- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: Would the Union Army have been strong enough to beat British after Civil War?
Posted on 2/9/25 at 2:26 pm to prplhze2000
Posted on 2/9/25 at 2:26 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
I dunno, Max Boot, before he went crazy with TDS, wrote the Union Navy at the end of the war was equal to the British Navy.
It may have been in terms of the number of ships and relative fire power, but the Union navy was built for blockade duty and riverine operations. It was not built as a blue-water navy, which the Brits were greatly superior at building. Technologies came out of our Civil War that changed naval warfare greatly, but the platforms and capabilities to project power were very different.
Now, if the British had tried to sail into the Chesapeake and burn Washington again, we probably could have destroyed that force decisively.
0
Posted on 2/9/25 at 3:44 pm to prplhze2000
In a pitched battle in 1865, no way. The troop numbers alone would have been prohibitive. However what the British excelled at was two things. Naval prowess and political manipulation of local populations. They would play one group off of another and form alliances. The British, for example, were quite willing in India to let Indian municipalities fight amongst themselves and then come in as peacemakers on one side tipping the balance of power.
However from a naval point their ability was without compare. They could land expeditionary forces where they wanted, generally. However I think trying to take Washington would have been problematic. However, Baltimore would have been a spot they would try and try to outflank and cut off DC from Philly and New York.
But they did not have ironclads.....we did.
However from a naval point their ability was without compare. They could land expeditionary forces where they wanted, generally. However I think trying to take Washington would have been problematic. However, Baltimore would have been a spot they would try and try to outflank and cut off DC from Philly and New York.
But they did not have ironclads.....we did.
Posted on 2/9/25 at 3:55 pm to KiwiHead
The British wouldnt mountban amphibious operatiion, they wouldcattack from Canada az they nearly did in response to thecTrent affair. They could also incite the Indians to raise hell on the frontier and theres very little the US could have done about it.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News