the Confederacy had a bigger Army
>Confederate Army: 353,000 troops
>British Army: 170,000 troops
the Confederate Cavalry was superior to the British Cavalry
>Confederate Cavalry: 70,000 (half of which armed with Breechloading Carbines & the other half with Revolvers)
>British Cavalry: 20,000 (primarily armed with Muzzleloading Carbines and shitty five-shot Revolvers)
the British wouldn't stand a chance against the CSA in a ground war lmao
>b-but the British could just blockade the CSA into submission
wrong, the CSA had 18 ironclads during the civil war which means it had the world's second largest fleet of Ironclads (behind the Union's 40 ironclads) by comparison the British at the time only had 10 ironclads & many of those ironclads weren't even oceangoing vessels so in actuality the British could only send 6 - 7 ironclads to fight the CSA.
so in conclusion: CSA > Britgays (hypothetically speaking)
The confederates lost. Get over it.
You killed the men but not the idea, yankeechud
Not even a yankeechud. I live in the south and prefer most of it. I think the confederates were neat. But you’re being a sore loser and we already had a thread about this today.
>*blockades your ports*
>All your cash crops are now useless
>CSA goes bankrupt and starves to death
What now, Cletus?
the Confederacy could easily break the blockade with it's 18 Ironclads. cope more homosexual
>18 ironclads
Very cute
bruh the Confederates had the second largest fleet of Ironclads in the world, by comparison the French and British at the time only had 10 - 11 ironclads each
For the whole of the ironclad period Britain had the largest navy in the world and by the end of the civil war Britain had 22 seagoing ironclads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ironclads_of_the_Royal_Navy#Sea-going_ironclads_(1860%E2%80%931888)
moron just because some of those Ironclads have the year "1865" it doesn't mean that they were actually commissioned in that year, if you click on the ships that have "1865" you'd see that most were completed/commissioned in 1866 (or shortly aftwards)
also the Union Navy in 1865 was technically bigger than the Royal Navy
>Union Navy: 700 ships
>Royal Navy: 540 Ships
the Union also had 40 Ironclads while the British only had 16 (in 1865)
>failed to break the blockade in real life
LMAO why do rightoids just like in fantasy land?
the reason the Confederates were unable to break the Union blockade was because the Union had over twice as many Ironclads than the South
>Union: 40 ironclads
>CSA: 18 ironclads
so the CSN despite having the world's second largest fleet of Ironclads was still massively outnumbered by the Union's 40 ironclads, however the British Navy at the time only had a fraction of that number which means that it would be easier for the Confederacy to break a British blockade rather than a Union one since the CSN would a numerical advantage when it comes to Ironclads
Yes and Britain would just build more ironclads you dixoid moron. How many did the CSA start with?
silly goose, the british can't just build
The southerners were genetically identical to the british and there was practically no difference between the two, and despite what a few millworkers in liverpool thought most of the british population disliked america and was sympathetic to the confederacy
Where does one even get information about the armament of british cavalry during the 1860s?
Seriously, this is actually interesting
so the british had 523,000 men
>hostile to the United States
>at war with the British Empire
Who exactly is replacing their top two customers for exporting cotton and other cash crops to? Said exports are also going to have to get by the blockades, commerce raiders, and military patrols of the biggest navy on Earth.
>win in a HYPOTHETICAL war
also the Union Navy was larger than the Royal Navy in 1865
The type of ship matters; the US navy at that point was mostly smaller, lighter armed ships designed for fighting along coasts and river systems. That goes double for the Confederate Navy, which had even fewer suitable ships for ocean use. The Royal Navy was almost all open ocean ships, including their ironclads. Any Confederate ships that didn't hug the coasts would be shredded.
The Union had more oceanfaring Ironclads and with bigger guns tho
Brazil probably stomp both.
Is this a war where we assume the Brits are the aggressors and they have to take over the Confederates? Or do the Confederates have to conquer the Brits?
The Brits probably wouldn't be able to conquer the Confederates solo.
The Confederates would never be able to touch the British isles.
Either way, Brit military policy for the past century would be ally with neighboring or local powers if they can't handle a land power on their own (see Napoleonic, Crimean, WW1-2). They'd probably ally with the Union and maybe even Mexico to frick the Confederate shit up.
The Confederates might be able to break the coastal British blockade, but they'd struggle more with exerting their maritime power and protecting their convoy merchant fleets in open ocean.
bot, the USA could have conquered atleast the British in the 19th century. That's the whole point of The Civil War: to turn the USA's strength against itself before it expands outward.
the USA couldn't even conquer canada in the 19th century
we were busy in the 19th century
Ok sure, but why? Do we need hypothetical vs threads with no context? Is there any particular reason the UK would be at war with the CSA?
Anyway bros, is it too late to become a confederate?
I think this is just a troll thread. But with dixoids you never really know.