# How would you have changed the Civil War so the South won? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 25, 2012, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082 "2012-12-25T01:33:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Rich\_G7subs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85e7bf/32.png) [@Rich\_G7subs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rich_G7subs)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/41 "2012-12-27T15:46:42Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > One of the strengths of the AK-47 is that it is intentionally designed to be easily manufactured using fairly cheap and simple machining. Even with the limited technology of the 1860s they probably could churn out a few AK-47s. > > You’ve got a few problems though. > > First of all, the Confederacy has very limited production capabilities. This was a problem for them during the entire war. You would probably have to convince someone else to make the AK-47 for them, and even then the AK is going to cost a heck of a lot more than a conventional musket. > > A really good real world example of this is the German Tiger tank from WWII. If you put a Tiger and a U.S. Sherman face to face, you could even let the Sherman fire first. It wouldn’t matter. The Sherman couldn’t penetrate the front armor of the Tiger. The Tiger, on the other hand, could put a shell in through the front and out through the back of the Sherman. The Sherman didn’t stand a chance. It took on average four Shermans to kill one Tiger. But, the key thing is that the U.S. could crank out 10 Shermans for every German Tiger. The Tigers were in every measurable way the superior tank, but they lost on the battlefield because they cost too much to make. > > Your AK-47 would suffer from exactly the same problem. The Confederacy would end up with far too few of them on the battlefield for them to have a significant impact on the war. > > The second problem you have is ammunition. They actually had machine guns (well, technically hand cranked rapid-fire guns) during the Civil War. They didn’t use them for two reasons. First, they didn’t understand how effective they could be. You could say in that respect that they were just short-sighted. However, the second reason is much more valid. They couldn’t produce enough ammunition for them. Between the end of the Civil War and the end of the 1800s, there were two significant developments that both were required to make machine guns practical. The first was smokeless powder, without which even an AK-47 will get fouled up and jam, despite its (often exaggerated) ability to fire when dirty. The second development was the cheap mass production of brass. Without that, you can’t produce enough cartridges to make the AK-47 effective. > > Even if you taught them how to make the right type of powder and how to make brass cheaply, you’ve still got the issue that the south just wasn’t that good at manufacturing stuff. That’s part of the reason we had a Civil War in the first place. The South was good at agriculture and wanted to stay that way. The North was good at manufacturing and felt that the South was holding them back. If you told the North what to do, they probably could have adapted and started cranking out AK-47s and the huge amount of ammunition required to make them work. The South would not have been able to ramp up its manufacturing capability to what was needed within a reasonable time frame. > > Getting back to the OP, if you want the Confederacy to win, I think they need to hit hard and fast at the beginning of the war. The Confederacy’s lack of manufacturing ability made winning a long war all but impossible. They just didn’t have the resources. ETA: And they also need to plan it out better, instead of just rushing off to war as soon as Lincoln won the election. > > As to the second part of the OP, what I am personally willing to do, the answer is nothing. I personally wouldn’t want the Confederacy to win. > > What about the war criminals who ran Camp Douglas, or are you only concerned with atrocities on the Confederate side of the lines? Well, I’m not aware of Camp Douglas. I’ll have to look it up. You know what they say… The winner of any war always writes the history books! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/42 "2012-12-27T17:10:45Z")
I agree with the one up near the top. keep the North Carolina 14th Infantry from shooting Stonewall Jackson, so he is available at Gettysburg. ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/43 "2012-12-27T17:15:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Could a time traveler tell them how to make an AK-47 or similar weapon? I’ve heard for years how they can be supposedly copied by blacksmiths in Third World villages. > **[The Guns of the South](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guns_of_the_South)** > > The Guns of the South is a alternate history science fiction novel set during the American Civil War by Harry Turtledove. It was released in the United States on September 22, 1992. > The story deals with a group of time traveling members of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) from an imagined 21st-century South Africa, who supply Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia with AK-47s and other advanced technology, medicine and intelligence. Their intervention results in a Confederate victory in... Anywho, with regard to OP… Given the premise that I might want the South to win, I would go to the Battle of Gettysburg and concentrate on Little Round Top. Take the strategic hill, move cannon in ASAP, and attack the Union flank. If the South achieved a great victory at Gettysburg, they would be in an excellent position for a negotiated truce. It is quite likely that McClellan would have been elected instead of Lincoln, placing a borderline-incompetent anti-war leader in the White House. The Union would still have the industry and manpower to win the war in the long run, but might not have the political will to bother. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/44 "2012-12-27T17:18:55Z")
