Comparing the US Army of 1865 (Union) to European Powers

[conon394]

The US army in 1865 were just transitioning from muzzle to cartridge based breech loading weapons as their standard issue rifles. Most of the Europeans already adopted breech loading even bolt action rifles as their main standard issue as far back as the 1840's with the Prussians adopting the Dreyse bolt action. The really only advantage we had very any european at the time was the Gatling gun which we just started to mass produce.

Umm no they had not... I don't now where you got that bit of fantasy from.

Circa 1865/66 was just about when most Europeans were also just implementing their first Breech loading conversion weapons - not bolt action. The US was at no disadvantage here.

France: while it may have adopted the Chassepot in 1866 it was still also converting its muzzle loaders under the Tabatière rifle system. Even by the Franco Prussian war the conversions still made up a fair amount of French guns on hand.

UK: Used the Snider-Enfield conversion until the 1871 and the introduction of Martini Henry

Austria looks to have used the muzzle loading Lorenzs as late as 1866 when the standard muzzle Loading was the main long arm. The Wanzl conversion does not appear to have been adopted before the 1866 lost to Prussia. The M1867 Werndl-Holub replaced in the next year or so (slowly).

Yes Prussia does singularly (OK and Norway) emerge as a switching in to a single shot breech loader in the Dreyse 'needle gun' circa mid 1840- but one with a lot of issues and problems (see below - new post I did not mean post this yet so more later). Also I cannot find a good source but like much of Europe Prussia seems to have retained lancers and a pile load of silly cavalry traditions just not quite as bad as everyone else so balance that enthusiasm so let's not get too sloppy about how great they were..

It took long enough to track down the Austrian guns so I'm not going to do it for Russia or anyone else, but broadly speaking in Europe 1866 or so was when most powers moved to at minimum to a breech loading conversion for front line troops out of the old solid muzzle loading standing stockpile. Nobody went bat crap crazy and in general not until the mid 1870 could you have expected every major power to have a modern breach loader in the hands of its front line troops that includes Prussia dealing with all the down sides of the original needle gun.

So in fact the US was in fact with or ahead of the times by 1865. By 1866 the US was on it second round of implementing the
Allin designed trapdoor breech-loading mechanism conversion of the Springfield Model 1863 the first being started in 1865. At the same time time US had free access to what was clearly the best breach (clip loaded/magazine) loading firearm of the day in in The Spencer Repeater carbine or rifle - that sorry to say cleans the floor with the Dreyse. Not only that the US had the Peabody breach loading system available as early as 1863/4. If the US wanted to or had fought Europe in 1865 it had more or less the best small arms tech on hand to use.

[hellheaven1987]

It's one of those silly questions again really isn't it, We have to decide if France is attacking or defending. If France is attacking are the committing for a real fight a la Franco-Prussian War? Or merely doing a Britain with small global expeditionary forces flung around from their Empire? blah blah.

Just because France in this period couldn't deal with the Mexicans (Though arguably this may have more to do with politics and allocated resources) it dosen't mean that they couldn't deal with the US (as the circumstances are always going to be different) vice versa of course it doesn't mean that France COULD deal with the US (because again, circumstances).

Sorry bro, but French military in 1870:

- 1/3 of officers were illiterate.
- 30% were alcohol addict.
- No permanent organization bigger than regiment.
- HQ had no map, no intelligence department, nothing.
- Completely outdated cavalry.

And that was after the reform of 1865...

[Caesar Germanico]

- 1/3 of officers were illiterate.
- 30% were alcohol addict.
- HQ had no map, no intelligence department, nothing.

Source?

[brandbll]

Now you know I won't have to explain. Really the quickest of wikis would've set you straight.

The majority of Americans don't speak English. US citizens are notoriously ignorant of basic geography. Lets aim for something a little higher shall we?

Fair point, well made. I can't find any sources although I do recall the senior German comanders took the Eastern Front more seriously. In fact only Rommel seemd to consider OVERLORD a genuine threat.

