Print Page | Close Window

Post Civil War US seeks revenge on Great Britain

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Alternative History
Forum Discription: Discussion of Unorthodox Historical Theories & Approaches
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32220
Printed Date: 25-Sep-2020 at 09:11
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Post Civil War US seeks revenge on Great Britain
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Subject: Post Civil War US seeks revenge on Great Britain
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2012 at 18:34
Its 1868 and the US has decided to declare war for grievances during the Civil War. What do you think will happen?



Replies:
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2012 at 19:20
Britain will sink the US navy, attempt to invade via Canada, and be repulsed near Washington DC. The Americans could try to take back the occupied states, but they will be overstretched and unable to gain much ground. Southerners might exploit the invasion and rise up to restore the Confederacy, fighting a guerilla war against the better-equipped US army. It will end in a similar way to the War of 1812, with a peace treaty restoring the status quo as eventually both sides will tire of fighting


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2012 at 19:28
I have to dispute that the US army and navy were huge. Besides the fact that the Southerners wont result to a guerilla war against their relatives again. They know they can't ein and they just went through an exhausting war. I'm sure theyd rather side with their Northerner brothers than the Brits. Lets not forget all those free blacks in the South either. The US has the leaders, experienced troops, and supplie to quickly take Canada and possibly the Carribean islands. I see a US acquisition of Canada and the Carribean islands and Bermuda.

-------------


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2012 at 19:29
Dont forget that this British force will have to ship all its supplies overseas into hostile territory across the ocean.

-------------


Posted By: Kevinmeath
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2012 at 19:43
Was the 'northern' army paid off by 1868? so has to be re-raised from battle weary people.
 
Where does all this love for the Union suddenly come from in the South? may be they decide to take the opportunity to restart the Civil war.
 
Well the Canadians will welcome the Americans with open arms delighted to be releaved of terrible British opprerssion just like they did in 1812 and the American revolution-- oh hang on!
 
So we have war in the North -- war in the South-- and the largest War fleet in the world by the power of 2 attacking American trade/ coast.
 
Sounds a good scenerio.


-------------
cymru am byth


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2012 at 19:52
Its been 3 years. Why should the South side with the British? The slaves are all frees so thr biggest reason for fighting is gone. All confederate armies surrendered and NO guerilla movements were waged. Why should they fight each other again for a foreign people? There were plenty of troops left and however many eho were needed could be quickly called up before the war. The Canadians can't fight an army over 60,000 strong. The largest force in the last two wars to attack Canada wasn't over 12,000 men I'm pretty sure it was much less. The US has naval superiority for the beginning. There wasn't anything left for the south to fight for or anything to fight with. I think it was still occupied.

-------------


Posted By: Kevinmeath
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2012 at 20:08
Its not a case of the South siding with the British as not siding with the North, you  really think the scars of the civil war healed  in a couple years?

-------------
cymru am byth


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2012 at 20:14
I think they didn't have the capacity to fight a war or guerilla war emotionally or physically. I think that since most had fought for slaves which were now all free they had no reason at all to fight against their nation. Not every Southerner was a Confederate and the British have huge supply lines to worry about plus they still have to fight their colonial wars and patrol the world and keepp a large portion of the navy in home waters. Russia wasn't very happy with GB nearly declaring war in 1863.they could side with the US technically :p.

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2012 at 10:19
Take Southern guerrillas out of the equation (highly unlikely given their resentment of northerners and pro-British stance during the Civil War) and the Yanks would still only have half an army to fight the Brits as the troops would be stretched out occupying the south and protecting the frontier from Indian attacks. Even if the Americans did somehow manage to push the Brits back and advance into Canada, they wouldn't get very far as local garrisons, militias, loyalist settlers, and Indians would resist the advance until more British reinforcements arrive from England and the colonies

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2012 at 13:00
An 1868 invasion would be much more formidable than the 1812 fiasco, though Britain's responce would most likely not differ much and the US strategy be largely the same. 
 
A few years before the US had an experience battlehardened army which was largely unemployed and many would welcome the invite to reenlist. The US would invade Canada, it could do little else against Britain.
 
Britain would blockade the US navally. The US dropped out of the war of 1812 when in 1814 its economy went into bankrupcy after just 2 years, in WWI even Germany with its huge military advantage capitulated because of the Royal Navy blockade of 4 years, during the Napoleonic Wars Britain blockaded Italy for 7 years. Finacially the US would be bankrupted again, no migrants could come, no economic development possible, it would face year after year of bankrupcy, I wonder how long the south would stay placid with a bankrupted north and it feeling the worst of the economic devastation.
 
Britain would also supply groups like the large KKK and instigate a southern uprising, 1865-1870 there was astonishingly bitter feelings towards the north in the south. If the south did rise, Napoleon III wanted to intervene in on the south's side during the civil war but Britain wouldn't let him. This time a French army would land in Louisianna with a Royal Navy escort. Britain would also arm the Indian tribes and encourage them to attack. The plain Indians would most likely be fighting the US cavalry's mish mash of muzzle loaders and black powder weapons armed with Lee Enfields instead of bows and arrows.
 
Most likely the war would be in Canada with the US army trying to take Canada with its own country in disaray as insurrections in the south, by the indians and possibly a French invasion take place, but all this would be secondary to the naval blockade. 
 
A few intriging things about the war would be most likely Hope-Grant would get command of the British forces, who George McDonald Fraser rated as the finest general of his day, after having so competantly taken Beijing, so Hope-Grant vs Grant would have been an interesting clash. Also the Bengal Lancers on US soil!


-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?

http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2012 at 14:22
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LOLLOLLOLTongueTongueTongueBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smile
 
 
Still trying to save face, after all these years.  What makes you think that the outcome would be any different than New Orleans 1?
 
 
 
 


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2012 at 15:11
Originally posted by Kevinmeath

Its not a case of the South siding with the British as not siding with the North, you  really think the scars of the civil war healed  in a couple years?
 
 
The scars have not yet fully healed.  They were still festering in 1868.  However, don't dismiss the fact that the Brits would be invading the South as well as the North.  Southerners still have an attitude of "we'll take care of this ourselves, thank you". 
 
Virginia and other Southern states fought the Revolution, and were vital in the founding of the US, I don't think they would welcome any foreign incursions and the Brits would end up having to fight them as well.
 
Also, at one point toward the end of the war, the Army of The Potomac numbered almost 300,000 men.  That's not counting the forces in the West or Sherman's in the South.  Nor does it take into account the reserves in the North.
By 1868-1870, the North had built a Rail System that covered nearly the entire East Coast.  The Union could move substantial numbers of troops to almost anywhere in the East, much faster and easier than the Brits, having to move everything by ship. 
 
The question is, how would the Brits be able to transport a large enough force to be effective, and not get their butts kicked upon landing, and the 64 dollar question, how could they supply a force that size over a long enough time span?  If your thinking they could live off the land, think again.  The souths ability to feed themselves was almost nonexistent.  It wouldn't be until around 1875 before the Souths agriculture caught up.
 
As for blockading the US, the Union Navy had successfully blockaded the South's main ports for 4 years.  The Union Navy was, while not quite as big as the Royal Navy, more than a match.
 
Another lesser known fact.  Just before the start of the Civil War, union agents went to the UK and bought all reserves of Salt Peter.  They purchased all that was available in the west at the time. They then had it shipped to the US.  This created a severe shortage in Gunpowder in certain regions that wasn't corrected until the end of the war.  All of this was done before the Brits realized what had happened. 
 
In the Revolution and the War of 1812, the British suffered an inordinate number of casualties, an incredible expenditure of wealth, [which they really did not have] and an incalculable loss of face and status in the civilized world.  I don't think they would be up for a 3rd go round.
 
