain compared to 22 million in the Union. I'd guarantee the Union's manpower problems would be a lot less if the UK jumped in since there's nothing better for recruitment efforts than an unambiguous 'enemy', which the UK would instantly become. Meanwhile the UK troops would be fighting an aggressive war basically on behalf of a bunch of slave owners so they can keep owning slaves.

The UK can't intervene at the drop of a hat, either. They can't just magically teleport their troops to their starting lines. If the war starts over the Trent Affair they have to wait 4-5 months for Winter to end or else it really does become Napoleon's advance into Russia. Or they have to start 'reinforcing' the CSA, which bumps into all those wonderful whale sized political issues of the CSA leadership being loathsome doucebags from top to bottom even before you start trying to coordinate the armed forces. Heck, even if the UK is able to pull things together it's possible or even probable their supposed allies end up being their worst enemy since the UK has to coordinate their forces on an even more massive scale than the US does, both from Canada and the CSA and I don't doubt the CSA's logistics are going to tax the UK mightily in 'lost supplies' and such.

The US army is probably inferior to the UK's at the start of any British offensive, but what's to stop Grant, Sherman, Rosecranz, Thomas or any number of excellent Union generals from learning from their opponent and from the US army rising to the challenge?

Perhaps that they don't have the time before economic reality ensues? The CSA would benefit greatly from US withdrawals as this enhances its overall manpower by weakening a lot of the desertions by people who weren't about to die for an obviously lost cause re-joining an army when it looks like there just might be a postwar CSA after all.

In 1860 the US was the SECOND MOST industrialized country on the planet. This is not an economy with just a rudimentary level of industrialization. Sure most of its economy was still agricultural, so was everyone else's. The industrial revolution did not take overtake agriculture overnight in the US or anywhere else.

Yes, and yet at the time when the USA was able to do its own war effort fully for itself war-weariness was a serious, dangerous issue.
 

amphibulous

Banned
The problem with both the ARW and 1812 as analogies is that the bulk of British troops in both wars after a certain point were fighting the French. In *this* scenario, the bulk of British troops will not be so occupied.

This is about a quarter true - and three quarters historical garbage.

1. The British Army was tiny during the Napoleonic Wars and a lot of it was always in India and other bits of the Empire. It was tiny during the ACW too. Talking about where the "bulk" of the Army as you have done implies that there was a bulk by ACW standards - but there wasn't! To quote wikipedia:

When the war broke out, there were nominally 70,000 soldiers stationed in Britain, but this included units at sea proceeding to or from overseas postings, some recruits not yet trained, and large numbers of soldiers too infirm to serve in the field. To furnish a field army of 25,000 for the expedition, almost the entire effective establishment in Britain was dispatched and the garrison in India was dangerously weakened

2. While it is true that the British Army wasn't fighting the French during the ACW, your belief that it was free to go to the US is, frankly, anti-historical balderdash. There was a thing called "The British Empire" that covered a large part of the world's surface that had required not just garrisoning but active protection with raids, patrolling, etc. The British Army was always kept small (for political reasons - mostly as a counter-coup device, which was also why commissions were generally "purchased") and therefore overstretched.

So no "bulk", and what troops there were very busy - even the tiny Crimean War required stripping UK defenses and training establishments and over-stretching troops that should have been relieved.
 

amphibulous

Banned
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.....

Again, completely ahistorical.

Firstly, the ACW is unlike anything the British have ever fought. They have no relevant experience.

Secondly, ***Wellington*** called the American conduct of Mexican War outstandingly professional. British officers of the time are pretty much amateurs.

Thirdly, the British are optimized for Rourke's Drift, not Gettysburg.

Fourthly, anyone talks about the superb British use of cavalry is insane. Napoleon singled out British cav as the best of his time, and the least well-used. Then there's the Charge Of The Light Brigade...

Fifthly, the number of professional troops the British have is tiny. Training them to their notoriously high standard takes years. They could maybe send 25,000 to the US - the number they sent, at vast pain, to the Crimea. Any numbers over that will be raw conscripts.

