"British Expeditionary Corp - Quality?" Topic

Chaps.

I'm just about to embark on a fantasy campaign with a splendid Expeditionary corp of four 6mm divisions from Great Britain joining an 1863 ANV for the invasion of the North.

I don't want to get into the whole debate about whether GB would have backed the Confederacy, in my game world they have.

But my question is this. How would British regulars compare with their Confederate allies? Would training or equipment give the Brits any advantage or would they be as good or bad as the average southern regiment?

The one thing I am decided on is that the British artillery will have a minor qualitative edge based on training

An army of long service regulars with recent combat experience and a tradition of victory going back 200 years, vs , well, I will leave it up to you.

Might I humbly suggest +1 for being British?

I think that the average British regiment of the time would probably rate as good as the better Confederate troops, and their elite regiments would be the best in the field. It's the difference between professional troops versus short-term volunteers, even experienced ones.

-Will

Essentially they are a lot, lot better than Confederate troops.

I am currently working on writing up a British Army for VnB. All infantry stands are M6 massed, shock and sharpshooters with extended range, and, due to their skirmish cloud tactics, always skirmishers attached.

I rate US and CS troops as M4 or 5 linear, with poor musketry (excepting those that aren't, such as the 1864 Army of Tennessee), often no elites and quite often poorly drilled. I also give them percussion smoothbores (i.e. +1 die, but still a 2" range) because of their lack of rifle training.

One must remember, British rifle fire was more than an *order of magnitude* more deadly than that of the American volunteer, who typically hit with about 1 in 250 rounds vs 1 in 16 the British achieved at the Alma and 1 in 18 at Inkerman. American columns and lines would literally be blown away far outside their engagement ranges.

In terms of the artillery the British have much better equipment, as well as gunners. The 12 pounder BL rifle their field artillery has simply has no parallel on the American continent except for a few British Whitworths and Blakelys the CS imported. Whilst it is not much better at anti-infantry work they are extremely accurate and capable of much more effective anti-battery work than anything the Americans of either strain have.

Also note, at Inkerman the British *infantry* shot down the main Russian gunline at a range of 800 yards. In the mutiny rebel artillery found it couldn't come within 1,000 yards of rifle armed British regulars without getting shot down. This is why Americans assumed the rifle was a revolution, assuming that the weapon alone was revolutionary, and ignoring all the training that was needed for much achievements.

Organisationally the British had adopted a "Corps d'Armee" of 4 brigades divided in two divisions. If you have 12 brigades remember the British didn't use triangular divisions, and this would be three Corps.

Thanks fellas, some food for thought there

An army of long service regulars with recent combat experience and a tradition of victory going back 200 years, vs , well, I will leave it up to you.

Might I humbly suggest +1 for being British?

+1 for being English, lad. +5 for being Scots. An' that's afore the jocks a had their porridge i' the morn and they're still ha' asleep.

Put it online here:

link

Thank you Mr Gibson

Oooh thanks 67th, that's ace

….although I'm extremely sceptical about GB being able to field 5 Corps

Small Corps remember, half the size of a Prussian one. The Prussians or Russians would call that a division….

I like what you've done and I'll certainly go for the 5 Corps as a possibility (even if that would leave the home islands bare).
I do however think it's unlikely that once Canada is shored up, the British focus would be Maine. I would expect the Brits to hold the North, will all that horrible terrain and base themselves out of a Southern port for a joint offensive with the ANV. At least that's the way of it in my campaign, with Charleston as the main port for the BEF.

To explain where the troops come from:

1st Army Corps is the troops historically in Canada or dispatched during the Trent affair before it wound down except the 55th (actually alerted for the journey) and the cavalry brigade (in fact the first cavalry brigade on the list was the one I've put into 2nd Corps)

2nd Army Corps is the Aldershot division plus a thrown together brigade from the alert battalions at Portsmouth and Plymouth. By the mobilisation plan that brigade should have been the Guards.

3rd Corps consists of the brigades at Portsmouth and Plymouth, and the division at Dublin (split between Dublin and the Curragh).

4th Corps consists of a brigade levied from the Gibraltar Division (leaving one), the Ionian Division (leaving one), one from the random unbrigaded battalions in Ireland, and another from Scotland and the North of England

5th Corps consists of the brigade already in the Maritimes, one levied from the Malta Division (leaving one) and the Division at Shorncliffe and Dover.

Oh, I agree that the British wanted to leave only 10,000 regulars in Canada once it was secure and shift the balance to offensive movements.

Say, leave a corps in Canada, another around Portland, Me and move the balance into the Chesapeake to cooperate with Johnston/ Lee, but without any Canadians?

