What uniform colors for the British Intervention Force of 1861?

[Gribb]

Been quite tempted lately to paint up some Perry British Intervention forces. For the hypothetical war due to the Trent affair in 1861.

Been thinking about what colors to use for the uniform tunics. Due to the experiences in the Crimean war and the Indian Mutiny and much reforms going on in the army. While they wore red late into the 19th century it was always against opponents with inferior weaponry.
In a war against the Union I imagine them wearing the Blue New Zealand uniform, and in cases of uniform shortage dye the coats like in India where a variety of shades seemed to be worn.

What do You think?

[tallyho]

As its completely hypothetical, who wouldn't go with red?

[carlos marighela]

Or you could go with the actual colours used by the troops sent out to Canada as a result of said Trent incident, ie red. The fighting might be hypothetical but the reinforcements sent to Canada weren't.

Then you have other precedents where actual fighting in North America took place. The Fenian Revolt saw British and Canadians in the field dressed in red.

Going further back, the 1859 'Pig War' saw Royal Marines kitted out in red. The Upper and Lower Canadian Rebellions and the associated invasion by the US Hunter Patriots in 1838/39 were suppressed by British troops in standard uniforms.

Variations to the theme of red in the period are as often as not concessions to the climate, terrain and supply as they are to the fighting style of opponents and field adaptations aside are very much in the minority for the period. Given that the British Army would likely have been engaging any US forces in a conventional manner, as they would have in the Crimea or some putative engagement in Europe, I can't imagine why they would wear anything but scarlet. Blue seems most unlikely given that their hypothetical opponents would be similarly clad. It was adopted in New Zealand in the Second Maori War because much of the fighting took place at relatively close quarters in dank, dark New Zealand forests.

Naturally enough, your toys, your choice.

[Plynkes]

It wasn't always against opponents with inferior weaponry. The Transvaal war was fought in red (mostly) and that was against Boers with modern rifles.


In 1861 any lessons about the unsuitability of scarlet uniforms were yet to be learned by the army as a whole. The widespread adoption of khaki was still decades away, and even the most advanced armies were still mostly using rifled muskets. This wouldn't be like facing Boer marksmen who could pick you off from half a mile away.

A war against the USA would have been a big deal, against a 'civilised' opponent with a lot of prestige at stake (and no little history between them). I cannot see the British Army marching out to meet Cousin Jonathan in anything but their smartest gear. Colonial mufti is all very well in crippling heat against 'savages', but against a European style nation, one with newspapers (newspapers with pictures), you want to look your best, as they did against the Russians five years before. If such a conflict dragged on I can see that changing, but at the start they'd be smart, and in red.

[carlos marighela]

By the way, the notion that the British Army of the period was always engaged against opponents with inferior weaponry is not correct.  The Sikh Wars, the Crimea, the First Boer War etc  all put the lie to that.

Uniform colour is not related to the relative merits of weaponry in the period. The boat coats depicted in your plates, were concessions to climate, economy and wear.

[waterproof]

 think the red uniform is the best choice. Experience shows that all nations preferred the colorful skirt in the 1860s.
Modifications were made based on the duration of a campaign under difficult climatic conditions. Basically England sent its troops through the world in their home uniform. This is how I would put it in the "what if" scenario.

[Johnp4000]

By the way, the notion that the British Army of the period was always engaged against opponents with inferior weaponry is not correct.  The Sikh Wars, the Crimea, the First Boer War etc  all put the lie to that.

Uniform colour is not related to the relative merits of weaponry in the period. The boat coats depicted in your plates, were concessions to climate, economy and wear.

Crimean war? I think you will find the British Enfield was vastly superior in range to the Russian muskets of the time. The first Boer war was rather unique compared to the usual Colonial war. I would doubt that the issue is inferior equipment rather than the competence to use the available weapons.

[Gribb]

While red seems sensible in 1861 later on as the nature of war changed and weaponry improved red would be awfully easy targets.
Thinking they might experience what the Danes did with the Prussians in 1848, forcing them to abandon the old uniform.



