I’d have given it ten years tops. The British Navy could have swept the American Navy of that era off the oceans but Britain lacked the ability to project power on to the continent itself. The American Civil War was a land war and the British didn’t have the hundreds of thousands of ground troops that would have been needed to overcome the American advantage over the Confederates. What British ground troops there were would have been busy defending Canada. Within five years, the Americans would have conquered both the Confederacy and Canada (and Mexico if France got involved) and they would have been building up a navy. At that point if Britain didn’t agree to terms it would have become a trans-Atlantic world war with the balance of power shifting towards America.
Flat no. There’s no possible way England could have stood up the quantity of ironclads America produced, nor gotten enough of them across the ocean. Unless they immediately sent everything they had to attack America in 1841, they would have seen their fleets reduced to kindling. One Monitor was sufficient to obliterate multiple wooden steamships. And there weren’t enough New Ironsides and Warriors and never would be to remotely match the Union Navy’s short-range firepower. And literally tyhe only way they could have stopped us would be to attack our cities, which were (shockingly) defended. Such an attack would also likely have caused massive public anger within England itself and wrecked its economy, as England needed American grain as much as than it needed American cotton.
At best, England would have tried to bully Washington into backing down. But there was never the slightest interst in London for a shooting war. And then there’s the fact that doing so would have upset England’s diplomatic angles in Europe, pushing Russia away from the English camp and creating a de facto alliance with France - except that England didn’t want to back French colonialism in Mexico, which would have created an awkward situation London was keen to avoid. It also might have created an eastern-European pro-America/anti-west axis which would basically have destroyed English influence in much fo the world.
I mostly agree with you. I said the British Navy would sweep the American Navy off the ocean not destroy it entirely. The early American ironclads were formidable in battle but they weren’t very seaworthy. So they would have been great for protecting the American coast from attack but they wouldn’t have been able to sail out and challenge the British on the high seas.
So Britain could have cut off all sea trade with the United States but couldn’t have bombarded American cities - which is in keeping with what I wrote about their inability to project force on to the continent. Both sides would have then begun a naval race of building seagoing ironclads (which I think the Americans would have eventually won).
Russia wasn’t in the English camp at this time. The two countries were actually pretty hostile towards each other. There was anger over the recent Crimean War and colonial rivalries in Asia. As a result Russia supported the United States during the Civil War as a counter to the British and French support for the Confederacy.
Many in this discussion have confused ‘military might’ with the reputation and or prowess of the individual American Soldier.
There is no question that as a Military Power we were supreme during World War Two and still are as of this date. When you compare our overall Military Capability with any other Nation we remain on top.
Comparing individual soldiers to other individual soldiers from other countries is much more complex and probably impossible to do on a massive scale anyhow.
You will find outstanding soldiers in all Armies.
I think it would be more possible to contrast the ‘prowess’ of certain units or divisions and perhaps even armies.
The grading of our Generals vs. theirs would also be much more possible.
In a nutshell though what actually wins wars is a combination of strategy, industrial capacity, technology, training, logistics and never forget luck.
I have heard many World War II vets talk about how our troops were more flexible i.e. when one of our combat officers was killed in the field our troops were much more prepared for someone to step up and assume a leadership role due to the fact that our military was more democratic rather than being so militaristically rigid likethe Germans which worked in our favor.
Also most military experts agree that in the American War Between The States that the Southern Soldier was superior on a personal level yet the South lost the war due to the North’s industrial capacity and superiority in numbers
We’ve just spent 100 posts in this thread explaining why that is simply not true. There is absolutely no rational reason to believe, and no objective evidence to support, the idea that German soldiers were less able to improvise in the field. All the objective evidence says exactly the opposite. It was absolutely fundamental German military doctrine to be exactly NOT what you are describing them as being. I implore you to read up on, and try to understand, the history of the manner in which armied have been led through the modernization of war, with an effort to see how Auftragstaktik figures into the way Germans soldiers fought.
Furthermore, the U.S. military wasn’t a democracy. They may have been defending one, but the private doesn’t get a vote in how to run the company.
This is, incidentally, largely a myth, too, part of the “Lost Cause” mythology/history written by Southerners after the war, and belongs in the dustbin of bad history along with such old saws as “Grant was a drunk butcher and a bad general” or “the war wasn’t at all about slavery.” Southern soldiers were certainly very skilled at deserting.
