War of 1812

[plan_D]

The Royal Navy was more advanced than any other navy of the day, it was large and advanced. Lessons learnt in the Crimean had already paved way for armoured ships, and the first fully iron vessel - the HMS Warrior was so much more advanced than anything the U.S had.

Since when was the Royal Navy out of date in the 1860s? It was far from out of date, and it was still the most powerful navy on the planet. It wouldn't need to concentrate all it's forces into the Atlantic. The Union Navy wasn't capable enough to combat the Royal Navy in open conflict - a war of attrition or desicive conflict would be everything the union navy would want to avoid.

The U.S was not the equal of Britain - the U.S wasn't even considered a world power until 1918. There's also a civil war going on in the U.S...the world may have changed, but the supply situation is exactly the same - only now the ships are faster.

The Crimean War was a high point for the individual soldier - there were logistical mistakes but not something that was dealt with. It, after all, was a victory against one the largest opponents on the planet.

The British forces had seen it all - the Union wouldn't provide anything new for them. It seems to me that you need to study the military history of Great Britain in more detail before putting down the skill and prowess of the Red Coats in combat. Savage? Fighting Africans and Indians is enough to encounter a savage opponent.

Read some of the accounts of the Crimean from the Charge of the Light Brigade, to the Thin Red Line ... those soldiers are the kind of soldiers the Union would have to face. There's nothing that the British Army would find difficulty with in combat...the Crimean was only a few years previous - and lots of lessons for a more modern warfare had been learnt. Britain understood the importance of railways for supply - after all we did lay our own in Crimea.

The supply system of that distance had been overcome 50 years ago, the political climate might have changed but the Atlantic didn't get any bigger.

Now, here's a factor I left out - which your source has provided, Canadian manpower;

"The British colony of Canada felt directly threatened by the affair. The Canadian militia grew substantially as the Canadas and Maritime colonies were called on by the colonial Minister of Militia and Defence, John A. Macdonald (a future Father of Confederation and later the first Prime Minister of Canada), to increase their active militia from 50,000 men to 100,000. The colony of Nova Scotia alone trained and armed 45,000 men. Britain and the Southern states had close economic links because of their mutual involvement in the cotton trade."

That is 100,000 militamen for Britain from Canada.

"These would have made approximately three runs each by the time campaigning season started in March and thus raise British regular fighting strength in the Americas to approximately 50,000 (there were approximately 100,000 troops available for deployment to the Americas). Both the US and British government estimates that the maximum number of US troops available for service against Canada was 50,000. Due to the US capitulation while the first wave of reinforcement troops were still at sea, no further reinforcements were sent."

And from this, it's quite clear that the U.S forces sent against British forces in Canada would be out-numbered 2-1. And that's not including any French forces.

If Britian had 100,000 soldiers to spare, that's to spare ...ready to ship to America. The Empire would still be covered. And France has more people, with less of an Empire.

Just look at the ships ready to combat the Union Navy straight away;

"Admiral Milnes North America and West Indies Squadron already had 9 Steam Battleships, 7 Cruisers and the Ironclad HMS Terror. The British Channel Fleet concentated at Lisbon, Portugal, with the massive ironclads Warrior, Black Prince, Defence, and Resistance, in addition to many wooden steamships, including the flagship, HMS Queen."

Notice the inclusion of Ironclads in the list - the Royal Navy was not out of date. It was the most advanced navy on the planet!

"...the Warrior around a unique combination of steam power, an armoured iron hull and a screw propeller, a combination that resulted in a ship faster, larger and more powerful than any other of her day."

These are the words for the HMS Warrior - would that be a ship of an "out-of-date" navy?

It seems to me you believe that American troops were better than the British soldiers of the day - obviously forgetting that most modern armies of the day would base themselves off British principles with cultural adaptations. Anyway;

"The British never entered the war as a nation, but many individuals served in both armies, most of them in the Confederate Army. There were never many of them but they were noted for their previous military service and often became leaders. One member of a Union unit wrote home:

The Corporal of our detachment is an Englishman and celebrates today as the anniversary of 'Inkerman' and wears his medals on his jacket, including the Victoria Cross with silver bars, possibly the greatest honour an Englishman can earn. He was Sergeant Major in the Rifle Brigade and I can assure you he is by far the best soldier in our company. I find it worthy of mention that there are about 20 Englishmen in our Company (about a fifth) and although we are small in proportion, every Sergeant is English excepting the Quartermaster Sergeant who is Scots.

