How would the US Army have fared in 1812 if instead of the pathetic Brits they had faced one of the big guys of Europe...

It was actually pretty common for artillerymen caught in cavalry attacks to use it to defend themselves
Once the horses are on you, the cannons can't save you anymore, and since they didnt have pikes...

Well Napoleon was busy raping everyone in Europe around 1812 and making them into tributary states. So it would either be France and every other contenental nation vs the US or nobody vs the US since the US supported France.

>1812
Wasnt he in russia then?

youtube.com/watch?v=BNatwyAJ6dI

Silly user, there has to be contrarian anglophobia in EVERY thread!

They would have been absolutly annihilated
Have you seen what battles of the War of 1812 were?
Skirmishes comprising less than 10,000 men in total most of the time
Absolutly not comparable to the huge battles that were raging in Europe at the same moment

Also their mindset wasnt the same
Having read the biographies of dudes like Ney or Lasalle tells you these guys lived for war
It's wasn't just a job or a duty to them, it was a way of life.
Since their late teens they had been fighting, constantly and for decades
They had experienced battlefields with hundreds thousands of men fighting at the same time, massive cavalry charges, rain of artillery....
It's just not comparable to American soldiers who hadnt experienced a battle until their 30s, and by "battle" I mean a few hundreds men shooting their musket at each other from afar
Warfare in Europe was much more brutal, bayonet charge was the norm and most engagements devolved into a shitfiest of close quarter combat

Honestly a face off between the American army and one of the major european armies at the time would have been like a face off between a tiger and a cat

Because it's so easy to transport tens of thousands of men and all their ancillary support equipment across the Atlantic to fight on another continent for months to years at a time.

How well do you think those European armies would do if they had to split up into bands of hundreds to low thousands (to cover all the necessary area with the manpower they have?) Or have to start leaving behind their heavy ordinance because there aren't enough roads and there's nowhere to repair things that break down in transit?

That's in a hypothetical scenario in which one of these big European armies can project its power to North America perfectly and is at peace with the rest of Europe
The point was to compare the full strength of the 1812 US army with the full strength of the big European armies of that era

And given that the full strength of the Americans struggled against a second-hand British army (the least powerful major european country at the time)....

>they took down the full video of "that ridiculous Who is Deadliest: Napoleon vs Washington"
SHIT
There's only a small part of it around youtube.com/watch?v=kWjkqw7SeRI

>The point was to compare the full strength of the 1812 US army with the full strength of the big European armies of that era

There is no comparison between the professional armies of Europe and the US invasion "army," nor should there be, which makes the scenario pretty sophomoric. It's obvious OP wants to make a point that, 1. the British army was "shitty" and 2. so were the Americans, but is neglecting the fact that both the invasion and defense forces were mostly small bands of militia and neither would prove to be as important to the war's outcome as the Indian Allies or Royal Navy.

>scenario in which one of these big European armies can project its power to North America

The primary battlefield of the War of 1812 was at sea--lest we forget a major justification for it was the impressment of American sailors--and fought between countries that prioritized naval power. What the American army and militias lacked in training and experience, the Navy had in abundance. Besides the British, the US Navy would have been more than capable of preventing such projection.

>Washington
>Lost most of his major battles
>Was a British Officer who surrendered his fort
He was a great statesman but he was honestly not the best general.

Do we mean actual Indians or native Americans

The US army in 1812 was shit, unerequipped, with dogshit training. They could barely afford to prosecute the war in the first place considering the US government was still paying loans taken from the Revolutionary war. They barely held out precisely because they had a massive ocean separating them from Great Britain.

>Austria-Hungary
>1812

wew lad. in 1812 the austrians did actually have a pretty decent army, and generally carried the brunt of the fighting against napoleon more often than not

You were fighting a major European army, just a very small deployment of that army. People here underestimate the strength the British Army could field at the time. At Waterloo, Anglo-Dutch forces nearly matched Napoleon's army in terms of numbers. If the whole British Army at the time was in North America the USA wouldn't exist.

>Napoleon Bonaparte, the blood-thisty French Emperor whose maniacal dream was to conquer the world
>Goerge Washing, the American hero who against all odds defeated the "mighty" British army

Is this a parody of American retardation or is it geniune?

Spike TV was always considered television for retards.

