Well if the US had greater generals, from another war to give officers experience, then colonels and such would also be better.Does this only apply to generals and above? Or all levels of officers?
Probably shorten it by at least a year, everything else being the same. Getting good quality captains through colonels trained is just as important as getting the right generals.
Well if the US had greater generals, from another war to give officers experience, then colonels and such would also be better.
How about we say that there is either a border conflict with the British, or a conflict with the Sioux, which gives experience to Northern officers and maybe allows Grant and Sherman themselves to be at higher ranks when the war starts.
You mean, something like the War in Mexico?
Yeah but another war in the 1850s.
1848 goes hot. Or in other words, "Fifty-four Forty or Fight!"
Wait why would this be an issue in 1848 and not 1844, given that Polk had resolved the matter in Oregon during his term?![]()
Anyway, war with Spain over Cuba seems like a possibility in the 1850s. Or maybe some drastic escalation of the Utah War? As people have said I'm not sure that more experience is going to benefit the North especially much. McDowell was an amateur yes, but so was Beauregard. And without the massive drafting of volunteer regiments as in the Civil War I don't think Grant or Sherman are going to be obvious choices for generals.
How fast would the Union defeat the Confederacy if it had Grant and Sherman quality officers at the very beginning, and McClellan was nowhere to be found?