The Boer War was an exception. During the Crimean war they certainly had better firearms giving them a significant advantage during battles. The reason Russians dug in and avoided open battles after their bloody encounters with the Minié.

[Gribb]

By the way, the notion that the British Army of the period was always engaged against opponents with inferior weaponry is not correct.  The Sikh Wars, the Crimea, the First Boer War etc  all put the lie to that.

Uniform colour is not related to the relative merits of weaponry in the period. The boat coats depicted in your plates, were concessions to climate, economy and wear.

Boer Wars were exceptions. During the Crimean war they certainly had the advantage of better weaponry. They had the Minié while the Russian army didn't. Made a vast difference in battles. While the Sikh were well armed and formidable fighters would You rank them as much a threat as the Union army of the 1860s?

[carlos marighela]

Yep, unless you subscribe to the view that non-white armies simply can’t be as good as white ones. The Union armies were not terribly impressive, certainly at the start of the conflict.

The Sikh army had professional core and an elan that made them rather tough opponents. It’s not for nothing that the British favoured Sikhs as a martial elite within the Indian Army. It took two wars to destroy the Khalsa.

Of course the issue of technology alone isn’t always the deciding matter, were that the case then Chassepots would have prevailed over Dreyse and the French won the FPW. The point I was making is that, broadly speaking, the British army was not markedly superior. Often enough the technology was broadly comparable and other factors came into play, like numbers, terrain, climate and the home ground advantage. The Minie may have been a better firearm than the Russian musket but the allies did spend quite a bit of their time attacking fortified redoubts covered or filled with more or less equal artillery.

So what bearing does this have on uniforms? Bugger all. British troops wearing something other than red before the 1880s is a relative rarity and typically relates to factors other than the opponent. It was worn beyond the 1880s and against armies against whom the technological advantage was not so pronounced, ie Egyptians with Remington rifles and Krupp artillery. At 600 yards, a battalion formed up in ranks, colours waving above, dressed in blue, probably doesn’t have much tactical advantage over one dressed in red. Oh look a more less tightly packed bunch of blue dots with flags, I wonder what they might be? If it was so decisive, one would imagine the Union armies would have switched to something with better camouflage properties like their foes, who by the way adopted, greys and browns largely for reasons of economy/ availability.

The British army wasn’t completely unaware of the benefits muted colours could bestow. As early as 1839, we see references to a uniform being trialled for Canada that ‘matched the bark‘ of local woods. Alas there is little evidence of it being worn. Sporadic attempts at camouflage reoccur through to 1900 but the fact remains that the red coat remained the primary service uniform for most of Victoria’s reign. Until the benefits of smokeless technology and the impact that had on tactical evolution, the benefits of camouflage would be largely unrealised.

Any way, as I said at the start, your toys, your choice. Colour them in as you see fit.

[commissarmoody]

Stick with red, it looks better. And will put the fear of Ol'Blighty in them. 

[v_lazy_dragon]

I vote Red too - if you want some diversity in colour the 65th Montreal Voltiguers wore rifles green for the North west Rebellion of 1885. There were also officers in blue patrol jackets, and assorted non-uniformed volunteers in 1885 (Rocky Mountain Rifles, etc) which might give some flavour ?
A coloured unit (Victoria Pioneer Rifles) were raised - again in Red, but with royal navy drill sgts and old Hudson bay Co. flintlock muskets(!)- in the 1860s; and could also give flavour.
I seem to recall some earlier Canadian militia regiments used a grey-brown uniform in the 1850s (I need to fins my Osprey) so you could justify some units being equipped in older pattern uniforms from stores if determined to field something not red ;-)
Also blue uniforms seem fairly common for irregular units (especially if mounted) across the empire so that could be another option - 'emergency volunteer militia' in blue jackets and caps, bring your own trousers - to supplement the red coats?

[v_lazy_dragon]

If you wsnt to add further colour to a British force, perhaps a Naval Brigade? Or Indian (subcontinent) Troops?

[Gribb]

Yep, unless you subscribe to the view that non-white armies simply can’t be as good as white ones. The Union armies were not terribly impressive, certainly at the start of the conflict.