At the same time, the North had just fought a 4 year war, with enormous casualty figures.  The people were war weary.  I don't believe the Union leaders could come up with a strong enough case to get the public on their side.
 
 
 


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2012 at 15:30
Thank you red clay. Anyway how large would these armies and navies be? You have to account for soldiers who need to fight the colonial wars, police the colonies and such. Same for the navy. Effectively the whole US navy is concentrated in America.

-------------


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2012 at 16:04
A French invaison is plain impossible. They were defeated by the native Mexicans and thrown out,

-------------


Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2012 at 17:42
Originally posted by red clay

Originally posted by Kevinmeath

Its not a case of the South siding with the British as not siding with the North, you  really think the scars of the civil war healed  in a couple years?
 
 
The scars have not yet fully healed.  They were still festering in 1868.  However, don't dismiss the fact that the Brits would be invading the South as well as the North.  Southerners still have an attitude of "we'll take care of this ourselves, thank you". 
 
Virginia and other Southern states fought the Revolution, and were vital in the founding of the US, I don't think they would welcome any foreign incursions and the Brits would end up having to fight them as well.
 
Also, at one point toward the end of the war, the Army of The Potomac numbered almost 300,000 men.  That's not counting the forces in the West or Sherman's in the South.  Nor does it take into account the reserves in the North.
By 1868-1870, the North had built a Rail System that covered nearly the entire East Coast.  The Union could move substantial numbers of troops to almost anywhere in the East, much faster and easier than the Brits, having to move everything by ship. 
 
The question is, how would the Brits be able to transport a large enough force to be effective, and not get their butts kicked upon landing, and the 64 dollar question, how could they supply a force that size over a long enough time span?  If your thinking they could live off the land, think again.  The souths ability to feed themselves was almost nonexistent.  It wouldn't be until around 1875 before the Souths agriculture caught up.
 
As for blockading the US, the Union Navy had successfully blockaded the South's main ports for 4 years.  The Union Navy was, while not quite as big as the Royal Navy, more than a match.
 
Another lesser known fact.  Just before the start of the Civil War, union agents went to the UK and bought all reserves of Salt Peter.  They purchased all that was available in the west at the time. They then had it shipped to the US.  This created a severe shortage in Gunpowder in certain regions that wasn't corrected until the end of the war.  All of this was done before the Brits realized what had happened. 
 
In the Revolution and the War of 1812, the British suffered an inordinate number of casualties, an incredible expenditure of wealth, [which they really did not have] and an incalculable loss of face and status in the civilized world.  I don't think they would be up for a 3rd go round.
 
At the same time, the North had just fought a 4 year war, with enormous casualty figures.  The people were war weary.  I don't believe the Union leaders could come up with a strong enough case to get the public on their side.
 
 
 
 
 
300K troops a piddling small number of troops to invade a land so vast as Canada with and a hell of a lot of mouths to feed over gigantically long supply lines too. I think most likely a Canucks would kick your butt like they did the time before, amn for man Canadians have proven themselves to be better soldiers than Americans. Britain like last time would have no trouble landing and being fed, Canada is a very safe and friendly place. Maybe send a few troops south to burn Washington again, just for fun. Most US Navy warships also weren't seaworthy and could only operate in coastal waters, not much use against a blue water navy.
 
 


-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?

http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2012 at 19:28
Why would the Brits invade the South? Their priority was sending troops to defend Canada and launching a punitive expedition to burn DC, not conquest of the USA

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2012 at 19:40
What makes you think this punitive mission would suceed? A force of over 60-80, could be stationed to defend it besides the navy and ironclads and mines.

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2012 at 20:03
The US can't defend the entire American coastline, plus the British had the finest navy in the world. They might launch an attack on both sides of the continent: English troops landing on Canada's east coast and joining with local forces to march on Washington, plus Indian troops (including Gurkhas, Sikhs, highly trained skirmishers and cavalry) landing on America's west coast and fighting alongside red Indians and Confederate veterans against the blue-coats. If the Brits capture the transcontinental railway they could transport men and supplies east to link up with the main force advancing from Canada. A naval blockade and advanced ironclad warships would prevent the Yanks from importing supplies or asking foreign allies for help

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2012 at 21:24
America showed she had the industry to build what she needed.

-------------


Posted By: Kevinmeath
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 09:54
Originally posted by red clay

Originally posted by Kevinmeath

Its not a case of the South siding with the British as not siding with the North, you  really think the scars of the civil war healed  in a couple years?
 
 
The scars have not yet fully healed.  They were still festering in 1868.  However, don't dismiss the fact that the Brits would be invading the South as well as the North.  Southerners still have an attitude of "we'll take care of this ourselves, thank you". 
 
Virginia and other Southern states fought the Revolution, and were vital in the founding of the US, I don't think they would welcome any foreign incursions and the Brits would end up having to fight them as well.
 
Also, at one point toward the end of the war, the Army of The Potomac numbered almost 300,000 men.  That's not counting the forces in the West or Sherman's in the South.  Nor does it take into account the reserves in the North.
By 1868-1870, the North had built a Rail System that covered nearly the entire East Coast.  The Union could move substantial numbers of troops to almost anywhere in the East, much faster and easier than the Brits, having to move everything by ship. 
 
The question is, how would the Brits be able to transport a large enough force to be effective, and not get their butts kicked upon landing, and the 64 dollar question, how could they supply a force that size over a long enough time span?  If your thinking they could live off the land, think again.  The souths ability to feed themselves was almost nonexistent.  It wouldn't be until around 1875 before the Souths agriculture caught up.
 
As for blockading the US, the Union Navy had successfully blockaded the South's main ports for 4 years.  The Union Navy was, while not quite as big as the Royal Navy, more than a match.
 
Another lesser known fact.  Just before the start of the Civil War, union agents went to the UK and bought all reserves of Salt Peter.  They purchased all that was available in the west at the time. They then had it shipped to the US.  This created a severe shortage in Gunpowder in certain regions that wasn't corrected until the end of the war.  All of this was done before the Brits realized what had happened. 
 
In the Revolution and the War of 1812, the British suffered an inordinate number of casualties, an incredible expenditure of wealth, [which they really did not have] and an incalculable loss of face and status in the civilized world.  I don't think they would be up for a 3rd go round.
 
At the same time, the North had just fought a 4 year war, with enormous casualty figures.  The people were war weary.  I don't believe the Union leaders could come up with a strong enough case to get the public on their side.
 
 
 
 
 
Well thats it I simply have to bow to your superior knowledge,
 
 The South suddenly 'shouts God bless the USA' and happily joins the Union-- all past forgotten between these brothers-- after all they are now fighting the Bad Bad Brits.
 
The Canadians throw off the terrible yoke of British imperial oppresion and become American, thank god at last.
 
The Royal Navy (more than twice the size of the 'Union one') will of course be swept from the sea because its ..................well its  not American and when during the period did the Royal Navy show any talent for naval warfare?
 
American privateers will of course destroy British trade, American trade will be left untouched because ummm .. well because.
 
America will out produce Britain at this time period (despite having a smaller industrial capacity) because well they're American damn it.
 
Its clear that throughout the 19th century the British hide in fear from invincible USA wcouldn't risk a third time.