British nationals in the Union Army won 67 Congressional Medals of Honor4 during the Civil War. Many who fought for the Confederacy were undocumented, but a number of senior officers were British. As ever in fields of battle, there was a generous representation from Ireland, including General Patrick Cleburne of the Confederate Army, born in Cork, commanding a division in the Army of Tennessee. He too had served in the British Army, the 41st Regiment of Foot, in which he reached the rank of Corporal."

 

[Nonskimmer]

Excellent post, D.
All of it bang on.

 

[pbfoot]

In fact in late 1865 til 1866 the newly found IRB or Irish Republican Brotherhood later to become IRA decided to invade Canada from the south with troops of Irish extraction most of who had served with the american forces in Civil War they recieved the blessing of then president Andrew Jackson there was only one battle it was fought locally called the Battle of Ridgeway casualties were modest mostly from the Queens Own Rifles of Canada the "invasion" turned into a debacle but was a key motive for the confederation of Canada in 1867

 

[syscom3]

The Royal Navy was more advanced than any other navy of the day, it was large and advanced. Lessons learnt in the Crimean had already paved way for armoured ships, and the first fully iron vessel - the HMS Warrior was so much more advanced than anything the U.S had.

....her coal capacity of 850 tons was insufficient alone for extended cruising. I would suspect she would have been incapable of extended blockade duty

Since when was the Royal Navy out of date in the 1860s? It was far from out of date, and it was still the most powerful navy on the planet. It wouldn't need to concentrate all it's forces into the Atlantic. The Union Navy wasn't capable enough to combat the Royal Navy in open conflict - a war of attrition or desicive conflict would be everything the union navy would want to avoid.

The RN had an empire to protect. The US didnt. You had to deploy your forces in many area's. Plus, once hostilities commenced, the US had plenty of naval capacity to build and man brand new ironclads and monitors to do battle with. Remember, this was not going to be a repeat of 1812 in which we only had a dozen or so first rate warships. And as events rapidly unfolded in 1862 and 1863, the technology shift in naval architecture was as swift as the introduction of the jet fighters in 1944.

The U.S was not the equal of Britain - the U.S wasn't even considered a world power until 1918. There's also a civil war going on in the U.S...the world may have changed, but the supply situation is exactly the same - only now the ships are faster.

Correct and incorrect. The US didnt have a standing army and navy the equal as Britain, but the Union had the industrial and manpower capacity to quickly arm and catch up. You seem to be forgetting that the US civil war was also the first industrial war in which industrial and transport resources were ever more critical. And it still doesnt matter on the ammount f time to move men and supplies to Canada. The US rail system could transport whole armies and supplies from the Mississippi river in the west to anywhere on the Atlantic seaboard within days.

The Crimean War was a high point for the individual soldier - there were logistical mistakes but not something that was dealt with. It, after all, was a victory against one the largest opponents on the planet.

It was small potato's compared to the battles that were about to be fought in North America.

The British forces had seen it all - the Union wouldn't provide anything new for them. It seems to me that you need to study the military history of Great Britain in more detail before putting down the skill and prowess of the Red Coats in combat. Savage? Fighting Africans and Indians is enough to encounter a savage opponent.

The RA had never fought against the Union armies made up of the soldiers from the western states. Even the confederate armies had the same charchteristics. If there was one common element that was shared from the foot soldier up, it was no nonsense, lets fight and above all, be mobile. It was improvise as we go, and throw out the book while doing it.

....The supply system of that distance had been overcome 50 years ago, the political climate might have changed but the Atlantic didn't get any bigger....

Like I said, the the railroad system of the Union could move whole armies about within days while the RN (if they could) move a similar size force around in months.

[/quote] And from this, it's quite clear that the U.S forces sent against British forces in Canada would be out-numbered 2-1. And that's not including any French forces. [/quote]

The Union states, (minus the western territories) had an approx population in 1860 of 20 million. Canada had a population in 1860 of about 3 million. In the long run, the Union could field more troops than the empire could send to and supply to Canada.

[/quote] If Britian had 100,000 soldiers to spare, that's to spare ...ready to ship to America. The Empire would still be covered. And France has more people, with less of an Empire. [/quote]

Once the other European nations (France included) saw your country begin to ship more and more troops to Canada, they sure would begin to cause trouble for you around the globe. You had to keep troops and ships deployed in the colonies to keep the status quo.

Just look at the ships ready to combat the Union Navy straight away

An impressive list that would be matched by a Union ship biulding program. Remember, for the Union to win, all they have to do is blockade the southern ports and keep the northern ports open. They could do this as they would be fighting from home. Your ships would be fighting from far away from home.

