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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.....
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.
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.
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![]()
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......
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.
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 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.
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.
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?