>At Waterloo, Anglo-Dutch forces nearly matched Napoleon's army in terms of numbers

It was long after the Russian disaster and Napoleon's first downfall though
Before that, the British army didn't compare to the French one neither in numbers nor in quality
Just look at how they struggled on Spain against a badly supplied second-hand French army not even lead by Napoleon
Had it been the main Grande Armee against them in the Peninsular War, they would have been kicked from the continent faster than you can say "Dunkirk"

In Spain thry fought battles like Salamanca and Talavera, which were still relatively large battles. If the French were poorly supplied then we were even more so. The British army at the time is severely underrated, mainly due to its relatively small size. But it performed under good leadership as well as every other continental army. Training in the Napoleonic period is very hard to quantify, as manuals and performance are all that can determine how well trained an army is. That can be pretty tenuous in itself as the other coalition armies most certainly had a good training due to their professional nature, but French conscripts were able to defeat them quite readily up until 1812. The British having an underperforming army in the Napoleonic wars seems to be nothing but an unsubstantiated meme.

>Warfare in Europe was much more brutal

When is war not brutal?

>Besides the British, the US Navy would have been more than capable of preventing such projection.

The American "super frigates" already outclasses and outgunned their British counterparts, defeating HMS Guerriere, HMS Java, and HMS Macedonian, one-on-one. Unfortunately, the British had many more ships and a little luck;

>"When in the presence of a Boston-born British admiral another naval officer indulged in laudatory and extravagant comments on the capture of the Chesapeake and endeavored to underrate the American naval victories of the War of 181 2-14, and particularly that gained over the Guerriere, he said, ' It was a lucky thing for your friend Broke that he fell in with the unprepared Chesapeake, and not with Hull and the Constitution. If he had, no Tower guns would have been heard celebrating a Shannon victory.' This manly and patriotic statement was made by Sir Isaac Coffin at the dinner table of the Duke of Wellington, and was related to me by his eldest son, the second Duke, who was present. On the same occasion, when someone spoke sneeringly of the Americans as soldiers, a general of my own name remarked, ' I have been through the Peninsular campaign, and was with the duke at Waterloo, but harder fighting I never saw than we had at Lundy's Lane.' "
-Thomas Coffin Amory. The life of Admiral Sir Isaac Coffin, baronet: his English and American ancestors. Boston: Cupples, Upham, 1886.

>merchant fleet destroyed by American Privateers
>>logistics of moving a large army to North America so difficult that France lost tens of thousands of troops trying to defeat revolt in Haiti.

US probably would have soundly beaten any other European power in 1812 with the possible exception of the French, who still would have lost in the end.

Spain gave up Florida without a fight because operating against the US logistically was so hard.

>Spain gave up Florida without a fight because operating against the US logistically was so hard.

Spain was a cucked country under occupation and with no independent army left at the time
Congratulation for your glorious victory against them

>but harder fighting I never saw than we had at Lundy's Lane.

over 30% casualties and the 2 highest ranking officers on both sides wounded in action...that's a pretty tough fight.

Spain ceded Florida to the US in 1821...whom were they occupied by then?

also hostilities against the United States were one reason Napoleon sold Louisiana for so cheap.

They weren't shit at the beginning of Napoleon's campaign but reformed themselves into a moderately respectable fighting force as time went on. Over all, the Austrians suffered from their slavish devotion to the "old ways" of conducting battle.

The American army also fought according to the old way in 1812 (aka muh musket gunfight at 90 yards of distance)
Meanwhile in Europe, extreme violence and close quarters had became the norm, bayonets were used as often as bullets and heavy cavalry knew a peak of relevance unseen since the middle age

Had these poor US troops who were used to weak ass gunfights from distance been exposed to an army fighting European style, they'd have been traumatized beyond repair and fled the battlefield forever

You do realize that in Napoleonic war, you had WAY more casualties from musket fire than you did from bayonets, right?

napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_2.htm

>In 1807 during the war between France and Russia and Prussia, chirurg Dominique Jean Larrey studied wounded on one battlefield and found most were caused by artillery and muskets. Only 2 % of all wounds were caused by bayonets.

>The damage inflicted during "bayonet assault" was most often executed by bullets. Larrey studied one particularly vicious close combat between the Russians and the French and found:
- 119 wounds from musketballs
- 5 wounds from bayonets

>US troops were used to weak ass gunfights

Stop posting.

