Sequel de Mayo (Cinco de Mayo, Vol. II)
- Thread starter KingSweden24
- Start date
I mean, maybe, but by the time you’ve gotten to the part of Virginia where holding the Cumberland Gap allows you to link the front then you’ve already created a different massive problem for Dixie
Well, their Grand Fathers almost made at least one. I think the pic is from 1864 otl so maybe it didn't get deployed like this in ttl. otl Germans had a gun with a range of 120km by WWI.
Last edited:
Pershing
"...Wittenmyer's frontal operational push from Scottsboro, Alabama in support of Pershing's positions around Rome. It was here that the value of the "tank"-type landship quickly became apparent, as Wittenmyer's armored cavalry, with limited aerial and long-range artillery support, was able to form a screen all the way south to Gadsden, which fell on April 11th with minimal American casualties in a considerable shift from what had been the case in previous campaigns.
This thrust in northeastern Alabama created space for Pershing's main force to focus primarily on crossing the Coosa with the end of the high of the spring flooding, though hundreds of horses and dozens of landships were still lost to rapid waters or had to be left behind until the level of the river receded further. Bridging the river became a gruesome fight, reliant primarily on superior firepower to "destroy the hills before us" as men scrambled over the river and into view of the target: the city of Atlanta, Georgia's state capital and the crossroads of much of the Confederate railroad system. The first line of Patrick's defenses were breached on the 22nd of April, placing Pershing's forces on an arc running roughly from Marietta to Alpharetta and then Gainesville well to the northeast. The Siege of Atlanta had thus begun.
As the one-year anniversary of the Fall of Nashville approached, Atlanta's civic leaders were determined not to see what had happened to Tennessee's capital and economic heartland happen to their own, and under a white flag, Mayor Courtland Winn and several other officials approached Pershing on May 6th, two days after a severe artillery battery from fifty kilometers out had indiscriminately destroyed not just a railyard but several residential neighborhoods adjacent. Pershing's strategy was obvious as it was also simple - he aimed to press out at the flanks to cut railroads from Macon and Gainesville, and thus cut routes into Atlanta from Alabama and South Carolina, and worsen Patrick's supply situation, which based on reports from spies in the city was considerably worse than the United States had anticipated. Being bad for the soldiers defending the city meant it was even worse for the civilians who had still not evacuated southwards, and Mayor Winn approached Pershing in person to request that he ponder this as Yankee troops pushed into the city, even suggesting that some civilians be allowed to evacuate northwards behind Yankee lines where they could find food, water and medicine, a provision that Patrick had reluctantly acceded to provided it be kept secret from the bombastic new President in Richmond, James K. Vardaman.
Pershing received Winn with courtesy but asked him to ponder how an American army could be justified in such "soft treatment of an enemy city" after what had befallen Baltimore and Washington as well as the bombardments of Cincinnati and Harrisburg and repeated aerial raids on Philadelphia. "War is hell," Pershing replied tersely, "and it cannot be refined. This war can only end if your people can no longer fight it or unequivocally surrender, and I will prosecute this war to effect the former until you all come to your senses and pursue the latter." Nonetheless, he agreed to allow the evacuation of women, children and slaves from the city during a three-day ceasefire on May 12th, before resuming his offensive maneuvers, but not behind American lines where they would become his army's responsibility. The quote "war is hell" is specifically from then on attributed to him, and easily one of the most famous utterings in American history..." [1]
- Pershing
[1] If it wasn't already obvious that I'm setting up "Sherman's March to the Sea, but with tanks and planes," here's your confirmation of exactly what's going down
This thrust in northeastern Alabama created space for Pershing's main force to focus primarily on crossing the Coosa with the end of the high of the spring flooding, though hundreds of horses and dozens of landships were still lost to rapid waters or had to be left behind until the level of the river receded further. Bridging the river became a gruesome fight, reliant primarily on superior firepower to "destroy the hills before us" as men scrambled over the river and into view of the target: the city of Atlanta, Georgia's state capital and the crossroads of much of the Confederate railroad system. The first line of Patrick's defenses were breached on the 22nd of April, placing Pershing's forces on an arc running roughly from Marietta to Alpharetta and then Gainesville well to the northeast. The Siege of Atlanta had thus begun.
As the one-year anniversary of the Fall of Nashville approached, Atlanta's civic leaders were determined not to see what had happened to Tennessee's capital and economic heartland happen to their own, and under a white flag, Mayor Courtland Winn and several other officials approached Pershing on May 6th, two days after a severe artillery battery from fifty kilometers out had indiscriminately destroyed not just a railyard but several residential neighborhoods adjacent. Pershing's strategy was obvious as it was also simple - he aimed to press out at the flanks to cut railroads from Macon and Gainesville, and thus cut routes into Atlanta from Alabama and South Carolina, and worsen Patrick's supply situation, which based on reports from spies in the city was considerably worse than the United States had anticipated. Being bad for the soldiers defending the city meant it was even worse for the civilians who had still not evacuated southwards, and Mayor Winn approached Pershing in person to request that he ponder this as Yankee troops pushed into the city, even suggesting that some civilians be allowed to evacuate northwards behind Yankee lines where they could find food, water and medicine, a provision that Patrick had reluctantly acceded to provided it be kept secret from the bombastic new President in Richmond, James K. Vardaman.