And all these factors are MINOR compared to the British reliance on US grain, arms sales to the US, and the vast contempt the British public have for slavery - which is completely alien to US experience. The North is against slavery mostly for relatively selfish reasons, but the UK this is a profound moral issue for the majority of society. And probably even more important than that, sending even a relatively small force would strip the Empire of its reserve.
 
This is about a quarter true - and three quarters historical garbage.

1. The British Army was tiny during the Napoleonic Wars and a lot of it was always in India and other bits of the Empire. It was tiny during the ACW too. Talking about where the "bulk" of the Army as you have done implies that there was a bulk by ACW standards - but there wasn't! To quote wikipedia:

When the war broke out, there were nominally 70,000 soldiers stationed in Britain, but this included units at sea proceeding to or from overseas postings, some recruits not yet trained, and large numbers of soldiers too infirm to serve in the field. To furnish a field army of 25,000 for the expedition, almost the entire effective establishment in Britain was dispatched and the garrison in India was dangerously weakened

2. While it is true that the British Army wasn't fighting the French during the ACW, your belief that it was free to go to the US is, frankly, anti-historical balderdash. There was a thing called "The British Empire" that covered a large part of the world's surface that had required not just garrisoning but active protection with raids, patrolling, etc. The British Army was always kept small (for political reasons - mostly as a counter-coup device, which was also why commissions were generally "purchased") and therefore overstretched.

So no "bulk", and what troops there were very busy - even the tiny Crimean War required stripping UK defenses and training establishments and over-stretching troops that should have been relieved.


Also they were fighting the Russians only the previous decade. If they are heavily involved in fighting in America what stops Russia from invading parts of the empire in Asia? Even if that doesn't happen GB needs to buy food or starve. It bought from the US OTL if it fights it GB needs to buy from someone else. The biggest seller would be Russia who would might well want political concessions along with the money for its sales and will certainly will charge more.
 

amphibulous

Banned
Also they were fighting the Russians only the previous decade. If they are heavily involved in fighting in America what stops Russia from invading parts of the empire in Asia? Even if that doesn't happen GB needs to buy food or starve. It bought from the US OTL if it fights it GB needs to buy from someone else. The biggest seller would be Russia who would might well want political concessions along with the money for its sales and will certainly will charge more.

The sending of those 25,000 troops to the Crimea was only possible because the British knew that both the French and Russians would be occupied. Not the case in the ACW!

But once again, even this pales into insignificance compared to 1. grain, and 2. British detestation of slavery. The British might have overcome their moral qualms at least for the prospect of spectacular profit, but none was on offer.

I think the USian mind tends to neglect the second of these factors because of indoctrination in US moral "exceptionalism" and it's hard to reconcile this with the US being considerably morally behind the times and somewhat despised by other Western countries - but this was the case.
 
According to a lot of members here the CSA would have been a banana republic. Even though in the confederate industrialization thread where jared seemed to argue(very well)that the CSA was not as bad off as many people on here like to say it was no ones mind seemed to be changed at all.

CSA= Zimbabwe/shithole forever&ever&ever.

If not then you are somehow supporting a great moral evil :rolleyes:
 

amphibulous

Banned
According to a lot of members here the CSA would have been a banana republic. Even though in the confederate industrialization thread where jared seemed to argue(very well)that the CSA was not as bad off as many people on here like to say it was no ones mind seemed to be changed at all.

The CSA was assembled from the most dysfunctional parts of the Anglophone world and then further crippled with the most extreme possible commitment to State's Rights. Modernisation measures would have meant a good part of the political elite being annoyed at something or other in them, and then they would have seceded or returned to the US. You can't build a modern country on this basis.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Assuming British Intervention, Not dealing with the Internal British Politics.

