Sequel de Mayo (Cinco de Mayo, Vol. II)
- Thread starter KingSweden24
- Start date
The only reason why the Midlands front is similar to our OTL western front is because, General Bell, built up defensive, trenches, pillboxes, barbwire, you name it to get a 6-1 kill ratio. The other fronts were led by generals still being on the offensive.
Those "enormous advantages" on defense don't seem to really help the Americans though. The Confederates have over and over and over and over been able to launch successful attacks that have repulsed American troops, causing them to flee their trenches and withdraw, oftentimes many miles. (Those cited examples are only from 1915/16 - there's more examples if we went back to 1913/1914).
Now, none of this really matters - the CSA has long ago lost the strategic initiative - but their ability to launch multiple attacks that overcome the era-specific advantages to the defender speaks volumes about American leadership, or lack thereof. American forces are more numerous, better equipped, better fed, better rested, and presumably have higher morale. Given all that, why is the CSA still able to launch tactical attacks that overcome all those systemic advantages and cause American troops to flee their trenches if not a failure in generalship?
The power of Southron Chivalry, and their secret weapon; The Rebel Yell, obviously
To be fair, it has been stated that on a pure army v army analysis, the Confederacy probably has the better force (especially at the beginnings of the war): the Confederates are better trained, have a strong military tradition, and likely DO have the better generals. That begins to mean less and less as the war progresses due to the dwindling of Confederate morale, their inability to properly supply their soldiers and politics screwing with the generalship.
It's not entirely surprising that the Confederates would still be able to launch an occassional counter-attack and be successful though - by this point there's a growing sense that they're fighting for the continued existence of their culture and society and that sort of existential dread can lead to hard fighting. Especially when compared to the Union which is angry and victorious, but doesn't really seem to have that same (If we don't win, we and our society are going to be dismantled) drive to them. It's actually one of the reasons I'd really wanted to see some of the propaganda being used in the Union, because I'm interested in seeing of the Abolitionist message is catching on and the impact its hving both on soldiers and the home front.
But, generally speaking, yeah I'd argue that the Union probably has a less capable officer corp than the Confederacy - their society is less militerized, the military until the war started hasn't received the same kind of resources and really: though the drive to WIN is most certainly there, the Confederates are fighting to exist at this point (in their minds).
While I don't think the wave of suicides caused by the signining of a peace treaty is at the level of the Nazis in 1945, I think it will be specific. I'm still not convinced whoever signs the peace treaty will stay long term in the Confederacy. And Australia will be farther from assassins.The power of Southron Chivalry, and their secret weapon; The Rebel Yell, obviously
To be fair, it has been stated that on a pure army v army analysis, the Confederacy probably has the better force (especially at the beginnings of the war): the Confederates are better trained, have a strong military tradition, and likely DO have the better generals. That begins to mean less and less as the war progresses due to the dwindling of Confederate morale, their inability to properly supply their soldiers and politics screwing with the generalship.
It's not entirely surprising that the Confederates would still be able to launch an occassional counter-attack and be successful though - by this point there's a growing sense that they're fighting for the continued existence of their culture and society and that sort of existential dread can lead to hard fighting. Especially when compared to the Union which is angry and victorious, but doesn't really seem to have that same (If we don't win, we and our society are going to be dismantled) drive to them. It's actually one of the reasons I'd really wanted to see some of the propaganda being used in the Union, because I'm interested in seeing of the Abolitionist message is catching on and the impact its hving both on soldiers and the home front.
But, generally speaking, yeah I'd argue that the Union probably has a less capable officer corp than the Confederacy - their society is less militerized, the military until the war started hasn't received the same kind of resources and really: though the drive to WIN is most certainly there, the Confederates are fighting to exist at this point (in their minds).
I wonder if perhaps too much of an abolitionist bent in the propaganda may potentially sour the war in the minds of more conservative folks in the Union military, those whose opinion has been more focused on defending the interests of the Union after it was attacked (and the whole Mississippi dispute situation) and may now fight less hard because of some mild racist bent that isn't necessarily intended that way but is what it is....The power of Southron Chivalry, and their secret weapon; The Rebel Yell, obviously
To be fair, it has been stated that on a pure army v army analysis, the Confederacy probably has the better force (especially at the beginnings of the war): the Confederates are better trained, have a strong military tradition, and likely DO have the better generals. That begins to mean less and less as the war progresses due to the dwindling of Confederate morale, their inability to properly supply their soldiers and politics screwing with the generalship.
