If they will not meet us on the open sea (a Trent TL)

Reader mode
nepcotevalley

nepcotevalley

Major Major said:
One expert, I presume, counts himself pleased that he is safe and secure at home, instead of being sent out to the front to be wounded, captured, tortured, bedded by beautiful women never mind that last one . . .

"I applied for the Board of Ordnance, for which I knew I was better qualified than most of its members, inasmuch as I knew which end of a gun the ball came out of."

Flashman At The Charge
;)
Click to expand...

Alas for Flashman . If his luck runs true to form he will still end up in Canada . Probably in the vanguard of the British assault. He will be doing three things. Firstly cursing his superiors and himself. Secondly planning how to get out of danger. Thirdly grimly wondering how many people his extremely unfaithful wife is sleeping with. Regards
 

Major Major

nepcotevalley said:
Alas for Flashman . If his luck runs true to form he will still end up in Canada . Probably in the vanguard of the British assault. He will be doing three things. Firstly cursing his superiors and himself. Secondly planning how to get out of danger. Thirdly grimly wondering how many people his extremely unfaithful wife is sleeping with. Regards
Click to expand...

And bedding a comely young woman himself. This is Flashy, after all.
:biggrin:
 

KillerT

Well, I think you have had the patience of a saint regarding a certain someone! Well done on holding on and continuing the story. There are many, many others who would have thought sod it then and moved away. My country right or wrong eh?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I think I'm going to adjust the rifles post to have it be that the Terry, Westley-Richards and the Prince are the ones to be send to units, and that the order is ~3,000 per.
 

cerebropetrologist

Saphroneth said:
Fair enough. So it looks like the Terry and the Westley-Richards would be on the "shortlist" - is that correct?
Click to expand...
The 18th Hussars were still making their minds up about the Terry, which means any large order for that particular gun probably waits until after they've reported. The War Office had looked at the Prince earlier and hadn't adopted it, so there might have been objections to it if changes hadn't been made.

This was a period where the War Office were pretty happy to buy a few thousand of a weapon that might be the next big thing (e.g. the Whitworth). However, without the international pressure to adopt a breechloader, these particular set of purchases probably remain speculative rather than decisive. Snider, who patented his breech in mid-1862, solves a lot of problems by allowing them to convert old weapons. I do think that they would have insisted on them being made at Enfield, though: it allows them to see what problems there may be in the manufacture, and to see whether improvements or efficiencies are possible.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
TTL the Terry has turned up in the battle at Niagara and done rather well, one reason for my thinking they'd consider breechloaders. I suspect they'll go to the Snider once it's available, but until then they might tentatively adopt the Terry or W-R as a cavalry weapon.
 

KillerT

Just wondered about the possibility of the dastardly redcoats ;-) forming auxiliary units from say escaped slaves? Promising them land in Canada or other settlement after, as desired? This would throw a rather interesting spanner in the works of both good ole Johnny Reb and Yankee Doodle. Certainly have both guessing about what Britains future intentions exactly were...


(Yes I realise that by the 1860s the age of foreign auxiliary formations in the British Army had almost died out although the Crimean did see the creation of a Swiss and German Legions, Ghurkhas don't count as at this time firmly in the Indian Army)
 

Saphroneth

Banned
There were certainly plans in 1858 during the war scare then to proclaim freedom to various slaves and cause chaos that way. The problem is that the Brits here aren't really running into many Union slaves.
 

KillerT

No, they're not, but, in areas controlled by the south....RN ship pays a visit, maybe things are made known....you know....
 

Saphroneth

Banned
KillerT said:
No, they're not, but, in areas controlled by the south....RN ship pays a visit, maybe things are made known....you know....
Click to expand...
The Brits are officially respecting CSA property rights, so any incident would certainly not be official policy.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
CalBear said:
DO NOT link to Banned members. Good for goose, good for the gander.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that it was permissible to post something that was by a member who's not actually banned. That post is not published anywhere else, and is by Robcraufurd (who is not banned from this site) - should I instead have copied it verbatim without providing attribution?