The Sikh army had professional core and an elan that made them rather tough opponents. It’s not for nothing that the British favoured Sikhs as a martial elite within the Indian Army. It took two wars to destroy the Khalsa.

Of course the issue of technology alone isn’t always the deciding matter, were that the case then Chassepots would have prevailed over Dreyse and the French won the FPW. The point I was making is that, broadly speaking, the British army was not markedly superior. Often enough the technology was broadly comparable and other factors came into play, like numbers, terrain, climate and the home ground advantage. The Minie may have been a better firearm than the Russian musket but the allies did spend quite a bit of their time attacking fortified redoubts covered or filled with more or less equal artillery.

So what bearing does this have on uniforms? Bugger all. British troops wearing something other than red before the 1880s is a relative rarity and typically relates to factors other than the opponent. It was worn beyond the 1880s and against armies against whom the technological advantage was not so pronounced, ie Egyptians with Remington rifles and Krupp artillery. At 600 yards, a battalion formed up in ranks, colours waving above, dressed in blue, probably doesn’t have much tactical advantage over one dressed in red. Oh look a more less tightly packed bunch of blue dots with flags, I wonder what they might be? If it was so decisive, one would imagine the Union armies would have switched to something with better camouflage properties like their foes, who by the way adopted, greys and browns largely for reasons of economy/ availability.

The British army wasn’t completely unaware of the benefits muted colours could bestow. As early as 1839, we see references to a uniform being trialled for Canada that ‘matched the bark‘ of local woods. Alas there is little evidence of it being worn. Sporadic attempts at camouflage reoccur through to 1900 but the fact remains that the red coat remained the primary service uniform for most of Victoria’s reign. Until the benefits of smokeless technology and the impact that had on tactical evolution, the benefits of camouflage would be largely unrealised.

Any way, as I said at the start, your toys, your choice. Colour them in as you see fit.

Not doubting the fighting skills of the Sikhs or Gurkhas to mention a few. But, I was under the impression that the British were often better supplied as in having better weaponry. The Khalsa seemed to have been an impressing force that really put them to the test, though they seemed to have poor commanders. The French were suffering greatly due to poor organization and rigid tactical deployment. The Prussian infantry with it's advanced tactics were arguably at it's height during the 1860-70s. True about the Crimean balance when it came to artillery.

The colors of all nations uniforms were also considerably more muted and faded then often presented so at distances it would not make much of a difference. It would not be the radiating red, green and blue seen on wargaming tables but dark silhuettes. Indeed, the Union would likely have changed too had it been such an issue. Just given the period it seemed to me they might be more experimental with new uniforms then would be the case.

They might be my models, but they are above all subjects and property to historical accuracy Settling for red.

[Gribb]

Stick with red, it looks better. And will put the fear of Ol'Blighty in them. 

The very sight of the stoic, scarlet (or brick red ) lines approaching should make the Yanks turn. Like Howe attempted at Bunker Hill.

I vote Red too - if you want some diversity in colour the 65th Montreal Voltiguers wore rifles green for the North west Rebellion of 1885. There were also officers in blue patrol jackets, and assorted non-uniformed volunteers in 1885 (Rocky Mountain Rifles, etc) which might give some flavour ?
A coloured unit (Victoria Pioneer Rifles) were raised - again in Red, but with royal navy drill sgts and old Hudson bay Co. flintlock muskets(!)- in the 1860s; and could also give flavour.
I seem to recall some earlier Canadian militia regiments used a grey-brown uniform in the 1850s (I need to fins my Osprey) so you could justify some units being equipped in older pattern uniforms from stores if determined to field something not red ;-)
Also blue uniforms seem fairly common for irregular units (especially if mounted) across the empire so that could be another option - 'emergency volunteer militia' in blue jackets and caps, bring your own trousers - to supplement the red coats?

It will mainly be red for the line infantry and green for rifle units. Since some in the Perry command packs are wearing the blue patrol jacket there will be some dots of blue in their ranks, too.


Naval Brigades may be an option given there are suitable miniatures. Indian subcontinent troops would still wear red(?) but could be added as interesting units made up of Indian soldiers.