-------------
cymru am byth


Posted By: Jack Torrance
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 12:21
Were ironclads capable of crossing the Atlantic in 1868? If not then I don't see how the RN could place an effective blockade of the very extensive American coast. The US had numerous ironclads that could travel the inland waterways and destroy any number of wooden sail ships of the line if the RN chosed to employ a close to the shore blockade and if the RN had to use an off shore blockade the southern confederacy proved that it was easy to evade a naval blockade until the Union captured Port Royal in South Carolina. With the establishment of a strong naval base at Port Royal the Union could now place ships to blockade just about the entire southern coast from Jacksonville to North Carolina. For the RN to place an effective blockade of the US coast it also had to have a naval base close to shore and strategically placed so as to reduce the time of a ships sailing from and to the home port. Both Bermuda and Nassau could not have served this purpose for the RN blockade fleet as Bermuda is too far into the Atlantic and the Bahamas are too far south and also very vulnerable to capture by an amphibious attack by the US. The only option available for the RN to have the capability of placing an effective blockade of the US east coast then would be to capture at least two inland bases in the Atlantic coast of the US (such as Port Royal, SC and Wilmington, NC) and then hold on to them. IMO, I don't see this happening at any time. I don't see the RN having the strength to capture any territory worthy of being captured or of being able to hold on to such territory in the highly unlikely event of such territory being captured.




Posted By: Kevinmeath
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 16:13
Britain had Ocean going Iron warships in 1868 not Ironclads.
 
Why does Britain have to blockade the coast to attack American trade?


-------------
cymru am byth


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 19:27
Originally posted by Jack Torrance

Were ironclads capable of crossing the Atlantic in 1868? If not then I don't see how the RN could place an effective blockade of the very extensive American coast. The US had numerous ironclads that could travel the inland waterways and destroy any number of wooden sail ships of the line if the RN chosed to employ a close to the shore blockade and if the RN had to use an off shore blockade the southern confederacy proved that it was easy to evade a naval blockade until the Union captured Port Royal in South Carolina. With the establishment of a strong naval base at Port Royal the Union could now place ships to blockade just about the entire southern coast from Jacksonville to North Carolina. For the RN to place an effective blockade of the US coast it also had to have a naval base close to shore and strategically placed so as to reduce the time of a ships sailing from and to the home port. Both Bermuda and Nassau could not have served this purpose for the RN blockade fleet as Bermuda is too far into the Atlantic and the Bahamas are too far south and also very vulnerable to capture by an amphibious attack by the US. The only option available for the RN to have the capability of placing an effective blockade of the US east coast then would be to capture at least two inland bases in the Atlantic coast of the US (such as Port Royal, SC and Wilmington, NC) and then hold on to them. IMO, I don't see this happening at any time. I don't see the RN having the strength to capture any territory worthy of being captured or of being able to hold on to such territory in the highly unlikely event of such territory being captured.



The same could be said for the US: even if they advanced into Canada they'd never be able to hold such a vast territory due to resistance from Indians, militias and patriotic colonists. The Brits woudn't need to invade America to win the war, just repel the invasion force as they did in the War of 1812


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 19:38
Where would they get the manpower to repel the massive armies of the Union?

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 19:55
See my earlier post: English troops landing in eastern Canada plus colonial troops landing in the west. Britain's ironclads could easily cross the Atlantic: Warrior was just one of many ocean-going battleships, together with Hercules, Penelope, Minotaur, Royal Oak, Lord Clyde, Defense, and Prince Consort.
You must also take into account Canada's terrain: mountains and forests ideal for ambushes. Resistance by the local militias and Indians would hold up the Yanks long enough for the main British force to arrive (remember the hard time the US army had fighting guerillas in Missouri and Kansas)

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Kevinmeath
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 20:00
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Where would they get the manpower to repel the massive armies of the Union?
 
What massive Union armies are these? according to the OP the war has been over for three years, the soldier 'demobbed', they have to be raised a new takes time.
 
During the period when did the USA like spending money on the army (or Navy) ? wasn't usually tiny? (same could be said for the British although much bigger than the USA).


-------------
cymru am byth


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 20:05
The colonial troops part doesn't seem very likely. They couldn't be supplied. The US never fought the "guerillas" in Kansas and Missouri. They fought each other. I live here I know Kansas history. The US need simply to take the strong points and large towns which with its superiority in men and cannon it can easily swamp Canada's much smaller manpower base. We aren't using armies of 6,000 men this time, Troops from Vritain wouldn't arrive in time to save Canada if the attacks were planned well and preparations made,

-------------


Posted By: Kevinmeath
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 20:06
During the period the British had a policy of their Royal Navy being strong enough in theory to fight the next two biggest navies in the world at the same time.
 
They did think about who they would have to fight, however apparantly they would be unable to deal with the good old USA -- a minor naval power at that point in time-- because well its the good old USA.
 
Fight the next two strongest navies in the world-- Brits fancy their chances-- but the USA apparantly no hope.


-------------
cymru am byth


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 20:06
Originally posted by Kevinmeath

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Where would they get the manpower to repel the massive armies of the Union?

 

What massive Union armies are these? according to the OP the war has been over for three years, the soldier 'demobbed', they have to be raised a new takes time.

 

During the period when did the USA like spending money on the army (or Navy) ? wasn't usually tiny? (same could be said for the British although much bigger than the USA).


The army wasn't demobilized yet. It was still in being. Since the US is starting the war it has all the time it needs.

-------------


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 20:08
Originally posted by Kevinmeath

During the period the British had a policy of their Royal Navy being strong enough in theory to fight the next two biggest navies in the world at the same time.
 

They did think about who they would have to fight, however apparantly they would be unable to deal with the good old USA -- a minor naval power at that point in time-- because well its the good old USA.

 

Fight the next two strongest navies in the world-- Brits fancy their chances-- but the USA apparantly no hope.

If it was a fleet action with supply lines near Britain sure but its not. Its coastal fighting off thr American coast. GB has to detach ships to patrol and protect the homeland and colonies.

-------------


Posted By: Kevinmeath
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 20:09
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Originally posted by Kevinmeath

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Where would they get the manpower to repel the massive armies of the Union?

 

What massive Union armies are these? according to the OP the war has been over for three years, the soldier 'demobbed', they have to be raised a new takes time.

 

During the period when did the USA like spending money on the army (or Navy) ? wasn't usually tiny? (same could be said for the British although much bigger than the USA).


The army wasn't demobilized yet. It was still in being. Since the US is starting the war it has all the time it needs.
OK intersting something I did not know, three years after the civil war the Union armies have not demobilised.
Why?


-------------
cymru am byth


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 20:11
Originally posted by Kevinmeath

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Originally posted by Kevinmeath

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Where would they get the manpower to repel the massive armies of the Union?

 

What massive Union armies are these? according to the OP the war has been over for three years, the soldier 'demobbed', they have to be raised a new takes time.

 

During the period when did the USA like spending money on the army (or Navy) ? wasn't usually tiny? (same could be said for the British although much bigger than the USA).
The army wasn't demobilized yet. It was still in being. Since the US is starting the war it has all the time it needs.


OK intersting something I did not know, three years after the civil war the Union armies have not demobilised.
Why?


From what I've read a sort of garrison and Reconstruction building crew for the South. They also were fighting the Indians.

-------------


Posted By: Kevinmeath
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 20:15
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Originally posted by Kevinmeath

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Originally posted by Kevinmeath

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Where would they get the manpower to repel the massive armies of the Union?

 

What massive Union armies are these? according to the OP the war has been over for three years, the soldier 'demobbed', they have to be raised a new takes time.

 

During the period when did the USA like spending money on the army (or Navy) ? wasn't usually tiny? (same could be said for the British although much bigger than the USA).
The army wasn't demobilized yet. It was still in being. Since the US is starting the war it has all the time it needs.


OK intersting something I did not know, three years after the civil war the Union armies have not demobilised.
Why?


From what I've read a sort of garrison and Reconstruction building crew for the South. They also were fighting the Indians.
 