>If the barbarous and savage policy of Great Britain be pursued, and the savages are let loose to murder our citizens and butcher our women and children, this war, will be a war of extermination. The first stroke with the tomahawk the first attempt with the scalping knife will be the signal for one indiscriminate scene of desolation, No white man found fighting by the side of an Indian will be taken prisoner. Instant destruction will be his lot. If the dictates of reason, duty, justice, and humanity, cannot prevent the employment of a force, which respects no rights and knows no wrong, it will be prevented by a severe and relentless system of retaliation.
-A. P. Hull, July 1812

>...within a few weeks, the Indians had taken "all the Posts round Detroit, the Garrisons chiefly murdered in a manner too shocking to mention with hundreds of the frontier Inhabitants scalped and thousands of families ruined." To the consternation of Sir William Johnson and senior British officers, the Seneca, "our friends as they are called," took an active part in the uprising, as they massacred the garrison at Venango and "cut to pieces" a column of troops and wagoners near Fort Niagara.

>Procter reported that he "had much difficulty in bringing the Indians to consent to the sparing of their lives." This statement proved all too true, for the next day, 23 January, some Potawatomi and Wyandot slaughtered a number of American wounded prisoners. This "Frenchtown massacre" naturally provoked bitter feelings and cries for reprisal, but the killings merely reflected a standard of conduct which was longstanding and mutual in American frontier warfare.

>As a consequence, for the next fifteen months on the Detroit and Ohio frontiers, the War of 1812 became marked by a mutual and bitter exchange of atrocities in which no quarter was asked nor given.
-Robert Allen, British Indian Policy in The Defence of Canada

This so much.
The British policy during the war was mainly fiscal, funding the other coalition members with their economic power from empire.
When the British army was deployed it faired well against France considering how poorly the entire British military had performed during the American war of independence (that being said the Atlantic had a huge part to play) and how it wasn't logistically created to handle such large wars. ultimately it saw massive success in its major land campaign in the peninsular war and was the final army that defeated Napoleon at Waterloo with the prussians.
Much like in the beginning of the 1St world war, the British army wasn't less professional than that of continental counterparts, just smaller and thus had to fo through the process of adapting and expanding to meet the requirements of huge continental battles.

>studied wounded

That's why, genius
You had much greater chance to survive a bullet than bayonet or saber attack
Had he studied the dead too it'd have been different

So cite something, retard. Except of course, you don't have anything, do you?

And it's not like having a bigass chunk of lead is inherently more survivable than having a blade stuck through you.

so your cunning plan is to bring a knife to a gun fight?

>>pic very much related

Instances in which bayonets were actually used to dispose of the enemy is indeed rare;

books.google.com/books?id=jK_kCwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT137&ots=5IIRDJKY7T&dq=only five cases of bayonet wounds throughout his career&pg=PT137#v=snippet&q=Baron Larrey&f=false

books.google.com/books?id=TorvCwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT82&pg=PT81#v=onepage&q=In the Pyrenees&f=false

That said, the use of the bayonet -charge- was stressed and used often during the Napoleonic Wars, as prolonged firefights were considered increasingly inefficient, but again bayonets rarely if ever crossed;

>“All firing beyond one volley in a case where you must charge, seems only to cause a useless interchange of casualties, besides endangering the steadiness of a charge to be undertaken in the midst of sustained file fire, when a word of command is hard to hear."
-Major Macready of the Thirtieth Foot at Waterloo

Ironically for Mr. "Them Americans would be t-t-traumatized!," the highest kill margins by bayonet were both during the American Revolution. At Paoli, of Americans killed, 13.3% by bayonet. At Stony Point, of British dead, 10.5% by bayonet. So, again, stop posting.

>Ironically for Mr. "Them Americans would be t-t-traumatized!," the highest kill margins by bayonet were both during the American Revolution. At Paoli, of Americans killed, 13.3% by bayonet. At Stony Point, of British dead, 10.5% by bayonet. So, again, stop posting.

Unless you're going to provide us for the ratio of bayonet death for the each battle of the Napoleonic Wars, you can fuck off
Your post reeks of anglo-centrism and no one can take seriously a quote from a dude who was part of the infamous British "army"

The Brits would never allow any of these guys to claim that much land in America and that's if the French, Prussians, or Russians could even manage the logistics for this shitshow.