If you cold go back and convince England to recognize the Confederacy then that probably would have done it as well. Not sure how you could do that, though, as their main objection throughout was slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/45 "2012-12-27T17:44:15Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Jurisdiction and authority. “Declaring” something is not the same as having that declaration recognized by the proper authorities. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to States that no longer recognized the authority of the POTUS, the U.S. Congress, or the U.S. military as a legal authority. > > As POTUS, Lincoln didn’t have the authority to override the slave laws of the States that remained in the Union, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri (and any I might have missed) either. Did you read the post I wrote? There were thousands of escaped slaves from the south that were now in United States controlled territory. Lincoln’s proclamation said they were free. Being as these people were physically in the United States, Lincoln’s orders were legally recognized. And this happened on the day the order went into effect. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/46 "2012-12-27T18:38:58Z")
If I understand the powers in the OP, I would get myself in command of the Army of the North then surrender. Then publicly state that it wasn’t worth the life of a single southern soldier to maintain the institution of slavery. Bold talk that I would have never done in real life, because everyone would have hated me. But if I could go back in time … that’s my answer. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/47 "2012-12-27T19:26:36Z")
Let me knock down a few ideas here: \*Recognition by England: ineffective. Unless Britain was willing to start a shooting war (they weren’t, which is the most fundamental reason _why_ they never even offered recognition.) \*Winning at Gettysburg: probably ineffective. In fact, Southern forces advanced more or less as far as they could have. _Maybe_ had they made no mistakes they would have won, but even then it would not have been a crushing victory. it would have simply pushed things another day. But Meade was in control, handled his forces well during the entire battle, and the Confederates had no chance of routing them. The Union could have simply retreated a little more, leaving the information you have useless. \*Following up after Bull Run: impossible. The South didn’t follow up because they couldn’t. And even if they had, the Union army was reorganized behind solid defenses within 24 hours. At best, the Confederate army would have obliterated itself attacking a superior foe. They _barely_ scraped a victory at Bull Run, and nearly broke themselves. \*Avoiding Fort Sumter: Not possible. Davis, and many others, believed quite firmly that if they didn’t attack, the COnfederacy would fall apart. And given the behavior of many Confederates later, it’s quite possibly that it would have. In any case, it doesn’t seem likely that the South was interested in or capable of extended Civil Disobedience. \*Arranging commanders to better effect: Could work. Commanders like Bragg were arguably really, really bad. \*Interecepting Special Order 191: Probably not. Given how terribly McClellan handled Antietam, I’m not sure what it would have changed. > [@Little Nemo](#): > > Did you read the post I wrote? There were thousands of escaped slaves from the south that were now in United States controlled territory. Lincoln’s proclamation said they were free. Being as these people were physically in the United States, Lincoln’s orders were legally recognized. And this happened on the day the order went into effect. Furthermore, it settled as far as the Union was concerned, the status of slaves in any area the Union controlled, which was a huge chunk of the South. It also ensured that the armies of the Union had in effect become armies of liberation, which would have significant effects on disrupting the southern economy and did in fact free many. It also settled the status of all slaves who fled from the Confederacy to Union lines. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/48 "2012-12-27T19:29:50Z")
Go at it from within the Union ranks, I suppose. Find a way to turn the people of the Union against the Union Army and the war. I’m not sure what that would be. ---
**Author:** ![chargerrich](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chargerrich/32/5399_2.png) [@chargerrich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chargerrich)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/49 "2012-12-27T19:38:23Z")
Aside from European intervention, there was nothing the CSA could have done to win the war… it was by all meaning of the phrase, an impossible task. Short of a Northern (only) Black Plaque, Confederate invention of the M1A1 or a Nuke you could replay it 100 times and the North wins. 1. Lack of industry 2. Lack of capital 3. Lack of man power ---
**Author:** ![Ellen\_Cherry](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellen_cherry/32/3600_2.png) [@Ellen\_Cherry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ellen_Cherry)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/50 "2012-12-27T19:49:00Z")
Moving thread from MPSIMS to IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2012, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/51 "2012-12-27T22:48:17Z")