It's not entirely surprising that the Confederates would still be able to launch an occassional counter-attack and be successful though - by this point there's a growing sense that they're fighting for the continued existence of their culture and society and that sort of existential dread can lead to hard fighting. Especially when compared to the Union which is angry and victorious, but doesn't really seem to have that same (If we don't win, we and our society are going to be dismantled) drive to them. It's actually one of the reasons I'd really wanted to see some of the propaganda being used in the Union, because I'm interested in seeing of the Abolitionist message is catching on and the impact its hving both on soldiers and the home front.
But, generally speaking, yeah I'd argue that the Union probably has a less capable officer corp than the Confederacy - their society is less militerized, the military until the war started hasn't received the same kind of resources and really: though the drive to WIN is most certainly there, the Confederates are fighting to exist at this point (in their minds).
Last edited:
Immediate counterattacks to retake trenches would be commonplace as part of defense-in-depth.
And I'd be inclined to agree that the Midlands front seems too long to turn into a perpetual grinding mess. Trenches, sure, interlocked defensive positions ranging the whole length of the line, maybe. But what seems likely to me, is that the density of artillery and troops would not be high enough to quickly counterattack any assault, with battles instead developing as deep reserves are sent to trouble spots. With the time this might take, the attacker would have a better opportunity (at great cost in blood) to overrun defending light artillery, forcing them to fall back. Essentially, while advances might be slow and bloody, I'd imagine that they're more likely to hold ground in the Midlands front.
Essentially, this would be a front where you can spend lives and bullets to advance, up until your adversary is spending matching lives and bullets to hold you back, in which case there's probably another place you can advance. Of course, your adversary could also advance elsewhere at the same time. Only around key logistics centers would both attacker and defender put so much priority that the frontlines become static charnel houses. As far as I can recall, this fits the TL, with the focus on grinding battles around logistical nodes like Nashville.
And I'd be inclined to agree that the Midlands front seems too long to turn into a perpetual grinding mess. Trenches, sure, interlocked defensive positions ranging the whole length of the line, maybe. But what seems likely to me, is that the density of artillery and troops would not be high enough to quickly counterattack any assault, with battles instead developing as deep reserves are sent to trouble spots. With the time this might take, the attacker would have a better opportunity (at great cost in blood) to overrun defending light artillery, forcing them to fall back. Essentially, while advances might be slow and bloody, I'd imagine that they're more likely to hold ground in the Midlands front.
Essentially, this would be a front where you can spend lives and bullets to advance, up until your adversary is spending matching lives and bullets to hold you back, in which case there's probably another place you can advance. Of course, your adversary could also advance elsewhere at the same time. Only around key logistics centers would both attacker and defender put so much priority that the frontlines become static charnel houses. As far as I can recall, this fits the TL, with the focus on grinding battles around logistical nodes like Nashville.
Yeah, it’s really only Nashville and to a way lesser extent Chattanooga where you have the kind of absurd grind like out east. Kentucky River, the push through Memphis, even the attack towards Huntsville was much more fluid and open, both on offense and defense.
We’re basically done with the attritional grind for Pershing from here on out - Georgia will be much, much more open
So, to quickly recap the situation the Confederacy currently finds itself in at the beginning of 1916:
~30% or so of its territory is under occupation, including pretty much all of its 2 richest and most economically productive states prewar. Its largest state is currently in a state of quasi-rebellion that we know will soon enough turn into a full blown revolution. Its navy has been relocated to the bottom of the Atlantic, and its ports are now being blockaded (I recall an update shortly after Hilton Head where the US announced to the European powers that it was soon thereafter going to start raiding the Confederacy's eastern ports, has that been happening offstage?). Of its 3 major allies, 2 have been knocked out already and Brazil is about to come to the negotiating table. They are currently in the middle of a major crop-failure-induced famine that is seeing hundreds of thousands of its civilians perish. They also may or may not be on the brink of a major slave uprising.