>Unless you're going to provide us for the ratio of bayonet death for the each battle of the Napoleonic Wars, you can fuck off

Read the first two links, dipshit.

Read them
None state that the average battle had less than 13% bayonet death
Not the majority of death =/= less than 13%

Shame we couldn't end Napoleonic France earlier, I can imagine a massive british fleet, Man of wars and all turning up at their doorstep and completely wrecking the US. Which is, make no mistake absolutely what would have happened.

They wouldn't need to go inland to fight rednecks living in huts in the woods, just occupy the main cities and harbours along the littoral.

The only complication would be the transportation of such army across the ocean. But once they're there everything from Boston to Savannah would be kaput in 15 mins.

And said cities are spread out over a colossal area. Your occupation forces will be out of communication with each other and ground up a few at a time. You'd need way more troops than any European power could bring to the U.S. to make that 'plan' work.

It doesn't need to be all done overnight. Time's totally on the invader's side. First, blockade their harbours to lock them out of trade and supplies from the outside world. That would be the easiest part. Second, proceed to occupy one of the littoral regions, either new england or the carolinas f.i. Chill out smugly for a while, take your time to amass further troops and reinforcements. There's literally nothing but the state of the sea impeding you to keep getting reinforcements from Europe. At this point, the americans have to sustain their economy, war effort, food supplies and literally everything on, exclusively, whatever they can get in the appalachian bushes. This enough is grounds for immediate unconditional surrender. If war goes on, then advance south or north along the coast, depending on where you start from, occupying some strategic cities/production centers and devastate others to the point they no longer exist.

Game over. You are now living in the mountains and celebrating a second thanksgiving day with the cherokees.

I want to say that this is the dumbest thing I've read on Veeky Forums, but sadly it isn't.

> Time's totally on the invader's side.

No it isn't. It costs enormous amounts to send troops across an ocean to fight a prolonged war; doubly so if these troop counts are measured in the hundreds of thousands. Time is not on the invader's side; the longer the war drags, the more opposition to it mounts and the more expensive it gets.

> First, blockade their harbours to lock them out of trade and supplies from the outside world.

Yes, blockade a coastline about 2,000 miles long. That's in the capabilities of a 19th century fleet. The British couldn't manage a complete blockade. What makes you think a smaller fleet would be able to do so? That's not mentioning that before the war of 1812, Britain was the U.S's biggest trade partner, and they might be upset if some jackass country comes along and starts disrupting that. If they decide to break your blockade, what then?

>Chill out smugly for a while, take your time to amass further troops and reinforcements.

While the Americans amass their resources, and push for your rivals to attack you? And where exactly are these reinforcements coming from? You're going to engage mass conscription to fight a war on the other side of the ocean? For what? What in America could possibly be worth the amount of resources you're dumping into this? And then, once you do have your hundreds of thousands of troops, you'll need to supply them all, because God knows they won't be able to live off the sparsely populated land in the U.S.

>There's literally nothing but the state of the sea impeding you to keep getting reinforcements from Europe.

Except cost, public support of the war, and any rivals you have in Europe who might be wanting to take advantage of you dumping half your treasury and manpower into the end of the civilized world and attacking you.

1/2

>At this point, the americans have to sustain their economy, war effort, food supplies and literally everything on, exclusively, whatever they can get in the appalachian bushes.

And, you know, whatever isn't in gunpoint of your troops.What the fuck do you think occupation entails anyway? The British tried this strategy during the Revolution, occupying New York, Philadelphia, Boston, most of New Jersey, and the Carolinas up until 1778 (Well, Boston slipped away, but yeah). Guess what? It didn't stop the Continentals from keeping in the fight, and the U.S. is a lot more established in 1812.

>This enough is grounds for immediate unconditional surrender.

And if it isn't? Do you understand the political underpinnings behind surrendering unconditionally? How does occupation of one portion of the country induce that, especially when the U.S. of the early 19th century is enormously decentralized and most individual states essentially have their own militaries?

>r. If war goes on, then advance south or north along the coast,

Are you giving up the areas you took earlier, or spreading out to the point where you're impotent?

>occupying some strategic cities/production centers and devastate others to the point they no longer exist.

This is pre-industrial war, baby. The "strategic production centers" aren't in cities. They're in wherever someone sets up a gunsmithing shop or a stable or a powder manufacture. They're spread out all over the fucking place.