Well very few were fighting Indians , a few thousand perhaps?
 
If what you say is true and a full three years after the end of the war the Union army has not demobilised theres one reason they are scared of the South-- but these 'brothers' are eager to attack Britain? why is this?


-------------
cymru am byth


Posted By: Kevinmeath
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 20:19
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Originally posted by Kevinmeath

During the period the British had a policy of their Royal Navy being strong enough in theory to fight the next two biggest navies in the world at the same time.
 

They did think about who they would have to fight, however apparantly they would be unable to deal with the good old USA -- a minor naval power at that point in time-- because well its the good old USA.

 

Fight the next two strongest navies in the world-- Brits fancy their chances-- but the USA apparantly no hope.

If it was a fleet action with supply lines near Britain sure but its not. Its coastal fighting off thr American coast. GB has to detach ships to patrol and protect the homeland and colonies.
 And the USA doesn't? and any why the RN is bigger by a power of at least 2 (inreality much more)
 
In the period American privateers would hurt Britain but so would British ones hurt America, why do you think they never fought each other despite nationalism in both countries and rivalries?


-------------
cymru am byth


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 20:19
Racial violence some extremists. The majority were reconciled and most were fine with being in the Union.

-------------


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 20:22
Originally posted by Kevinmeath

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Originally posted by Kevinmeath

During the period the British had a policy of their Royal Navy being strong enough in theory to fight the next two biggest navies in the world at the same time.
 

They did think about who they would have to fight, however apparantly they would be unable to deal with the good old USA -- a minor naval power at that point in time-- because well its the good old USA.

 

Fight the next two strongest navies in the world-- Brits fancy their chances-- but the USA apparantly no hope.
If it was a fleet action with supply lines near Britain sure but its not. Its coastal fighting off thr American coast. GB has to detach ships to patrol and protect the homeland and colonies.


 And the USA doesn't? and any why the RN is bigger by a power of at least 2 (inreality much more)
 

In the period American privateers would hurt Britain but so would British ones hurt America, why do you think they never fought each other despite nationalism in both countries and rivalries?


A quick attack on Bermuda, Canada and the Carribean Islands would leave Britain with no base. America didn't have colonies and the fight will be in or near their homeland.

-------------


Posted By: Kevinmeath
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 20:24
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Originally posted by Kevinmeath

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Originally posted by Kevinmeath

During the period the British had a policy of their Royal Navy being strong enough in theory to fight the next two biggest navies in the world at the same time.
 

They did think about who they would have to fight, however apparantly they would be unable to deal with the good old USA -- a minor naval power at that point in time-- because well its the good old USA.

 

Fight the next two strongest navies in the world-- Brits fancy their chances-- but the USA apparantly no hope.
If it was a fleet action with supply lines near Britain sure but its not. Its coastal fighting off thr American coast. GB has to detach ships to patrol and protect the homeland and colonies.


 And the USA doesn't? and any why the RN is bigger by a power of at least 2 (inreality much more)
 

In the period American privateers would hurt Britain but so would British ones hurt America, why do you think they never fought each other despite nationalism in both countries and rivalries?


A quick attack on Bermuda, Canada and the Carribean Islands would leave Britain with no base. America didn't have colonies and the fight will be in or near their homeland.
And against an enemy whose fleet could cut you off from the rest of the world
 
Why do you think they never fought?


-------------
cymru am byth


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 20:27
The majority of whose fleet was never located in one place. Anyway economic reasons mostly. They traded quite a bit. Anywayinsurance rates would soar on both sides. But we're going along with the idea they are fighting a war.

-------------


Posted By: Kevinmeath
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 20:39
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

The majority of whose fleet was never located in one place. Anyway economic reasons mostly. They traded quite a bit. Anywayinsurance rates would soar on both sides. But we're going along with the idea they are fighting a war.
It made economic senseto stay apart -- why do you think the 'Pig war' remained a joke.
 
But if they do fight the USA has to fight Britian who rules the waves in the 1860's, who is stronger industrially (40 years later different story).
 
1868 the 'Union' goes to war with Britain -- bad move to say the least. 


-------------
cymru am byth


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 20:44
Not the Union the US. They almost went to war in the 1840's.

This is interesting. %20 - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Rebellion

-------------


Posted By: Kevinmeath
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 20:55
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Not the Union the US. They almost went to war in the 1840's.

This is interesting. %20 - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Rebellion
Almost but not why? USA against Britain 1840 is almost  as bad as as 1868

-------------
cymru am byth


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 21:00
How would the Americans take Britain's naval bases in the Caribbean? These were well-defended by shore batteries, Marines and warships anchored nearby
http://www.bermuda-online.org/rnd.htm - http://www.bermuda-online.org/rnd.htm


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 21:08
No one has a comment on the Red Ruver Rebellion? You all claim the South will revolt but right here is an example of Canada revolting!

-------------


Posted By: Jack Torrance
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 21:51
Originally posted by Kevinmeath

Britain had Ocean going Iron warships in 1868 not Ironclads.
 
Why does Britain have to blockade the coast to attack American trade?


My posting was directed at two postings made by other members who believe that the RN was capable of blockading the US. The RN was certainly more than capable of attacking US shipping but I don't believe the British government would have risked a war with a large nation such as France if the French insisted on trading with the US. Considering that a blockade of the US was not possible the British government could not legally prevent the French or the Dutch or Spanish from trading with the US.

Having posted my thoughts on the subject however, I think it would have been unwise for the US to have a war with the UK. Neither power could finish each other as the US was too big and powerful for any other nation to defeat it and the UK had the RN and was too far away for the US to defeat it. I was reading about the USN in the years immediately after the Civil War and the number of warships available for duty was something like 250 with only 60 or so in commission. A small number from which to try to make up the difference if the USN was to challenge the RN in the high seas.

On the other hand the coastal and inland waterways I believe were invulnerable to attack by the large British ironclads as I think these large ships probably  had too deep a draft to enter the narrow channels of the coastal inlets, lakes and rivers. During these period I think the US was pretty much self-sufficient when it came to food production and important strategic stuff such as coal, iron-ore, and whatever else was of critical importance in maintaining a nation through hard times. The Confederacy proved during the Civil War that it could put up a good fight for an extended period under much worse circumstances that those the US would face in a war with the UK in 1868.




Posted By: Jack Torrance
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 22:02
Originally posted by Nick1986

Originally posted by Jack Torrance

Were ironclads capable of crossing the Atlantic in 1868? If not then I don't see how the RN could place an effective blockade of the very extensive American coast. The US had numerous ironclads that could travel the inland waterways and destroy any number of wooden sail ships of the line if the RN chosed to employ a close to the shore blockade and if the RN had to use an off shore blockade the southern confederacy proved that it was easy to evade a naval blockade until the Union captured Port Royal in South Carolina. With the establishment of a strong naval base at Port Royal the Union could now place ships to blockade just about the entire southern coast from Jacksonville to North Carolina. For the RN to place an effective blockade of the US coast it also had to have a naval base close to shore and strategically placed so as to reduce the time of a ships sailing from and to the home port. Both Bermuda and Nassau could not have served this purpose for the RN blockade fleet as Bermuda is too far into the Atlantic and the Bahamas are too far south and also very vulnerable to capture by an amphibious attack by the US. The only option available for the RN to have the capability of placing an effective blockade of the US east coast then would be to capture at least two inland bases in the Atlantic coast of the US (such as Port Royal, SC and Wilmington, NC) and then hold on to them. IMO, I don't see this happening at any time. I don't see the RN having the strength to capture any territory worthy of being captured or of being able to hold on to such territory in the highly unlikely event of such territory being captured.



