"A What If: How Would The Union Army of 1865....." Topic

….fair against the other world's armies?

To narrow the What If, let's limit ourselves to 1855 to 1875.

And the Union gets to cherry pick the best of the remnants of the CSA's forces.

My take? If we stick to just the land forces, the US Army in 1865 stands up with the best of them. Throw navies in there, probably not so much.

Sorry folks, picked the wrong board (18th Century Scenarios) to cross-post this.

My apologies.

I always wanted to do a What If with the French Intervention In Mexico. I believe from what I've read that Lincoln wanted to drive the French out but because of the ACW couldn't do anything about it.

The Union isnt going to "cherry pick" confederate forces. No Texas Brigade allied with the union army no matter how cool that might seem. These confederates were not even considered citizens until they took the oath. Nobody wants an organized, armed band of rebs running about in 1865. Besides, the Union army is large and well organized by 1865. They would do just fine with the best of them. By 1870 the Germans are top dogs and have a huge army and damn fine artillery. By 1870 the USA has demobilized much of its forces. Naturally it all depends on WHERE this WHAT if Battle is fought. if in America the Ameicans prevail. If elsewhere the issue issue is in doubt. All a question of logistics as the Crimean war teaches us.

This has been debated before. As before IMHO it all depends on the home field advantage. You put the Prussians in the Wilderness and they aren't going to be as effective or at all comfortable. Big plus to the Federals. Put the Army of the Potomac at Sedan and they get eaten alive.

The Dreyse needle gun vs the 7-shot revolving rifle the US had? Or even the rifled muskets?

I get the logistics problems, but Prussian shipping relied on the English fleet for protection and I'd think it'd depend on the reason to see if the English would intercede (the French would have welcomed the help) and the Russians still haven't figured out how to run a global navy.

And somebody in the US Army would have figured out how to use gatlin guns for something other than leave behind tools.

1865 you have a war weary population and army that is tested and reasonably proficient with the US. Artillery is well used. In general the European forces have more modern equipment. 21eRegt has it right. I doubt the European forces are prepared for the distances in hte new world. THe US forces would have trouble with the disparity in equipment and the confined spaces in Europe

We would have kicked ass.

Because…..? We're the 'Murikans or something more quantifiable?

Because the Union won in confined spaces? There were no grand maneuvers at Shiloh or Antetiam or Gettysburg or the Wilderness or Vicksburg or any other battlefield. There wasn't much house to house fighting but crappy terrian we have in bunches.

And I can't find better firearms than the Union had anywhere else in the world at the time, ours were at least equal to anyone else's and materially better than Prussia's and we knew how to operate them.

I think a lot hinges on which Union Army (or Armies) and who comprises the command structure.

In 1865, it would have been hard to beat the Army of the Tennessee and the Army of the Cumberland.

The Union Army at the end of the Civil War was a very competent force.

The Union army successfully prosecuted an offensive war along a front some 1500 miles long (Washington to Pea Ridge). This is roughly the same distance as Leningrad to the Crimea. It shows a mastery of logistics and some of the new technology, like railroads and telegraphs.

The Union also had a first class staff system, in terms of accomplishing whatever needed to be accomplished. Unfortunately, this was not institutionalized, so it rapidly went away after the army was demobilized.

The army that fought at Nashville in December 1864 is an interesting in that a month or two earlier, it hadn't existed. Faced with an emergency, an army was assembled from all over the western theatre, troops re-equipped as needed, and they proceded to seriously defeat an experienced enemy army (which had, admittedly, kind of shot itself in the foot at Franklin a few weeks earlier).

Nashville was followed by probably the most effective pursuit anyone had conducted since the Prussian fiasco at Jena-Auerstadt in 1806. Five months later, a different Union army sliced and diced a Confederate army of some 40,00 men, cutting off a chunk here and a bunch there, until they finally ran the last 11,000-12,000 to ground in southern Virginia, effectively ending the war.

Grelber

I'd agree that the Union Army of 1865 was pretty effective with all the experience it had; I can't see it getting any benefit from 'cherry-picking' from the force it defeated. Comparing it to Prussia/Germany, I'd suggest that the Prussian Army of 1866 might have struggled against it; that of 1871 (a better comparison, since it had had a chance to learn from it's mistakes – as the later Union Army had) would have had a much better chance.

Can't see any CSA forces helping the Yankee/Union Army at all. The Prussian maybe.

I think the Federal Army of 1865 was an experienced, well supplied, well equiped and mostly well led killing machine that was the match for any other army of the time.

I don't think there would be any Confederate forces that would suddenly put on the blue and defend the Republic. That didn't come around til 1898 with the Spanish / American War.

The Federal Navy would have had difficulty on the high seas against European navies, but for a coastal fight, they had the ships to put serious hurt on any takers.

I would put the Union Army of 1865 on par with any other army in the world – battle hardened, well equipped and with an excellent staff

I'd add that the Union Army of 1865 was a "tad" experienced in the logistics of Continental proportions. The ablility to move, feed and sustain armies across the US with the infrastructure that was in place (or build it as you need it) would be the deciding difference.

I think that Thomas could give Moltke a run for his money

with the infrastructure that was in place (or build it as you need it) would be the deciding difference.

That's an excellent point. The Western Armies in particular were past masters at repairing, rebuilding, destroying and even constructing new railroad lines. Likewise with bridges. There was also a wealth of experience in laying corduroy roads through otherwise impassable terrain.

settle the Canada question..

Union army got used (eventually) to beating an outnumbered force which was relatively ill equipped and short on effective artillery. The Prussians had the knack by 1870 of concentrating superior forces and overwhelming artillery against its foes. So much of this "what if" depends on the assumptions which underlie it is it really worthwhile?

Mollinary

ISTR a rather large proportion of Galvanized Yankees operating on the western frontier. I don't have a problem seeing a large number of unemployed or underemployed ex-CSA troopers taking Uncle Sam's shilling and going off to battle the durn furriners.

The Union Army marching into Canada to settle things with the Crown oncce and for all, following British and French help to the CSA in the late Unpleasantness Between the States. Would make an epic clash. Can the Royal Navy ship sufficient reinforcements to Canada before the provinces are overrun? Will the Second Battle of the Plains of Abraham be as decisive as the first? (and is Abraham Lincoln still alive and supporting such an endeavor?)

Bluecoat and redcoat collide in the St. Lawrence valley, and it's a grand "What If?" campaign.