The war would have started one way or another, I doubt this made any kind of difference.
We are talking about massed volunteer forces here, who had little to no time for training. Furthermore, hindsight is hindsight. Dropping all the tactical and operational knowledge would just result in chaos, especially when no one knows what to replace them with. The lessons about fortified positions were learned, but there was little else to do.
This is essentially what the war in the west was.
They'll just march through in the east, as they did historically. Wishful thinking of northern population tapping out is not a sound military strategy either.
A) the war starts in this scenario as well lol..
The question was would the northern population keep spending lives WITHOUT the more functional firebrand events taking place..
If lee doesn’t invade and they do not fit on sumner.. the war from the northern POV is all about principles..
“It isn’t right they leave the union!”
I do not think that alone holds out under mass casualties.
I think you needed events that were instigated and perpetrated by the confederacy on and In the north specifically to do that.
Just like with Vietnam.. they did nothing to Americans.. so when the casualties rose, the American people tapped out..
If vietnam stopped a tower or 2 it probably belongs to us now.
B) I honestly think teaching napoleonic tactics is likely far more intensive than modern cover to cover tactics.
C) The northern population tapping out was always their only hope.. just like with Washington and the revolution..
He did not beat the full night British empire... the politics changed back home and they tapped out..
D) defense in depth means you set rows of defense and plan on bleeding your target before retreating to your next line of defense..
They lose crazy troops reaching your lines then everyone is gone when they get there, and you start artillerying your previous position.
Wash rinse repeat..
That strategy kills vs napoleonic tactics.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk