"British intervention in games" Topic

Anyone played hypothetical games with the British fighting the Union (the UK enters the war and the Canadian border becomes another theatre)? Or throwing some British units in with a Confederate force under similar asumptions? What would you do for UK figures, use a mix of Colonial and Indian Mutiny types? The Crimea was fought in greatly different uniforms, I seem to recall, and wouldn't convert over as well.

This might be discussed elsewhere but my Searches haven't revealed it. Feel free to redirect me to a previous discussion thread.

Check out the recent thread "English Army involved with the Confederation." Miniatures weren't discussed, but the topic itself was discussed ad nauseam.

Quite possible with Imperialistic US ambition illegally invading Canada.

Sounds like a Turtledove based game!
How about the Fort Henry guard for the Canadian front
link

Mutiny figures would look well for the southern front
The improvised khaki might have given the Brits an advantage in skirmish fighting and may have been more politicly acceptable than redcoats again walking on American soil

Piper, find me some suitable 15s to paint for the Brits and we'll try her. I've go 30+ 20 man regiments of Yankees who are tired of fightin' my Rebs. You can command the Irish Brigade, who were to become the Fenians.

The Fenians at Ridgeway were bad enough for the Canadian garrison.With such a tiny garrison the effect of British intervention from Canadian soil would seem as a colourful noise and temporary distraction(Canada ,the northern speedbump).

Given public opinion in the UK was pro-Northern, why would we have intervened to help the South?

It seems a common misconception in the USA that the UK considered such an action.

We got annoyed when the North did things like board our ships, and we'd sell guns to anyone.

However, the UK was distinctly anti-slavery.

when i was doing research, i decided the french were much more likely to intervene on thier own than england was.

i also decide they would suffer horrible casulties until they learned some key lessons.

i did ran a couple scenarios where the french replace longstreets corps at chickamauga as it made sense to me.
larry

We have played a few ACW games with British/French intervention, we used 15mm Crimean war figs, which while not totally accurate did have the advantage of being available

We gave the Brits good morale ratings but with lower command ratings for their division – they had a bit of trouble coordinating units but once they got stuck in they were awfully hard to budge – the group quite enjoyed the game

As to the actual likelihood, with all due respect to Bangorstu, British opinion was distinctly divided, with considerable pro-Union feelings among working class people and considerable pro-Confederate feelings among the upper class – "The Glittering Illusion" by Sheldon Vanauken discusses this, which was Vanauken's thesis work at Oxford – it also discusses why the Brits didn't wind up supporting the South, and is worth a read – the book is quite short and very readable

I also agree with Corzin that the French would have thrown their support in, especially given that little Mexican problem they had

As to what might have happened, I suspect the Royal Navy would have wiped the US Navy and merchant marine from the sea pretty quickly, Harry Harrison's views regardless – on the land, the Brits did plan to add 10,000 regulars to the Canadian garrison, but it is hard to see how British North America could have withstood a determined Union attack, the question to my mind being just how determined the Union attack would have been given that the Union did, after all, still have to beat the Confederacy

Would make for some good gamin'!

I agree British opinion was split – but given there was no real reason to intervene, the was no chance of doing so.

What was there to gain? Had America invaded Canada she'd end up, as you say, with no navy or merchant marine and hence bankrupt in very short order.

The Union knew this, hence Canada was safe.

Hadn't thought of the French, but given their mad-cap adventures in Mexico, it's possible. Probably more likely given a government that didn't have to listen to public opinion.

Good point – what would have the Confederacy have conceded to Britain?!

Given that Russia had some trading interests in California and Alaska how about Russian intervention on the pacific coast?

Maybe they'd have given us New England back…. :)

Actually Russia was the first foreign power to denounce the souths bid for independance while it was the effects of same day defeats Gettysburg and Vicksburg that persuaded the British and French to limit their support of the Confederacy.

Russia effectively did intervene. The Russian Pacific squadron took over coastal defensive duties for the US off of California and the Baltic Flying Squadron was in New York Harbor and at Washington DC. In return they received full sets of Passaic monitor plans and heavy naval artillery built in Pittsburgh.

link

And the Union has remained forever grateful to the Russkies!

I hadn't gotten around to thinking about French intervention yet. More good ideas for crazy games! The Foreign Legion at in Pickett's Charge!!

Spains willingness to allow blockade runners and commerce raiders to use Cuba in trade with neutrals brings to light a possible early Spanish-American conflict.While the Federalist navy had its hands full imposing Anaconda some punitive action can be foreseen.

Don't mix up the public opinion within the UK (or whatever) with how the ruling classes saw the matter. The average urban politically-motivated Brit may have been anti-slavery but that did not impinge upon decisions of the London government.

One thing would be sure, it would have been "interesting" in Ireland.

The Brits had better not intervene in MY games!