What you're saying isn't even wrong. It doesn't resemble a plan enough to even rise to the level of being wrong.

you've inverted french and prussians we are talking about 1812 not after

Are they still thousands of miles away? Yes? Then the answer's no.

>Given how the Americans fared against the British (Europe's shittiest army at the time)

unit for unit the british were pretty much the best in europe at the time, a british battalion would expect to stand its ground against any french battalion.

the british had one of the smallest armies but of generally high quality, certainly by 1812,

>Before that, the British army didn't compare to the French one neither in numbers nor in quality
>Just look at how they struggled on Spain against a badly supplied second-hand French army not even lead by Napoleon

numbers no quality was superior to the french, even the french conceded that point as at albuera when beresford was thoroughly outgeneralled but the french forced to bac off anyway because the british infantry refused to break or give ground
'There is no beating these troops, in spite of their generals. I always thought they were bad soldiers, now I am sure of it. I had turned their right, pierced their centre and everywhere victory was mine – but they did not know how to run!'

and the primary issue the british had in defeating the french in spain (and until it had a large number of its troops recalled to make good the losses of 1812 the french army in spain was veteran) was that wellington was froced by domestic politics to try and eep his casualites as low as possible and didnt ever have a large army (the french had between 150-300k troops total deployed in spain during the penisular war) as the government was reluctant to spend money or men.

>The American "super frigates" already outclasses and outgunned their British counterparts, defeating HMS Guerriere, HMS Java, and HMS Macedonian, one-on-one. Unfortunately, the British had many more ships and a little luck;

by the time the war had ended the british were starting to deploy razees to the theatre, those warships were as strongly built as a ship of the line (they had started life as one) but were able to match frigates in speed

>No it isn't. It costs enormous amounts to send troops across an ocean to fight a

It could perfectly have been afforded. A first wave of 50k army would be enough to capture and gain a foothold in New England or the Carolinas.

Protip: it wouldn't even be the first time that a sizeable invasion force with hundreds of ships is dispatched from Europe, so lesrn history before sperging le undefeatable rebel memes because m-muh ocean

>blockade a coastline about 2000

No need to blockade the entire coastline. Just the harbours and annihilate the fleet. Rest is patrolling. The british paid almost no attention and an insignificant fraction of their resources in 1812.

>While the Americans amass their resources, and push for your rivals

Kek. Le mighty american army is going on the offensive and into a pitched battle. Ayyylmao

Rivals would do, but this scenario is supposed to be about Murica handling their shit on their own, not about somebody else rescueing their asses again.

>Except cost, public support of the war

Public support doesn't matter at all, this is 1812, not the Internet era. As for costs, the bill would fall mostly on the occupied America. Just like with Napoleon it was the conquered territories paying for and sustaining the occupation troops.Nothing new.

>until 1778 (Well, Boston slipped away, but yeah). Guess what? It didn't stop the Continentals from keeping in the fight, and the U.S. is a lot more established in 1812.

The only thing that kept them going was receiving a fuckton of supplies and moneys from Spain, France and Holland. But again this scenario is about nobody bailing 'mighty' America out.

>Are you giving up the areas you took earlier

No. We are conquering new territory with reinfircements sent over from Europe. This simple.

>This is is pre-industrial war, baby. The "strategic production centers" aren't in cities.

For the most part they tend to be.But even if they're not that doesn't matter. Cities still function as distribution centers where the raw materials and resources necessary for any industrial/manufacturing activity are shipped to and then distributed and commercialized.

You can set a gunsmith or any industrial output production in the Kentucky mountains if you want. But you will have to run it with whatever you can find in the bushes, cause you're getting zero from the coast cities.

Good luck with that.

>It could perfectly have been afforded. A first wave of 50k army would be enough to capture and gain a foothold in New England or the Carolinas.

That is, for comparison, about 1 and a half times what the French sent to put down the uprising in Haiti (which wasn't enough, by the way). It's less "for a starter" and more "a hugely expensive possibly bankrupting force for anyone, especially if you have to keep it in the field for years".

>Protip: it wouldn't even be the first time that a sizeable invasion force with hundreds of ships is dispatched from Europe, so lesrn history before sperging le undefeatable rebel memes because m-muh ocean

Pot, meet kettle. You need more than hundreds of ships to transport hundreds of thousands of troops. And then, once they're there, you need hundreds (or thousands) of more ships just to keep the ones you've got supplied.