Yeah the good ol’ USA ‘won’ all on thier own…late showing up too 
I came here to say essentially this. When the Americans first entered the war, they were poorly trained and had no combat experience. They also had some pretty bad leadership in some places. The American military also started the war outclassed in almost every kind of weapon - tanks, airplanes, ships, you name it. Rifles were in such short supply that new recruits were drilling with wooden replicas.
First impressions are important. The Germans first met American soldiers in large numbers during the Battle of Kasserine Pass - which showed the American’s inexperience. The Germans defeated the Americans quite handily, pushing them back something like 30 miles and inflicting heavy casualties.
American soldiers learned fast, and the military command restructured quickly and removed their worst leaders, and Americans fought much better very soon thereafter. But you just know that German soldiers would be dying to hear news of how good the Americans were and the ones who met them first were almost contemptuous of their ability and let it be known to their fellow soldiers. Stories like that travel far and last a long time - especially if they help morale. So it’s not surprising that German soldiers would cling to the belief that the Americans were lousy fighters, long after the evidence proved otherwise.
By D-Day, the average American soldier was far better than he had been at the start of the war, and by then they had great equipment and logistical support.
[quote=“RickJay, post:105, topic:93677”]
We’ve just spent 100 posts in this thread explaining why that is simply not true. There is absolutely no rational reason to believe, and no objective evidence to support, the idea that German soldiers were less able to improvise in the field. QUOTE]
I’m reading a history of the US 506 Parachute Infantry Regiment in Market Garden, and there are several instances of Germans capturing Sherman tanks and having no trouble using them in combat.
Well the Nazis were certainly the best dressed soldiers.
Comparing which individual soldiers were “the best” is largely a futile and absurd argument anyway. Who is the better soldier? A half dozen Spartan hoplites or out of shape old me armed with a Bushmaster AR-15? who is going to win that battle? War is a contest of logistics, technology and strategy. Without that, being the toughest, hardest soldiers in the world just means a glorious, heroic last stand.
The American soldier stacked up just fine against the Germans and Japanese in places like Normandy, Bastogne, Hürtgen Forest, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. But the fact is, the American forces didn’t experience meat grinder battles like you found in the East.
Yeah. The Confederacy was substantially stronger compared to its adversary than, say, the Thirteen Colonies were against their adversary, or the North Vietnamese against theirs. Yet the Confederacy lost, completely, and was (politically) annihilated; whereas the proportionally weaker Colonials and north Vietnamese won their struggles. There are other examples throughout history as well.
“[T]he North’s industrial capacity and superiority in numbers” counted, but those advantages did not mean the South had no chance. The Confederacy had a better position politically and militarily than other independence movements which did succeed.
Incidentally, sometimes I think it’s funny that the Southern states seceded specifically because they found themselves on the minority side of a majority vote, and then people use the “the other side had more people” excuse. The other side will always have more people if you choose to pick your fights with the majority, eh what?
It was a beguiling theory that might have arisen in the minds of Wiglet and Waddy and, yes, even in the not overly exercised mind of Fred Colon, and as far as Vimes could understand it, it went like this:
- Supposing the area behind the barricades was bigger than the area in front of the barricades, right?
- Like, sort of, it had more people in it and more of the city, if you follow me.
- Then, correct me if I’m wrong, sarge, but that’d mean in a manner of speaking we are now in front of the barricades, am I right?
- Then, as it were, it’s not like we’re rebellin’, is it? ‘cos there’s more of us, so the majority can’t rebel, it stands to reason.
- So that makes us the good guys. Obviously we’ve been the good guys all along, but now it’d be kind of official, right? Like, mathematical?
- So we thought we’d push on to Short Street and then we could nip down into Dimwell and up the other side of the river…
- Are we going to get into trouble for this, sarge?
- You’re looking at me in a funny way, sarge.
- Sorry, sarge.
– Terry Pratchett, Night Watch
My opinion is this. certainly the US troops in europe were nothing compared to the russians and germans who had been bitterly fighting for 4 years or so. however, those americans who served in europe, (in what was essentially a mop up after the russians and US air force did all the dirty work) shouldn’t be used in a comparison with the germans and russians. Instead of the european theatre troops, use the pacific theater marines. Those marines, between their training, and the experience of fighting through islands like tarawa, okinawa, and iwo jima, were second to none. absolutely on even footing with the germans and russians
ISTR that in one of James Dunnigan’s books (“How To Make War”?) he mentions that a very large difference between the US Army and the German Army in WWII was that the Germans spent a LOT more effort training officers than we did; a lot of our Lieutenants had 90 days of training, while the German officer training was many times that.