EDIT:
I've had a quick check of the forum rules, and I can't see any mention of a ban on linking to posts by banned members. However, if it is official policy, then should I report when I see other members linking to posts or threads by banned members?

On the other hand, posting the material of a member who is banned (Robcraufurd is not but I am assuming the rule applies to the whole blog) would fall afoul of rule (6)

6. Don't pass off the work of others as your own (plagiarism). If you include the work of others in your posts, say so and include a link to the original, or if that's not possible mention the source.
Click to expand...

unless I simply mentioned the source while providing the verbatim text.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Saphroneth said:
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that it was permissible to post something that was by a member who's not actually banned. That post is not published anywhere else, and is by Robcraufurd (who is not banned from this site) - should I instead have copied it verbatim without providing attribution?

EDIT:
I've had a quick check of the forum rules, and I can't see any mention of a ban on linking to posts by banned members. However, if it is official policy, then should I report when I see other members linking to posts or threads by banned members?

On the other hand, posting the material of a member who is banned (Robcraufurd is not but I am assuming the rule applies to the whole blog) would fall afoul of rule (6)



unless I simply mentioned the source while providing the verbatim text.
Click to expand...
67th Tiger had been banned for YEARS.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
cerebropetrologist said:
Does Spengler still have a linked to a banned member's timeline in his signature?
Click to expand...
That's the person I was thinking of in particular, though there's also the more general questions:
1) Is this a forum rule, because if so I'm unable to find where it's stated in the rules thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/forum-rules-and-guidelines.173163/

It may be that I'm missing the rule which implies it, but if so then it seems like it could be more clearly stated.

2) Does linking to the work of non-banned members in an environment associated with banned members qualify?
If so it seems extremely restrictive - a blog is one thing (though of course this essay is not published anywhere else, so it at a stroke removes an extremely important essay for the Trent topic from the arsenal of those arguing the position that British intervention would be decisive) but it could easily be broadened to the point where, for example, mention of the book The Tyrant (a book by Eric Flint in the Raj Whitehall universe, associated with banned member S. M. Stirling) would have to go unsourced - or where discussions on this site which involved now-banned members would be impossible to bring up.

CalBear said:
67th Tiger had been banned for YEARS.
Click to expand...
But that's the thing - Robcraufurd is not 67th Tigers.
In addition, your reply does not address either of the points I brought up - that is, is this a rule (and if so where) and does this apply to Robcraufurd (who is posting on a site hosted by 67th Tigers).
It also doesn't address how I cite that essay without falling afoul of either this "don't link to banned members" restriction or the "don't plagiarize" restriction.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Saphroneth said:
That's the person I was thinking of in particular, though there's also the more general questions:
1) Is this a forum rule, because if so I'm unable to find where it's stated in the rules thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/forum-rules-and-guidelines.173163/

It may be that I'm missing the rule which implies it, but if so then it seems like it could be more clearly stated.

2) Does linking to the work of non-banned members in an environment associated with banned members qualify?
If so it seems extremely restrictive - a blog is one thing (though of course this essay is not published anywhere else, so it at a stroke removes an extremely important essay for the Trent topic from the arsenal of those arguing the position that British intervention would be decisive) but it could easily be broadened to the point where, for example, mention of the book The Tyrant (a book by Eric Flint in the Raj Whitehall universe, associated with banned member S. M. Stirling) would have to go unsourced - or where discussions on this site which involved now-banned members would be impossible to bring up.


But that's the thing - Robcraufurd is not 67th Tigers.
In addition, your reply does not address either of the points I brought up - that is, is this a rule (and if so where) and does this apply to Robcraufurd (who is posting on a site hosted by 67th Tigers).
It also doesn't address how I cite that essay without falling afoul of either this "don't link to banned members" restriction or the "don't plagiarize" restriction.
Click to expand...
Lets be REALLY CLEAR. The guidelines are, quite deliberately, set up by Ian to be flexible. That is in part to prevent bedroll lawyering and partly because the entire purpose tof the guidelines is to maintain a reasonable set of discussions.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top