"What if they had all been together, best army in the world??" Topic

I don't know if it gets talked about that much but I was thinking about comments I often read how the European's didn't consider either sides armies very "professional" and admittedly in the beginning that was certainly the case.
It got me thinking though, imagine if the best of both sides had been combined after a couple years?? Grant in command with Lee, Longstreet, Jackson, Sherman, Jeb, Sheridon along with properly equipped southern infantry and union artillery and logistical support. I can't help but think pound per pound it would have been the best army in the world and would have humbled any European army of the time. But maybe I am just being an American??? I do find it pretty wild to think about the possibilities IF there had been another major war at that time involving the US. Just some random what if thinking:)

Hard to beat an army with recent and extensive combat experience, and quality leadership. Maybe only the Prussians would be able to take it on.

I have always been interested in hypothetical Anglo French intervention. I think if you combined the best of both by 63/64, they would be the largest, best equipped, most experienced combined arms in the world, but that was only because they had been going at each other so hard for so long?

If you imagine that a US army of any size could have been kept in existence at that time in times of peace then you are living in cloud cuckoo land. The politics were very much against the expense and the perceived risk of a large (or even an effective) army.

Also comparing warfare in the vastness of North America with that in Europe is very difficult. Comparing the effectiveness of an army trained for the ACW with, say a French or Prussian army, of the same time, trained for European terrain & conditions would be almost impossible.

There almost was such a War. Even a few.
Perry has a range of British Intervention in the ACW. Britain did reinforce Canada. Recall the post ACW comical Fenian invasion.
And France actually did invade Mexico. It's no coincidence that they skedaddled almost immediately once our own unpleasantness ceased. The Federals were even assembling an army to intervene along the traditional route.
I like to refer to these wars that never happened as a "Wargamer's Tragedy".

Only an invasion of America would have produced such a mobilization of troops.
Between the Mexican-American War and the Civil War, a number of Filibuster operations, however, none produced Federal support.
American expansion would make Canada or Alaska prime targets. Thus resulting in war with Russia or Great Britain. If gold had been found in the Yukon earlier, a strong possibility.
So I am not sure our American army would have had overwhelming success over the battle harden armies of the recent Crimean War.

This would be Harry Harrison's "Stars and Stripes" series, yes?

Two words- bolt-action and cavalry. Ok, that's three. Three words- bolt-action and massed cavalry- Right, ok, four words- bolt-action rifles and massed cavalry… that's-
I'll come in again.

The Russians are another possibility.

link

Lincoln had a very cordial relationship with the Tsar, and Russia sent numerous ships to New York and San Fran in 1863.

link

link

link

I was recently re-reading Carton's Army if the Potomac trilogy. In it he argues that the British would never have intervened, because as much as they might miss cotton from the Southern US, they would have missed food imports from the North even more, Europe having experienced a period of droughts and poor harvests.

I think D. H. Hill once said something to the effect that if he could have an army of Confederate infantry and Federal artillery, he wouldn't be afraid of anything.

Combined, an 1863-64 ACW army would have been very tough to beat – but the challenge is, where? On home ground, for sure – an invasion might be a little different, especially if it involved crossing a lot of water

If you pit this fictional army against the Prussians or the French in the second or third year of the ACW, the Prussian infantry could fire about 6 rounds a minute with a bolt action needle gun, which had gone into service in the 1840s, I think, but kept secret for a while. The French Model 1866 Chassepot was not ready yet, but had the same rate of fire, and would be trouble for the US later. That's why I think the Prussians would be trouble, along with their general high standards, forward thinking and planning.

Massed cavalry was a disaster already, as at the tail end of Gettysburg. Except for the Prussian "Death Ride" in 1870, which took out enemy guns at a cost of 50% casualties.

By 1870, French and Prussian technology, and lessons applied from the ACW maybe put them ahead as armies, but US manufacturing was better and in the process of producing some famous pistols and rifles.

For a European invasion of the USA, where would they stage from? The British obviously have Canada. There are a few well traveled invasion routes, going in both directions.
The French were already in Mexico. But where do they go from there? Texas?
How about the Prussians? Where do they land? Kaiser Wilhelm famously said that if the British landed on the Baltic coast, he would send a policeman to arrest them.

The same problem applies to the Yanks (assuming no Rebs tag along, but who knows?). Where do they land?

Both sides control their interiors, and can supply their armies very well. How do the invaders supply their armies, combined with their invaders?

But all that is besides the point. If you have the armies, use them. I had no problems doing a GASLIGHT campaign based on the Union invading Canada. Justifying it was easy. Plus I already had ACW and Zulu War British.

