LastZeroFigther

Ive always been curious, of what quality, compared to Europeans, was the Union army just before, during the course of, and immediately following. I know that many European observers did not think much of the prowess of the combatants and it stands to reason that since many of the soldiers were volunteers they would not be as high of quality as a professional soldier but I find it difficult to believe that both the soldiers and their leadership were universally as poor as I have seen some make it out to be. Surely as the conflict continued union training and leadership improved to the point where it would be a force to be reckoned with even for a European army if only on combat experience alone. Also was it not the case that many European nations at the time had manditory military service and would therefore have similar issues of motivation and training as the union would have? I have also seen someone mention that Civil War armies were using outdated tactical doctrines compared to European armies but I have never seen anything to suggest that any European forces were fighting in drastically different ways and I suspect that if they were the US would have probably adjusted their tactics to match new military doctrines. Does the idea hold true?