You are ridiculing Americans for for not knowing basic geography, and yet you can't figure out one of the reasons the Germans were taking the Soviets as more of a threat? You see Cyclops, there is this big body of water called the Atlantic Ocean. Americans have to cross the Atlantic Ocean to get over to Europe and at the time, the only practical way to cross it with massive amounts of troops and equipment is with ships. Now i know you shouldn't be expected to know much about this mysterious ocean since the only one you know of is the one that surrounds your country. But believe me, it's there, it's big, and it was a real hinderence to transporting troops and equipment to Europe.

All facetiousness aside though, it's really not hard to understand why the Germans treated the soviets as more of a threat. It's because they were. I don't even know where to start because there are just so many factors that lead to this. You have basic a geographical factor where areas controlled by Germany and the Soviet Union at the time of Overlord are bordering each other and those borders are constantly shifting. Germany at this time had already been fighting a massive war against the Soviet Union for years. You have the fact that by the time of Overlord the USSR had already knocked Germany back and had them on their heels. You have the very basic political factors of facism vs communism. I mean, the Russians and Germans HATED each other. This hatred was taken out between the two in the form of many different atrocities over the years. The Soviet Union was only fighting one front where America was fighting two on opposite sides of the world. It's was fairly well accepted that the important thing to do was to stop the Soviets, and then sue the rest of the allies for peace because it wasn't any secret that the Allies hated the Soviet Union just as much as they hated Germany. As for Hitler's generals; many of them wouldn't have been worrying about the Western front because they were busy fighting on the Eastern front. Why would you worry about America when you are already in a brutal fight with the Soviet Union that you are losing? I could go on and could have easily delved into those points even further, but really this would be best discovered by yourself by just reading some books about WWII.

Second, Ciabhan is right. You shouldn't just blindly trust Hitler's military opinion at all. He was a complete strategical moron when it came to military matters. He bit off more than he could chew from the get-go and then proceeded to make dumb decision after dumb decision. It's one of the biggest reasons so many of his own people attempted to kill him. Furthermore, and this is for your own benefit, there is a name for people that blindly took Hitler's opinion as truth; they were called Nazis. So for your own good, when you read something regarding Hitler's opinion on a matter, you should do more research on it and not just accept what he says as truth. And typically it's best not to trust his opinion on anything at all...unless it's on cocaine, opiates or amphetamines. Hitler was an expert in those areas...

[Cyclops]

You are ridiculing Americans for for not knowing basic geography...

lol, what?

All facetiousness aside...

Look I think you have a high opinion of the US army, and its a common belief among US citizens, not shared around the world. Its normal to glorify one's military history, we have "historians" in Australia who imagine Australian servicemen were elite forces in all their wars.

I think the Nazis rated the US tactically inferior to themselves man for man, and IIRC Patton thought so too. I think this is true for the 1860's as well.

Hey Cylops, I just asked my grandmother whose father served in WWI and whose brothers and husband served in WWII and she was quite adamant about the fact that her father was a Doughboy and her husband a GI. But what does she know, she only lived through it all.

Pretty sure Omar Bradley lived through it too. Why the contempt for the words of a decorated veteran?

... doughboy used sometimes, especially early on in WWII to refer to the soldiers, sure…..

So they were doughboys.

…but was it the name that survived the war? Not at all. The soldiers, and American society at large, took on GI. General Issue. Especially since so many men had joined the military and were wearing the same clothing. If you use Doughboy in modern day to refer to a soldier in WWII your either going to come off as forcing a word that barely fits and is mostly archaic, going to sound a little ignorant, or are trying to use an archaic form of speech that is barely correct in an attempt to try to force an argument of ignorance upon your opposition. All of which, in my opinion leads me to not use that particular word in relation to WWII because then you distract from the main point, if there was one at all. Regardless, this debate of semantics is neither here nor there in the question of the OP.…..

Omar Bradley used it in his memoir after the war. Not good enough for you? The war dept. was issuing the booklet "I Am a Doughboy" in 1945, an there are copies signed by servicemen on eBay. I'll take a CJCS and serving US soldiers over anonymous hearsay.

[conon394]

I still don't know how France could win a war against US in 1860s when they could not even beat Mexicans.

Of course in 1865 it could not, less so if the US really planed to retain a large standing military. Unless we are throwing these armies together in a TWC sandbox Trans Atlantic logistics make any major invasion from Europe to the US or Union to Europe (alone) unlikely and doomed. Certainly the basic facts are such the Union could not force its way through the RN. While the French navy could likely been driven back and out of the Gulf of Mexico - but w/o a really sustained new building program the USN could not break French Naval defenses on the opposite side of the Atlantic.