This ignores the fact that the Union built up an absolutely huge coastal defense navy. Could the Europeans have broken through that to invade the US? Maybe the Royal Navy, but the cost would have been very high. Since it was a coastal defense navy, it would have been almost impossible to use this fleet to invade Europe, even if the British decided to sit on the sidelines and watch.

Strategically, the Union managed to conduct an offensive war along a 1500-mile front. The Germans sort of managed to accomplish that in 1914-17; they failed miserably when they tried it again in 1940-45. This is not just a matter of combat troops, but also of logistics.

Grelber

I've often thought about the Union turning on Canada. A good number of Union troops were equipped with repeaters vs. British Martini Henrys (?) and the Union navy could have shut down Canada's eastern seaboard without too much trouble. The trick would have been to make it a quick operation.

Hmmm, an Anglo-French alliance with the British striking from Canada and the French from Mexico. If the alliance was strong and mission justifiable, then I can imagine other nations getting involved. The Russians into California and the the Spanish into Florida from Cuba and Puerto Rico.
Though I think the Prussians would unify Germany as they did. So then they hit France.

The steam battleships of the RN, including HMS Warrior, 1861, and her sister, Black Prince, would have made short work of any Union naval force. Warrior was the most advanced warship of her era, a true ironclad battleship. Add the 9000 ton Achilles armored frigate, and the three 10,000 ton Minotaurs, and the converted to iron ships like Royal Oak, I think the US would be hard pressed.

Apart from the problems of facing breech loading rifles and RBL guns, the main problem the US Army would have in fighting a European one is that the US Army was so small. Prussia invaded Austria with 600,000 men in 1866. A single Prussian Corps was bigger than the entire Army of Virginia.

Lee might have been the greatest General in the world, but even he couldn't beat odds of 15:1.

Lee was the greatest general in the world? Debatable. I would argue not even in America. But that's another topic.
How exactly are those big bad Prussians supposed to get their amazing army to Virginia? Even if they could, I would think that Austria or Russia might take advantage of their absence.

The US Government forces in 1865 had an eight year window before British infantry were equipped with the Martini Henry lever-action breechloader. The British did however receive the Snider breechloading adaptation ofthe Enfield rifle from 1866.
British musketry using the Enfield muzzle-loader was already a factor to contend with but how well that would have told in the face of superior numbers is another matter.

Hush, Frederick. The whole point of this sort of hypothetical is that armies are to be teleported to battlefields which have been determined by die roll, and that logistics is some sort of urban myth. If you start talking about supply lines, or adaptation of armies to terrain and anticipated opponents, the people who want to run a mixed ACW army against Crimean War British or Ottoman Turks against Samurai Era Japanese just throw rocks at you.

"How exactly are those big bad Prussians supposed to get their amazing army to Virginia? Even if they could, I would think that Austria or Russia might take advantage of their absence."

I've no idea, ask the OP. That is always the problem with counter factuals.

How would the mighty US Army fight the French, Prussians, Russians ? I haven't got a clue. Teleporter? But all those armies were vastly bigger than the US Army. They'd trash us Brits of course, but we were only a colonial police force in the 1860s.

Martin, this sort of thing is always done on a points system. Everyone knows that all warfare is conducted by "factions" of equal points on a standard-size table.

If I ever get my hands on a time machine, Hitler is safe until after I've dealt with Games Workshop and whoever started Ancients tournaments.

OMG! People aren't playing with their toys in a way that you approve of!
Fetch the Wargaming Police!

Sadly, there's never a Wargaming Policeman around when you need one.

Defunded…

Maybe, Tortella. But I'd check the doughnut shops and pizza parlors first. They could just be goofing off.

And people can play with toys any way they want. If someone wants to play Vikings vs Aztecs or Romans vs Zulu, that's up to them. I think my grandkids would be fine with either one. But at some point, it stops being historical miniatures gaming, and--as I tried to point out--discussion of logistics and terrain become irrelevant.

Guys, thanks for all the input. Had no idea it would be of such interest. Just for the record, I wasn't really thinking of all the other real world issues like when, where and how since it was just a simple what if from the start.
Interesting info about the new Prussian weapons coming out. I did think about how many of the veterans of the Crimean War would have still be around in certain armies that could have made a difference.
As for size difference I don't know the exact numbers off hand but if you combined the 1863 Union and CSA armies I think it would be a fairly large number?? You would have around 200k in the east, 125k in the mid west and around 100k in the Mississippi area and this doesn't include all the smaller 5-10k forces in various scattered places at that time. Seems like it would be a fairly large number? Just another what if.

ANY US Army prior to the end of WWI would have been soundly defeated by either the Prussians or the French since both of those armies had very capable, professional, staffs and we didn't.