I seem to recall that quite a few of the British regulars sent to Canada deserted and crossed the border to enlist in the American army because the pay, living conditions, and length of enlistment were so much better there :)

An army of long service regulars with recent combat experience and a tradition of victory going back 200 years, vs , well, I will leave it up to you.

Might I humbly suggest +1 for being British?

+1 for being English, lad. +5 for being Scots. An' that's afore the jocks a had their porridge i' the morn and they're still ha' asleep.
At least a +7 if you tell the Scots that there's a whiskey distillery on the far side of the enemy line.

About 2% per annum were "crimped".

I don't think the British would bother with Portland. It's really NOT a vital area economically or politically and I think the Union forces would be pretty happy if the British left a corps there! Better to go for Portsmouth, that is a much more threatening position.

Of course the whole thing would likely be decided via blockade without having to land much in the way of British troops at all, but since the OP wants an intervention force no matter what….

-Will

Having based and painted a sizeable 6mm army I'm not prepared to have it sit around on boats :-)

Fair enough. :)

-Will

Very interesting concept and a reasonable army outline Thank you67 for posting

I think that either the Yanks or Rebs would have handed the Limeys their hats.
One thing is the terrain. Both the CSA and USA were used to the type of terrain they had to fight on.

Who would be the British CinC? It took McClellan to screw up the Union, and he would have been replaced by your timeline. The leadership of the AoP by now was thoroughly professional. Oh, with a political exception or two. After all, even the mediocre Meade handled Lee.
The RECENT experience in the field is all in favor of the Americans.

The British also had jetpacks, radar, cloaking devices, a +5 for pluck and maneuvered at just under light speed thanks to C&C like the Germans in Conliffe's "Crossfire."

I think John has raised a key point

While the British troops would have had a number of advantages at the tactical level, at the grand tactical level – especially by mid-war – the Union had some very capable commanders who were used to handling large formations

When we played a British intervention scenario (a few years back) we gave the British troops advantages – making them all veterans or elite – but gave the commanders a smaller command radius and some negative modifiers; result being that when the Brits got into battle they were deadly, but they also were out-maneuvered a lot

I suggest you obtain copies of two books by Peter Tsouras: "A Rainbow of Blood" and "Brittannia's Fist." They are alternate history novels assuming war broke out between the Union and Great Britain in late 1863 due to a misunderstanding and early departure of one of the Laird rams being built in GB for the CSA. Tsouras provides details over the build up of forces in Canada leading to invasion down the same route as Burgoyne (but with a happier result for GB) as well as the seizing of several east coat ports (Portland being one). He gives OBs for the fictional battles and uses the forces that were in Canada or available to be shipped to Canada. He includes his opinion as to the relative combat effectiveness of the two sides and relates a few serious deficiencies in the Blake breechloading rifled artillery used by both the GB navy and army. In most clashes the GB forces have an advantage in numbers (larger units), but their effectiveness is somewhat variable depending a lot upon their commanders.

The first novel has a wonderful naval battle between GB ironclads and wooden vessels versus USA monitors and such outside Charleston Harbor as well as brigade level action in Maine. The second novel includes divisional and corps sized battles, including the French forces in Mexico attacking Bank's Red River Campaign Union forces in western Louisiana.

Strategy and tactics had the battle of pittsburg. all the armies met there.

"When we played a British intervention scenario (a few years back) we gave the British troops advantages – making them all veterans or elite – but gave the commanders a smaller command radius and some negative modifiers; result being that when the Brits got into battle they were deadly, but they also were out-maneuvered a lot"

That seems entirely reasonable, in the Crimea, Boer War and early part of WW1 British staffwork at at a higher level was very poor. The individual regiments were, however, pretty tough.

Ah, Tsouras. What terrible books that seem to have ripped off some of my early research. How do I know? He propagated a mistake I made in a spreadsheet.

As to British leadership, it's actually pretty good. One assumes the Duke of Cambridge will take to the field personally, and he is quite an experienced officer having commanded a division in the field. The upper tier of commanders (corps and division) are fairly experienced, with many having commanded divisions, and virtually all a brigade on campaign (the exception being the Duke of Wellington, who I included for fun).

British staffwork was generally fine. One thing about the British is they dwell on their mistakes, and generally improve things. In the Crimean their army worked very well, and dragged the anchor that was St. Arnaud okay. What should have been a short and decisive expedition was stymied by French intransigence.

In the Boer War the British worked really well except for one officer, Redvers Buller, and he was quickly sacked for being generally useless. Yet it is his "black week" that is remembered, not Lord Roberts superb movements afterwards. In WW1 again we're remembering the first day on the Somme, but this was in fact extremely atypical.