It seems to me you believe that American troops were better than the British soldiers of the day - obviously forgetting that most modern armies of the day would base themselves off British principles with cultural adaptations. Anyway;

Events were soon to prove that the "way" of doing battle was not going to last long.

The British never entered the war as a nation, but many individuals served in both armies, most of them in the Confederate Army. There were never many of them but they were noted for their previous military service and often became leaders.

Just goes to prove that the mavericks in the RA who chaffed under your system could prosper under the Union/Confederate system of doing things.


I would suppose that if anything, hostilities would not break out sooner than April 1862. By then the Union had two solid armies in the field and could invade Canada from two directions.

 

[Glider]

Syscom. The main thrust of your argument is that the USA could build modern warships faster than the UK. I say this as your awnser to most points is that USA had the industrial capacity to rearm and equip quickly.
I think you are badly underestimating the ability and capacity of the UK to rearm and rebuild,
When we launched the Dreadnought it without question made every other capital ship in the world obsolete at a stroke, ours as well as anyone els's. Every country that wanted to match us could start with a level playing field. However it didn't happen. It didn't happen as the UK built more and better modern warships than the rest of the world put together and in most countries (incl USA) the ships that were built were lacking some of the major improvements.
There is no way that a Union building programee could match the British building capacity. Its like claiming that the K in WW2 could match the production capacity of the USA, it just wasn't possible.

If we could do this in the 1900's when our lead was less than in the period you are talking about, why couldn't we do it then. The USA built monitors and ironclads. The RN didn't build any Monitors as they were a flawed design for any Navy intending to leave coastal waters.

As for the logistics of any army or campaign, the one thing the British armed forces could do was live without railroads and use them where they existed.

 

[plan_D]

The HMS Warrior had sails to share the burden of travel, it could cruise. It would also be able to destroy any Union ship with ease. It's weaponary, speed and armour were much more advanced than anything the Union had. And this wasn't the only Ironclad that the Royal Navy had, nor had they stopped building Ironclads. In the 1860s a naval arms race developed in Europe, and it was a race that the Royal Navy led from start to finish.

The Royal Navy had been dealing with trouble spots, several at once, for centuries. There were already British ships stationed in the Americas, the Royal Navy was split into fleets for areas of protection and then reserve fleets in any trouble areas. The British would easily lift the Union blockade of Southern ports, operating out of the Caribbean they'd smash any Union ship out of the water and pile drive their way through.
Blockade runners had been operating throughout the American Civil War - and the Union blockade only stopped 18% of the British vessels racing through. So much of a failure to stop arms imports that the British called it a paper blockade.

You remember that the Royal Navy was the largest, best trained, and most advanced navy on the planet - by a long shot.

The industry of the U.S wasn't able to catch up to Britain in double quick time. Britain had the industry, had the manpower, had the standing army and had the navy - which were all superior to the U.S. It took the Union years to defeat the Confederates - and they just wouldn't have defeated Britain. You seem to be forgetting that Britain started the industrial revolution - and that Britain knew all about the railway for supply, we had used one (actually built it when we got there) in Crimea. But British troops could also live without one, we'd done so before and we'd do so again. As long as the British Army was supplied enough to fight, it'd win. And there was no way the Union could stop the supply. Sure, with a railway at their back the Union might have more supplies - but an abundance of supply doesn't create victory on the field of battle.

And you don't think British generals were capable enough to step up centuries of experience to the larger scale? You seem to think that Britain was incapable of waging war. You are thinking of the Britain that conquered one third of the world, right?

Well, if you didn't notice, a lot of NCOs in both American armies were British! The British Army was a disciplined, brave and destructive killing machine. It could live off the land, it was mobile and it was talented.

Canada had a standing militia of 50,000 troops, it was training up to 100,000. Nova Scotia alone trained 45,000 militia, all of which were armed. That's an army of 100,000 straight away. Combined with another 100,000 standing army soldiers from Britain. And about another 100,000 from France. So, that's 200,000 standing army soldiers and 100,000 militia-men against the 50,000 men that the Union had to spare against Canada. The U.S might have had more population - but it's a case of arming and training them first.

Britain and France were on relative good terms, and France had already threatened war against the Union at the exact time that Britain did. They'd already been in a war together, and knew a strong alliance would create a stronger position in the world. Spain was no threat. Russia was reeling from Crimea. In fact, no European power would have been a problem. And any garrison troops in the far reaches of the Empire would still be there.

Building a ship takes time, the Royal Navy had those ships in the Caribbean - ready for instant action. Lifting the blockade of Southern ports would be easy, all too easy in fact.