The same could be said for the US: even if they advanced into Canada they'd never be able to hold such a vast territory due to resistance from Indians, militias and patriotic colonists. The Brits woudn't need to invade America to win the war, just repel the invasion force as they did in the War of 1812


I don't think the US had to actually occupy all of Canada in order to defeat the British there. All the US had to do was to capture Quebec City and the entrance of the St. Lawrence River and the rest of Canada cannot be supplied or reinforced. By 1868 the US was most capable of capturing Quebec City as there were plenty of veteran troops available for call up and plenty of experienced officers to command them. The US army of 1812 was but a shadow of the possible huge veteran outfit that could be raised in a short period of time to capture Quebec City.


Posted By: Jack Torrance
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 22:03
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Where would they get the manpower to repel the massive armies of the Union?


Exactly!


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 19:22
Originally posted by Jack Torrance

Originally posted by Nick1986

Originally posted by Jack Torrance

Were ironclads capable of crossing the Atlantic in 1868? If not then I don't see how the RN could place an effective blockade of the very extensive American coast. The US had numerous ironclads that could travel the inland waterways and destroy any number of wooden sail ships of the line if the RN chosed to employ a close to the shore blockade and if the RN had to use an off shore blockade the southern confederacy proved that it was easy to evade a naval blockade until the Union captured Port Royal in South Carolina. With the establishment of a strong naval base at Port Royal the Union could now place ships to blockade just about the entire southern coast from Jacksonville to North Carolina. For the RN to place an effective blockade of the US coast it also had to have a naval base close to shore and strategically placed so as to reduce the time of a ships sailing from and to the home port. Both Bermuda and Nassau could not have served this purpose for the RN blockade fleet as Bermuda is too far into the Atlantic and the Bahamas are too far south and also very vulnerable to capture by an amphibious attack by the US. The only option available for the RN to have the capability of placing an effective blockade of the US east coast then would be to capture at least two inland bases in the Atlantic coast of the US (such as Port Royal, SC and Wilmington, NC) and then hold on to them. IMO, I don't see this happening at any time. I don't see the RN having the strength to capture any territory worthy of being captured or of being able to hold on to such territory in the highly unlikely event of such territory being captured.



The same could be said for the US: even if they advanced into Canada they'd never be able to hold such a vast territory due to resistance from Indians, militias and patriotic colonists. The Brits woudn't need to invade America to win the war, just repel the invasion force as they did in the War of 1812


I don't think the US had to actually occupy all of Canada in order to defeat the British there. All the US had to do was to capture Quebec City and the entrance of the St. Lawrence River and the rest of Canada cannot be supplied or reinforced. By 1868 the US was most capable of capturing Quebec City as there were plenty of veteran troops available for call up and plenty of experienced officers to command them. The US army of 1812 was but a shadow of the possible huge veteran outfit that could be raised in a short period of time to capture Quebec City.

The Americans would never be able to hold such vast territory: there were many forts garrisoned by professional British soldiers (including Scottish highlanders) in addition to the local militias. The Brits could last for months in these forts while Indian raiders cut off American supply lines and pick off small bands of Yanks. Eventually the Americans would have no choice but to withdraw as the Brits would have had time to mobilise their fleet of seagoing ironclads. These were equipped with 9 inch guns and Somerset cannons that could kill other ironclads and thick armor that kept out anything the Yanks could throw at them. The British would control the sea and bring reinforcements to retake Canada then march south onto American soil


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 19:35
The fact is forts fall. America has the manpower and much easier logistics. The cannon of the time can easily take doen any walls and the garrisons are nowhere near large enough as the US armies are vastly experienced. As for your claims on the armor I want proof. From what I've read the US also had armor piercing shells. Not to mention rams worked even against the most advanced ironclads. Fact is the British can't effectively supply any large invasion force due to its comittments to the colonies and at home. She would also have to have convoys taking up more ships. Not to mention the US navy was plenty large enough to achieve local superiority at any one point. Also the forts were huge and very very hard to fight at sea.

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 19:47
Here you go Delenda: the Minotaur class battleships which entered service in 1867. Her hull was completely encased in iron and boasted a full broadside of rifled guns
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ivnifGibOSEJ:www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/uk/uksh-m/minotr68.htm+minotaur+ironclad&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk - http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ivnifGibOSEJ:www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/uk/uksh-m/minotr68.htm+minotaur+ironclad&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 19:55
Your link doesn't work mate,

-------------


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 19:56
Post a quote?

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 20:17
http://www.cityofart.net/bship/broadside.htm%20 - http://www.cityofart.net/bship/broadside.htm

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 20:20
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060
Photo # NH 71225:  HMS Minotaur in port, after 1875

Online Library of Selected Images:
-- SHIPS of the BRITISH NAVY --

HMS Minotaur (Broadside Ironclad, 1867-1922)

HMS Minotaur, a 10,690-ton broadside ironclad built at Blackwall, England, was one of six vessels built to the original British concept of an armored battleship: a very long and relatively fast iron-hulled steamer, carrying an extensive sail rig and a large broadside battery of medium-sized (by emerging standards) guns. She was also one of the three completed with five masts and, with her sister, HMS http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/uk/uksh-a/aginct68.htm - Agincourt , had her gun deck almost completely coated with iron armor, a longer expanse of protection than fitted to the other four ships of the type.

Minotaur took a long time to reach active service: keel laid in September 1861, launched in December 1863, completed for experimental service in 1865 and commissioned in April 1867 (though some standard sources don't have her completed until December 1868). During the next twenty years, with time out for refit and rearmament in 1873-1875, Minotaur was flagship of the Channel Squadron, flying the flags of a dozen Admirals. Other than the pomp and circumstance of flagship duty, her career was relatively free of notable events. In 1868 she nearly sank HMS Bellerphon in a collision, and in July 1882 missed by a day the Royal Navy's only battleship combat action of her era, the bombardment of Alexandria, Egypt. Present at Spithead during Queen Victoria's Jubilee Naval Review in mid-1887, she was decommissioned at the end of that year.

Now thoroughly obsolete, Minotaur was placed back in service in 1893 as a harbor training ship, first at Portland and, from 1905 to late 1919, at Harwich. As was often the case for such subsidiary service vessels, she was renamed several times, becoming Boscawen II in 1904, Ganges in 1906 and Ganges II in 1908. The old battleship was sold for scrapping in 1922.



-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 20:20
That one also failed.

-------------


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 20:22
Originally posted by Nick1986

<h5>
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060
</h5>

Photo # NH 71225:  HMS Minotaur in port, after 1875

<h3>Online Library of Selected Images:
-- SHIPS of the BRITISH NAVY --</h3>

<h2>HMS <b style="color:black;:#ffff66">Minotaur (Broadside <b style="color:black;:#a0ffff">Ironclad, 1867-1922)</h2>

HMS <b style="color:black;:#ffff66">Minotaur, a 10,690-ton broadside <b style="color:black;:#a0ffff">ironclad
built
at Blackwall, England, was one of six vessels built to the original
British concept of an armored battleship: a very long and relatively
fast iron-hulled steamer, carrying an extensive sail rig and a
large broadside battery of medium-sized (by emerging standards) guns.
She was also one of the three completed with five masts and, with
her sister, HMS http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/uk/uksh-a/aginct68.htm - Agincourt ,
had her gun deck almost completely coated with iron armor, a longer
expanse of protection than fitted to the other four ships of the
type.