The first and probably most important impact will be breaking the Union Blockade. The Royal Navy is better than the USA Navy. The USA will lose/withdraw its troops from places like New Orleans, Key West, etc. The confederate army need lots of little things like shoes, ammo, and more food. Britain can help there too, and fairly quickly. Morale improves dramatically in the South.

A lot depends upon Britain choosing total war or limited war. If the intervene, they likely see a quick victory, and start out with limited warfare. Before the summer of 1862, it will be hard for the British to field any major land forces compared to the Union Army. My guess is they reinforce Canada and take islands like Martha Vineyard. The Brits may also try to attack on the West Coast of the USA. The south still loses most of TN. The front is stable in Virginia. Due to the need to defend its eastern coast and the border with Canada, the Union likely cancels the 1862 offensives into the south and moves troops to deal with the British threat. The USA will invade Canada at some point as a symbolic move, but I don't see a huge gain for the USA in 1862. The bad logistics in Upstate NY and New England work against both sides. In 1862, the battles are indecisive. The Union will institute the draft as soon as the British enter the war.

In 1863, the Union army will be much bigger than OTL. And if Britain did not selected the total war option, Britain is in trouble. The Union will launch a major offensive, and my guess is at Canada because the Union is more angry at Britain than the CSA, and Canada has fewer ground troops than the CSA. The Union likely makes very large gains in Canada this year. The CSA will also either try to retake TN or try to take Washington DC. I doubt either works.

After this year, it will whoever will breaks first. The USA cannot conquer the UK, and the British Empire will be loathed to field the 1 million man + army required to win the war and occupy the USA. A negotiate peace makes sense, but often hatred overrides wisdom in war. You can write a lot of different TL, all plausible.

In any case, European intervention in the ACW likely means both the USA and CSA are in the European alliance system whenever the next big war breaks out. I do think massive casualties from the ACW by the UK/France will butterfly away WW1 as we know it.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
According to a lot of members here the CSA would have been a banana republic. Even though in the confederate industrialization thread where jared seemed to argue(very well)that the CSA was not as bad off as many people on here like to say it was no ones mind seemed to be changed at all.

CSA= Zimbabwe/shithole forever&ever&ever.

If not then you are somehow supporting a great moral evil :rolleyes:

The evil comment is not very helpful. Accurately analyzing history does not mean that one prefers the outcome.

The south had a huge amount of capital destroyed in the war, so a lot depends on how the war ends. A quick CSA victory will be a lot different than a CSA defeat in 1869 after almost a decade of war. The CSA would not be Zimbabwe, and it would not be the world leading industrial power. I would imagine something between Spain and France's industrial output is the ball park. Germany, USA, and UK would each be a stronger industrial powers.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
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......

An attack through upstate NY like stalls out on Union forces dug into easily defended terrain, all complicated by tough British logistics.

My Guess is the British go for an attack on a port they believe they can take. San Francisco, Portland, Maine or Delaware would be tempting.
 

amphibulous

Banned
Assuming British Intervention, Not dealing with the Internal British Politics.

The first and probably most important impact will be breaking the Union Blockade. The Royal Navy is better than the USA Navy. The USA will lose/withdraw its troops from places like New Orleans, Key West, etc. The confederate army need lots of little things like shoes, ammo, and more food. Britain can help there too, and fairly quickly. Morale improves dramatically in the South.

A lot depends upon Britain choosing total war or limited war. If the intervene, they likely see a quick victory, and start out with limited warfare. Before the summer of 1862, it will be hard for the British to field any major land forces compared to the Union Army. My guess is they reinforce Canada and take islands like Martha Vineyard. The Brits may also try to attack on the West Coast of the USA.

The Crimea shows that, at great risk, they can find a field force of 25,000 men. In OTL they send 11,000 to help defend Canada. This leaves 14,000 men - and a very under-defended Canada. There were almost 150,000 men at the Battle Of Gettysburg...

Due to the need to defend its eastern coast and the border with Canada, the Union likely cancels the 1862 offensives into the south and moves troops to deal with the British threat.