In other words, they are currently experiencing an apocalyptic nightmare. To be completely honest, I'm a bit surprised that they are going to be able to hold out for most of the rest of this year. The closest analogues I can think of to what they're experiencing right now are the Ottomans in Fall 1918 and the Germans in spring 1945, and obviously in both cases they were at the very end of their respective ropes. Once Pershing is finished pushing through the Appalachians I expect any further resistance to start disintegrating in short order.
~30% or so of its territory is under occupation, including pretty much all of its 2 richest and most economically productive states prewar. Its largest state is currently in a state of quasi-rebellion that we know will soon enough turn into a full blown revolution. Its navy has been relocated to the bottom of the Atlantic, and its ports are now being blockaded (I recall an update shortly after Hilton Head where the US announced to the European powers that it was soon thereafter going to start raiding the Confederacy's eastern ports, has that been happening offstage?). Of its 3 major allies, 2 have been knocked out already and Brazil is about to come to the negotiating table. They are currently in the middle of a major crop-failure-induced famine that is seeing hundreds of thousands of its civilians perish. They also may or may not be on the brink of a major slave uprising.
In other words, they are currently experiencing an apocalyptic nightmare. To be completely honest, I'm a bit surprised that they are going to be able to hold out for most of the rest of this year. The closest analogues I can think of to what they're experiencing right now are the Ottomans in Fall 1918 and the Germans in spring 1945, and obviously in both cases they were at the very end of their respective ropes. Once Pershing is finished pushing through the Appalachians I expect any further resistance to start disintegrating in short order.
So how much money or credit have the various European powers given to the Confederacy, Mexico and Brazil? While Mexico and Texas could pay off debts with oil and raw material exports both the Confederacy, Chile and Brazil may be at the mercy of commodity prices. This would leave the British and French holding some debts that may be either defaulted on or worthless.
Germany at the end of WWI actually seems like a closer equivalent, even with Texan independence.
I think it would be interesting to rank the 3 members of the central powers in WWI and the 3 members of the Axis in WWII in terms of percentage loss of population and land from the internationally recognized land/populaltion at the beginning of the war and figure out where the CSA iTTL is going to rate among them. I think that the worst would be Austria-Hungary (where you'd be looking at what was controlled before and after the war from Vienna). Best is probably either Germany in WWI and Japan in WWII (where essentially Taiwan and Korea are the main losses.
Also, can anyone think of a case in OTL like Brazil where a country on the losing side ended up as a Winner? (Sort of the Inverse of WWI Russia)
Hold out to the end of the year may equal finding someone willing to Surrender. I still think there is a good chance the US may see a state like North Carolina surrender for themselves.
All the Confederates need is one more final spring offensive, and their situations will be reverse. All the years of sacrifice and suffering would have been worth it to deal the Yankees a death blow they can never recover. Let us not forget that it was the Yankees antagonism that started this war, the Confederates are merely ending it.
Other than all that, though, things are going great down Dixie way
Great question! I haven’t done any of the math but it’s a lot. This is obviously a huge problem for the three states you identified, and to a lesser extent Mexico which already went through its severe financial crisis in spring 1913. France in particular having probably opened its wallet to the Bloc Sud more than Britain is probably getting very nervous…
I’ll be sad to see this shitpost series come to an end when the CSA loses
This augurs very well for French finances come the CEW, I'm sure. Berlin must be glad they put very little money into this nonsense (and what little they did probably went to the Union).
The Germans are if nothing else happy that the GAW gave them an easy excuse to expand their naval stations/eavesdropping SIGINT units in proximity to the Canal while France decided to lend precious money to the losers
I wonder if this won't somehow help influence the build up to the CEW - probably not directly with the Causi Belli, but one of those threads that later historians will look back on and be like, "oooooooooooohhhhh!!!!!"
Def. I think there was a post a bit ago that touched on how GAW was *a* factor, even if it was far from *the* factor, in the deterioration of the Great Detente
Time is a flat circle
TBF, outside of New Orleans, Norfolk and Texan ports, I'm not sure the US would *care* that much. If the French or Germans want Mobile or Jacksonville, why should the US care? We could end up equivalent to China of the 19th century. *Treaty Ports* for everyone!