The Best Armies that never Fought with Each Other

[Dupplin Muir]

Alamo wrote:

General Sheridan begs to differ.

So an officer in the US Army thinks it's jolly good outfit...hmm, no bias there then.

The problem with a lot of this Union-wanking is the bland assumption that troops with a couple of years of combat experience must be of good quality. Using this kind of logic would lead you to believe that the Spanish Army was the best in Europe in 1939 - after all haven't they just fought a bloody civil war?

As a corrective to the 'Union Army is uber' school may I recommend Archaeology, History and Custer's Last Battle by Richard Fox. In this book he points out that at the so-called 'Fetterman Massacre' in 1866 the US troops (most of whom would have been Civil War veterans) simply huddled together and made no attempt to defend themselves as the Indians clubbed and shot them down. He argues that much the same thing happened at the Little Big Horn, and even at Wounded Knee, which was basically a massacre of women and children, some of the US troops panicked when their own side opened fire!

By contrast, at Isandhlwana and Maiwand, the British Army inflicted about four times as many casualties as they suffered, despite losing both battles -and contrary to popular myth there were more Zulu firearms at Isandhlwana than British, and at Maiwand there was a strong force of Afghan regulars.

 

[Awilla the Hun]

Dupplin, that's a bit far. The Prussians aren't Native Americans, and the US Army, whatever its flaws, definitely fought the enemy-at least, it fought the Confederates. I'm just contending that it will fight the Prussians less effectively than the Prussians will fight them.

 

[Maur]

Inspired by "Wellington vs Alexander the Great" thread, in here we can compare two historical armies and predict the result if these two armies fought with each other...

As for me, I'd like to see a battle between:
1. Macedonian army under Alexander the Great and Roman army under Julius Caesar
2. Macedonian army under Alexander the Great and Carthaginian army under Hannibal

Both would be hard-fought battles for Alex, but IMO he will be able to win...
(because of his superior cavalry in the first battle, and because of his superior infantry in the second one)

Interesting. Both Hannibal and Caesar were cold-calculating planning generals, while Alexander was more rash, inspirational and aggressive. (not that he was much younger that these two, too). In that he's sort of like Napoleon.

It would be interesting match. I am pretty sure both Caesar and Hannibal would set a pre-planned trap. Alexander would of course walk straight into it and then overcome it (or not) with sheer Alexandrism or something

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Dupplin, that's a bit far. The Prussians aren't Native Americans, and the US Army, whatever its flaws, definitely fought the enemy-at least, it fought the Confederates. I'm just contending that it will fight the Prussians less effectively than the Prussians will fight them.

I agree as far as what you said about Dupplin. Not sure why he is talking about the US Army in the Indian Wars, especially talking about them in 1898. Here we are concerned with the Union Army that won the ACW in 1865 and a Prussian Army of the same year. My take on it is, as far as simulating a random and even battle between the two, that the Union would pull off a victory in the end, despite large casualties. The Prussians did boast well-trained infantry, with good drill and tactics I suppose, but they simply won't break the American lines. Their famed needle guns are typically used from 200m away at most, whereas the most common Springfield rifle, while slower to load, had an effective range that was almost 400m, and in any case there were a lot of breechloaders in the army, especially the Sharps rifle used by sharpshooters that fired faster, further, and and more accurately than the Springfield.

More importantly, however, the Union army is far more apt to simply dig rifle pits or trenches in preparation for the battle. This is a major killer for the Prussians. As I've said before, Prussians like to rush in close to attack with the needle guns and decimate the enemy through superior firepower. This does not work when the enemy is better protected in pits protected by spike logs and field artillery. A good example is the Brazilian attack on the Cierva Redoubt in the Paraguayan War. One unit in the attack was armed with the Dreyse needle guns, and they outnumbered the defenders greatly, in addition to being far-better armed even if the needle guns were not considered, but the attack was a bloody slaughter. Most of the soldiers with Dreyses seemed to have dumped them and picked up rifles from the Brazilian casualties (although a specific reason is not stated) and they only took the position when the Paraguayans ran out of ammo. The touted Prussian infantry discipline and tactics count for naught when up against entrenched or well-defended enemies who are not afraid of grievous losses.

