Cueg
Banned
What about the Indian Mutiny? I mean, by definition the mutiny had a hard core of experienced troops with modern tactics.
And to make it clear, your argument here is that:
1) The French were terrible compared to the Prussians.
2) The British were terrible compared to the French.
And you're essentially, I presume, demanding that I show you an actual historical battle to prove otherwise - but rejecting any that don't involve fighting Europeans.
That's silly.
If one looks at their handbooks and manuals one can see a fairly modern outlook. If one looks at the tactics and weapons deployed against non-European forces one sees a massive over-application of force including artillery and rapid-firing weapons deployed in the appropriate manners. (rapid firing weapons well forward.)
If one looks at their exercises then one sees a quite modern force.
And if one looks at what they were armed with one sees a continuous updating of the main artillery pieces and small arms to keep them competitive with continental armies.
We of course cannot know how well they would actually do. But when one looks at each of the components of fighting a modern war considered in isolation then they all seem to be there.
Weapons - Sniders and rifled breech loading artillery, along with a tendency (shown later) to use rapid fire weapons in the front lines instead of with the artillery.
Courage - certainly present and well tested in the field.
Accuracy - Crimea demonstrates this one, and uniquely the British trained against man-shaped targets. This would improve their ability to actually shoot real people.
Numbers - the number of British regulars present at home was enough for at least one large field army.
Tactical sophistication - the quick adaptation to various different combat environments, as well as their handbooks from the time.
Ability to learn - the Crimea demonstrates this.
Logistics - the British handled much of the Crimea logistics effort, and proved capable to deploy a force pretty much anywhere in the world.
Are you fucking kidding me? Courage is a component of modern war? Aside from the fact that you are literally grasping at straws almost ALL sources indicate that both the British and French suffered from very similar inadequacies when it came to logistics. In fact, one can reasonably argue that the French were much more proficient when it came to logistics when compared to their English counterparts. The intendance militarie centralized French military command through its responsibility of maintaining the entire support infrastructure of the french army.
Henri Ortholan, L’Armée du Second Empire (Saint Cloud: Editions du Napoleon III, 2010), p. 181; Paddy Griffith, Military Thought in the French Army 1815–1851 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1989), p. 153.
Meanwhile, the British lacked the aforementioned centralization. Instead having a mix of both the military and civilian apparatus under several different department heads.
Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the System of Purchase and Sale of Commissions in the Army (London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1857), p. 123.
Ultimately though the centralized French model suffered from its own structural issues, as would become evident during the Franco-Prussian war.
From what i could ascertain you are making the assertion that for some inexplicable reason the British would have an easier time then the French in managing the logistics of an army numbering over 100,000. If the consensus is that France lost the war primarily due to logistics doesn't this essentially destroy your 'argument' in its entirety? Tell me HOW the British could possible supply said army when the logistical base didn't even exist for the French to begin with. How many pack animals would you suggest they ship across the channel because we know for a FACT that the rails simply aren't an option.