Wellington in America 1812 (alternate history) (1 Viewer)

1) 1812 - In his book "Fields of Battle" John Keagan states that Wellington was approached about leading an expedition in North America and he wasn't too fond of the idea. the USA at the time was still basically an agrarian society with little established infrastructure. Except for the coastal cities the British would be fighting in wilderness - one of the disadvantages faced by their field commanders in 1775-83. One can see that the major successes of the British in 1812-14 was in attacking coastal cities, and they did end up being rebuffed at Baltimore (land and sea) and at New Orleans (land). As is usual for the US we got ourselves into a war without full mobilization and without even the full support of the states and their citizens.

2) British actions in 1861-63. The major support the British government could provide was the Royal Navy. A powerful professional force with long tradition of combat. They may not always win every single battle, but the RN tends to come out on top. Yes, the USN had expanded but a number of ships were meant for blockade duty, and they were spread out doing the blockade. The RN could establish local superiority, crush a blockade squadron and sail away before the Union could mass its forces for a couterstrike. Our monitors of the Civil War were basically coastal vessels, not really geared up for a "blue water" fight, especially in rough weather. The Royal Navy would take casualties but the coastal blockade would be broken. The "Anaconda Plan" fails. A freshly supplied South is defiant and Lincoln is forced into "total war" earlier than 1964. Lincoln reportedly originally didn't want to destroy the South, he wanted the states to return as petulant children. No blockade means that the only way to defeat the CSA is by ground combat, hopefully before the British can mount their ground offensive. Feeble generalship of the Union army leads to immense casualties. Lincoln loses the election of 1864. The CSA is recognized, America is split into several independent nations and ends up having all the international effect of India. On the good news the South ends up keeping Bill Clinton, so there is a happy result after all!

Gary
 
An interesting discussion, I was going to put my tuppence in, but Binder001 basically said it for me.

The British Empire was built on a shoestring, in any conflict during this time period the principle discussion was the cost. so I don't agree that we would have sent over 100,000+ troops. My take on this would have been that the RN would have succeeded in breaking the blockade and won Naval Supremacy. A small British Expeditionary force would have been sent to Canada (30,000 - 40,000) to help defend the colony and the French probably would have sent a Division or two to support the South (If the Brits did something - the French would have followed suit).

The Federals in the 1861-1862 time period were not the force they were to become and in my opinion (I do not represent the official opinion of HM Govt) would have been driven back in any invasion of Canada. Even in 1864, a successful invasion of Canada would not have been a cakewalk. At that time the US probably would have taken the major areas of Canada, but with horrendous casualties. To be honest I don't think the War would have lasted till then, US trade would have been decimated. All the ports on the eastern seaboard would have been raided and destroyed. The US Navy in 1861 actually had more ships than the Royal Navy, but as already discussed most of these were ex-merchantmen. The Ironclads of 1862+ were only coastal ships and not the Ocean-going fleet of the RN, who could have chosen when and in what strength to take out the various squadrons of the blockading fleet.

With access to european markets and loans (to be repaid after the War) the South could have re-equipped. It took 5 years to beat the South even with all the advantages the North had.

If I have offended anyone's pride, I'm sorry. I believe this is a fair assessment of what would have happened. Of course, I would love to hear if anyone doesn't agree with an eventual Brit/France/South victory but that's part of the enjoyment with being able to discuss history with people from around the world.:D

Rgds

Andy
 
Andy,

I take no national pride umbradge with your assessment, I just think it is flat out wrong. If you look historically, one ironclad (the Virginia or Merimac) routed an entire group of wood warships (not merchantmen). The fact of the matter is that wooden warships cannot do any damage to ironclad ones because naval canon balls just bounce off the armor, while Iron clads can steam up next to a wooden ship and sink it with impunity. The British could not have gotten Iron clad vessels across the Atlantic, even if they had them, as back then Iron Clads were shallow drafted coastal vessels. The Union Ironclads would have been used in small flotillas in coastal waters to guard each port. Had the British Navy attacked Ironclads with their wooden ships, they would have been decimated. Better ships almost always beat superior numbers of ships, just think about what happened to the Spanish Armada, or to the 13 British Frigates which tried to single handedly engage American "Constitution Class" Frigates during the war of 1812 (all 13 British Frigates were sunk or captured - the only Frigate to Frigate engagement one by the British involved a Frnech built Frigate sold to the United States - and the Royal Navy was so humiliated that the Admiralty ordered no British ship to engage an American Ship unless the American ship was outnumbered at least 2 to 1).