Prior to the 20th century US Armies rarely executed operations in a timely, professional, manner. I can't think of a single operation where a march or attack was carried out the way it was intended by the commander.

For professional European armies that was the norm. One rarely hears of Prussian or French units not turning up when they were supposed to or attacking when/where they were supposed to. the Americans are the reverse, one never reads of any plan being executed correctly.

Even Jackson's vaunted flank march at Chancellorsville took ten hours to march 12 miles, then the troops were miss-deployed as successive lines of divisions stacked behind one another. Heck, as late as March of '65 the AoP was still having issues getting everyone on the same sheet of music, see Warren's V Corps wanderings at Five Forks.

The French and Prussians would have eaten us alive…

Yes, especially the Prussians, professionals to the core.

The French army had failed to keep up with the Prussians militarily. By 1870, discipline in the French army had become loose, political rivalries, unclear communications and leadership quality were problems. The logistics of the call-up and mobilization were a mess. Slow, inefficient, they could field maybe 300,000 men initially. Just some of the reasons the war was so short and the Emperor captured.

The Prussians had the first real general staff, were efficient and organized to the hilt, could put 500,000 quickly into the field and call up 500,000 more. Still the French soldiers fought well and their Chassepots had longer range than the Prussian needle guns.

Nobody could take the Prussians, IMO. The French would not have had an easy time against combat veterans of the ACW. Grant's logistics and supply at the end were far better than in the early days of the war. The Potomac army was formidable under Grant.

Warren's wanderings at Five Forks is how Sheridan wanted to describe it. I doubt Sheridan was interested in an honest assessment of Warren's performance on March 31…or his own.

I don't thing logistics or supply were any better under Grant than they were a year before under Hooker. The difference was Grant's willingness to fight it out and the Administration's willingness to let him.

Whether the U.S. could have defeated Prussia in 1865 is an interesting what if. However the U.S. could not have made the same effort in 1870 as it could in 1865. Prussia OTOH could have made the same effort in 1875 as it did in 1870.

I studied under Frank Vandiver at Rice, and he was as knowledgeable about Civil War matters as anyone alive. We discussed this at length in a seminar; I was one of five students, the other four being West Point majors getting a masters in mil history to go teach at the Academy. The consensus was that ANV would have run rings around any European army at the time, and that AOP or Sherman's boys would likely have as well. And combined, no contest. The US and CS command systems (Lee's especially) were far more flexible than the Prussians.

Good point Doc, I had not thought of it that way. But it did depend on the competence of Lee's subordinates. The ANV was a more streamlined organization, while the Potomac army was sort of a mixed bag of too many Corps, and some terrible commanders like Sickles at Gettysburg.

The time frame of comparison for this post is not clear. In 1864, the Prussians had combat experience, highly trained officers, better artillery, the needle gun. The Americans had lost some of their best commanders on each side but had far more combat experience. A tough bunch combined, I think they have the edge.
By 1870, the Prussians had even more combat experience after 1866, very skilled general staff, very disciplined troops.Their organization skills were better. Look at their mobilization in 1870. Trains, planning, discipline. Maybe not as flexible, but they were always ready with a top quality standing army. Not so for the US in 1870. Edge to the Prussians,

Ring knockers will always say an American army is the best, LoL.
It is clear from the comments that a key is the year of conflict.
I still say the American response depends on whether the USA is being invaded or doing the invading. If invading many of the Gentleman officers would stay home and manage farms or businesses. Manpower levels at the enlisted level would be far less if invading. Also the American army would not have access to the immigrant volunteers.
The American command would be dominated by the professional officers of the academy. This was a problem for the Union staffers early in the war.
The situation makes great leaders.
Industrial ability to produce weapons would be harder in the American free economy than the rigid royal control in most European countries. This changes if America is invaded.

The whole comparison really only works for a game if you allow the armies to be transported by magic in an instant and remove that factor. Neither Prussia nor the US had enough ocean going naval capacity to invade by sea.

You know, circling back around, if you HAD that magical transportation system, my money in this period would be on the 1870 Prussians--sound doctrine for the most part, excellent staff, recent combat experience but rested, up to strength and having had time to digest lessons and fire or promote officers based on said battlefield performance.

That's pretty much the right formula. It's what made the "Glory Years" French and the 1940 Germans so formidable, and why Patton wanted to invade Mexico for practice before we got into WWII.

How about the 1864 Prussians? Still learning from the ACW. Rail capacity starting to expand. Breach loading field artillery still in development. Only the war with the Danes for combat experience. Americans at the top of their game, at least for the Union.

Patton wanted to invade Mexico?? I think I remember reading something about an issue over oil with them before WW2, was it related to that??? Funny………..

There is a reason the French left Mexico.