...Because US intelligence convinces the high command that the tiny number of British troops have superpowers. (Actually, this is almost plausible with Pinkerton and McClellan...)

Really: anytime you make an argument about possible action in war without at least considering HOW MANY TROOPS EACH SIDE HAS then you've done something wrong. And then for advanced class, you consider how you moved them about and supply them - even if the UK had 250,000 troops to send, how would it get even 50,000 of them to the West Coast as you suggest? Once there, where would they get their supplies from?
 
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.

So which period British generals do you see as better than Lee? They weren't exactly impressive in the Crimea.
 
1) The British Imperial army did not *need* to be big. Against a Union army that made to fight competent enemies will be shown to rely on mass and sheer dumb luck more than is feasible they don't need quantity, either. Again this is the kind of argument that would lead to thinking Barbarossa should have been over in three weeks.....with the Soviets having broken up all three German Army Groups.

2) The British had plenty of experience fighting big armies in this time, see: Mutiny, Sepoy. See: War, Second Opium. They were used to fighting armies that outnumbered theirs as much as six to one, and the CSA in terms of military experience and preparation to fight modern war ranks somewhere around Saddam Hussein and Luigi Cadorna. CS armies were terrible at fighting. The British are not. There's not going to be the kind of flagrant incompetence CS leaders had on a regular basis, and that's quite dangerous for the Union Army that must keep most of its troops occupying a region the size of Western Europe and hasn't a great mass of troops to fight the British with in the first place.

3) Sure, the British never fought any large-scale civil wars since Cromwell's time. The British have an army plenty sufficient to deal with whatever the USA will scrape together and can't use against the Confederacy. Contrary to some impressions US manpower in this war was not inexhaustible.

4) He said that about Scott's campaign. Nobody will ever say this about Zachary Taylor.

5) The British lost Lsdanlswana because the Zulu had the oxhide shields and spears version of encirclement battles and the British had a classical linear formation. The Zulu War is a poor guide to what the British army of the pre-machine gun age would do against the US Army of this time. The US Army, after all, *wants* to fight the kind of war the British do, not that of the Zulu.

6) I never said superb, only that they know how to use it better than the Union and Confederate armies do. And neither of them used it well.....

7) And the USA has to have the bulk of its military power fighting and occupying a region the size of Western Europe. It can't pony up troops to do anything else here.
 
An attack through upstate NY like stalls out on Union forces dug into easily defended terrain, all complicated by tough British logistics.

My Guess is the British go for an attack on a port they believe they can take. San Francisco, Portland, Maine or Delaware would be tempting.

Except that realistically speaking the USA will be hard-pressed to fight in the Trans-Missisippi, against Johnston/Bragg, against Van Dorn/Pemberton, and Lee all at the same time *as well as* fighting the UK. I think people forget how massive in size the CSA actually would be as a state.

The Crimea shows that, at great risk, they can find a field force of 25,000 men. In OTL they send 11,000 to help defend Canada. This leaves 14,000 men - and a very under-defended Canada. There were almost 150,000 men at the Battle Of Gettysburg...



...Because US intelligence convinces the high command that the tiny number of British troops have superpowers. (Actually, this is almost plausible with Pinkerton and McClellan...)

Really: anytime you make an argument about possible action in war without at least considering HOW MANY TROOPS EACH SIDE HAS then you've done something wrong. And then for advanced class, you consider how you moved them about and supply them - even if the UK had 250,000 troops to send, how would it get even 50,000 of them to the West Coast as you suggest? Once there, where would they get their supplies from?

There were 150,000 only if you count both US and CS forces. There were 70,000 each on both sides. And at the same time this is the kind of argument Nicholas II and his bunch banked on and if the USA tries a numerical steamroller of the British it will end exactly the same way, assuming it manages the improbable feat of invading, occupying, and defeating armies over a region the size and scale of the Confederacy *and* fighting the UK at the same time.

The argument that the USA can do both requires more evidence than the one that they cannot.
 
Top