Next, during the Civil War, the U.S. never had any intention of attacking Canada, so it would have been your 30,000 to 40,000 man force attacking across an area of wilderness larger than your entire nation while being constantly harrassed by snipers until you faced a pitched battle at a place of American choosing. You tried this exact tactic during the AWI, and it led to an absolute debacle for your forces, who were led by what was supposed to be a very good British General - read up on the Battle of Saratoga.

Finally, it was not in your financial interest to screw with the North - you did a lot more trade with us than with the South, so since your business interests dictated not messing with us, you didn't.

What most Europeans don't understand is that the Civil War involved total modern war using methods and tactics that would not be adopted in Europe until WWI. No European power was geared up to fight this type of modern war in 1863, and I think that the British would have been in for a rude awakening had they tried to fight Union forces with three years of this kind of combat behind them in 1863.

And as far as politics is concerned, your nation was universally and absolutely hated by Americans in the 19th Century, since the vast majority of Americans were either decendents of the Americans who had fought two wars against you or Irish and Scottish immigrants who hated you unconditionally. A British invasion of the North to help the South would have guaranteed Lincoln's re-election, and galvinised America to unleash total war on the South.

Historically, I think this would have guaranteed American victory against the South, a massive build up of American Naval forces in the post war years because of what the U.S. would percieve as a constant threat of British interference.
 
Obviously people have forgotten that Canada was part of England and still are....ships were being built here and so iron clads could have been built here...over 30,000 Canadians fought with the Union against the South..if the US tried to invade Canada they would have failed....not only Canada but many other Nations would have joined in and perhaps the US may have been lost, I don't think England or her allies ever put more than 10% of her might against the US....No offence but if England and her allies destroyed France the US would have been childs play.


WELLINGTON
 
Wellington,

I think that is a rather simplistic statement. Think for a momment. By the end of the Civil War, the Union had more soldiers in arms than Britain ever fielded in the 19th Century. We had an extensive Rail Road and Telegraph net which we were already using for military logistics. We had an armament industry which was the equal of Britain at its best. We had an entire fleet of Iron Clads. We had units in our army armed with repeating rifled carbines (something Britain would not have until the Boer War). We had operational machine guns. We held all the terrain, had short lines of communication, and Britain would be fighting an unpopular war across an ocean, while Germany, France and Russia got ready to take advantage and gobble up her colonial possessions as she had to pull about 2,000,000 men out to ship to Canada and then invade us. British forces would be using conventional tactics against a population more than happy to employ guerilla tactics (they did in the Boer War, 40 years later, so I doubt they were going to abandon them in America) and then engaging battle hardened troops with troops that had never fought in a european conflict (except for maybe some 40+ year old sweats who had seen action in the Crimea as young men). Do you really think the British would have won? And why do you guys keep harping on us being stupid enough to invade Canada during the Civil War? We tried it once in 1812 on the misguided idea that you guys wanted to join the United States, learned our lesson, and never had plans to do it again.
 
Louis,

Hopefully, the Brits would never have invaded the US as I agree it would have been suicide and there probably would never have been a pitch battle as we would have lost hundreds/thousands before we got any where. There again we may have been unlucky and had one of our "special" Generals in charge and lost the lot. My force would have been only defensive and in my opnion I believe that the US would have invaded Canada (agree to disagree on this one).

Navy wise, granted the US could have built ironclads up the ying-yang but in 1861 they weren't growing on trees and the RN would have made mincemeat of the US Navy. HMS Warrior was launched in 1861 (I can now see a HMS Warrior/US Ironclad - Large Battleship/Many smaller ironclads debate) and was faster, better armed and could maneuvre. Granted she couldn't sail in to the ports but she could have maintained control of the seaways with the rest of the fleet. If the war had lasted longer, the Black Prince and a host of other ships in her class would have joined the fleet. It is also probable with more open seas that the South and Canada could have started building further ironclads.

I suppose this is one of the great "What if's", but really didn't have much chance to really happen. It was in the interests of both sides (South excepted) not to start a War, but make's a great point for discussion.

