Ghost 88 said:
On the Navy never said it was decisive just said it was a pain in the ass.also I was talking about the Regular US Navy,and thier sometimes embarassing victories over the Royal Navy (Lake Erie,the USS Constitution) Grant aside from L Erie nothing more than moral boosts for the home front.
The US victories on the open seas were the Su[per frigates against Regular frigates, they were grossly lopsided.
Lake Erie was also lopsided, the UK forces were using soldiers to crew the boats and using fort canons (with antiquated fuses) instead of proper guns, in other words this was also due to the small amount resources Britain spent on the conflict.
As for regulars always being better than Militia that is so much bull. NO was Militia beating Regulars,
Yes and on the initial cavalry recon they abandoned their posts and ran, if the British had followed up then they would have been defeated.
Militia sitting in a fortification shooting aren’t having their weaknesses n military discipline tested as they would be on the open battlefield.
Scots campaign in Mexico was largely Militia beating Regulars,
Scott had a volunteer and regular force which went up against Mexico soldiers which isn’t a fair comparison with a regular soldier from a proper military.
Viet Nam was militia vs.regulars,
The American regulars were militarily quite good in Vietnam, however what you are describing in a guerrilla campaign and that is quite a different affair.
and the First Afghan war was Militia Massacreeing a Army of Regulars.
An army of regulars on a march which had been cut off from supplies and was outnumbered.
You will note that the British forces we easily able to walk all over the Afghans twice (both before and after the Afghans rising).
Issandanwhana(sp) was Militia vs mostly Regulars.
Where the British were outnumbered 15 to 1 and it could be argued the Zulus weren’t militia given they got a lot of training.
700 militia and 300 regulars, used to perfection by Morgan (he had them fire and run because he knew that like all militia they couldn’t hold their ground, which sort of makes my point for me).
Tareleton on the other hand had a mixed force of regulars and provincials.
That battle was won because Morgan correctly understood that militia were unsteady and he used them as such.
Militia on militia and a bad choice of battlefield.
So no regulars are not automaticly better than millitia.
Yes they are, they just can’t magically outcome gross disparity in numbers or a large strategic/tactical handicap.
You can’t just give some country bumpkin a gun and expect him to be able to perform military formations and have courage under fire.
On leaving the state I'll grant you that could be a concern
thats why Abe Lincoln had to let the CSA go because none of the State Militias would leave home.
It also happened in the war of 1812.
Marching thru hostile indian lands presumes that the tribes in question were hostile to the US. That the US could easily get Indian allies along these routes.
Ah but as you have already pointed out the US had displaced tribes into this reason and their reputation would have spread, the British on the other hand had treated their native allies fairly (although things would change).
Ease of logistics, I was not complete in my statement on this.Yes the RN could get the troops there but keeping them feed would be difficult at this time there is sparse settlement and mostly substanance farming on the West Coast,this means suppling Vanncover by sea which the UK did not have to do in India.
True but Britain has a rather large merchant marine and already has several outposts in the area which were kept in supply.
Screw up officers. Might be ahead of my self on this one as the brilliant team of Raglin,Lucan,and Cardigan was 17 years in the future, had understood these three were the culmination of years of mediocraty in the Royal Army.
It’s not called the Royal Army (it is made up of both royal and non royal regiments).
Raglan’s incompetence its greatly exaggerated, he was a competent soldier who just had the misfortune of being too friendly with the French.
As for the charge of the light brigade, it was a miscommunication of the type that happens in war (on the plus side the men were eager to go again once they returned to their lines, although I’m not sure what that says about the IQ of your average cavalry member).
Yes I'm aware Wellington is still around but was he capable of taking a field command.
Well he 68 at this point
Raglan was 67 in the Crimea.
So it’s possible he could take the field but I’m not sure whether he would.
He would certainly keep a close eye on what was going on however.
What it boils down to is a Britian/US war is likely to have the same outcome as 1812 and the poloticians on both sides knew this thats why they compromised.
The war of 1812 had that outcome because Britain devoted virtually non of its forces to the war.
