In short no.
Major things which the Union Army lacked were:
A robust and large force of heavy cavalry which could do more then skirmish as mounted infantry or clash wth other light infantry.
Breach-loading modern rifles, which upped accuracy and rate of fire.
Any sort of War Staff or professional education for officers. The HQ of the War Dept in Washington by the end acted essentially to forward messages to Grant in the field and his staff was required to coordinate the entire war effort, and even this system only evolved through trial and error during the war.
A large reserve component. The term Union Army referes to collectively the pre war Regular Army, and the units raised by the states. There was no depth of experience, and the Pre War army was made up of a small number of long service officers and men for the most part, meaning the number of men with experience was few and far between, limited to men who resigned or mustered out, or Mexican War vets no longer in their prime. Whereas most Continental armies had a continuous diffusion of experience through both the much larger numbers, but conscription as well.
So while there were excellent forward thinking officers and men in the Union Army during the war, they were in many ways rehashing the same ground that the Europeans had, and with less well rounded and less educated and professional armies.