What way was that, sys? The way that Britain kept winning? You do realise that Britain had used trenches in the Crimea?! (If that's what you're talking about)

No, it just proves that the American armies were better off with British troops commanding them. Because these men were experienced combat soldiers with a clue about war. I'd hardly consider a man with a VC a failure in the British system - it is, after all, the highest honour for a British military man. Only the American armies had a few of these people, the British Army was full of them.

By April 1862, France, Canada and Britain all had at least 100,000 man armies each. Britain and Frances armies are better trained, better equipped and more experienced than anything the Union could field.

 

[Nonskimmer]

I find it strange syscom how you seem to only sometimes be ready to accept the hypothetical. It doesn't always seem to be the case.

 

[syscom3]

I find it strange syscom how you seem to only sometimes be ready to accept the hypothetical. It doesn't always seem to be the case.

I accept the hypothetical when it's a possible conclusion, supported by facts.

"the RN would have sunk every ship the union had" is a hypothesis without fact.

"the union was capable of matching the RN in ironclads and inflicting punishment back" is a hypothesis that does have a basis in fact.

 

[syscom3]

Syscom. The main thrust of your argument is that the USA could build modern warships faster than the UK. I say this as your awnser to most points is that USA had the industrial capacity to rearm and equip quickly.

I didnt think the Union had the capacity in the short term to match you ship for ship. But given enough time, we could have matched your production. Remember, we only had to build ships to operate off of North America, you had an empire to protect.

....... Dreadnought it without question made every other capital ship in the world obsolete at a stroke, ours as well as anyone els's. ......

Wasnt the Dreadnought built in 1906, 51 years after the end of the civil war?

There is no way that a Union building programee could match the British building capacity. Its like claiming that the K in WW2 could match the production capacity of the USA, it just wasn't possible.

The Union had the shipyards, the iron mills and the coal fields to build what was needed.

If we could do this in the 1900's when our lead was less than in the period you are talking about, why couldn't we do it then. The USA built monitors and ironclads. The RN didn't build any Monitors as they were a flawed design for any Navy intending to leave coastal waters.

I should have made it more clear, that the monitors were perfect to bottle up ports, not to go out into the deep sea.

As for the logistics of any army or campaign, the one thing the British armed forces could do was live without railroads and use them where they existed.

All the combatants were about to learn about the ever increasing role of logistics in this first of the big wars of the industrial age. One of the key reasons the Confederacy lost the war was its lack of railroads. The RA without railroad support would find itself on a short leash compared to the Union armies that could be transported around the country at will.

 

[syscom3]

The HMS Warrior had sails to share the burden of travel, it could cruise. It would also be able to destroy any Union ship with ease. It's weaponary, speed and armour were much more advanced than anything the Union had. And this wasn't the only Ironclad that the Royal Navy had, nor had they stopped building Ironclads. In the 1860s a naval arms race developed in Europe, and it was a race that the Royal Navy led from start to finish.

It was a big ship that had a vulnerable rudder and wasnt known for maneuverability. The skippers of the Union were not idiots and wouldnt have tried to fight it to its strengths.

The Royal Navy had been dealing with trouble spots, several at once, for centuries. There were already British ships stationed in the Americas, the Royal Navy was split into fleets for areas of protection and then reserve fleets in any trouble areas. The British would easily lift the Union blockade of Southern ports, operating out of the Caribbean they'd smash any Union ship out of the water and pile drive their way through.
Blockade runners had been operating throughout the American Civil War - and the Union blockade only stopped 18% of the British vessels racing through. So much of a failure to stop arms imports that the British called it a paper blockade.

The RN would have been in the largest fights it had been in since the war of 1812. Just dealing with the Union monitors in the coastal area's would have given you a handfull to deal with. Not to mention the hundreds of privateers (many from nations who had zero love of John Bull) would have spread your navy razor thin throughout the globe.

You remember that the Royal Navy was the largest, best trained, and most advanced navy on the planet - by a long shot.

Famous last words. Eight decades after the civil war ended, both the US and UK thought the same thing about the IJN. By the way, you ever hear of the USS Constitution and how it humbled the RN many many times?

The industry of the U.S wasn't able to catch up to Britain in double quick time. Britain had the industry, had the manpower, had the standing army and had the navy - which were all superior to the U.S.

By 1863 the most powerfull armies in the world were in the Union and Confederacy. Those were the armies that were fighting the modern battles with the modern weapons.

It took the Union years to defeat the Confederates - and they just wouldn't have defeated Britain.

It took the Union three and a half years to effectively beat the Confederates. Not bad considering it was a fight to the finish on a contiental scale.

You seem to be forgetting that Britain started the industrial revolution - and that Britain knew all about the railway for supply, we had used one (actually built it when we got there) in Crimea.