<b style="color:black;:#ffff66">Minotaur took a long time to reach active service: keel
laid in September 1861, launched in December 1863, completed for
experimental service in 1865 and commissioned in April 1867 (though
some standard sources don't have her completed until December
1868). During the next twenty years, with time out for refit and
rearmament in 1873-1875, <b style="color:black;:#ffff66">Minotaur was flagship of the Channel
Squadron, flying the flags of a dozen Admirals. Other than the
pomp and circumstance of flagship duty, her career was relatively
free of notable events. In 1868 she nearly sank HMS Bellerphon
in a collision, and in July 1882 missed by a day the Royal Navy's
only battleship combat action of her era, the bombardment of Alexandria,
Egypt. Present at Spithead during Queen Victoria's Jubilee Naval
Review in mid-1887, she was decommissioned at the end of that
year.



Now thoroughly obsolete, <b style="color:black;:#ffff66">Minotaur was placed back in
service in 1893 as a harbor training ship, first at Portland and,
from 1905 to late 1919, at Harwich. As was often the case for
such subsidiary service vessels, she was renamed several times,
becoming Boscawen II in 1904, Ganges in 1906 and
Ganges II in 1908. The old battleship was sold for scrapping
in 1922.



No info on piercing shells or cannons. She had masts a defect?

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 20:23

British Broadside Ironclads - 1860s

Painting of HMS MINOTAUR at sea, ca. 1868
HMS Minotaur of 1868 under full power of sail and screw. To enlarge, http://www.cityofart.net/bship/hms_northumberland_grande.jpg - click here .

Developing further from the http://www.cityofart.net/bship/warrior.htm - Warrior model , Royal Navy architects created a series of ever-longer ironclad frigates, gradually increasing the size, horsepower, armament, and modern iron hull construction of their designs. These were some of the most imosing ships ever built. With a towering sailing rig to increase their range, the larger vessels spread the greatest area of canvas ever deployed on a British warship. Their haughty demeanor owed much to their beaked bows. Otherwise they were distinguished by two funnels and the presence of openwork bridges for command. A first for these ships was an armored conning tower placed aft between the 4th and 5th masts. While the ram determined the shape of the bow, another noteworthy change took place at the other end of the hull. It was made in response to a defect in the design of the Warrior: the lack of protection for rudder and screw. DNC Reed's solution was to adopt the bluff buttock lines which are well seen here, creating an http://www.cityofart.net/bship/northumb_stern_lo.jpg - overhanging stern without the vulnerable, hollow lines seen in the slimmer counter stern characteristic of http://www.cityofart.net/bship/windjammer.jpg - clipper ships , yachts, and http://www.cityofart.net/bship/empressofjapan1891.jpg - certain ocean liners . And at the bows, these ships curved outwards: they bore a large ram under the surface, like virtually all warships built between 1862 and 1910.

HMS Agincourt of 1868 firing a salute: 2 funnels, 5 mastsAt right, the mighty Agincourt of 1868 fires a thunderous salute in a contemporary postcard ( http://www.cityofart.net/bship/agincourt68.jpg - click here to enlarge). At this time, the British fielded a fleet in European waters that no rival could hope to match. Besides the Warrior and her sister, the Black Prince, the Royal Navy roster included six armored frigates of all-iron construction: Achilles, Agamemnon, Minotaur, Valiant, Agincourt, and Northumberland. The Minotaur,launched 1863, was the longest broadside ironclad ever constructed. She was meant to be Britain's "reply" to the French http://www.cityofart.net/bship/magenta.html - Magenta class battleships . She mounted the same number of guns on one deck as the iron-sheathed wooden French ships carried on two. Britain's broadside ironclads were masterfully constructed ships, and survived 30 or more years' service under the White Ensign before "being sold out of the service" -- a polite euphemism usually involving a trip to the shipbreakers.

Statistics for the 3-ship Minotaur class: Length: 407' Beam: 59'6" Draft: 27'9"; Displacement: 10,690 tons. Armament: (4) 9" MLR; (24) 7" MLR; (8) 24-pdr SB. Propulsion: 2-cyl. Penn Trunk engine, 6700 IHP, shafted to single screw. Speed: 14.8 kts.

HMS Northumberland of 1868, sister ship to Minotaur, made a capital subject for http://www.cityofart.net/bship/northumberland.jpg - patriotic postcards and other ephemera -- great quality ephemera that have lasted, unexpectedly, down the dusty corridors of Time. This typical period "chromo" shows the ship under full sail and with the boilers also lit. The great length of these ships posed handling and power challenges to designers and to the naval officers entrusted with navigating them. The square rig was one part of these ships that was continually being revamped, http://www.cityofart.net/bship/broadside.htm#3-mast - from 3 to as many as 6 masts , with masts being moved about in an attempt to optimize performance under sail alone. However, all the reshuffling and re-rigging was in vain; these ships performed wretchedly under sail no matter what was tried. The practise of providing auxiliary sail reached a climax of cynicism a few years later when http://www.cityofart.net/bship/inflexible.htm - HMS Inflexible was completed with http://www.cityofart.net/bship/inflex.jpg - a full brig rig mainly to exercise the crew in seamanship: the vessel, with its two-foot-thick iron hull, was too heavy to actually move at any speed under sail alone. The sailing rig was removed from Inflexible within 3 years of her commissioning, to be replaced by military masts. Steam engines were gradually catching up to the challenge of propelling very heavy warships at battle speed; but the Inflexible of 1881 could only manage 14 knots on a good day. Lighter-weight steel hulls and http://www.cityofart.net/bship/engine.html - triple-expansion engines , rolled out in the later 1880s, provided the solution for both these problems.

Despite their intent as modern mechanized killing machines, 1860s ironsclads retained some naval conventions that seem quaint to us, nearly a century after WWI shot conventional notions of honour into bits and introduced a new way of approaching things. Oak-paneled officer's quarters and chintz curtains -- decorative figureheads and cast-bronze scrollwork were still carried bow and http://www.cityofart.net/bship/northumb_stern_lo.jpg - stern as a nod to naval convention. To be sure, these indulgences were carried to more fanciful degrees in certain Continental navies than in the Royal Navy. But indulgences still occasionally erupted in decorative splendor recalling the exuberance of H.M. ships of war in former times. At right is the bow of HMS Minotaur of 1863, the Royal Navy's largest class of broadside ironclads derived from the http://www.cityofart.net/bship/warrior.htm - Warrior . The only things missing were the lion and the unicorn. For a treatise on the survival of figureheads and decorative art into the industrial age, see our http://www.cityofart.net/bship/figurehead.htm - figureheads page .

One immediately obvious distinction of the broadside frigates of the 1860s from the Warrior class was the substition for a clipper bow of a outward-curving ram bow. For a discussion of the pluses and minuses of ram warfare in the age of iron and steam, see our discussion of http://www.cityofart.net/bship/rambow.html - ramming tactics and technology .
One of the logical outgrowths of the ram as a primary battle tactic, was the search for means of shooting straight ahead while making a ramming approach. This was manifestly impossible with the bulk of the ship's guns disposed in broadside fashion. Only a bow chaser mounted on one side or the other of the fo'c'sle head could accomplish this in a traditionally laid-out sailing ship, for one could not shoot through the headsails, vital to maneuvering the ship. Accordingly, the next step was to experiment with a bumped-out battery on the ship's beam, in the first emanations of what would be called the central battery ship. The creation of fore-and-aft cutouts to enable axial fire while minimizing blast damage to the ship, gave the http://www.cityofart.net/bship/hms_cbs.html - central battery ship its characteristic tall, narrow form, with geometric cutouts and shapes in the hull form that broke dramatically with more curvilinear, sailing ship-based designs of the 1860s armored frigates seen here.




-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 20:49
No info on the specifics of the cannons or ammo.