>No need to blockade the entire coastline. Just the harbours

And since the harbors are scattered throughout the coastline, you will need to blockade all of it, or just about.

>The british paid almost no attention and an insignificant fraction of their resources in 1812.

They committed more ships than Nelson had under his command in the Mediterranean theater of 1804. Was that 'insignificant' too?

>Kek. Le mighty american army is going on the offensive and into a pitched battle. Ayyylmao

That's not what I said, but A for effort.

>Rivals would do, but this scenario is supposed to be about Murica handling their shit on their own, not about somebody else rescueing their asses again.

No, this scenario is about someone invading America, which means you have to figure the likely reactions of other powers. It's actually Britain's great strength that they can keep literally the rest of the world out of America if they really had to, which nobody else had a capability even approaching, which you ignore in your autistic need to make them look bad.

>Public support doesn't matter at all, this is 1812, not the Internet era.

Of course it matters. Why do you think some wars and regimes fold after a single battle, wheras others get their noses bloodied time and again without throwing in the towel?

>As for costs, the bill would fall mostly on the occupied America.

Yes, because America would pay your soldiers, have enough food and ammo left in the field to keep them supplied, would repair and resupply your ships, would raise new manpower to keep your rivals at bay, etc.

>Just like with Napoleon it was the conquered territories paying for and sustaining the occupation troops

Napoleon was dealing with far more developed nations with travel times enormously shorter. When he sent people to put down the Haitan rebellion, Haiti was NOT footing the bill for it's own occupation, one of the major reasons there wasn't a second attempt.

>The only thing that kept them going was receiving a fuckton of supplies and moneys from Spain, France and Holland.

In 1778? You're really ignorant, you know that? Are you just stupid, or did you just not do any sort of background reading?

>No. We are conquering new territory with reinfircements sent over from Europe. This simple.

YOU WON'T HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO SEND MULTIPLE WAVES OF REINFORCEMENTS YOU GODDAMN RETARD. It's well outside the realm of possibility to even send a 50,000 man "first wave" for anyone except the UK.

>For the most part they tend to be.

Nnnope.

>But even if they're not that doesn't matter. Cities still function as distribution centers where the raw materials and resources necessary for any industrial/manufacturing activity are shipped to and then distributed and commercialized.

Not really, no. This is again, pre-industrial. Cities are not anywhere close to being the wellsprings of power, and roads are everywhere, decentralizing transport.

One of the main advantages the US soldiers had was the ability to recruit and train soldiers locally. A soldier could sign up to fight, get trained and armed in about the same time as a UK soldier, but UK soldiers had to get ferried to the US to fight. At the time, that kind of journey would have taken about six weeks.

And it isn't just soldiers. Ammunition, weapons, food, even orders from the homeland. The US and the UK used very different methods of transporting and stockpiling these essentials.

>muh ocean, muh you need billions of ships

Nope. It wouldn't be the first time 20 to 30k are dispatched over the ocean. If you can ship 30k , you can ship 50k. Plus, New England is actually the closest to Europe after the Canadian maritimes.

Learn history first, talk later.

>muh commited many ships

Commited most of the fleet to blockading french & french controlled ports and patrolling the european coast. Whatever was left, to deal with the irrelevant americans. Plus more importantly, by then they had already obtained complete naval dominance and were channelling money and resources to the Army and to fund coalitions, unlike 1804, when the RN consumed all the moneys.

Twisted.

>This scenario is about someone coming in and fighting America's war for Americs and saving their ass.

Then I agree '''America would win the war''''

Butthurt.

>Occupied America won't foot the bill!!!!!

Yes they will. Just like everybody else in french occupied Europe did. We're taking the civilized parts of USA in the first wave, those crops and cities will serve well the needs of the occupation troops. Ofc they can sudoku themselves or run to the hills. Some would do, but most would stay. Just like during the Revolutionary war most stayed in british occupied cities.

Ass-devasted

>Muh public support

First, public opinion wouldn't give a shit about America. Second, like I said before, wouldn't matter in the first place. This is the age of Absolutism, and the only opinion that matters is that of the elites.

Absolutely deluded.

>muh industrial manufacturing in the Kentucky bushes would work without resources from (necessarily) the coastal cities

Utterly deranged.