Infantry slogging-aside, there is the undeniable superiority of American cavalry to consider. Even in 1870, the Prussian cavalry were a poor bunch, too Napoleonic really. Not much for scouting, just wanted to directly attack. That got them killed then against the French. They will surely meet the same fate against Yanks. I've already talked about the US artillery enough, but it still must be considered. Austrian artillery in 1866 had some good guns, but they still weren't up to US standards in skill. And the US had plenty of good ones themselves, particularly Whitworths. Those were the best of the Union army, and they were also extremely valued in the Paraguayan War by both sides as well. Their range is quite impressive, and they are breechloaders as well. Finally, there are gatling guns to consider. Not common at this time, but Prussians still have nothing to compare to them.

A battle between the two will see the Americans preparing better and sooner due to better cavalry scouting, and the Prussians would try their best to maneuver around the American lines and get through around the weakest parts, but with rifle pits, sharpshooters/skirmishers, and accurate and reliable artillery support, would probably not be able to ultimately cause a catastrophic breach in the lines and would be repelled with great losses on both sides. I say both sides because although the Americans will be using great use of rifle pits and Dreyse guns don't reload that much faster, you can still reload a Dreyse without having to stand up, meaning the Americans will have to expose themselves a lot. But in the end it won't be significant enough for them to lose.

 

[Readman]

Old Boney vs.Survorov (sp?) since they never really met it would have been interesting

 

[Maur]

They didn't form into long lines and bayonet charge en masse; they attacked in relatively small schwarms (20 man units), using many of those interesting German terms that keep cropping up later: Auftragstaktik, "mission based tactics", for example.

Is that a real word, or just incredibly funny neologism? Serious, honest question.

 

[Awilla the Hun]

It is the actual word they used, schwarm. It does sound ridiculous, I know, but easier to type than "twenty man section". And besides, it's a Magic German Military Word. We can't go wrong with those!

Right, Hresvelgr. Which Union army and which Prussian army are we going to have fight, with how many people? In what terrain? How long do they get to prepare? And in what circumstances? Who is attacking and defending? Which commanders do they get? And so on.

This is all important. If the Prussians get lots of time to plan, and to get their railways working, then that's going to give them another advantage over the US: that they have an excellent general staff which plans properly for wars, whereas the US... doesn't. Of course, large scale war plans aren't quite as relevant for the actual battle if they bring together Prussian army X and US army Y.

 

[Maur]

It is the actual word they used, schwarm. It does sound ridiculous, I know, but easier to type than "twenty man section". And besides, it's a Magic German Military Word. We can't go wrong with those!

No, no, it's wonderful. It sounds like a mix of zerg swarm and Prussian lingo... i am all imagining plently of little Prussian zerglike schwarms now running around and overwhelming things

 

[jlckansas]

must[/I] be of good quality.

They survived combat and have the experience to know what to do, that is a quality in itself. Look at the armies in WWII, once they were in combat for a while they improved better than when they started.

The Union army of April 1865 would be a world beater at that stage. With the logistics that they had combined with there fighting experience I don't think any army of that date could take them on. And, ASB included, the CSA army was added into the mix I don't think any of the armies of that date could take them.

 

[Legosim]

They survived combat and have the experience to know what to do, that is a quality in itself. Look at the armies in WWII, once they were in combat for a while they improved better than when they started.

The Union army of April 1865 would be a world beater at that stage. With the logistics that they had combined with there fighting experience I don't think any army of that date could take them on. And, ASB included, the CSA army was added into the mix I don't think any of the armies of that date could take them.

Well, if the Prussians magically appeared en masse...say occupying some of New England and the Carolinas with a properly prepared gameplan, and the South did not raise up in arms again for another go, what do you all think would be the outcome of that?

Granted that situation has holes in it the size of China, but still. You've compared the three arms of each force to eachother, but in an actual confrontation on the field, where both armies just found themselves standing there, fully nourished and supplied, with minimal outside factors, who would prevail?

 

[KillerT]

ok here's my take:
The British army of 1918- the start of combined coordinated operations between infantry, armour and artillery with tactical air all started there.
Taking on the greenhorns of the US Army of the same time. It'd be game set and match to UK








(now thats how to Yankee bait)

 

[SavoyTruffle]

Frederick the Great and Napoleon I.

 

[anon_user]

How would a fight between Togo and Dewey go down in 1898? Or in 1905, for that matter?