"Don't mix up the public opinion within the UK (or whatever) with how the ruling classes saw the matter. The average urban politically-motivated Brit may have been anti-slavery but that did not impinge upon decisions of the London government.

One thing would be sure, it would have been "interesting" in Ireland."

How could the opinions of the politically motivated, in a country with universal manhood suffrage, NOT impinge on the actions of a democratcally elected government?
How would it have been "interesting" in Ireland?

The UK didn't have universal manhood sufferage until 1918.

Sorry, I confused my dates slightly. All householders were enfranchised in 1867, before that an voter had to be a freeholder. This still meant that the voice of the ordinary house holder (if they owned their house) had to be taken into consideration. It still meant that Britain was a democracy, where the ordinary people's view couldn't be disregarded.

Idea has always interested be. A couple of thoughts.

1) As others have noted, the Union Army would have little trouble over running Canada and the Royal Navy would have only moderate trouble sweeping US shipping from the ocean and then blockading the coast.

2) However, even if the Royal Navy does effectively shut down US trade the US can perform the same sort of commerce raiding campaign the CSN did, only orders of magnitude better. Which would likely keep the RN extremely busy.

3) As a side note, this scenario would all but guarantee that the Re de Italia and Re Don Luizidi Portogallo would be taken over by the US Navy while they were building in NY.

4) French intervention was rather more likely I believe, and I personally thinks makes for a better gaming scenario- the French Navy is not quite so overwhelming as the RN for starters (though still more then the USN can easily handle), and it also means that close cooperation on land would be more likely too.

-Will

I wouldn't dismiss the U.S. Navy vs. the Royal Navy too quickly. In his book "No Need of Glory: British Navy in American Waters, 1860-64", Regis Courtemanche makes the case that there were serious problems with the breech seals on large naval Armstrong guns that led to a number of explosions during practice fires by deployed ships. How effective these ships would be in combat is an open question.

Plus the U.S. Navy had over 600 ships by the end of the war, many armed with Dahlgren guns of 9" or larger. Such guns were very capable of doing damage to the thinner armor (compared to U.S. monitors) on British broadside ironclads, not to mention what these shell guns would do to wooden warships.

I know that with their low freeboard and slow speed most U.S. ironclads could not challenge British warships far from land. There is a lot more that could be said in comparing the navies and speculating on what would happen in a confrontation. My only point is that one should not consider it a fargone conclusion that the Royal Navy would dominate the naval environment.

BTW, there would be no need for the RN to sweep the US carrying trade from the seas. They already owned it, as American companies reflagged their vessels in huge numbers quickly after the few Confederate raiders got loose.

Mark

Indeed there would have been no combat worth the name with Monitors etc, as they were so unseaworthy as to be useless as warships at sea. This would have left the USN very hard put to defeat a RN whose purpose at that time was trade protection and securing supremacy at sea. Bermuda would have made a very good base for the RN. The few seagoing warships that the USN possessed would have found it very difficult to obtain fuel, and the enormous numbers of effective seagoing RN ships would have been able to keep the US effectively in port. As you suggest, US trade would have been crippled by the fact that, either the UK flagged US ships would have been confiscated, or Britain could have seized them at sea.

Didn't war very nearly break out between Britain and the US anyway over a small island on the Western Coast?? I understand it started off as a local dispute and quickly escalated!! Luckily Lincoln decided that "One war at a time was enough" and calmed things down…..
I think gaming with a British brigade or two on the Confederates side (if things did kick off against the North) would certainly brighten things up on the table--A few battalions of Highlanders and plenty of Scarlet jackets!!
While they would be "an elite" they would be dwarfed by the larger Confederate armies…Where any support would be invalauble would be in the supplies and weapons Britain could supply--Plenty of rifles, guns, boots, uniforms and rations-- while providing credit would tie Great Britain to the South inexocrably.

An interesting what if…

Didn't war very nearly break out between Britain and the US anyway over a small island on the Western Coast?? I understand it started off as a local dispute and quickly escalated!! Luckily Lincoln decided that "One war at a time was enough" and calmed things down…..

The 'San Jaun Island' incident was before the war, involving the shooting of a Hudson Bay Company owned pig by an American farmer- the US forces involved were commanded by George Pickett though!

The 'one war at a time' quote from Lincoln is relating to a case where a US Naval vessel stopped a British vessel to capture some Confederate diplomats. The British were understandably outraged, but the US made amends as you say.

-Will

Given that the US pretext for going to war in 1812 was the illegal, in their view, stopping of US vessels at sea by RN vessels, in order to recover deserters, the stopping of a British vessel at sea, by the threat of force, by a USN vessel was more than a little unfortunate, and somewhat embarrassing.

Ah yes but remember "When Brittania Rules the waves we can waive the rules"…Regrdless of the legalities if the US did something that prevoked and outraged Britiah opinion I don't think Lincoln was in a strong enough position not to give in!