That was then, "this is now".

But British troops could also live without one, we'd done so before and we'd do so again. As long as the British Army was supplied enough to fight, it'd win.

You would need a very large army, being supplied from its factories three weeks away, on a supply line that could be interupted.

And there was no way the Union could stop the supply. Sure, with a railway at their back the Union might have more supplies - but an abundance of supply doesn't create victory on the field of battle.

Privateers could disrupt the supplies. An abundance of supply increases the effectiveness of an army. And if the hypothetical war in Canada ended up a slugging match of attrition, the side who is supplied best is the one who will probably win.

And you don't think British generals were capable enough to step up centuries of experience to the larger scale? You seem to think that Britain was incapable of waging war. You are thinking of the Britain that conquered one third of the world, right?

Im saying that the logistics of equiping the size of an army that would have been needed to be sent to Canada would have limited its effectiveness. The Union had neither the manpower nor logistics issues you would have to deal with. And conquoring all those colonies wasnt that difficult as you were a century ahead of them in technology.

Well, if you didn't notice, a lot of NCOs in both American armies were British! The British Army was a disciplined, brave and destructive killing machine. It could live off the land, it was mobile and it was talented.

These were some RA NCO's in the Union army. But there werent that many at all. And I dont believe an RA army was ever cut loose to live off the land like Gen Grant and Sherman did in the Vicksburg campaign in 1863 or the March through Georgia in 1864.

Canada had a standing militia of 50,000 troops, it was training up to 100,000. Nova Scotia alone trained 45,000 militia, all of which were armed. That's an army of 100,000 straight away. Combined with another 100,000 standing army soldiers from Britain. And about another 100,000 from France. So, that's 200,000 standing army soldiers and 100,000 militia-men against the 50,000 men that the Union had to spare against Canada. The U.S might have had more population - but it's a case of arming and training them first.

The Union would have been able to raise and support and army of 500,000. The Canadians would have been able to support their army of 100,000. But all those troops from Europe would need to be supplied. Thats a problem for you. Plus the Union had a secret weapon...... thousands of Irishman who would have plenty of motivation to settle scores with the RA. 25,000 angry Irishman = 100,000 Brits!

Britain and France were on relative good terms, and France had already threatened war against the Union at the exact time that Britain did. They'd already been in a war together, and knew a strong alliance would create a stronger position in the world. Spain was no threat. Russia was reeling from Crimea. In fact, no European power would have been a problem. And any garrison troops in the far reaches of the Empire would still be there.

There you ago, another anglo-french war of alliance. The Union wins by default over this because of the inevitable paralysis your command will have. For every anglo-french soldier recruited to fight in Canda, would be offset by someone somewhere wanting to settle a score with Britania.

Lifting the blockade of Southern ports would be easy, all too easy in fact.

The monitors would have turned your wooden ships away with no problem. And if you brought out ironclads, well the mines would do them in. Note, this hypothetical war would not have started any sooner than April 1862. Plenty of time for the Union to be ready.

What way was that, sys? The way that Britain kept winning? You do realise that Britain had used trenches in the Crimea?! (If that's what you're talking about)

Speaking of the Crimean War, its actually famous for the RA inefficencies, blunders and mismangement. Its a classic case of the side that blunders the least wins the war. If you were to fight this Canadian war like you fought the Crimea, then the Union would have no problems.

No, it just proves that the American armies were better off with British troops commanding them. Because these men were experienced combat soldiers with a clue about war. I'd hardly consider a man with a VC a failure in the British system - it is, after all, the highest honour for a British military man. Only the American armies had a few of these people, the British Army was full of them.

STOP THE PRESS'S!!!!!!!!!!!! NEWLY MENTIONED INFORMATION INDICATES THAT THE UNION ARMIES WERE ACTUALLY LED BY BRITS!!!!!!!! heheheheheh. In all actuality, as in every army in battle. Some natural born leaders rise to the occasion and some highly trained officers fall flat on their faces. By the way, did it ever occur to you that many of the middle level officers at the start of the war were veterans of the Mexican-American war and the indian wars? Hmmm..... I thought not.

By April 1862, France, Canada and Britain all had at least 100,000 man armies each. Britain and Frances armies are better trained, better equipped and more experienced than anything the Union could field.

Point taken. You could field 300,000 against a probable combined Union army of the same strength. But we had a better logistical situation than you.

 

[plan_D]

"It was a big ship that had a vulnerable rudder and wasnt known for maneuverability. The skippers of the Union were not idiots and wouldnt have tried to fight it to its strengths."