>muh 1778, 'murruca stronk

Congrats, they lasted 2 years on their own. Then the brits showed up, took most of their coastal cities and from then on it was moving to the bushes and going "Spain, France, Holland pls gibmedats yo, pls, PLS I'M BEGGING YOU!!!"

Le raging face of denial.

>a british battalion would expect to stand its ground against any french battalion.

Dunno m8
The British had the advantage of numbers in Spain, yet they failed quite often and even their victories werent that glorious
Doubt they'd have fared greatly against the main French army (the one that was fighting the real war in Central and Eastern Europe while conscripts were playing with Brits in Spain)

In straight up war badly but Im not sure any of those other countries besides France could project power enough that far to be a real threat.

>Nope. It wouldn't be the first time 20 to 30k are dispatched over the ocean.

20-30k is going to do jack shit. The British in the Revolutionary war, after losing Cornwallis's force, still had about 26,000 troops in New England, occupying New York and a lot of the surrounding countryside. Guess what? Didn't cripple the U.S.

>. If you can ship 30k , you can ship 50k.

No, not necessarily, because that shit is expensive, and most governments aren't going to embark on a war that costs more than it can possibly yield in terms of political concessions. You do understand that most wars are not total affairs bent on the total destruction of the other, yes? That hell, the historical war of 1812 was one of such, that Britain could have kept fighting pretty much as long as they wanted to if they were really determined to bring the U.S. to heel.

>Commited most of the fleet to blockading french & french controlled ports and patrolling the european coast.

Right, so where the fuck is this French (or whomever else) fleet going to magically come from? And why are they just letting the British destroy all their colonial possessions and trade completely unopposed?

By the way, "committed ships" was in regard to your statement that >The british paid almost no attention and an insignificant fraction of their resources in 1812.

>Strawman statement.

I'm positing a realistic war between America and some non-European power. Guess what? Multi-power diplomatic solutions are like that. It's asinine to assert that any European power could devote full attention to America, and realizing such doesn't make it some sort of America wank. Go back to /int/ with other country dick-measuring retards.

>Yes they will.

There isn't enough money and resources in America to do that you incest baby.

>Just like everybody else in french occupied Europe did.

Europe. Is. Wealthier. Than. America. In. The. Early. 19th. Century. European cities and countrysides can support huge armies. American ones can't. Relying on such is stupid, as are you. This is the same reason why expeditions to places like India or China or Africa in the same time zone didn't see the same sized armies that were thrown around in Europe proper.

>We're taking the civilized parts of USA in the first wave, those crops and cities will serve well the needs of the occupation troops.

No, they won't, because you can't spread them out far enough to feed your force without critically weakening them, which is why the actual 20-30k armies stayed close together where they could not in fact forage for their support, even in comparatively well built areas like New York.

> Just like during the Revolutionary war most stayed in british occupied cities.

And were supplied from the sea in them. You know how the Colonials kicked the British out of Boston? They moved up cannons to some heights near the city that could shell ships trying to get into the harbor. Then the British abandoned their position as hopeless, because Boston and its surrounding countryside couldn't even support 10,000 troops, let alone a force much bigger than that.

>First, public opinion wouldn't give a shit about America.

No, they would give a shit about weakening defenses at home and pouring god knows ho wmuch money to conquer some irrelevant backwater.

>Second, like I said before, wouldn't matter in the first place. This is the age of Absolutism, and the only opinion that matters is that of the elites.

Who, like everyone else, don't like seeing their money wasted on nonsense, like you plan on doing.

>Congrats, they lasted 2 years on their own.

Congrats, they demonstrated that occupation of their major cities (Which, by the way, happened before such time and was ongoing by 1778) DIDN'T ACTUALLY GET THEM TO SURRENDER

The united states lost most battles in the war of 1812, while the Brits had logistical limitations and were anticipating war with the French.

Of course the States would lose against the full force of a major european power.

>ywn defend your position with your sponge

dunno you look at that list and other than Redinha, you list two assaults which you would expect to produce heavier causualties on the assaulting side simply as the nature of the battle and two fairly decisive defeats of the french army one of which, the battle of salamaca was delivered at pretty much even odds and would have been even more crushing had the spanish followed orders to cut the french retreat.

kill yourself frenchie

>two assaults which you would expect to produce heavier causualties on the assaulting side simply as the nature of the battle

Yeah nah, Badajoz wasn't in the norm even for siege warfare
It was a pure product of British incompetence and low quality army