Navy wise, in 1865 only France and the UK have sufficient numbers of non coastal ironclads, capital ships (afloat or in storage) to master the Atlantic, the Union could with a bit of work come in third but more in a denial roll vs either two. The bulk of its ironclads were built fast and for coastal operations. Overall the Union would be in a good position circa 1865 for the first time ever having a war that had actually pushed the US/Union to complete a coastal fortification system, add in its ironclads from the war (and their optimization for coastal ops) the Union could stop a UK close blockade and vs France the same and likely shut them out of the Gulf and Mexico.

That in turn turn means the Union could build 2 different ships that would cause all kinds of problems for either nation given how many experienced sailors it had on hand in 1865. First the Union could have fully approved the Cramp yard's 3500 ton casement Iron clad optimized for the Atlantic. Fast, small and inexpensive in terms of men, guns and material and by 1865 with access to rolled plate around 4"+ it would have been the equivalent of Soviet missile boats. Worse yet for the UK in particular was something like the Wampanoag commerce raider which could make 17+ knots. W/O a close blockade said ship types could get out and cost the UK (or France) much in transport costs, sunk tonnage and insurance rates and likely as the CSA still find neutral ports to go to ground in as well.

One thing to remember is the staggering scale of casualties the Union army was willing and did accept. Against and UK/European attack or even a perceived and accepted 'defensive' war of revenge in either Mexico (France) or Canada I think the Union could likely count on the same level of commitment from the average soldier. Invading Europe or playing helper in Great power politics maybe not so much...

[RedGuard]

Look I think you have a high opinion of the US army, and its a common belief among US citizens, not shared around the world. Its normal to glorify one's military history, we have "historians" in Australia who imagine Australian servicemen were elite forces in all their wars.

I think the Nazis rated the US tactically inferior to themselves man for man, and IIRC Patton thought so too. I think this is true for the 1860's as well.

alot of assumptions going on here. For one, no one thinks americas army was the best in either ww1 or ww2, but espeicailly not ww1. ww2, well the juries still out,and it was not the best trained army by a long shot but other than the Russian army it was the biggest. Bigger usually means less well trained. but you can't argue with the results. Of course the Germans thought themselves superior to everyone or they would not have made so many mistakes at the end (And not had hilter playing armchair general)

Pretty sure Omar Bradley lived through it too. Why the contempt for the words of a decorated veteran?

SO would General Westmorland be wrong in calling troops in Vietnam GIs? even though it would be an antiquated term?

So they were doughboys.



Omar Bradley used it in his memoir after the war. Not good enough for you? The war dept. was issuing the booklet "I Am a Doughboy" in 1945, an there are copies signed by servicemen on eBay. I'll take a CJCS and serving US soldiers over anonymous hearsay.

sure man just keep using it, but when you talk to someone that is serious about history, their gonna look at you twice for saying it.

[Cyclops]

alot of assumptions going on here. For one, no one thinks americas army was the best in either ww1 or ww2, but espeicailly not ww1. ww2, well the juries still out,and it was not the best trained army by a long shot but other than the Russian army it was the biggest. Bigger usually means less well trained. but you can't argue with the results. Of course the Germans thought themselves superior to everyone or they would not have made so many mistakes at the end (And not had hilter playing armchair general).

Are you suggesting the US Army was the second biggest in WW2? The Heere and Red Army were both substantially larger. Not sure about the IJA, th US had the 90 division army thing happening and from memory Japan had fifty something divisions s I suspect the US is third.

SO would General Westmorland be wrong in calling troops in Vietnam GIs? even though it would be an antiquated term?.

Ask Ramashan to check with his grandmother. Wy are you asking this?

sure man just keep using it, but when you talk to someone that is serious about history, their gonna look at you twice for saying it.

Look History is a discipline where you explain events using sources, like memoirs and US Army documents, not Wikipedia.