Hmmm… How 'bout you get Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain out of the way before Gettysburg? You don’t have to kill him, just have him somewhere else that day. The Confederates take the high ground on Little and Big Round Tops, and with the artillery can command the entire battlefield. Chamberlain personally lead the forces that repelled _three_ Confederate charges, the last with bayonets only after running out of ammunition. He held the force together and made them effective with the sheer force of his personality. [[Cracked.com](http://Cracked.com)]And his balls.[/Cracked.com] ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/52 "2012-12-28T03:06:11Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The problem was that the southern states wanted the President to override state laws. > > …The Emancipation Proclamation did free thousands of slaves on the date it went into effect. The law said that any slave whose owner was in the specified rebellious territory was freed - and thousands of slaves had escaped to Union territory from owners such as these. Prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, their eventual fate was an open legal issue - they might conceivably have been returned to their pre-war owners as part of a negotiated settlement. But the Emancipation Proclamation resolved the issue and declared all of these escaped slaves were freed. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Did you read the post I wrote? There were thousands of escaped slaves from the south that were now in United States controlled territory. Lincoln’s proclamation said they were free. Being as these people were physically in the United States, Lincoln’s orders were legally recognized. And this happened on the day the order went into effect. I did read your posts and found them to be very well written. However, the Emancipation Proclamation specifically noted the areas of the former U.S.A./current C.S.A. where the EP would be in effect “after” the Union Army took control of the territory. _Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued_. ([http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/fea...ranscript.html](http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/fea...ranscript.html)) Authorities in the listed areas did not accept Lincoln’s proclamation as having any legal bearing on the CSA. Slaves in Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, etc were still slaves as far as Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, etc were concerned. Escaped slaves who had made it to Ohio were not “freed” by Lincoln’s EP. The U.S. President didn’t alter or override State slavery laws within the Union. Slaves were “free” because they had escaped from their former owner but they were still subject to the laws of the State of Ohio. Ohio wouldn’t be returning slaves to Alabama in 1863. Escaped slaves who were captured in Georgia would have been delt with according to the laws of the State of Georgia and returned to wherever they had escaped from. Until Georgia capitulated. Under the EP, escaped slaves who had made it to a Union Army controlled area would be considered free and slaves who had remained in their position would be considered free as soon as the Union Army took control of the area. ---
**Author:** ![ekedolphin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ekedolphin/32/10003_2.png) [@ekedolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ekedolphin)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/53 "2012-12-28T09:27:01Z")
I personally wouldn’t do anything to help the Confederacy win. But I think a lot of this whole mess could have been averted if someone went back in time and assassinated Eli Whitney the moment the idea for the cotton gin entered his mind. Without the cotton gin, slavery would have become untenable. It was _already_ headed towards dying out, because producing cotton was just too much work. The South would have picked a different crop to go with, an “easier” crop, and wouldn’t have needed slaves. Or… something like that. I Am Not an Economist, but even the Eli Whitney Museum admits that Whitney’s invention had a devastating, unforeseen impact on the continuance of slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/54 "2012-12-28T19:03:13Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Authorities in the listed areas did not accept Lincoln’s proclamation as having any legal bearing on the CSA. Slaves in Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, etc were still slaves as far as Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, etc were concerned. > > Escaped slaves who had made it to Ohio were not “freed” by Lincoln’s EP. The U.S. President didn’t alter or override State slavery laws within the Union. Slaves were “free” because they had escaped from their former owner but they were still subject to the laws of the State of Ohio. Ohio wouldn’t be returning slaves to Alabama in 1863. I’m not sure I’m clear on whay you’re claiming here. The Emancipation Proclamation obviously wasn’t enforced in Confederate-held areas. But it was enforced in American-held areas so it did have real world effects from the day it was issued. To use an example you gave, if a slave owner lived in Alabama and his slave had escaped to Ohio, then the Emanciaption Proclamation set that slave free - Lincoln’s order may not have been enforced in Alabama (yet) but it was enforced in Ohio. Being in Ohio alone had not been enough to do that - that just made you a fugitive slave. Pre-war American law said that fugitive slaves in free states were still legally the property of their southern owner and were supposed to be returned to them. And prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, there was no reason to assume that the United States wouldn’t return to this policy after the war. Most American politicians would have had no problem accepting a deal where the southern states re-entered the Union and the federal government agreed to return all the fugitive slaves back to the south. