World War ACW

[NapoleonXIV]

Crimean war is inconclusive, but Russia comes out embittered against GB.

GB goes to war against Union in ACW over the Alabama incident and then Russia comes in on Union side. ACW become worldwide conflict and lasts until 1900 with Union/Russian victory

How plausible?

 

[Setonrebel]

Just a question, why would russian join the north? If anything they would just declare war on England alone. Also, ACW armies were the most advanced in the world, especially in calvary. I.E., The Prussians still had steel breastplated cuirassiers in Franco-Prussian war years later. Combine that with Ironclads in coastal waters and RN minimized as well. Canada becomes northern and the ACW happens pretty much historical. And what are France and Prussia doing to launch a "world war"?

 

[Philip]

What does Russia hope to gain by attacking GB? Perhaps attacking the Ottomans (yet again) while GB is distracted, but I really don't see what Russia could gain from from fighting GB.

 

[Philip]

Combine that with Ironclads in coastal waters and RN minimized as well.

The presence of the RN would make a Union naval blockade of the South virtually impossible. It would have quite an effect on the course of the war.

Canada becomes northern

Not likely.

 

[Nicomacheus]

Just a question, why would russian join the north? If anything they would just declare war on England alone. Also, ACW armies were the most advanced in the world, especially in calvary. I.E., The Prussians still had steel breastplated cuirassiers in Franco-Prussian war years later. Combine that with Ironclads in coastal waters and RN minimized as well. Canada becomes northern and the ACW happens pretty much historical. And what are France and Prussia doing to launch a "world war"?

Prussia at this time is hampered by the Budget Crises of the 1860s triggered by the stand-off between William I and the Prussian Diet. Bismark is just about to come to power. Getting them into the war may be difficult. This leaves France free to do otherthings.

Now, the idea of Russia getting involved is very intersting. Perhaps Alexander II sees a chance to avenge the Crimean War and uphold a liberal course in defending the North as it tries to keep the Union together and end slavery. Perhaps we need the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 to trigger somekind of revolt in Russia that means that GB is meddling in both countries?

Russia's navy can't stop GB from harrying the USN's blockade, but they can threaten India, if they can get through Persia or Afghanistan. At the very least, they can scare GB into diverting resources. Russia's entrance into the war also changes the calculus for Napoleon III. All of the European fun also may give our favorite Iron Chancellor all sort of opportunities to get into all kinds of hijinks.

The outcome of the war depends heavily on how long it lasts. If they can find a couple victories against the CSA, then I think the North may find a new determination against GB, particularly if they think Russia may be helping them (i.e. the Europeans aren't ganging up on the USA). To ensure optimal US war footing, we'd need some kind of rising in Ireland for the GB to put down harshly and inflame Northern cities (NY) who protested the war.

 

[MrP]

Crimean war is inconclusive, but Russia comes out embittered against GB.

GB goes to war against Union in ACW over the Alabama incident and then Russia comes in on Union side. ACW become worldwide conflict and lasts until 1900 with Union/Russian victory

How plausible?

A 40 year war? Um, sorry, old boy, but no.

I remember that the Russians made a favourable impression by dispatching their Pacific Fleet to visit the Californians during the ACW, because they wanted to be sure that if there was a war, they wouldn't be iced in. So that could make things interesting in the Pacific for a year or so. The USN on the East coast is boned. The best they can hope for is to defend a few major harbours with primitive Monitors. Their trade is gone; their supply of British new and surplus munitions and materiel is gone; their cash is gone.

So they have no powder for their guns. This is the most important thing. We've looked at this in previous Trent Affair threads, and the Americans only have a year's worth* of powder. Before anyone points out that the Americans can make their own - yes, they can. But not enough to supply the fighting needs of armies operating in and around Canada and the Rebel States for years.

Generously, I can see the Russians wreaking a fair bit of havoc for a year or two until the RN floods the Pacific with ships. Generously, I can see the Union achieving a stunning victory against the Rebels in '62 - but this won't break them. Grant could take Vicksburg, and that would be a bugger for them, though. However, troops from his army and from the AoP will be sent to Canada. So what's needed is to get the Union with fewer supplies and no cash to achieve greater victories than IOTL against more, better supplied and better trained enemies attacking them on multiple fronts.