I am interested that you don't accept the memoirs of Omar Bradley an US Army publications as definitive.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Sorry bro, but French military in 1870:

- 1/3 of officers were illiterate.
- 30% were alcohol addict.
- No permanent organization bigger than regiment.
- HQ had no map, no intelligence department, nothing.
- Completely outdated cavalry.

And that was after the reform of 1865...

Haha oh dear, i stand corrected then. I knew France was rather a 'Paper Tiger' among the Great Powers in the years 1860-1880(ish) but i didn't realize they were that bad. Do you have sources on their state Hellheaven? I don't disbelieve you mate, but i'd be eager to see a comprehensive picture. That's a right state!

[Town Watch]

Umm no they had not... I don't now where you got that bit of fantasy from.

Circa 1865/66 was just about when most Europeans were also just implementing their first Breech loading conversion weapons - not bolt action. The US was at no disadvantage here.

France: while it may have adopted the Chassepot in 1866 it was still also converting its muzzle loaders under the Tabatière rifle system. Even by the Franco Prussian war the conversions still made up a fair amount of French guns on hand.

UK: Used the Snider-Enfield conversion until the 1871 and the introduction of Martini Henry

Austria looks to have used the muzzle loading Lorenzs as late as 1866 when the standard muzzle Loading was the main long arm. The Wanzl conversion does not appear to have been adopted before the 1866 lost to Prussia. The M1867 Werndl-Holub replaced in the next year or so (slowly).

Yes Prussia does singularly (OK and Norway) emerge as a switching in to a single shot breech loader in the Dreyse 'needle gun' circa mid 1840- but one with a lot of issues and problems (see below - new post I did not mean post this yet so more later). Also I cannot find a good source but like much of Europe Prussia seems to have retained lancers and a pile load of silly cavalry traditions just not quite as bad as everyone else so balance that enthusiasm so let's not get too sloppy about how great they were..

It took long enough to track down the Austrian guns so I'm not going to do it for Russia or anyone else, but broadly speaking in Europe 1866 or so was when most powers moved to at minimum to a breech loading conversion for front line troops out of the old solid muzzle loading standing stockpile. Nobody went bat crap crazy and in general not until the mid 1870 could you have expected every major power to have a modern breach loader in the hands of its front line troops that includes Prussia dealing with all the down sides of the original needle gun.

So in fact the US was in fact with or ahead of the times by 1865. By 1866 the US was on it second round of implementing the
Allin designed trapdoor breech-loading mechanism conversion of the Springfield Model 1863 the first being started in 1865. At the same time time US had free access to what was clearly the best breach (clip loaded/magazine) loading firearm of the day in in The Spencer Repeater carbine or rifle - that sorry to say cleans the floor with the Dreyse. Not only that the US had the Peabody breach loading system available as early as 1863/4. If the US wanted to or had fought Europe in 1865 it had more or less the best small arms tech on hand to use.

I think the repeating rifles / carbines were a pretty unique development especially on the American side of the Atlantic. The fact that Spencer carbine was fielded with cavalry units already in Civil War is one definite factor. Shortly after the Civil War they started making the Henry repeating carbine (yellowboy, and whatever other models primarily made by Winchester Arms Company)

I mean the Winchester was a good carbine wasn't it? It seems that the Turkish forces used it somewhat successfully against Russians in some battles?

[Gaidin]

Look History is a discipline where you explain events using sources, like memoirs and US Army documents, not Wikipedia.

I am interested that you don't accept the memoirs of Omar Bradley an US Army publications as definitive.

I'm not exactly defending him, but unsourced stuff gets deleted from Wikipedia, it's a fundamental policy of the site though the quality of the sources may certainly be debatable. Second, it's not really that Bradley's memoirs aren't definitive, it's that they're not the only thing written about anything over there by people that were there that are definitive to any extent. Do you know how many debates have been spawned by memoirs of soldiers? And third, this isn't a History Masters/PhD defense forum. Look, you've been around for 2000 posts. You should've figured this out by now. This is a gaming forum with people that talk shop in various subjects. If you want srs bznss debate for history you need to find a better forum. Say, a history forum with people that talk shop in gaming.