 

[Rubicon]

Frederick the Great and Napoleon I.

Same as with Alexander and Caesar. The Corsican curbstomps Fritz due to evolvment of training, doctrine and equipment.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

Same as with Alexander and Caesar. The Corsican curbstomps Fritz due to evolvment of training, doctrine and equipment.

It would be like the proverbial student overcoming his master - after all, Napoleon admired Old Fritz's military prowess (and said at Frederick's grave, "Gentlemen, if this man were still alive we would not be here").

 

[Dilvish]

ok here's my take:
The British army of 1918- the start of combined coordinated operations between infantry, armour and artillery with tactical air all started there.
Taking on the greenhorns of the US Army of the same time. It'd be game set and match to UK

(now thats how to Yankee bait)

I'll counter with the 1945 US force that liberated the Philippines vs. the Commonwealth defenders of Malaysia and Sinapore. I'll even restrict the USN to just the 7th Fleet.

In either scenario it is like the Alabama vs. Georgia State football game last week.

 

[Arachnid]

I'll counter with the 1945 US force that liberated the Philippines vs. the Commonwealth defenders of Malaysia and Sinapore. I'll even restrict the USN to just the 7th Fleet.

In either scenario it is like the Alabama vs. Georgia State football game last week.

I thought the aim was an interesting battle not a curbstomp.

While the above Prussia vs. US Army en masse is interesting what something on a smaller scale.

Specifically a 1870 British line infantry battalion with attachments (battery of artillery, squadron of cavalry) as seeing service all over the world vs. A similar sized US Army force. Both are 250 miles from their respective logistical hubs. Who wins?

My bet is the Redcoats. While the British Army was pretty rubbish at large scale operation (see Crimea, early stages of Boer war) battalion sized operations a long way from home was its forte. The US Army during the height of the Indian wars and the French Foreign Legion were the only forces that could compete. So who would win?

 

[archaeogeek]

I thought the aim was an interesting battle not a curbstomp.

While the above Prussia vs. US Army en masse is interesting what something on a smaller scale.

Specifically a 1870 British line infantry battalion with attachments (battery of artillery, squadron of cavalry) as seeing service all over the world vs. A similar sized US Army force. Both are 250 miles from their respective logistical hubs. Who wins?

My bet is the Redcoats. While the British Army was pretty rubbish at large scale operation (see Crimea, early stages of Boer war) battalion sized operations a long way from home was its forte. The US Army during the height of the Indian wars and the French Foreign Legion were the only forces that could compete. So who would win?

My bet is on the americans; the brits haven't fought a modern enemy since 1852 and most of that was carried by the french army and the royal navy

 

[von Adler]

How about a Swedish army 1702 against Marlborough's army?

My money is on the Swedes.
A large semi-professional force with excellent training, great unit cohesion, superb discipline and very good training.

Offensive cavalry that had no problem handling Russian, European-style (Saxonian, Danish, Hannovrian, Prussian) and Polish cavalry.

Great artillery, with 'geschwinda' shots - pre-loaded shots that were just rammed down, allowing a RoF of 6/shots minute. Light field artillery that was extremely (by the standards of the day) mobile on the battlefield, even more so when 'anmarschbommar' (from 1710 or so) were implemented. Swedsih artillery moved through swamps at Gadebusch and completely devastated the still forming Danish and Saxonian lines.

Disciplined, offensive infantry - while the firepower was a bit low due to still using pikes, the artillery made up for it. Besides, the infantry would go to edged weapons after firing two salvoes anyway.

This army attacked head on - the cavalry took out the enemy cavalry, while the infantry fired two salvoes and then locked the enemy infantry in melee combat, something which few if any of the enemies of Sweden could take at the time.

 

[archaeogeek]

Great artillery, with 'geschwinda' shots - pre-loaded shots that were just rammed down, allowing a RoF of 6/shots minute. Light field artillery that was extremely (by the standards of the day) mobile on the battlefield, even more so when 'anmarschbommar' (from 1710 or so) were implemented. Swedsih artillery moved through swamps at Gadebusch and completely devastated the still forming Danish and Saxonian lines.

Source for this? Because even if it's only 3-4 pounders, 6 shots/minute is sort of too awesome for words: that was the rate of fire of prussian musketry and other armies had trouble equalling it