How can the Union and Confederate armies compare to the armies of Europe?

I think that at the end of the war the Army of the Potomac and Army of the James were quite possibly the best armies in the world. They were sure as Hell among the most experienced and battle hardened. As an Illinois man I usually favor the armies of the Tennessee and the Cumberland but the late war performance of the eastern armies is very impressive and the eastern cavalry was superb.
 
Same in the UK, you just need a decent education and you can apply for Sandhurst, more often than not though officers come from upper class families where their fathers and grandfathers had also been officers, again, its a class thing.
My son who is a Marine Sergeant does not have a degree yet having joined the Marines at 17. If my son pass two more college class's online he has a good shot at being selected For Officer Candidate School. My son is defiantly not from the elite class.
General Powell who was chief of Staff was born from Jamacian working class Immigrants and became an graduated from Reserve Officer Training Corps at New York Community College.
Leftyhunter
 
My son who is a Marine Sergeant does not have a degree yet having joined the Marines at 17. If my son pass two more college class's online he has a good shot at being selected For Officer Candidate School. My son is defiantly not from the elite class.
General Powell who was chief of Staff was born from Jamacian working class Immigrants and became an graduated from Reserve Officer Training Corps at New York Community College.
Leftyhunter
We have plenty of officers from 'normal' backgrounds but for the most part our officers come from the upper middle classes and they are educated in some of the top colleges. Years ago an officer could purchase his rank, thankfully that's no longer the case.
 
In another part of the story we Americans took the Brits out for some boozing and when one of the privates could not get out of bed in the morning for PT he was literally attacked by his corporal. Punched him square in the face and told him to get his arse up. The kid never even raised a hand to defend himself. That would be unthinkable to us. Seems the Brits couldn't handle our level of drinking.:frown:
 
Sorry, didn't we Brits get our behinds kicked by a few yanks some time ago, something to do with independence. :wink:
Well, to equate the Brits of "With Zeal and Bayonets Only" to the Brits of 1861 is really rather irresponsible! The British in 1861 were obsessed with using the rifle to the best of its ability, after all, which isn't exactly a 1770s-Britain thing.
 
I think that at the end of the war the Army of the Potomac and Army of the James were quite possibly the best armies in the world.

I don't.

They were sure as Hell among the most experienced and battle hardened.

Possibly experienced, but battle hardened is hard to say. After all, by that point the troops had passed the peak and were on the way down.


See, the problem with statements about the AotP being among the best in the world is the parochialism it betrays - the idea that experience is a better educator than proper training. To bring up the Gulf War comparison again, the Iraqi armies in 1991 had had years and years of wartime experience and the Coalition most certainly had not, but we all know what happened to those experienced troops.


So, here's the first question. How does battle experience without range time help someone become better at shooting their rifle at 300 yards? Because if it doesn't then the British Army of the 1860s could dominate the Union army of the same period, firstly by forcing them to keep to their trenches and secondly by using their superior artillery rifles (the Shunt rifles or the Armstrongs, depending on period) to shell the Americans out of the trenches, as per the Land Wars.
 
To give a more dramatic illustration of the capabilities of what at least some professional armies in Europe could do in the time period, I commend to the gentlemen of the thread the following. The troops engaged in this behaviour are not specially trained compared to the rest of the army.




1) Inkerman.

Some line regiments shake out into skirmish order and outshoot Russian artillery batteries at several hundred yards - that is, they're able to engage artillery at the range of artillery. It shouldn't be hard to see how useful this would have been in the Civil War - imagine if the Confederate troops going up against the Union on day three of Gettysburg could have stopped five hundred yards away and sniped out the Union artillery!
(from With the Connaught Rangers)

2) Crimea more generally. This time from the History of the Rifle Brigade, which was a regiment ranked 28th in the army in accuracy of musketry.


On October 13 a man of the 2nd Battalion, Herbert, made a most remarkable shot. He was on outlying picquet, and observing a Russian officer on a white horse he took a shot at him, fixing the sight of his rifle at its extreme range. The officer fell, while the horse moved on. The distance at which he shot him has been variously estimated from 1300 yards downwards ; the man himself told me that he thought the Russian whom he shot was about 1000 yards from him.

On October 14 Fyers was with his company in the five-gun battery when he observed a column of Russian infantry advancing. Taking a rifle from one of the men, he put the sight at what he considered their distance, and fired, carefully watching the effect of the shot. When he perceived that it struck the ground a little in front of the column, he ordered his men to fix their sights for 750 yards, and to stand up on the parapet and ' give it them.'

As another instance of their excellence in shooting, I may add that Atherley, in the course of this day's fight, asked one of his men, named Robertson, how far he estimated the distance of the brick-kilns to be. The Rifleman replied that he did not know ; but calling Atherley's attention to a man standing on the top of the kiln, he put up his sight for 600 yards, fired, and the man fell. His body was examined the next day by Atherley, and the ball was found to have hit him in the stomach.

Shooting at battle range:

Some time after, a large body of cavalry appeared in their rear (the proper rear of the column). These were at first taken for Hodson's Horse ; but infantry soon appeared, and it was ascertained that they were enemies. Two companies of Riflemen moved down into a hollow which afforded good cover; and as the cavalry passed, gave them a volley at about 500 yards. This the infantry returned with a straggling fire and then turned and fled.

Firing at unusually small targets:

On one occasion about this time, when a party of the Regiment had been pushed forward, four Riflemen crept up to within 500 yards of the place and fired into the windows of the grand barracks of Sebastopol.

