AHC/WI: British join ACW, US still wins

[mowque]

takes troops away from fighting the CSA, which is more important than attempts at taking Canada.

I was thinking this, but this may not be the case. Consider...the UK will be the major member of a CSA-UK- (France?) alliance. Indeed, Lincoln doesn't even recognize the CSA. What if he figures the best way to win the war, which now involves the UK is simply to beat the Brits until they call for an end. London make very well consider the CSA to be a negotiable entity.

 

[RiseOfAmerica]

The population of the US in 1860 was 31 million. The population of Britain at the same time was 23 million. More relevantly to the US, the population of Canada in 1867 was 3.4 million.

There is no way Britain is bringing over more than 80,000 or so troops, so the only thing they can really do is naval harassment. Any British invasion will end in defeat.

This tbh, and the British can't really bring over so many troops anyways, they have a HUGE empire and they need troops all around the world, they will also need a large portion back in Europe.

The Union at the end of the war had a million troops and they were only fighting the CSA, I'm sure they could raise even more if they were fighting for the very survival of the union.

 

[Superaquaspiderbatman]

The population of the US in 1860 was 31 million. The population of Britain at the same time was 23 million. More relevantly to the US, the population of Canada in 1867 was 3.4 million.

There is no way Britain is bringing over more than 80,000 or so troops, so the only thing they can really do is naval harassment. Any British invasion will end in defeat.

But Britain won't have to fight on two fronts, and its army is better than the US Army at the time by several orders of magnitude.

Yes, population is extremely significant, but not THE issue that decides a war.
No, we're not talking about a wholesale-occupation of the entirety of the Union. But Britain doesn't need this, in order to win against the US.

 

[Faeelin]

But Britain won't have to fight on two fronts, and its army is better than the US Army at the time by several orders of magnitude.

We know how awesome it was by its brilliant performance in the Crimea, right?

Perhaps its ability to excel in those other industrialized, year-long wars it fought between 1815 and 1914.

 

[Zuvarq]

American morale will be doubled or tripled by the fact that the war is even more justified and defensive than OTL.

But Britain won't have to fight on two fronts, and its army is better than the US Army at the time by several orders of magnitude.

Yes, population is extremely significant, but not THE issue that decides a war.
No, we're not talking about a wholesale-occupation of the entirety of the Union. But Britain doesn't need this, in order to win against the US.

Could the UK invade France at this time? If not, then it couldn't invade the US.

 

[RiseOfAmerica]

American morale will be doubled or tripled by the fact that the war is even more justified and defensive than OTL.

Yeah, imagine the union soldiers, first they're fighting to keep the union together and abolish slavery, Britain joins the war, so now they're fighting for the very survival of the Nation.

Could the UK invade France at this time? If not, then it couldn't invade the US.

That made me lol

And btw I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that during the civil war the Union army was the best army in the world so they would infact be even better than the british.

 

[Arafeel]

We know how awesome it was by its brilliant performance in the Crimea, right?

Perhaps its ability to excel in those other industrialized, year-long wars it fought between 1815 and 1914.

Oh come one, the army did not do bad in Crimea, it actually did rather well. The leaders for the most part were abysmal, but then the British did learn from that as well as from the mutiny.

 

[Faeelin]

Oh come one, the army did not do bad in Crimea, it actually did rather well. The leaders for the most part were abysmal, but then the British did learn from that as well as from the mutiny.

I'd say rather well is a bit strong; it got bogged down in a quagmire.

I'm not sure what the mutiny taught the British about military strategy.

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a terrible army. Probably. (We don't actually know).

But to claim it was better? Eh....

 

[amphibulous]

Yeah, imagine the union soldiers, first they're fighting to keep the union together and abolish slavery, Britain joins the war, so now they're fighting for the very survival of the Nation..

I'm not sure if this is irony or insanity: there is no way that the UK would attempt to re-take the Northern states.

 

[Arafeel]

This tbh, and the British can't really bring over so many troops anyways, they have a HUGE empire and they need troops all around the world, they will also need a large portion back in Europe.

The Union at the end of the war had a million troops and they were only fighting the CSA, I'm sure they could raise even more if they were fighting for the very survival of the union.

If you take the population of the Union without the south it is less than the British, the numbers are based on what the British had planed too send to Canada in otl as well as what Canadian militia was called up (38.000). If you look at the size of the Army of the Potomac in 62 in the Penisula campaign, it was 121,500 based off Wikipedia (yeah i know). Now the ACW was fought by 2 badly trained militia army`s, it is going to get a bloody nose going up against European regular in defensive positions.

Does anyone actually have the numbers of effective during 62 for both sides?

 

[Elfwine]

I was thinking this, but this may not be the case. Consider...the UK will be the major member of a CSA-UK- (France?) alliance. Indeed, Lincoln doesn't even recognize the CSA. What if he figures the best way to win the war, which now involves the UK is simply to beat the Brits until they call for an end. London make very well consider the CSA to be a negotiable entity.

