- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Was the Union Army/Navy strong enough to challenge England at end of Civil war?
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:19 pm
Read a book about warfare by Max Boot (Fellow at CFR) and he claimed the Union navy and army was the most powerful in the world at the end of the civil war. True? and if so, could it have taken on the Brits and won at the time if such a war took place?
7
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:21 pm to prplhze2000
I would have to see what he bases that on. Sounds dubious to me, especially the Navies.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:23 pm to prplhze2000
Army? Yes and it's not even close.
After the defeat of Napoleon, the British army was scaled back to a very small level and remained small until the influx of volunteers for WWI a century later.
Navy? No and it's not even close.
Following the British victory at Trafalgar, they were the undisputed ruler of the seas until after WWI.
Bottom line is that in 1865 the US was a continental power while Britain was a maritime power
After the defeat of Napoleon, the British army was scaled back to a very small level and remained small until the influx of volunteers for WWI a century later.
Navy? No and it's not even close.
Following the British victory at Trafalgar, they were the undisputed ruler of the seas until after WWI.
Bottom line is that in 1865 the US was a continental power while Britain was a maritime power
This post was edited on 3/29/14 at 4:30 pm
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:27 pm to Jim Rockford
War fatigue would have done the Americans in IMO. That said, we kicked their asses 90 years before that!
This post was edited on 3/29/14 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:30 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
could it have taken on the Brits and won at the time if such a war took place?
depends on the location of the war.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:30 pm to Darth_Vader
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/12/23 at 8:27 am
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:31 pm to TheIrishFro
The Brits had two ironclads themselves in 1859
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:32 pm to TheIrishFro
There were very few blue water capable ironclads, the vast majority of them were river vessels.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:33 pm to colorchangintiger
True but the Union probably had newer ships.
Think about what the South was facing for a second.
An army that could probably beat the British or give it a run for its money without the South's men or support.
Think about what the South was facing for a second.
An army that could probably beat the British or give it a run for its money without the South's men or support.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:36 pm to prplhze2000
It was not a matter of the union having newer ships, it was the matter if the US having only a fraction of the navy that the British did. It was not until the turn if the century the the US could even be considered worthy of being mentioned in the same league as the Brits when it came to naval power.
This post was edited on 3/29/14 at 4:42 pm
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:38 pm to prplhze2000
As for the fact that the union army could beat the Brit army of that time, that's nothing to write home about. At the apex of its power, the Confederate army would have wiped the floor with the Brit army of the 1860's. Like I said, at that time the British army was not a powerful force.
This post was edited on 3/29/14 at 4:41 pm
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:40 pm to Darth_Vader
True.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:47 pm to prplhze2000
The US Army was pretty badass, particularly if you took into account the "pick of the litter" they'd be able to get out of the South - especially generals and the most experienced confederate regiments - however, I'm not sure the deepwater ships of the USN were ready to take on the Royal Navy in 1865.
Interesting debate, though.
Interesting debate, though.
This post was edited on 3/29/14 at 4:49 pm
Posted on 3/29/14 at 5:31 pm to Ace Midnight
There is also the technological argument; the US Navy not only had the most advanced iron clad warships, but also the newest and best armed wooden fleets, and a ship building industry that was churning out ships at an astonishing pace.
Contrastingly, the British Navy had a bit of a decline in building new ships, aside from a brief splurge around the Crimean and first Opium War , though they systematically rebuilt their fleets under First Sea Lord Jackie Fisher at the end of the century.
The real questions are who would be the initiators, where the fight would take place, and how soon the American naval yards could shift their production to blue water. If the British started the fight on the American littoral waters, the numbers and technology of the newer American fleets would likely neutralize the attack capability of the Royal Navy; if the Royal Navy focused on blue water conflict to start the war, they likely have an advantage that atrophies over time.
YMMV, of course.
Contrastingly, the British Navy had a bit of a decline in building new ships, aside from a brief splurge around the Crimean and first Opium War , though they systematically rebuilt their fleets under First Sea Lord Jackie Fisher at the end of the century.
The real questions are who would be the initiators, where the fight would take place, and how soon the American naval yards could shift their production to blue water. If the British started the fight on the American littoral waters, the numbers and technology of the newer American fleets would likely neutralize the attack capability of the Royal Navy; if the Royal Navy focused on blue water conflict to start the war, they likely have an advantage that atrophies over time.
YMMV, of course.
This post was edited on 3/29/14 at 5:34 pm
Posted on 3/29/14 at 5:38 pm to prplhze2000
The Union Army, in April 1865, could have defeated any force on earth.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 6:11 pm to prplhze2000
As others have noted, both the Union and Confederate Armies would have crushed any army anywhere else at the time, and it would not have been close. Not only were both much larger and armed with modern weapons but they (esp. the Union) used railroads extensively. This wasn't seen in Europe until the Prussian Army did this to beat France in 1870 (the French didn't have a real rail network yet).
The Union Navy was almost entirely continental/riverine and could not have taken on the Royal Navy. But it worked the other way around too, the RN would have ruled the high seas but gotten pounded in an invasion attempt.
The Union Navy was almost entirely continental/riverine and could not have taken on the Royal Navy. But it worked the other way around too, the RN would have ruled the high seas but gotten pounded in an invasion attempt.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 6:15 pm to RollTide1987
quote:Prussian army says huh?
The Union Army, in April 1865, could have defeated any force on earth.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 6:33 pm to alajones
The Prussian army wasn't as battle tested as the Union army. No army in Europe was.
This post was edited on 3/29/14 at 6:34 pm
Posted on 3/29/14 at 6:42 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
The Union Army, in April 1865, could have defeated any force on earth.
And for that matter, the Confederate Army could have done the same in 1863 - they were battle hardened against each other.
A combined German army (and such a thing didn't exist yet) - could have mounted a significant challenge, and the Russian army would have been tough to beat at home at the time, but that's about it.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 7:06 pm to Ace Midnight
Are we talking about on a neutral field?
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News