The attack was confided to the Riflemen. Brigadier Horsford's orders to Colonel Hill were to advance to within 400 yards of the fort: then to open fire on the embrasures. Mortars and heavy guns were ordered to the front, and cavalry to the flanks. This took some time. Then the Battalion advanced to the front face; two companies skirmishing ; two supporting them ; two moved to the left; the remainder in support. A sharp fire was opened, and was returned for some time by a fire of grape from the fort. The Riflemen continued their fire for about two hours, picking off the gunners at the embrasures.

Suppressing artillery:

On the 19th a man of the Regiment was seen to pick off eight men from a Russian battery.

The enemy brought forward a field battery of six guns and opened fire on the line. This fire became very troublesome on the right flank, and Lieutenant Godfrey with a few men was sent to try to silence these guns. This they did most effectually in a very short time. The task was difficult, for the ground afforded no cover ; the utmost shelter they could get being some slight undulation in the surface. However the Riflemen lay down on their stomachs and picked off the gunners whenever they attempted to handle their guns ; and in about twenty minutes forced the Russian guns to retire.

These Riflemen getting cover in the brushwood on the left of the Barrier picked off the gunners of the Russian battery on the Shell hill. [c.700 yards]

General Windham ordered him to line the bank of the canal. Three guns were brought to bear on these Riflemen, and several round shot came amongst them, but without doing any hurt. Atherley made his men take shelter along the bank ; and selecting two whom he knew to be excellent shots, he told them to pick off the gunners of these guns, which were annoying the troops from the bridges over the canal ; and he desired some of their comrades to load for them, and to hand them up rifles as fast as they could. Thus aided, these Riflemen, creeping up near the bridges, picked off the gunners, and effectually silenced the guns.


3) Accuracy stats.

It is generally considered that at Inkerman and the Alma the typical battlefield accuracy of British troops was on the order of one hit for every sixteen to eighteen shots fired. By contrast, at Gettysburg Union accuracy (with a much shorter general engagement range) was on the order of one hit for every one hundred rounds fired.


The British in this are exceptional - their focus on rifle training was the most obsessive in Europe. But other armies were better at other things - the French conducted balls-out uphill bayonet charges at Solferino, for example, and the Prussian artillery was an absolute terror.
In August 1914 when first engaging the BEF, many Germans thought the British rifle fire was actually machine gun companies!
 
In August 1914 when first engaging the BEF, many Germans thought the British rifle fire was actually machine gun companies!
Yes, though 1914 Britain is almost as irrelevant to 1861 Britain as 1783 Britain. There's some of the same emphasis on elite trained troops, but the focus of that training is very different:

1783: The English Gallop (double quickstep) and bayonet charges at a run.
1861: This is the p1853 Enfield Rifle, the most accurate long arm in the world.
1914: Rapid accurate fire at short to medium range, the Mad Minute, and off-bore shooting too (that bit being added post-Boer War)
 
just a light hearted quip, you know humour..

Oh, you would be very surprised. I've seen someone seriously claim before that the British Army didn't change at all over the entire course of the 19th century - and, for that matter, I've seen someone claim the British Army in 1861 was 50,000 strong.
There's a terrible amount of ignorance on the subject.
 
Yes, though 1914 Britain is almost as irrelevant to 1861 Britain as 1783 Britain. There's some of the same emphasis on elite trained troops, but the focus of that training is very different:

1783: The English Gallop (double quickstep) and bayonet charges at a run.
1861: This is the p1853 Enfield Rifle, the most accurate long arm in the world.
1914: Rapid accurate fire at short to medium range, the Mad Minute, and off-bore shooting too (that bit being added post-Boer War)
Very true, was trying to show rifle efficiency was a long standing attribute of British infantry.
 
That would be due to the British class system although I can't imagine any private from the Parachute regiment doing that.
No it's not the class system. it's Sandhurst which teaches our officers and others from all over the world to know what they are doing and how to command men ( and women) now. Our troops trust their officers for that reason. I speak as one who had friends at the Falklands and In the Gulf, and worked for ex officers who left the services at the end of their time to pursue a new career.
 
No it's not the class system. it's Sandhurst which teaches our officers and others from all over the world to know what they are doing and how to command men ( and women) now. Our troops trust their officers for that reason. I speak as one who had friends at the Falklands and In the Gulf, and worked for ex officers who left the services at the end of their time to pursue a new career.
I did say in one of my posts that officer candidates needed a decent education but when it came to the British army in the 1800's class mattered. I thought that I had also better add that the same was true of the officer class through the great war, many of them depended on their family name and good contacts in order to rise through the ranks.
 
In another part of the story we Americans took the Brits out for some boozing and when one of the privates could not get out of bed in the morning for PT he was literally attacked by his corporal. Punched him square in the face and told him to get his arse up. The kid never even raised a hand to defend himself. That would be unthinkable to us. Seems the Brits couldn't handle our level of drinking.:frown:
Yes, one of my bosses was in Berlin, he was Captain of the Military train (his official title) and, apart from having to help the Russians depart, he told us a lot about US servicemen getting out of control through drink. Some of your guys did your country a disservice in a big way.
 
No, it's really not - if you're comparing "how good or well trained is this army", you actually can compare armies from different (or, indeed, very similar) cultures. I doubt anyone would honestly say that the 1991 or 2003 Iraqi army was as elite or as well trained as the Coalition forces from the same wars, after all.


Since the examples I've provided of British troops doing astonishing things tended to be from the Crimean War, that actually says worse things about the Union and Confederate troops! It suggests Brits in a neutral environment would be better.
Just to be fair to the Iraqis during both recent wars; they were severely overwhelmed by superior military technology.
Leftyhunter
 
Back
Top