So, in other words, the Union vessels would run away because they couldn't hope to defeat the HMS Warrior. That's no good when you're trying to blockade Confederate ports. Even without Royal Navy military vessels, the Union blockade only achieved an 18% block on arms imports. That's not very impressive, in fact that's extremely poor.

"The RN would have been in the largest fights it had been in since the war of 1812. Just dealing with the Union monitors in the coastal area's would have given you a handfull to deal with. Not to mention the hundreds of privateers (many from nations who had zero love of John Bull) would have spread your navy razor thin throughout the globe. "

Privateers are no new threat to the Royal Navy, they're something Britain had been dealing with for centuries. It's simple enough to escort the major supply convoys and troop transports. I'd like to see Privateers take on a convoy escorted by one half of the Channel fleet in 1861.

"Famous last words. Eight decades after the civil war ended, both the US and UK thought the same thing about the IJN."

Too bad for you, it's a fact that the Royal Navy was more advanced and considerably larger than the Union navy though. I only have to mention the likes of HMS Warrior, and HMS Black Prince to point out the advanced nature of the Royal Navy. And the size doesn't even need mentioning.

"By the way, you ever hear of the USS Constitution and how it humbled the RN many many times?"

I'd hardly consider the destruction of eight vessels, four of which were military vessels (three frigates and a sloop) humbling the Royal Navy. The Constitution was a larger than normal frigate, and while impressive was still not comparable to the Ships of the Line that the Royal Navy could have brought to bare. It almost got trashed at the start of the War of 1812 anyway. Several times it was blockaded or put out of action for months at a time.

So, one ship causing some irritation for the Royal Navy, 50 years previous, is your argument that the Union Navy was on par with the Royal Navy?

"By 1863 the most powerfull armies in the world were in the Union and Confederacy. Those were the armies that were fighting the modern battles with the modern weapons."

The British Army was better trained than both the Union and Confederacy, both of which were largely made up of militia men thrown into uniform.

You keep mentioning the American Civil War being "modern" but you fail to point how it being "modern" would hamper British military efforts, when all that happened in the American Civil War - the British Army had done before.

And the modern weapons, were mostly European! The P1853 "Enfield" (English) was second only to the Springfield in popularity, the Whitworth rifle used by the Confederates was the rifle that killed General Sedgewick and the Austrian Model 1854 was the second most used rifle by the Confederates. In fact, the Whitworth was prefered by the Southern Armies over any American made rifle.

The most common artillery piece of the war, the Model 1857 Howitzer (Napoleon) was a French design. The Whitworth Breech Loading Cannon used by the Confederate Armies was British. The Armstrong rifled cannon, was English, (Sir William George Armstrong) both sides imported this remarkable design, then built it in America. The Blakely, designed by Captain Alexander Blakely, was English!

So, in conclusion, these modern weapons that America was using - were mostly of European origin.

"It took the Union three and a half years to effectively beat the Confederates. Not bad considering it was a fight to the finish on a contiental scale."

The vast majority of the fighting took place on the East Coast, in Virginia, that's hardly a continental style conflict.

"You would need a very large army, being supplied from its factories three weeks away, on a supply line that could be interupted."

Britain would need an army of around 70,000, combined with a French army of 100,000 and a Canadian militia of 100,000. The U.S on a whole was made up of green, poorly trained militia men in uniform. The U.S had an 'army' of 17,000 prior to the American Civil War.

A constant supply line across the Atlantic would have been maintained. The Union had no way of interuppting it, any sea-faring vessels they did have were target practice for the Royal Navy.

"Privateers could disrupt the supplies. An abundance of supply increases the effectiveness of an army. And if the hypothetical war in Canada ended up a slugging match of attrition, the side who is supplied best is the one who will probably win. "

You're putting a lot of the Union's efforts into Privateers - it's not like the Royal Navy has never encountered them before. And the odds are, with France involved the French Navy would also be roaming.

In a war of attrition, you must be able to lower the enemy supply while increasing yours. If the enemy has adequete supply, then it doesn't matter how much you have. The Union would have to cut off British supply, and they're not going to do that because they can't.

"Im saying that the logistics of equiping the size of an army that would have been needed to be sent to Canada would have limited its effectiveness. The Union had neither the manpower nor logistics issues you would have to deal with. And conquoring all those colonies wasnt that difficult as you were a century ahead of them in technology."

The logisitcal problems had been met fifty years before, there'd be no limit to the effectiveness of the British Army. The British had no manpower problems, and the hypothetical alliance certainly had none.

Conquering all those colonies, syscom, took more than defeating Africans with spears. England has fought, and beaten, every European power except Portugal at some point or another.

