How good were the two armies in comparison to the rest of the world at the time

[timewalker]

Originally Posted by cw1865

The 1865 US Army that partakes in the Grand Review, or the Army of Northern Virginia at its apex (say 1863) are better, due to experience, than any force that can be assembled....The forces whacking at each other at Bull Run are still fighting the previous war and in my opinion would run faster than you could say 'Bladensburg' vis-a-vis the British.

I think the biggest difference between the US Army circa 1865 and any other army in the world would be summed up in one word: experience. Armies at the start tend to fight the last war. Either the AoNV or the AoP had learned the value of entrenching had learned, for the most part, the futility of the massed assault - or at least how better to do a massed assault. I think it would take any army they went up against a while to learn this lesson and thus the losses for any one they went up against would have massive losses, at least at first.

[unionblue]

And yet,

I see to remember, perhaps from Bruce Catton's book series, The Army of the Potomac, a Confederate general's comment right after a hard fought battle with Union forces.

"Give me Yankee artillery and Confederate infantry and I'll lick the world!"

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[J_Man0507]

I will say this: if it had come down to a fight after 1863 between the United States and Britain, the United States hands down would be the victor. You have experienced men fighting against an army that hasn't fought in a major war since the Crimea, which occured in the mid 1850's. These men would most likely still use outdated tactics that the Civil War has proved disastrously ineffectual. The British might have the weaponry (remember, the Confederates got ahold of some British weaponry, such as the Enfield, which was pretty effective), but not the numbers or tactics to defeat either the US or CS.

Now, if it has occured early on, say in 1861-62, I would say the British start off well, but in the end, it ends up like the War for American Independence and the War of 1812 (if they don't team up with the CSA, which I give a slim chance). The army was, as stated, pretty scattered and low on manpower in the post Mexican War years, with good officers, but only around 16,000 men. Not enough to fight the best trained army in the world up to that point, and fighting with comparable tactics. It would be slow going at first, but the US could have pulled it out, I think. Send Grant and Sherman their way, and they wouldn't know what hit them!!

[timewalker]

Originally Posted by J_Man0507

I will say this: if it had come down to a fight after 1863 between the United States and Britain, the United States hands down would be the victor. You have experienced men fighting against an army that hasn't fought in a major war since the Crimea, which occured in the mid 1850's. These men would most likely still use outdated tactics that the Civil War has proved disastrously ineffectual. The British might have the weaponry (remember, the Confederates got ahold of some British weaponry, such as the Enfield, which was pretty effective), but not the numbers or tactics to defeat either the US or CS.

Now, if it has occured early on, say in 1861-62, I would say the British start off well, but in the end, it ends up like the War for American Independence and the War of 1812 (if they don't team up with the CSA, which I give a slim chance). The army was, as stated, pretty scattered and low on manpower in the post Mexican War years, with good officers, but only around 16,000 men. Not enough to fight the best trained army in the world up to that point, and fighting with comparable tactics. It would be slow going at first, but the US could have pulled it out, I think. Send Grant and Sherman their way, and they wouldn't know what hit them!!

The British army may have been well-trained, but how many would realistically have been available for duty in, say, the United States or Canada? I don't know the numbers, but I've got to believe that the British army was not all that large and that a significant percentage would have been on garrison duty in India, South Africa, etc.

Any idea on where we can see the comparative numbers on military forces in 1860-1865 for the various countries around the world?

[J_Man0507]

Originally Posted by timewalker

The British army may have been well-trained, but how many would realistically have been available for duty in, say, the United States or Canada? I don't know the numbers, but I've got to believe that the British army was not all that large and that a significant percentage would have been on garrison duty in India, South Africa, etc.

Any idea on where we can see the comparative numbers on military forces in 1860-1865 for the various countries around the world?

I will have to look up numbers, but I am sure there were a fair number in Canada (eh?) and from what I remember of the Trent affair, they had 7000 men on ships and heading for Canada in the event of a war, with more being mobilized. I am sure they would be spread out, but they had more than just British troops too, I bet. There would probably be some provincials from their provinces and commonwealths coming along for the ride too.

[richard]

To get an idea of just how the the English look at the American army's in 1863 just read Col. Fremantle's observations. He even predicted a Confederate victory.

It is possible that the information that he gathered may have helped to keep England out of the war. I am not saying that it did, but it may have been a help.e

[Blockaderunner]

Being British I suppose I should be expected to leap to the defence of the British Army. But no. During the Civil War period, both Union or Confederate armies would have won. Probably easily. Weight of numbers, combat experience, local knowledge of terrain and conditions, better leadership. Nothing much going for the British there. On the plus side for the British would be Breach loading cannons, no smoothbore muskets, arguably better cavalry tactics and of course far better looking uniforms.
Having said that, the Royal Navy would wipe the smiles off your dials.

[Blockaderunner]

The thread has got me thinking about tactics of the time. In nineteenth century Europe, the square was used by infantry as a defence against cavalry. Were infantry in the Civil War drilled in this tactic? I have never heard of it being used. I suppose this is down to the lack of cavalry charges being made against infantry. The American generals were of the opinion that rifled muskets had made the cavalry charge a thing of the past. But a charge by a large body of heavy cavalry could be very effective. The infantry would have no choice but to form a square. The cavalry are followed by horse artillery. When the cavalry withdraw, the artillery blow the squares to pieces with cannister. Infantry then follow to finish the job. The beaten enemy are then pursued from th field by light cavalry. This tactic was of course for use in flat open farmlands of Europe. Not much use at the Wilderness or Chickamauga.

[ole]

I have read many mentions of "forming a square," Blockade. Please do not ask where, as they are scattered hither and yon over many books -- and my memory tends to wander.

The only reason I remember having read each and every is because when I see it mentioned, I usually asked myself for what purpose was a square formed?

I suspect that some political colonels actually read a book and got a fixation on the idea and drilled their regiments in forming a square. That being said, I know of no charge of heavy cavalry on infantry during the USCW. There was a couple times cavalry charged cavalry. But cavalry charging infantry? Didn't happen.

Many thanks for your additions to our board.

ole

[Dred]

With increased range and accuracy, the saddles were emptied before the cavalry got within effective range. This is why it was given a back seat and forced into reconnaissance or screening. The officers, at least the regular officers, would have been schooled in using the square, as alot of the tactics came from the Napoleonic and Crimean wars, but it would have found no use in the rank and file tactics used during the battles.