In addition, like RickJay and others have mentioned, auftragstaktik , or “mission-type” tactics were a revolutionary difference between Allied armies and the German Army. Where an Allied army was giving orders that were both detailed and rather inflexible, the German Army was giving orders that were more in the form of the goal to be achieved and the timeframe to do it in, and leaving the details to the subordinates. This allowed the German Army to have an unprecedented level of tactical flexibility that let them run rings around most of the Allied armies one-on-one.
Thing is, it was never one-on-one; but rather was three-on-one or four-on-one. The Germans had plenty of great and innovative weapons that were the inspiration or were copied in part or whole for post-war weapons, but when outnumbered 4:1, it didn’t ultimately matter. For example, the MG-42 was by far the best machine gun of WWII, the Panther tank was probably the single best tank of WWII, and the FW-190 was probably one of the best fighters of WWII, but the Germans still lost, because for every Panther they could produce, the US could produce 5 Shermans, not to mention the British tank production.
Dunnigan (I really like that guy!) also noted that in the German Army, it was easier for soldiers to work their way up to becoming officers, and that the “social boundary” between officers and men was much less. The U.S. did have OCS, but it was harder to get nominated, and the whole non-fraternization deal was more “class conscious” in our army.
This enhanced German cohesiveness and integration. It was easier for the ordinary private to talk to the officer, even to correct him if he might be going wrong. “No, sir, the swamp is to the east and the road is to the west.”
And, sure, we Yanks had a pretty good level of freedom of speech too. Just not quite as easygoing as the Germans. Also, of course, a lot of this broke down for them as the war started going badly.)
The real strength of the US solider was the logistics behind him. It does not matter how well trained or motivated a soldier is. No bullets for the gun, no gas for tanks…you are screwed
The Germans didn’t learn from their mistakes. Or more precisely, didn’t teach the next round of soldiers what they learned. They kept their best in combat until they died. Their ace fighters racked up huge numbers but they didn’t do any better per mission than Allied aces. The difference is that Allied pilots were rotated back to teach what was learned. The Germans started a war with a well trained and well equipped fighting force. Over time that edge was lost.
The United States entered the war late with boots on the ground. My father spent part of his boot-camp training with a mock-up wooden rifle because there was a shortage of equipment. It probably wasn’t the best of training. We didn’t have the best equipment at the start of the war.
ISTR Dunnigan spending quite a bit of time in one chapter talking about how the Germans and oddly enough, the Israelis used a particular system for their officer training called the “Aspirant” or something along those lines, whereby all officers were drawn from the ranks of the enlisted men, even if in practice, this meant that all potential officers spent a few months as enlisted men.
He then went on to contrast it with the US/British system where they take (paraphrasing Dunnigan) an overeducated young man with a lust for adventure and glory, give him some training, and commission him as an officer. I think he called it “Burgoyne’s Revenge”.
He went on to say that US/British NCOs are typically superb leaders and administrators and make up for many of the deficiencies of the method of officer training as far as the very junior officers are concerned.
I always got the impression that the German army was MORE rank/class-conscious than the US Army, having derived its attitudes and traditions primarily from the Prussian Army, which had a professional officer class derived from the nobility. I know it’s not fully decided whether it’s a Roman-a-clef or an actual historical narrative, but the books “The Forgotten Soldier” shows this pretty clearly- the enlisted soldiers’ relationships to their NCOs and officers is very different than the ones portrayed in a lot of US books like “Band of Brothers” or"With the Old Breed".
Patton pending.
You definitely remember your Dunnigan better than I do, alas. You cite more and better details than I could recall.
I wonder if the Prussian model isn’t somewhat localized. It would be stronger in officers from Berlin, but less strong in officers from Munich or Ulm. German regional cultural variations are at least as strong as U.S. variations are, possibly stronger.
But from here, I’m out of my depth. I don’t know which of the two models was more prevalent.
I think what you said here is mirrored (and maybe that quote is there too ) in that fabulous book: An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942-1943, Volume One of the Liberation Trilogy .
For the first few months, until we had veterans and got into the swing of thing, got rid of the worst generals, etc- yes the US forces were pushovers. But we learned really fast.