Pershing received Winn with courtesy but asked him to ponder how an American army could be justified in such "soft treatment of an enemy city" after what had befallen Baltimore and Washington as well as the bombardments of Cincinnati and Harrisburg and repeated aerial raids on Philadelphia. "War is hell," Pershing replied tersely, "and it cannot be refined. This war can only end if your people can no longer fight it or unequivocally surrender, and I will prosecute this war to effect the former until you all come to your senses and pursue the latter." Nonetheless, he agreed to allow the evacuation of women, children and slaves from the city during a three-day ceasefire on May 12th, before resuming his offensive maneuvers, but not behind American lines where they would become his army's responsibility. The quote "war is hell" is specifically from then on attributed to him, and easily one of the most famous utterings in American history..." [1]
- Pershing
[1] If it wasn't already obvious that I'm setting up "Sherman's March to the Sea, but with tanks and planes," here's your confirmation of exactly what's going down
So we have entirely covered the First Quarter of 1916? Nothing left to cover from Jan-Apr 1916? Asking this cuz Im curious about how to determine which events to cover in how much pace? How do you maintain your pacing for your tls?
Last edited:
As a note, the Author has tweeked things a little from OTL, Courtland Winn was mayor of Atlanta from 1911 to 1913 and considered a Progressive. The actual Mayor in 1916 was James G. Woodward. As far as I can tell from Woodward's wikipedia page, he would have either (flip coin) A) been drunk into insensibility at this point or B) blamed the negros for the US getting that far and herded them into the line of fire.
If it's not to much trouble what kind of "landships" are there? Just one or several? (I don't think they are going to be called "tanks" due to butterflies but how about "tracks" being they are likely tracked vehicles?) IIRC isn't Patton on the CSA side? Are they trying to make landships as well?
Randy
Randy
Sorta. I’m not keeping strictly to purely linear events even if all things are being roughly organized similar to each other
Pacing is always the struggle lol, I don’t know how much “maintaining” I do. Honestly I think that CdM has only had a few instances of proper pacing where I’m neither rushing nor bogged down (1914-15 the particular offender here)
In the end he made more sense lol
Idk about types I was just leaving the door open to calling them “tanks” in the future if I ever want to lol
Just so you know "I" think you're doing great
Well if you're going to use THAT excuse
Just wondering as the opening post shows a Mk IV (it looks like
) and I'm wondering what other types might exist because development would obviously be different since there's only 'one' nation (on the "US" side anyway) doing the development. I'd wonder at what the CSA could come up with given their limitations but also the obvious need to have 'something' since they want to go on the offensive at some point.I won't lie I'm somewhat of a tech-head who's just as interested in the tech as the 'story' so pardon my questions but I'm curious of those details because I'm aware they are going to be 'different' than OTL's WWI development due to the background and situation. IIRC the US is using 'balloons and blimps' which begs the question of rigid airship development given we're likely seeing a bit more robust development in Europe. (Likely a rivalry between France and Germany with developing LTA and HTA vehicles, and throwing Brazil into the mix
) Plus the use of gas and everything else that's going on.The Great American War is going to feed back into the tech and developments of the European war. Europe is going to go into the next war with their eyes more open to how damaging and destructive "modern" warfare can be.
Randy
The Crown Prince of Belgium being one of the most notable people to know this (having been at Los Pasos) and taking the lesson that if war is damaging and destructive, then it needs to happen to the other guy (rather than anything as inconsequential as Peace). I'm still trying to figure out how he is historically blamed for starting the CEW.
Well thank you!Just so you know "I" think you're doing great
Well if you're going to use THAT excuse
Just wondering as the opening post shows a Mk IV (it looks like
I won't lie I'm somewhat of a tech-head who's just as interested in the tech as the 'story' so pardon my questions but I'm curious of those details because I'm aware they are going to be 'different' than OTL's WWI development due to the background and situation. IIRC the US is using 'balloons and blimps' which begs the question of rigid airship development given we're likely seeing a bit more robust development in Europe. (Likely a rivalry between France and Germany with developing LTA and HTA vehicles, and throwing Brazil into the mix
The Great American War is going to feed back into the tech and developments of the European war. Europe is going to go into the next war with their eyes more open to how damaging and destructive "modern" warfare can be.
Randy
The Mark IV was really just an “insert photo of tank here” moment haha but, yes, you’ll see Europe draw a lot of lessons from this war - especially the potential utility of rigid airships as an aerial bombing platform, without WW1 to interrupt innovations in that space from 1914-18 in Europe
Oh you’ll see
Correct
What is the maximum distance that a ship can fire a shell inland? I presume that every part of Virginia that is less than that distance from the shore is a no-go zone for the Confederates now. If the USN is counted as nothing left to do, this also means that the CSN is functionally non-existent now. (At this point, the idea of the USN *paying* for leads to the location of remaining CSN ships seems quite reasonable.
The other thing that I find almost funny is that the most significant city in the Confederacy that I've seen zero damage described to is ... *NEW ORLEANS*.
The other thing that I find almost funny is that the most significant city in the Confederacy that I've seen zero damage described to is ... *NEW ORLEANS*.
You are right, I was too narrow in expecting him to rape an underage German Princess, when both Italy and Spain have monarchies, I believe.
Don't lose sight of this section. The political leadership of the CSA has, since basically the start of the war, been utterly disconnected both from the facts on the ground as well as disconnected from the military leadership. We know that CSA generals have no qualms with simply ignoring and/or not fully telling politicians information about campaigns and operations and it seems like Patrick is (wisely) continuing that trend here.
Confederate political leadership is so lacking that generals are more or less dictating their own policy over civilian alongside military affairs. I'm now wondering if we get something like OTL China's Warlord Era postwar - sure, the CSA is de jure a single, independent country (minus Kentucky and Texas of course) but de facto it is a collection of fiefdoms divided among various generals and strongmen and Richmond's control of, say, central Georgia only really exists on paper.