Except that London really doesn't have control over Richmond.

Zuvarq: The population of the entire US. Without the states in the CSA, it's around even - and while there are regiments from all Confederate states (only black ones from South Carolina), it's not the same as having full access to that population.

And the idea that the US is comparable to France at this point in terms of military power - heck, even industrial power is slightly behind France in the 1860s - is a bit much.

 

[amphibulous]

I'm not sure what the mutiny taught the British about military strategy.

I don't think the Mutiny taught the Army anything about strategy, but it showed that with good generals its performance could be excellent.

But there is no way the British would undertake more than token land operations - they have no motive, no sane objective, and a very small army to hold down a huge empire.

 

[Faeelin]

I don't think the Mutiny taught the Army anything about strategy, but it showed that with good generals its performance could be excellent.

Against a bunch of troops without any overall leadership? This ain't filling me with confidence.

 

[Elfwine]

If you take the population of the Union without the south it is less than the British, the numbers are based on what the British had planed too send to Canada in otl as well as what Canadian militia was called up (38.000). If you look at the size of the Army of the Potomac in 62 in the Penisula campaign, it was 121,500 based off Wikipedia (yeah i know). Now the ACW was fought by 2 badly trained militia army`s, it is going to get a bloody nose going up against European regular in defensive positions.

Does anyone actually have the numbers of effective during 62 for both sides?

It's probably in the OR, but I think you'd ahve to do a lot of adding up of various departments.

The Army of the Potomac on the Peninsula was around 100,000+, from what I've seen.

 

[Arafeel]

I'd say rather well is a bit strong; it got bogged down in a quagmire.

I'm not sure what the mutiny taught the British about military strategy.

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a terrible army. Probably. (We don't actually know).

But to claim it was better? Eh....

Badly lead sure, bad decisions take vs strategy, but if you look at the units during battle they did perform their tasks well. The British made a new edition of its Filed evolutions and exercises in 1859, It was based on lessons learned during Crimea and the mutiny. The increased range and lethality of rifle fire was recognized, all regulars were trained in skirmish techniques, and skirmish lines were to precede all attacks. I believe the manual is online.

 

[M79]

I think the outcome depends a lot how the UK gets involved.

By 1865 I think the US would have a serious shot at making the UK look bad. Union troops have Spencer carbines in quantity, ironclads and more modern ships are on the seas, the armies have field experience, they are at home, and they are organized.

Starting this in 1861 could lead to trouble if the UK fully commits. Some saw the US as a future competitor (rightfully so) and would not have minded the balkanization of the US. The RN will strangle US commerce and could shell NYC, Boston, and other Union targets almost at will. Halifax would serve as a major base and perhaps in time New Orleans and Charleston too. Look for the Confederacy to get at least 6 extra months on life as Union troops are repositioned as a possible defense against UK incursions from British North America.

Frankly UK intervention might draw in Paris, which might draw in Berlin, which might draw in Moscow, which might spark a world war on three or more fronts. Look for a bloody war with the US-Germany-etc against CSA-France-UK where the UK gains little but prestige while everyone else bleeds heavily. I could see this leading to early German unification under the right circumstances.

Western Canada is sparsely settled, if the UK loses somehow I could see the US buying out the whole of the region from Manitoba on east (this was considered for a proposal in OTL) and leaving modern Canada as Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic provinces. The whole of Canada will be tempting and *maybe* western Ontario gets added but without complete occupation and some sort of pair of naval victories nothing else will get done unless the Quebecois force the issue, and maybe the try for independence (Ha!).

 

[Arafeel]

But there is no way the British would undertake more than token land operations - they have no motive, no sane objective, and a very small army to hold down a huge empire.

Protecting Canada is not a motive? For Pam? The British have roughly 120.000 that can be used, in otl the plane was to send around 50.000 + to Canada to reinforce what was already there, that would give them around 60.000-75.000 troops to use, roughly 5-6 corps.

 

[Elfwine]

Protecting Canada is not a motive? For Pam? The British have roughly 120.000 that can be used, in otl the plane was to send around 50.000 + to Canada to reinforce what was already there, that would give them around 60.000-75.000 troops to use, roughly 5-6 corps.

Should be enough to keep the US from taking Canada, especially given that the US army is very busy elsewhere.

And I have to question any assumptions that greater threats will not mean greater forces raised.

 

[Faeelin]

How exactly are the British raising a 50,000 man militia from Canada, BTW?

 

[Arafeel]

How exactly are the British raising a 50,000 man militia from Canada, BTW?

The Militia Act of 1855 that created an Active Militia (paid) and an un-paid one the, Sedentary Militia. The active Militia had a strength of roughly 10.000 and the Sedentary Militia had 394 organized battalions with a listed strength of 275.000 (1858). The Governor general called for 38.000 to muster on dec 20th 1861, the time allowed were 14 days. After 6, 14.000 had mustered, when they were orders to dismiss. The Maritime`s had their own militias and units as well.