Now this could happen. I shan't rule it out. I think it very unlikely, but it could happen. But there's no way to keep that going for four decades. America would be in ruins, Russia would probably collapse - note the emancipation of the serfs is about now, and that required a lot of internal energy.

A brief disastrous war is best for the USA, if you want a drawn out conflict. Then we have a build up of a large professional army and navy for security. None of this revenge stuff we see in Turtledove's books, mind; rather an awareness of the fragility of her position. Then you can have another crisis (somewhere down the line) trigger another war and America will have the men and ships to fight it, and she'll have undertaken to acquire either stockpiles of powder and other necessaries or worked out how to make her own - the Rebels used bat guano from caves IOTL. I'm still not sure about Russia, since she's internally distracted . . .

Anyway, no to forty years of war. But a qualified yes to a conflict described by later historians as The Forty Years War, which is actually a series of briefer wars between the groups.

* It might be two, my memory's a bit fuzzy, and I forget whether the calculation was for Union armies IOTL or included the formation of new units to fight in Canada.

 

[67th Tigers]

Not even a years worth of powder. Even saltpetre with enough to make more than 2,000 tons worth bought from the Brits in 61-2 (and embargoed during Trent), the Union has only 500 tons in reserve in July 62 (although hundreds of tons was captured along with half the AoP logistics train in the Peninsula Campaign).

The Union was one good campaign season (April-October 62) against the Brits, then unless something happens they'll have nothing to shoot with, assuming them don't manage to arm their coastal forts (normal stock was a 100 shots worth per gun, much is 10's of tons per fort).

 

[Dean_the_Young]

How about mix it up? The US-CSA war is a catalyst, but not a real theatre in mind for the war. The US and Britain never go to war, and Britain/France (not necessarily on the same side) are too busy to bother to break the blockade, regardless of recognizing Richmond or not. Delay some European Wars here, speed some up there, and what the ACW is is really just a match that sets a troublesome part of Europe on fire, and that's what starts this big European War?

 

[stevep]

How about mix it up? The US-CSA war is a catalyst, but not a real theatre in mind for the war. The US and Britain never go to war, and Britain/France (not necessarily on the same side) are too busy to bother to break the blockade, regardless of recognizing Richmond or not. Delay some European Wars here, speed some up there, and what the ACW is is really just a match that sets a troublesome part of Europe on fire, and that's what starts this big European War?

Dean

Might be possible but I see some problems to overcome.

a) As said, I think by Tiger's in an earlier discussion, if Britain and/or France recognised the Confederates the union would declare war on them. Therefore if any recognition occurs there is a much larger conflict on N America. Also, if either power recognised the south I think that would mean it would be morally, [probably also legally] obliged to support its merchants when their attempts to trade with the south were attacked by blockading union forces.

b) After the Crimean war the Russians were in no state to get into another tussle and their underlying weaknesses had been badly exposed. Coupled with the need for economic and social reform. A major attack on the Ottomans would be difficult and any fancy plans for attacks on India would be a total disaster. Even with a much less successful Crimean for the allies Russia would still be facing serious logistical and organisational limitations. [In one way this would be worse for them compared to the western powers as an unsuccessful war would prompt even greater pressure for reforms in the west and less in the east.

c) I don't think the internal politics of Europe is there for a big conflict at this point. Russia, even if not openly defeated will be weakened, especially economically. Austria and Prussia are both nervously watching each other but even more pre-occupied with their own internal problems. While Britain and France are pretty much allies at this point. Therefore it would be difficult to get a lengthy war between two balanced sides which involved most or all the European great powers.

Steve

 

[AJNolte]

Crimean war is inconclusive, but Russia comes out embittered against GB.

GB goes to war against Union in ACW over the Alabama incident and then Russia comes in on Union side. ACW become worldwide conflict and lasts until 1900 with Union/Russian victory

How plausible?

Couple of thoughts:
1. Russia coming in on the side of the Union makes sense actually (I've heard a story, probably apocrofal, that Alexander II actually offered Lincoln help). They could potentially hope to gain:
1. Influence in Afghanistan. Remember: the Anglo-Afghan relationship was not all that great. Should Russia move aggressively to pull Afghanistan into it's camp, this would threaten India and set GB way back in "the great game" in central Asia.
2. Potentially, they could make a play for the British Yukon. I mean, if they really wanted to do so.