[conon394]

I think the repeating rifles / carbines were a pretty unique development especially on the American side of the Atlantic. The fact that Spencer carbine was fielded with cavalry units already in Civil War is one definite factor. Shortly after the Civil War they started making the Henry repeating carbine (yellowboy, and whatever other models primarily made by Winchester Arms Company)

I mean the Winchester was a good carbine wasn't it? It seems that the Turkish forces used it somewhat successfully against Russians in some battles?

They were very good weapons indeed. But there were trade offs and all in all nobody had fully solved those until around mid 1870 or so.

One concern - a real valid one - was was fire discipline and logistical demands. Be it a Spencer, a Dreyse, a Chassepot or any one of the mid 1860s breech loading conversions you increase (in some cases very much) the potential rate of fire and thus the demand on logistics particularly if your soldiers are sloppy and blow through their ammo. Related is of course in the era of black powder you create a huge fog of gun smoke just that much faster. Critically each of the guns above is now more and more specialized - in range, operation, maintenance, ammunition, powder charge, bayonet type and fitting - if any etc. So consider the day of the battle of Gettysburg - the basic rifled musket was more or less identical on all sides - A Lee Enfield, a Springfield and Lorentz all virtually identical. Your men could claim a better weapon from the enemy or a dead comrade, a ram rod, ammo, cartilages, balls and on and on and use them w/o any fuss. But moving forward to the new guns becoming available meant having to supply all those new special things - rim fire, paper, whatever cartage - having the right tools and training to clean a specific weapon, know it range and issues etc.

The Second is that the loss of range and weight of shot. The Spencer rifle, Henry Rifle and Dreyse all lost a significant amount of range compared to a typical muzzle loading rifle. The Dreyse had it own mechanical vulnerabilities, and the Henry sacrificed a lot of muzzle velocity, range and weight for a 16 round magazine.

For cavalry both with their ability to carry more ammo, and given the expectation of a more fluid type of fighting - the Spenser and Henry very much gave the Union the best cavalry of the time circa 1865. A soldier with a 7 shot Spencer or 16 shot Henry and a long colt revolver was very much more useful than the ridiculous lancers the Europeans were still fielding and even their dragoons and light cav that was out gunned on a grand scale.

Of the 3 I's say the Spencer was the best in terms of mechanical reliability and durability combined with performance - and the fact you could carry pre-loaded tubes to not just hand load ammo. By 1866 the Chessepot altered that equation but as the French proved they could not translate that theoretical advantage into victory

[Ciabhán]

Omar Bradley used it in his memoir after the war. Not good enough for you? The war dept. was issuing the booklet "I Am a Doughboy" in 1945, an there are copies signed by servicemen on eBay. I'll take a CJCS and serving US soldiers over anonymous hearsay.

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/...g/Doughboy.htm

http://www.wfa-eastcoast.org/The-Doughboys.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._(military)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughboy

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/...ar1/a/dyk9.htm

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/citizensol...I/doughboy.cfm

http://artofthegreatwar.info/article...-the-doughboy/

The following quote or something very similar is used in all of the above(the first 10 items on Google that weren't for GI Joe toys):

"By the time U.S. Servicemen returned to Europe during the Second World War, the term “doughboy” had disappeared and soldiers were referred to as “GI’s,” an abbreviation of “Government Issue.”"

The fact is that while older soldiers, people like Bradley, and a few people here and there used the term Doughboy into the 1940's it was no longer the en vogue term. As such anyone born after the 1940s in the United States(or anyone who immigrated after, as in my case) will assume Doughboy refers to WWI AEF soldiers and GI to anyone in WWII up through Vietnam. After Vietnam a wider range of slang terms came into the vocabulary though GI is still occasionally heard.

[conon394]

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/...g/Doughboy.htm

http://www.wfa-eastcoast.org/The-Doughboys.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._(military)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughboy

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/...ar1/a/dyk9.htm

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/citizensol...I/doughboy.cfm

http://artofthegreatwar.info/article...-the-doughboy/

The following quote or something very similar is used in all of the above(the first 10 items on Google that weren't for GI Joe toys):

"By the time U.S. Servicemen returned to Europe during the Second World War, the term “doughboy” had disappeared and soldiers were referred to as “GI’s,” an abbreviation of “Government Issue.”"