Portland is important because it is the terminus of the Grand Trunk railway. Holding it and the rail line was extremely important and in fact the first planned offensive movement, because it gave another communications route to Montreal. One that winter didn't sever.

What was important for the defence of Canada was access to Lake Ontario for the navy. As long as the British hold that there is not a lot the Federals can do except a few raids in western UC.

The Federals have three offensive options against Canada:

1. Up the Hudson river valley towards Montreal.
2. Across the Niagara frontier towards Hamilton.
3. Across from Detroit towards London.

The British never really considered stopped the last two as viable unless they could be stopped at the borders. Hence in the winter '61/2 there were battalions concentrated on all three routes to seize the American side of the frontier and secure positions to delay them (Ft Montgomery, Ft Niagara and Detroit respectively). They intended to abandon the peninsula flanked by Detroit and Buffalo (with Cleveland over Lake Erie) if they could not gain supremacy on Lake Erie and let the Federals smash themselves against heavy entrenchments at Toronto.

In front of Montreal or in the Hudson river valley was where they intended to fight the main field battle.

I think a guy named MacDonell commanded in Canada, and would have been CinC. If memory serves, he later set up the early British intelligence service later on, and had a high reputation. I can't see the Duke of Cambridge out in the wilds of North America, although at least one of Victoria's sons served in Canada as a junior officer.

Col. Patrick Leonard MacDougall was commandant of Staff College in 1861 when the Trent Affair broke out. Lewis, the Secretary of State for War assembled three experts on the defence of British North America:

General Sir John Fox Burgoyne (Inspector General of Fortifications)
Field Marshal Lord Seaton (commander in chief of Canada during the Patriote uprising and the subsequent undelcared border war)
Colonel PL MacDougall (commandant, Staff College)

Seaton sent a very thin and brief paper, and was ignored. Burgoyne stressed placing the militia in heavy fortifications and MacDougall thought defending Canada an "easy task" providing the North did not immediately sue for peace with the South and turn the full army north.

Indeed, THAT was the great fear. That the north would make peace with the south and turn 300,000 men towards Canada, but while the war continued the British were sure they could defend Canada against the, at most, 100,000 men the Federals would send.

Portland is important because it is the terminus of the Grand Trunk railway. Holding it and the rail line was extremely important and in fact the first planned offensive movement, because it gave another communications route to Montreal. One that winter didn't sever.

Ah, I was thinking about a movement from Portland up towards the Maritimes, but this makes sense. I had not realized how early that branch was completed. Thank you for the info!

-Will

I like what you've done and I'll certainly go for the 5 Corps as a possibility (even if that would leave the home islands bare).

And there is your problem. The British are concerned in 1860 with a war with France. They're building up land fortifications, naval fortifications and involved in an arms race in constructing ironclad warships because of the fears of another war with France.

Their best buddy France? France at this point is trying to get the British onside to intervene on behalf of the CSA. Indeed around the time Gettysburg is being fought the French Emperor has John Roebuck, MP introduce a private members bill recognising the CSA and calling for a joint intervention.

At home there is no problem, as the British will simply embody the militia as they did in 1854 and 1857. Indeed they only disembodied the last militia regiment manning the coastal defences a few months before the Trent Affair.

When the Trent hit the Americans got very concerned about the size of the British military: link

The British had, to man the home defences, exclusive of the regular garrison artillery and coast brigade, in 1864 (as those numbers I have to hand):

Militia
Permanent staff: 5,017
Called out for training in FY 1863-4: 128,968 (approx another 10,000 were not called out)
(Hansard, 1864, vol 35).

Yeomanry: 14,268
Volunteers: 170,544 (all arms)
Army Reserve: 1,621 (these are men who'd enlisted on short term contracts with the regular army and were placed in reserve for another period – it's a new force)
Enrolled Pensioners: 13,242

= 333,660 reservists (excluding ca. 10,000 militia not trained in the year)

In addition there are a significant number of regulars left in the country, several tens of thousands.

The British planned not only to call out the militia to replace the regulars in home defence, but seek volunteers from the militia to man posts in the Med, and 10,000 to man the defences of Halifax.

To take my original post a little further. What do people think about line of command in the event that a British Corp is attached to the ANV? Do you think it's conceivable the British would permit a British general to operate under a CSA army commander?

Yes, at this point France and England were 'frenemies' rather than outright rivals. The ironclad build up WAS aimed primarily at France, but the risk of a war breaking out immediately was fairly remote. That's part of the reason the French were able to get so frisky and decide to try to make a puppet out of Mexico.

-Will

The British are unlikely to put an army under a Confederate commander. They would have a separate army "cooperating" with the Confederates.