Still think the allied nations would have one......:p:D:D:D

Rgds

Andy
 
Andy,

I am just glad it never happened. The United States and Great Britain have been the best of friends in the 20th and 21st Century, and have backed each other in some of the most important conflicts fought in the history of modernity (WWI, WWII, and maybe most importantly, the cold war), as well as a host of comparatively minor ones (Korea, the Gulf War, the present conflict). Maybe we divorced ourselves from the commonwealth in 1776 and 1812, but we have since reconciled, to the benefit of humanity.
 
Well didn,t britain france and spain have there eyes on getting a foot hold on mexico while the civil war was going on and the north was to busy fighting with the south to intervein?

The british and spanish backed out but the french had invaded mexico at that time and they didn,t have much luck defeating a mexican army that the USA made look very poor only a few years earlier. General Lee and other generals got there first taste of battle against the mexicans.

The 5th of may is still one of mexico,s biggest holidays for the defeat of the french at this time.

I believe an attack through mexico would have been the best way to get a good foot hold of troops onto the north american soil with least resistance being put up and still to this day would probably be the best way to get a foot hold on north america soil?
Lets face it I,m sure the mexicans couldn,t defend there soil as well as americans could right now:p and as far as getting into the USA from mexico? Well just look at all the mexicans that invade the USA every day and have no problem getting in undetected!:p
 
It's bad enough that some of you keep introducing the weapons and tactics of the American Civil War to this 1812 thread, now you're getting the Mexicans on board. C'mon guys, keep the fight fair :p :D
 
the only Frigate to Frigate engagement one by the British involved a Frnech built Frigate sold to the United States
Click to expand...

Back to the War of 1812...
and sorry to be nit-picky...
the frigate in question here was the USS Chesapeake, which was actually one of Joshua Humphreys' 6 frigates (three, President, United States, and Constitution were larger, and three, Chesapeake, Congress and Constellation were smaller). It had a number of flaws (because Humphreys had nothing to do with its contruction) and was always seen as an unlucky ship. It was not French. As I recall, it was built in Norfolk. We lost several other frigates, including a couple of other Joshua Humphreys frigates and subscription frigates, too, but none were in one-on-one engagements. Except for the Chesapeake, the frigates we lost were attacked by a squadron.
 
I don't want to rain on your parade guys but from I have learned, England and her colonies had ships of the line in space way before 1812, I also learned that they had colonies in space so perhaps an invasion from one of these colonies changed your mind.


WELLINGTON.....:eek:
 
Good point. An invasion from the moon in the winter of 1813 would have been devastating to the war effort
 
Thank-you.....very few realize this point or its most often over looked..I thought it only fair to point it out.....


WELLINGTON
 
Louis Badolato said:
And why do you guys keep harping on us being stupid enough to invade Canada during the Civil War? We tried it once in 1812 on the misguided idea that you guys wanted to join the United States, learned our lesson, and never had plans to do it again.
Click to expand...

Actually Louis, the Pentagon has drawn up plans on multiple occasions through the 19th and 20th Centuries on how best to invade Canada. The most recent declassified plan is "Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan - Red" which was drafted in the mid-1930's.

If Britain had opened up a second front during the Civil war, Gary is right that the Union would have been severely battered. But after the civil war ended, you are correct that America had the strongest army in the world. It could have easily subdued Canada. In fact, some dared to try. In 1866 a ragtag army of civil war veterans (mainly Irish Fenians) made remarkably good progress into Canada until they eventually called off their little invasion, such was the unprepared state of Canada's militia. When they returned to New York a number were arrested by General Grant on orders from President Johnson for violating the laws of neutrality. It is fortunate that by then the American people were weary of war and had no more taste for bloodshed. However, many in Canada at the time believed this invasion had been condoned by Johnson, and this and further Fenian raids through 1871 helped to galvanize support in Canada for creating a unified country with a stronger military, as well as the need for the settling of western Canada through a trans-Canada railway.

Today our two countries are good friends. But it is ironic that the country that has always had the greatest capability and likelihood of invading Canada is in fact the United States.
 
CS,

Are these real plans that anyone ever had an intention of initiating, or are they war college exercises? I can't imagine us getting ready to attack Canada during the great depression, it just doesn't make sense.
 
Louis

You would be amazed at all the plans we have in the Pentagon.

Ron
 
We would be frightened I'm sure. Ever read or saw 7 Days in May?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top