This is no more ridiculous than what happened to the British at New Orleans in 1815. Jackson picked a spot he knew his enemy had to go through and entrenched. Every other route was over the river or into a swamp. British arrogance was at its peak regards the Americans despite the British defeat in the Revolution, and Packenham's force paid dearly for it.
If any of you are familiar with the PBS Civil War Documentary released back in 1990 there was a commentator and writer named Shelby Foote. I can recall his comment that the Union had basically fought that War with one hand tied behind its back and used the example that all major colleges in the North were at full capacity throughout those 4 years. He often wondered how much faster the War may of finished if the Union had brought the other hand around. My guess is if a foreign power such as Great Britain intervened to assist the confederacy then the Union would of gone at full capacity and probably added (conservatively) another 25-30% troops. Although Britain had a great professional Army I just don't think in the end they could brought over the numbers needed to overcome the Union, even when assisting the Confederacy. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-H8Iw-j217yk.html
Well this is a bit crap. Why do the Union have gatling guns? Coffee grinder guns maybe but they jam very quickly. Why are the British using essentially Napoleonic tactics. Why are the British using brass Napoleons and not Armstongs amd Whitwoths? Why are the British not using repeating carbines and revolvers. Where is the Naval Assault Brigade. At the Alma the British fought in open order and engaged at 800 yards with high accuracy. Why not here. Dreadful.
Would be the British to the confederate after the Battle. Sorry confederate but we well we went up against the union and well we got slaughtered and we can’t afford to lose that many soldier so you’re on your own
British infantry would not have run they would have formed square and annihilated the cavalry. British army was the strongest in the world at that time and would have whipped the yankees no problem.
It's actually pretty debatable that U.S. had become the strongest military power in the world at this point. The Brits were still a damn good fighting force, but the U.S. may have edged out over them in a real scenario.
@@willgirvan2491 Given that the Union forces alone had several hundred thousand men, not to mention the thousands upon thousands of Southerners that would take up arms against the British, yes. Plus I can guarantee that the US would not go to fight on British soil. Well all know what happened last time the British tried to fight Americans on their home turf. And, to top it all off, the US was more advanced and had many more campaign-hardened troops.
@@alexlaws5086 the British were also a battle hardened army. A small professional army is always better than a militia. As demonstrated by the battle of Washington
@@willgirvan2491 The British army, around the world, consisted of 220,000 enlisted men in 1861. The Union Army alone saw 3 times that number at any given point in the Civil War. A total of over 2 million Union soldiers served and lived after the war. Given the amount of those who likely had bad injuries, I'd give them 1.5 million veterans. Taking into account only combat veterans, it brings us down to perhaps 800,000. This is all speculation, but the combat veterans of the Union Army alone could likely defeat any British invasion.