The fact is that while older soldiers, people like Bradley, and a few people here and there used the term Doughboy into the 1940's it was no longer the en vogue term. As such anyone born after the 1940s in the United States(or anyone who immigrated after, as in my case) will assume Doughboy refers to WWI AEF soldiers and GI to anyone in WWII up through Vietnam. After Vietnam a wider range of slang terms came into the vocabulary though GI is still occasionally heard.

When did this become a WW2 thread? I mean the OP seems clear! I really have no ideal how the performance of US troops (or French or Russian or German etc) in either WW1 or WW2 have anything to do with the OP

[conon394]

Opps

[RedGuard]

When did this become a WW2 thread? I mean the OP seems clear! I really have no ideal how the performance of US troops (or French or Russian or German etc) in either WW1 or WW2 have anything to do with the OP

hows the saying go no OP ever makes it past the third page?

anyway, I have a hard time believing America's civil war army wasn't comparable to any of the major powers in Europe at the time, and no one will convince me otherwise. They were more than a match for mexico, who supposedly had a state of the art army based on Spanish and french ones.

[Gaidin]

anyway, I have a hard time believing America's civil war army wasn't comparable to any of the major powers in Europe at the time, and no one will convince me otherwise. They were more than a match for mexico, who supposedly had a state of the art army based on Spanish and french ones.

Comparable is pretty damn believable. It's a nut who wants to start trying to pick a better military of Europe and saying we were better than them is where I'd take issue. But that's neither here nor there.

[conon394]

and no one will convince me otherwise

And nobody should in 1865 per OP there is no European army the Union could not beat on home soil. As I said logistics gets difficult crossing the Atlantic. As the ally of the UK or France or sailing to intervene with places w/o much navy say Prussia vs Russia the Union gets troops to Europe and they will be as good as any locals and as well armed if not better.

[conon394]

Comparable is pretty damn believable. It's a nut who wants to start trying to pick a better military of Europe and saying we were better than them is where I'd take issue. But that's neither here nor there.

I would give the US/Union the edge in 1865, but we rapidly lost that edge as we did our typical get rid of the military and critically all the infrastructure that supported it and the navy (which ran back to 1812 for F-sake)

[Cyclops]

I think OP has a fantasy scenario where suddenly Europe is next to North America, if this was the case the US would've needed a large standing army, so they'd have more experience and direct exposure to European conditions etc.

If there's a magic closing of the gap from IRL 1865, I still think the US has a tactical disadvantage in infantry tactics, but thats my uneducated guess. Its been demonstrated the equipment gap is hardly to the US's disadvantage, and I'm unsure about artillery but they have a large well resourced industrial sector to develop if needed. The little I have read of European can tactics is that the French were all grunt and no graft, failing at basic screening and reconn tasks (a sad fall from their Napoleonic excellence). Prussian and Austrian can remained good at their tasks, and IIRC the Austrian arty was rated world's best in 1866, with the Prussians perhaps the second best. however the uS has claims there too, and that makes sense as it is a technical arm suited o the US tradition of logistic and engineering problem solving. Behind the lines the US brings a formidable logistical capability too, my guess is comfortably world's best..

I would give the US/Union the edge in 1865, but we rapidly lost that edge as we did our typical get rid of the military and critically all the infrastructure that supported it and the navy (which ran back to 1812 for F-sake)

I recall a writer on US military history (but who? damned old age) reflecting on the loss of experienced formations after WW2 as well 9sorry OT but relevant I hope), seems to be a consistent US armed forces doctrine. Something about a photo of the formation (maybe a tank unit?2nd Armoured or something) returned to the US (Texas?) and then within six months they were mostly dispersed (1947?), then they were needed agin in 1950 in Korea, and they were inventing the wheel again.

I think its a "US political trait" if there is a such a thing, a distrust of foreign adventures and a large standing army as bad for democracy. Its still present in the US political discourse, a healthy questioning of foreign commitments ands I have to say the US has been slow to grab foreign countries even if they thought it was in their own interests. Compare this with Napoleon I and III's wild foreign policy, all glorious armies and traditions and keeping huge military establishments and don't ask questions.

The US Navy worried anyone who ever tangled with them, even the elite IJN, and British ribbing aside they would bloody anyone who thought they could sail into US waters, and would contest any seas in this scenario against any odds 9as in 1812).