-------------


Posted By: Kevinmeath
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2012 at 06:43
Why are masts a defect? for an ocean going ship of the time it actually seems rather sensible given that coaling stations would have been few and far between.

-------------
cymru am byth


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2012 at 08:41
Yes but in the article it said they were inneffectual at best,

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2012 at 15:17
Delenda, have you been to a Victorian-era fort? These didn't have walls, but thick earth ramparts that absorbed cannon fire. The troops sheltered deep below the earth in bunkers connected with tunnels and were well-supplied with rations that included tinned corn beef, dried peas, plum jam, rum, and crackers that lasted for years. Gun crews returned fire with Armstrong rifled cannons that outranged the Americans' own Napoleons. America did have heavier and more powerful cannons, but these would take time to move into place as they had to be transported by rail or ship
http://www.victorianforts.co.uk/armstrong.htm - http://www.victorianforts.co.uk/armstrong.htm


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2012 at 16:57
Canada does not have the manpower to repel the experienced veterans.

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2012 at 17:35

Even if the British and Canadians didn't repel the US advance they would delay it long enough for the Royal Navy to arrive. Most US volunteer troops were farmers and shopkeepers with less than three years experience. By contrast, the British army was full of seasoned career soldiers with over 10 years service who had seen action in India and the Crimea. Technology also favored the British defenders: they had breechloading rifles that fired brass cartridges like the Snider-Enfield, while the Yanks were still using muzzle-loading muskets. By the time the US adopted the trapdoor Springfield in 1873, the British had the Martini-Henry of Zulu War fame


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2012 at 17:41
The US had hundreds of thousands of experienced soldiers. A quick attack and Canada and the Islands are seized. Fortiifications built Canada populated and garrisoned and GB is screwed. She doesn't have the supply lines or men to fight the US in North America. The US navy is perfect for coastal duty which is what they'll be doing.

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2012 at 17:55
The Canadians had over 37,000 active militiamen in 1868, plus nearly 619,000 reservists to call up. This doesn't take into account regular soldiers, marines and sailors who could be mobilised from British naval bases like Bermuda. Britain's military had undergone extensive modernisation in the 1860s so they could fight two hostile nations at the same time (most likely France and Russia). The US would be no match for them, even if you exclude the British regular troops policing the colonies
http://www.lermuseum.org/en/chronology/young-nation-1867-1898/first-federal-militia-act-1868/ - http://www.lermuseum.org/en/chronology/young-nation-1867-1898/first-federal-militia-act-1868/


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2012 at 18:06
Militiamen are not soldiers. Neither are reservists. Britain does not have the manpower to police her empire and land some huge force in America.

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2012 at 19:10
It wasn't just the miltia you had to worry about: there were also many professional British soldiers in Canada, including a Royal Artillery battalion at Ontario, the 100th Regiment of Foot at Montreal, the 69th South Lincolnshire Regiment, and the Rifle Brigade at Quebec. It would be like the Fenian raids, but on a much larger scale: regular soldiers with breechloading rifles that fired at least 10 rounds a minute would inflict heavy casualties on the Yanks whose muskets could fire three rounds a minute in the hands of a skilled soldier. The more numerous Canadian militia and Home Guard would finish off any depleted Yankee force that made it past the forts or (miraculously) managed to defeat the regular army
http://www.victorianwars.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3018 - http://www.victorianwars.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3018


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2012 at 19:12
Numbers please.

-------------


Posted By: d' artagnan
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2012 at 20:25
Your not thinking of the shear number of fronts the north would have to fight on. Too many different supply lines and too few troops in too many places.

Oorah.

-------------
Hunter Johns

"We're surrounded? Good, now we can kill the bastards in any direction."
— Col. Chesty Puller | Korean War


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2012 at 20:42
Specificy please?

-------------


Posted By: Jack Torrance
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2012 at 22:40
Originally posted by Nick1986

It wasn't just the miltia you had to worry about: there were also many professional British soldiers in Canada, including a Royal Artillery battalion at Ontario, the 100th Regiment of Foot at Montreal, the 69th South Lincolnshire Regiment, and the Rifle Brigade at Quebec. It would be like the Fenian raids, but on a much larger scale: regular soldiers with breechloading rifles that fired at least 10 rounds a minute would inflict heavy casualties on the Yanks whose muskets could fire three rounds a minute in the hands of a skilled soldier. The more numerous Canadian militia and Home Guard would finish off any depleted Yankee force that made it past the forts or (miraculously) managed to defeat the regular army
http://www.victorianwars.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3018 - http://www.victorianwars.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3018


Nick,

The US had Spencer Repeating Rifles which could fire 20 shots a minute; the Henry Repeating Rifle which could fire 28 shots a minute and the Winchester Model 1866 which was an improved version of the Henry.


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2012 at 06:32
These repeaters were only used by a few cavalry regiments (and as private purchase), not your average infantry grunt who was still armed with a muzzle-loader. Some Canadian troops also had Spencers, including the Queen's Own Rifles of Toronto
http://www.qor.com/history/ridgeway.html - http://www.qor.com/history/ridgeway.html


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2012 at 16:05

Each Victorian regiment comprised 8 companies (approximately 1000 men). A brigade consisted of several regiments. The 60th Rifles and 78th Highlanders were in Montreal, the 41st Welsh regiment were in Ontario, and the 30th Cambridgeshire were in Nova Scotia

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2012 at 16:45
That dress would make them so easy targets if they wore it. A nice round figure?

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2012 at 19:16

Not every Brit wore red: these skirmishers from the Royal Greenjackets wear dark green. Assuming the Yanks engaged the Brits in open battle, they might fire a volley at the red line, but once they had reloaded they would have incurred heavy casualties from the Brits' Sniders and would probably scatter in panic. Well-trained defenders in strong positions have the advantage over more numerous (but poorly equipped) attackers. If the Yanks wanted to capture one of the forts they would have to cross the ramparts, get through the ditch then somehow breach the gate, all the while being fired upon by artillery and riflemen

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2012 at 19:30
Same goes for the Brits. The Americans would have many more cannon. Any evidence for the Union infantryman of 1868 being inferior in weaponry?

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2012 at 19:44

Have you ever fired an 1861 Springfield Delenda? It's difficult enough an experienced shooter to accurately fire three rounds a minute, never mind in real battlefield conditions where better armed opponents are shooting back. The Springfield is also prone to misfires: i had to drill out the nipple on mine as it kept getting blocked

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2012 at 19:47
I said evidnce for them being armed primarily with this weapon in 1868.

-------------


Posted By: Jack Torrance
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2012 at 20:21
Originally posted by Nick1986

These repeaters were only used by a few cavalry regiments (and as private purchase), not your average infantry grunt who was still armed with a muzzle-loader. Some Canadian troops also had Spencers, including the Queen's Own Rifles of Toronto
http://www.qor.com/history/ridgeway.html - http://www.qor.com/history/ridgeway.html


Nice story, Nick. Too bad these troops fled the scene of battle LOL BTW, only one of the companies (the 5th) of the Q.O.R were equipped with Spencer Rifles. In the Union Army during the CW the cavalry was equipped with Spencer Carbines while some infantry units had the Spencer Rifle. After the war muzzle loaders were considered obsolete (duh!) and many Springfield Model 1863 were converted to breech loaders. These became the Springfield Model 1866 and some units were equipped with these rifles. Of course it was in the west fighting against Indians that we see Spencers, Winchesters and Henry's being used but the Winchester factory was based in Connecticut and if war had broken out against the UK in all probability US infantry would have been issued Spencer Rifles and the Springfield 1866 "trapdoor" breech loaders, which could fire over 15 rounds a minute by an experienced trooper. In fact, due to the low cost of converting the Springfield muzzle loaders to breech loaders it would most likely have been this rifle that the regular grunt would have taken into battle. 