"These were some RA NCO's in the Union army. But there werent that many at all. And I dont believe an RA army was ever cut loose to live off the land like Gen Grant and Sherman did in the Vicksburg campaign in 1863 or the March through Georgia in 1864. "

The fact that both American armies appreciated any English officer, or NCO, in their regiment goes to show that men of the day knew that English soldiers were some of, if not the, best. In the soldiers diary it clearly states that the Englishman is the best soldier they have!

Which century do you want for the English use of the land?

"The Union would have been able to raise and support and army of 500,000. The Canadians would have been able to support their army of 100,000. But all those troops from Europe would need to be supplied. Thats a problem for you. Plus the Union had a secret weapon...... thousands of Irishman who would have plenty of motivation to settle scores with the RA. 25,000 angry Irishman = 100,000 Brits!"

Where's your proof that the Union would be able to maintain an army of 500,000 against Canada? All European armies would have been supported, Britain supported it's armies in Canada in 1812 and it'd do it again in 1860.

I hope the comment on the Irish was a joke. 25,000 Irishman in a pitched battle against the British Army would be slaughter for the Irish. The British have fought, and destroyed, more "angry" opponents than you can ever imagine.


"There you ago, another anglo-french war of alliance. The Union wins by default over this because of the inevitable paralysis your command will have. For every anglo-french soldier recruited to fight in Canda, would be offset by someone somewhere wanting to settle a score with Britania."

No, the command structure would have been fine. Even if it meant a splitting of the armies.

Where are these people wanting to settle the score? Which ones are actually a threat? The 100,000 sent to Canada from Britain are spares - who in the world is then going to uprise and defeat Britain? Let me remind you that in 1812, Britain was fighting the U.S.A and Napoleons Empire at the same time.

"The monitors would have turned your wooden ships away with no problem. And if you brought out ironclads, well the mines would do them in. Note, this hypothetical war would not have started any sooner than April 1862. Plenty of time for the Union to be ready."

If it were really this easy to defeat the Royal Navy - how on earth did they reach the top spot!? If the Union couldn't stop even 20% of the British blockade runners, how do you expect them to defeat the Royal Navy in pitched conflict?

"Speaking of the Crimean War, its actually famous for the RA inefficencies, blunders and mismangement. Its a classic case of the side that blunders the least wins the war. If you were to fight this Canadian war like you fought the Crimea, then the Union would have no problems."

It is famous for that. But it also contains trench warfare, use of railway and unbelievable soldier actions. The Charge of the Light Brigade was against the wrong artillery battery, but flanked by fire on three sides ...they still managed to destroy what they charged. Is suicidal bravery like that something the militia men of the Union would be able to stand up to?

"STOP THE PRESS'S!!!!!!!!!!!! NEWLY MENTIONED INFORMATION INDICATES THAT THE UNION ARMIES WERE ACTUALLY LED BY BRITS!!!!!!!! heheheheheh. In all actuality, as in every army in battle. Some natural born leaders rise to the occasion and some highly trained officers fall flat on their faces. By the way, did it ever occur to you that many of the middle level officers at the start of the war were veterans of the Mexican-American war and the indian wars? Hmmm..... I thought not."

And the British Generals had been through it all before. The vast majority of those that would be sent to America would have seen combat before. The experience of conflict is clearly on Britain's side.

"Point taken. You could field 300,000 against a probable combined Union army of the same strength. But we had a better logistical situation than you."

True, your logistical situation was better but that didn't matter. We had better trained, more experienced soldiers to fight the war with. Plus, those hundreds of thousands of weapons the Union received from British private dealers - would not arrive. How are you going to equip your armies now?

 

[syscom3]

Youre putting your whole case on following points.

1) The "convoys" can all be suddessfully escorted on multiple three week voyages in the North Atlantic in winter.

That sure isnt going to happen as storms would occur, maybe even iceberg flows and the convoys would be scattered. just ripe for privateers.

2) The RN will be victorious in every single engagement with either the USN or a privateer.

The Union navy was just as competant as the RN and would win its share of victories. And all the privateers would have to do is avoid battle with a man 'o war and prey on merchant shipping.

3) The Union would not be able to build ironclads and monitors to break up a RN blockade of the ports.

The Union had extensive shipyards more than capable of building ironclads. Since they would be operating from close to base, they could easily return to safety for repairs and refit, while your ironclads would need to sail hundreds, if not thousands of miles for repairs.

4) The RA had never suffered defeat thus would automatically win. Again, famous last words.