Couple of side issues for a US-British war:
1. No draft riots. The Irish in Boston and New York hated Britain. A lot. Likely the Irish brigade would expand to a division.
2. Invasion ofCanada, assault on Washington. The US had invaded Canada twice before, and I think it's likely they'd give it a try again (Robert Conroy has a somewhat optimistic version of this scenario in his novel 1862). Likewise, might you see a British raid on Washington (or would the siege of Savastipul have soured them on sieges). If they had tried, it probably wouldn't have gone well. The ring of forts around Washington would be a tough nut to crack.
Aninteresting potential scenario, though I hesitate to predict how it would work out in the end. The Army of the Potomac in particular was plagued by some really terrible generals right up until Gettysberg (Mede had some very good subordinates, Reynolds and Hancock are two particularly good if unsung examples). Would the pressure of a war with the British and confederates have been enough to push out some of the political generals? I'm not sure.

One final thought: you might see the union cut a deal with France: permission for the French to play around in Mexico in exchange for ACW neutrality.

 

[M79]

How about this?

ok...

early 1861 - UK declares war on USA, USA sends troops into much of Ontario that are held near the border. France declares itself as ally of CSA.

later 1861 - USA pounded at sea as UK/FRA mop up older USA ships, ironclads sink the best the other navies have to offer. US builds larger ironclads and begins experimenting with totally metallic capital ships. Prussia/NGF joins fight on USA side. Italy eyes land in Nice/Savoy but stays out. British raid San Francisco and take gold en masse.

early 1862 - CSA land victories hit USA hard as does British/French invasion near Boston, many in border states see this as selling out to Europe and send their people almost entirely for US. Eastern Tennessee secedes as State of Franklin and much of Georgia, North Carolina, and Arkansas express serious doubts about the war. Partisan activity begins to take a toll on Confederate forces.

late 1862 - US forces sieze western Ontario and land between the Rockies and Sault Ste Marie while Ontario and Nova Scotia prove resilient to attack. Quebecquois revolt and cut off supplies to Ontario, this is put down violently and forces British to withdraw from Massachusetts

early 1863 - Prussians convince Italy to join the war, shortly afterwards they knock French out of the war. Germany unified in an alliance thanks to Bismarckian diplomacy, France withdraws its troops and the UK stands alone. Confederate forces are holding a line from Fredericksburg to Charleston WV to Somerset KY to Murfeesboro TN to Memphis but significant pockets are not in their control. British land forces in New Orleans and retake the city while Ontario falls under American control. Irregular forces from US take Vancouver and Victoria as British seize Hawaii. US begins supplying Henry rifles to Irish and foment revolt there.

late 1863 - Only Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and eastern New Brunswick are under British control now as the US grinds its forces into Canada. US begins shifting forces to Virginia and Kentucky after Lee is defeated after invading Pennsylvania but maintains bases in Maryland.

early 1864 - US forces drive hard into Tennessee and take most of the state while northern half of Virginia is now in US hands, UK forms defensive perimeter at Nova Scotia after US land forces prove devastating after adopting the Henry rifle as standard armament. UK has lost over 1/3 of her navy to ironclads and new Jones-class "iron frigates" with rotating 5" guns resist almost anything the UK can throw at them.

late 1864 - US takes Richmond and devastates leftovers of ANV at Battle of Danville, Lee and Davis are captured alive as Jackson is killed in battle. CSA surrenders in brief ceremony as Lee calls for CSA forces to lay down their weapons and rebuild the nation.


early 1865 - Treaty of Atlanta ends the war with the UK, the US will trade Hawaii for most of Canada and pay reparations for the Trent incident. UK maintains control of Nova Scotia, Vancouver Island, Newfoundland, PEI, New Brunswick, and Quebec. Ontario residents are given a choice to stay or leave. US stops all support of Irish, who hate Washington for generations afterwards as UK puts fown the revolts with crushing force. US emerges much stronger and united by belief that Europe interfered with US policies, more militant and never gives up her research into military technology/development. US and Germany become much closer over next generation but drift apart as competitors for world trade.