Posted By: Jack Torrance
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2012 at 20:33
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Same goes for the Brits. The Americans would have many more cannon. Any evidence for the Union infantryman of 1868 being inferior in weaponry?


There isn't any. Nick is assuming the US infantry grunt is still carrying the Springfield model 1861 into battle in 1868. Unless I'm mistaken it was the Fetterman massacre in 1866 during Red Clouds War that changed US policy in arming infantry with repeaters and breech loaders.


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2012 at 20:38
According to this website they only entered production in 1867 and only saw limited use. It wasn't until 1869 when there were sufficient rifles for an invading force of 50000. Plus the US quartermasters were notoriously tightfisted and preferred issuing troops with obsolete kit to save money. Some regiments would indeed get the new guns, but the majority would still have unconverted Springfields. While all the Yankees head north, guess what happens out West: the Indians (aided by their brothers in Canada and British allies with Sniders) burn settlements, destroy railroads and kill white settlers with impunity as most of the bluecoats have been sent to reinforce the invasion. Protests would force the US government to divert troops to deal with the Indian threat
http://www.trapdoorcollector.com/m66.html - http://www.trapdoorcollector.com/m66.html


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2012 at 20:46
Oh bull. There weren't nearly enough Indians to do that besides the fact the US obviouslt leave enough border forces to deal with them. Your logic= a nation with vastly more and more experienced soldiers can't defeat the hugely outnumbered Canadians. The fact is mostly only major and mid size towns would be taken and quite easily at that. A qucik suprise attack and Canada is doomed. The US can then garrison and build up defences . Suprise is the real killer here.

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2012 at 21:08
There's no need to be rude Delenda. Respect is earned by being civil to others

The British control over half the world and have a large military with years of experience in colonial wars. Ever thought about the delays and casualties the US would take trying to storm Canada's forts? If they do manage to capture one, there are many others. A 60000 strong army advancing out of the US is very conspicuous and would attract the interest of the militia and regular commanders. They were prepared for invasion due to the many Fenian incursions at this time. Once reinforcements arrive it's game over for the Americans as many British troops sent to suppress the Indian Mutiny and fight in the Chinese Opium War were returning home, including the Cameron Highlanders, Royal Welsh Fusiliers, Somerset Light Infantry, Buffs, and Green Howards. Don't underestimate Canada's own militia as they beat the Americans the last time they tried to invade. I don't know the exact number of regular British troops in Canada, but Toltec might

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2012 at 21:15
Sorry I can't continue this discussion civilly when you reference a totally different situation from 50 years before and as Jack has shown distort facts, not on purpose of course but still. You let your prejudice instead of good sense shine through here. I'm sorry mate but Canada cannot withstand a full US invasion with the number of veterans the US has. An attack after Canada is taken by the British is possible, but by the time the Brits get there Canada will be conquered.

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2012 at 07:34

Delenda, much as i admire the Civil War era US army, they are no match for the world's leading superpower with large reserves of troops to call upon: English, Scots, Welsh, Irish, Canadians, Africans, Indians and Australians. There's also the Royal Marines who, in addition to being sailors, were trained to fight as both infantry and artillerymen on land and at sea (supported by landing parties of sailors armed with rifles and cutlasses). I can't see the Brits losing this war, unless something unforeseen happened: Queen Victoria was assassinated, an epidemic devastated the population of Canada (while miraculously sparing the US), or Britain declared war on another European power like France, Russia, Prussia or Austria-Hungary. Even if the Yankees do win the war (say some inept British general leads his entire army into a trap), there will be longstanding resentment from Britain and frequent rebellions and uprisings in Canada, culminating in the Canadian War of Independence in which a British invasion force would almost certainly intervene to help the rebels

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2012 at 08:23
I recommend you look up the Red River Rebellion.

-------------


Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2012 at 15:12
We might take time out here to consider terrain and mobility issues.

What was the road network like in those days?  What conditions were those roads in?  How easy would it have been to move those 6,000 men to an engagement, and to keep them supplied?  In this respect, you might consider the established military rule of thumb: a successful attack requires at least a three to one advantage.

My personal opinion, honed by a career in the military and knowledge of what happened to the historical invaders of Russia, is that America would have found itself invading a vast, largely uncivilized/unsettled giant that it could not hope to conquer entirely, much less hold...or justify politically to the government back home paying the bills.

How big do you imagine the occupation force for Canada would have to have been?  Where would all of those soldiers - a whole lot more than 6000 - have come from?  There is an old Army maxim: Taking ground isn't the real problem; holding it IS.


-------------
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2012 at 15:41
Ummm how about the over 500,000 soldiers the US could raise?

-------------


Posted By: Kevinmeath
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2012 at 17:06
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Ummm how about the over 500,000 soldiers the US could raise?
Raise how quickly? its 1868 the large Union armies (I presume ) or de-mobilised.
 
are the men going to rush 'back to the colours'? some yes others will think I've done my bit no thanks.
 
Ok introduce the draft-- very popular with voters?
 
The cost --trade is a best in a shambles because you are at war with one of your major trading partners, who also has the largest merchant fleet in the world.
 
You are attacking their trade , they are attacking yours.
 
This large expensive army , part of a large expensive war for what? to  'settle some scores' with Britain  for real or imagined slights and to force Canadians to be Americans.
 
Can not see this winning many votes at all.


-------------
cymru am byth


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2012 at 17:08
This is purely hypothetcial...

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2012 at 17:53
It's true there were French Canadians who had no love for the queen, but they also wouldn't take kindly to a Yankee invasion force. They'd resist, as you probably would if a foreign country invaded your state

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2012 at 18:00
If my state was ruled by another country I'd side with the invader,

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2012 at 18:06
Even if the invader was Red China or Russia?


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2012 at 18:20
I wouldn't care. If another state ruled me anyone who invades is a friend.

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2012 at 19:01
Sometimes it's better to have the devil you know than the one you don't. Remember how the Iraqis and Afghans sided with us when we invaded, but quickly turned against us just a few years later? The French Canadians would probably do the same thing once independence was secured, or ask Napoleon III to send troops to protect them from the Yanks

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2012 at 20:00
Which he might try and then fail epicly. France was in no condition for another foreign disaster.

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2012 at 19:11

The Frogs would almost certainly lose as they were severely weakened by the war in Mexico, but the Yanks would be forced to divert many troops to pacify the French-speaking parts of Canada, otherwise the uprising would spread. This would give the Brits time to regroup: sappers would tunnel under forts captured by the Americans (probably still undergoing repairs) and blow them up, artillery would rain shells on the defenders, line infantry would exploit the weakend defenses and the Marines (provided with covering fire from British ironclads) would storm ashore and finish off the last American defenders. They would have the advantage due to their extensive experience of storming Chinese forts and their blue uniforms which would confuse the Yankees

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2012 at 19:29
Nope. See the Americans learned to use mines very well this would easily keep back any ships even i4onclads. As for ming ever geard of countermining? What artillery? Chinese forts and blue uniforms? Come back to reality mate.

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2012 at 19:23
The Taku Forts:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=diwLAAAAYAAJ&ots=igT9Ee-FwH&dq=taku%20forts&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=diwLAAAAYAAJ&ots=igT9Ee-FwH&dq=taku%20forts&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2012 at 19:26
I've read about them. Do you know how inferior their technology was?

-------------


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2012 at 19:06
Not as inferior as you might think. Their earthen pallisades strengthened with brickwork were a more primitive version of the shell-proof defenses of European and US Civil War-era forts.

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com