Given that the ineptness of the russian army is what saved your troops from disaster in the Crimea, it is irrational that the same scenario would unfold again.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

That sure isnt going to happen as storms would occur, maybe even iceberg flows and the convoys would be scattered

no because the royal navy had never encountered those before, they wouldn't have a clue what to do in the atlantic, given they've never been there before are you really that dense!

The Union navy was just as competant as the RN and would win its share of victories

pD has already proved the RN to be superior navy of the day, they had the best sailors and the best ships, and more of both than all other nations

And all the privateers would have to do is avoid battle with a man 'o war and prey on merchant shipping.

would this be the shipping being escorted by the RN??

The Union had extensive shipyards more than capable of building ironclads

so did the british, and we'd already started with the advantage in numbers, fact is, we're always going to come out on top in terms of numers, quality and the experience of our sailors......

i'm sorry if i've ruined the flow of your argument by stepping in pD but he's really annoying me

 

[pbfoot]

syscom just as interested observer the brits would be able to repair and supply in halifax st johns and the carribean the US navy did not really become a naval power until T Roosevelt for the most part naval warfare during 1812 was in the great lakes a prime example if my memory serves me was perry and don't give up the ship .The canadian maritme fleet was one of the largest at that time

 

[syscom3]

i'm sorry if i've ruined the flow of your argument by stepping in pD but he's really annoying me

Are you a natural born schm**k or do you need to practice at it every day?

If you dont want to contribute to this otherwise good debate without insulting people, then stay out of it.

 

[syscom3]

syscom just as interested observer the brits would be able to repair and supply in halifax st johns and the carribean the US navy did not really become a naval power until T Roosevelt for the most part naval warfare during 1812 was in the great lakes a prime example if my memory serves me was perry and don't give up the ship .The canadian maritme fleet was one of the largest at that time

I hadnt thought of that so thanks for the info. I did read today about the HMS Warrior being so large, it was kept near the UK for most of its career as the only drydock big enought to service it was in the UK. As soon as I find that info again, I will give you the link. I remember it was an official RN website.

It is true the USN wasnt a global maritime power (warship) untill the Spanish-American war in 1898. Also, the US has long had a huge maritime fleet for commerce. However, the strategy of the USN prior to that was more of a coastal supremecy doctrine, which we could do quite well. If the USN was going to slug it out with the RN far at sea, the USN was going to be destroyed just from attrition. If the RN was going to fight it out within a few sailing days from shore of the Union, it was going to suffer severe loss's.

What would happen in the Great Lakes is anyones guess as above Niagra Falls, only small boats were built and manned.

 

[plan_D]

Britain had already proved that they could deliver, and supply, an army in North America. They did it in 1812, and they'll do it again. There's no new threats to the supply shipping and Privateers are old news. The fact of the matter is, Britain did it before and they'll do it again.

The Union Navy wasn't comparable to the Royal Navy, in any aspect. Any pitched conflict between the Union Navy and Royal Navy would be disaster for the Union. The Union would have to avoid any Royal Navy fleet, and that alone has broken down the Union blockade of the South.

The Union Navy wouldn't be able to build enough vessels to be on par with the Royal Navy, no. The Royal Navy wouldn't need to act in coastal waters if blockading the Union ports. Not all blockades are close blockades.
Even then, a blockade of the North wasn't really needed. The hundreds of thousands of weapons that came from Europe to the Union could have been stopped in Europe. The vast majority of the weapons used in the American Civil War were European - and a lot of those were British. The British private dealers would be stopped from selling to the Union - thus, the weapons the Union did have in the real American Civil War wouldn't be there in this hypothetical war.

In Crimea the Russian Army held advantages in terrain in every conflict, and massive advantages they were too. Situations in the Crimea did pave way for remarkable bravery and tactical genius from the British Army - and it's likely that they would unfold in North America.

The Union would be under-equipped, out-numbered and out-matched on the field of battle.

You are right about the HMS Warrior, the only dry dock able to take it is in Portsmouth. However, this is for extensive repairs. And the Warrior actually made a voyage to the Bahamas during it's career. But, I was never basing the Royal Navy Ironclads on the HMS Warrior.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i'm sorry if i've ruined the flow of your argument by stepping in pD but he's really annoying me

Are you a natural born schm**k or do you need to practice at it every day?

If you dont want to contribute to this otherwise good debate without insulting people, then stay out of it.

that's a little uncalled for isn't it, i did contribute to the argument and that comment wasn't even adressing you.........

 

[Nonskimmer]

Agreed lanc, that was rather uncalled for. Relax syscom, it's an open conversation and lanc's comments were completely valid.

 

[syscom3]

Lancs comments about me annoying him is valid? Hah.