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/55 "2012-12-28T19:08:09Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > \*Recognition by England: ineffective. Unless Britain was willing to start a shooting war (they weren’t, which is the most fundamental reason _why_ they never even offered recognition.) > > \*Winning at Gettysburg: probably ineffective. In fact, Southern forces advanced more or less as far as they could have. _Maybe_ had they made no mistakes they would have won, but even then it would not have been a crushing victory. it would have simply pushed things another day. But Meade was in control, handled his forces well during the entire battle, and the Confederates had no chance of routing them. The Union could have simply retreated a little more, leaving the information you have useless. From a strictly military point of view, the CSA never had a chance of defeating the United States. But that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have won the war. Wars are at least as much political as military. There were a lot of people in the United States who were tepid in their support of the war. If there had been a major blow like European recognition or a Confederate victory in a northern state like Pennsylvania, then there might have been a political movement to recognize Confederate independence and end the war. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/56 "2012-12-28T19:34:13Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’m not sure I’m clear on whay you’re claiming here. > > …To use an example you gave, if a slave owner lived in Alabama and his slave had escaped to Ohio, then the Emanciaption Proclamation set that slave free - Lincoln’s order may not have been enforced in Alabama (yet) but it was enforced in Ohio. Being in Ohio alone had not been enough to do that - that just made you a fugitive slave. According to Lincoln’s carefully chosen words, slaves in Alabama were free and that freedom would be enforced by the Union Army - whenever it got there. Ohio, Illinois and many other States were specifically not mentioned in Lincoln’s proclamation. The Emancipation Proclomation specifically identified the areas of the CSA where it was applicable. Ex-slaves in Ohio were not a part of the EP. Ex-slaves in Ohio were subject to Ohio law. During the war years, Lincoln wasn’t going to step on the legal toes of any State that remained in, and was fighting for, the Union. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/57 "2012-12-28T21:22:21Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > The Emancipation Proclomation specifically identified the areas of the CSA where it was applicable. But the text specifically says it applies to slaves owned by the people who reside in those areas not just the slaves in the areas. ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2012, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/58 "2012-12-28T22:50:32Z")
1. Put off secession until 1990 2. Appreciate nonviolent send off and warmest wishes from The Union or hire ninjas ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2012, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/59 "2012-12-29T00:13:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But the text specifically says it applies to slaves owned by the people who reside in those areas not just the slaves in the areas. Admittedly, the Emancipation Proclamation is difficult to read today. I believe it might have been just as difficult to read in 1862. Which text are you referring to? Lincoln deliberately steered clear of stepping on northern State’s Rights, especially the State’s rights of the northern slave States that remained within the Union. He couldn’t afford to risk sending anymore disenfranchised States into the welcoming arms of Jeff Davis. The war wasn’t going all that well for the boys in blue. After Lincoln specifically identified the areas of the CSA that were in rebellion, Lincoln wrote - _And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves **- within -** said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons._ It appears to me that Lincoln intention was to free slaves within the CSA that were still in rebellion but not yet under Union control. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2012, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082/60 "2012-12-29T01:32:49Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > A really good real world example of this is the German Tiger tank from WWII. If you put a Tiger and a U.S. Sherman face to face, you could even let the Sherman fire first. It wouldn’t matter. The Sherman couldn’t penetrate the front armor of the Tiger. The Tiger, on the other hand, could put a shell in through the front and out through the back of the Sherman. The Sherman didn’t stand a chance. It took on average four Shermans to kill one Tiger. But, the key thing is that the U.S. could crank out 10 Shermans for every German Tiger. The Tigers were in every measurable way the superior tank, but they lost on the battlefield because they cost too much to make. It’s a hijack, but actually the ratio of production was almost exactly [_thirty-six_ Shermans per Tiger](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13480752&postcount=37). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-you-have-changed-the-civil-war-so-the-south-won/645082.md?page=4)