How many brigades did you paint up? Use all the figures! :D

There are 4 divisions in the corps, each of 2 large brigades (about 2600 men in each)- so 8 brigades of infantry total and two of cavalry. There's also a Naval brigade made up of marines and sailors but I doubt I'll use these.

My objective here is not to reverse history, I'm not looking at making the ANV unstoppable. I think historically they had almost no chance of reaching Washington in any kind of shape to take the city, adding a 'what-if' British Corp makes the campaign outcome more unpredictable.

I could have made up a fantasy 4th Corps for the Rebs but I want to see what the battlefield looks like with red and grey vs blue, and to see if the alliance throws up any interesting situations in campaign play.

They wouldn't be as good as many would think. By 1863 North and South had considerable combat experience with large formations over large distances. The Brits had not had any conventional experience since the Crimian War which was not thier best show, were not good at logistics, and were certainly not accustomed to the distances, or terrain, on the American continent.

Indeed, the British in 1862 haven't brought a major continent spanning empire to their knees for six years. Haven't fought a continent spanning war in almost four, and what's more haven't mounted a corps sized amphibious invasion and burnt the capital of the worlds largest nation in almost 18 months!

Indeed the siege of Sebastapol lasted a whole year and resulted in more Russian casualties than the Confederacy suffered in the whole of 1861-5, including their surrendered men. Comment est-ce pire que de Pétersbourg?

Cool, 4 divisions would be a 2-corps army under the British conception of operations. I guess pick two of the above? The British concept of operations would be something like landing this force seizing Aquia under the cover of their fleet and cutting the railroad between Washington and the Army of the Potomac whilst arranging for Lee to try and pin them in place.

The scenario could be Hooker sending the bulk of his force north to try and push the British off the railroad whilst another force out of Washington tries to come south, with the ever present threat that Lee will overrun the Federal rearguard and appear behind Hooker's main body….

Interesting subject, but in reality I suspect any confrontation would be decided at sea. The RN trashed the US economy between 1813 and 1815, the threat of a repeat would probably bring things to a speedy and fairly bloodless conclusion.

The hypotheticals could be discussed for months, but what I want is my single enlarged corps fighting as part of the ANV.

And as I'm God when it comes to toy soldiers, I get what I want :-)

Interesting subject, but in reality I suspect any confrontation would be decided at sea. The RN trashed the US economy between 1813 and 1815, the threat of a repeat would probably bring things to a speedy and fairly bloodless conclusion.

Even more decisively, the US was still reliant on nitrate imports from South America for black powder production. RN Blockade = no niter imports = no blackpowder production = no combat ability. Yes, the Confederates worked around this, but for the first few years the Union blockade was hardly complete, and then they had to rely on LeConte's niter beds, which would have probably not have managed to supply their needs if the war had continued for much longer.

But as Mikasa pointed out, he has a British Expeditionary force and wants to use it. So I say go for it!

-Will

Mikasa,

Love the idea! I do ACW in 10mm and have thought of this before. What 'period' of troops do you use? Crimia style troops?

Enjoy 'God of Your Toys!'

One must remember, British rifle fire was more than an *order of magnitude* more deadly than that of the American volunteer, who typically hit with about 1 in 250 rounds vs 1 in 16 the British achieved at the Alma and 1 in 18 at Inkerman. American columns and lines would literally be blown away far outside their engagement ranges.

One thing is the terrain. Both the CSA and USA were used to the type of terrain they had to fight on.

While I am sure the British would have fielded a thoroughly professional army whose traditions would certainly add to their fighting ability, I'm not sure comparing Alma and Inkerman to ACW battles is reasonable. The Russians fought in close columns without the benefit of rifled muskets and the terrain in the Crimean was open grasslands for the most part--quite different from Eastern US.

Who would be the British CinC? It took McClellan to screw up the Union, and he would have been replaced by your timeline.

Yes, indeed, who would be the British CinC? Between the atrocious supply system demonstrated during the Crimean War and the generally dismal command performances of the British command from 1840's through the 1860's [Certainly with some notable exceptions], I think that any confrontation between 1862-3 Union and British forces could be close…,depending on who was commanding each side.

What were the British infantry armed with at this point in time? A breech loaders, or muzzle loaders?

@Frostie – Yep Irregular Miniature's Crimean War range.

hat were the British infantry armed with at this point in time? A breech loaders, or muzzle loaders?

The Enfield was the British weapon from 1854-1856 IIRC.
The British, being thrifty, adapted the muzzle loading the .577 Snider into a breach loader as a stop gap measure in 1866. Development and testing led to the .450 Martini-Henry rifle in 1871.