Sixes and Snake eyes Rommel's luck in an alternate 1942 desert war

[cardcarrier]

A big learning curve I see is the gunner will be needing the driver to make small adjustments for lining up shots vs rotating the turret in most every other tank.

their drivers had to do such in stuggs and panzer jaegers and any other of their fixed casemate weapons; thats more on the commanders ordering the correct pointed turns to bring the cannon to bear vs the drivers themselves... considering some of the orphan crews would be stugg crews anyway... thats probably not much of an issue once they test the traverse of the 75, not likely brilliantly effecient unless several weeks of training, but experienced tank commanders should generally be able to cope with ~ point cannon at enemy~

 

[cardcarrier]

I'm sure that when Alexandria falls, the Queen Elisabeth or Warspite will be in port (damaged by Fliegkorps X of course and unable to start their engines or something) and captured, of course lead by Rommel in a boarding action of course. And i'm not actually being sarcastic, that's how heavily you're leaning on the scales here. And because of that, because its so absurdly weighted now, its gone from being a very good 'what if' to a Rommel wank.

Queen Elizabeth is sitting in the port under repair on 05/31 because it had been mined by Italian frogmen in December 1941; why do we keep fighting the original timeline? I'm not familiar with the course of her emergency repairs before she was sent to the united states for her ultimate refit at the end of June 42; she had sustained very serious underwater structural damage; I would presume for the purpose of the timeline that her emergency repairs where close enough to being done that, if the fleet was ordered to evacuate in the face of Rommel advancing on Alexandria, that she could be made ready to leave; even if she wasn't mission capable

 

[steamboy]

No.

American (and thus British) sights are different to German ones. Its not like picking up a rifle with an iron sight and then swapping to a different rifle with another iron sight. And again this is just more 200kg weights on the scales. So you're going to take crews out of vehicles you have, if the Germans even deployed STUGs to the Afrika Corps, scratch that, some 75mm ones did. How many you ask? 7. Exactly 7.

There were two units that deployed StuG IIIs to North Africa.

The first was Sonderverband 288 with a platoon of three StuG III in its 5th Company[anti-tank]. In addition to the StuG IIIs the platoon also had 1 SdKfz 250/6. The unit was raised on 1 July 1941 at Potsdam and was originally designed to operate in Iraq but instead was directly assigned to Panzerarmee Akfrika where it served as a regular motorized infantry regiment. On 31 October 1942 288 was redesignated as Panzergrenadier-Regiment Afrika and completely reorganized. The StuG IIIs used by 288 were a tropical modified Ausf. C/D.

The second unit to be sent to North Africa equipped with StuG IIIs was the 1st batterie of StuG Brigade 242. StuG Brigade 242 was formed on 1 November 1942 at Jüterbog in the village of Zinna and it was intended to deploy the brigade to North Africa to support Rommel who had been requesting an assault unit to lead his infantry in attack. However at the end of October 1942 the 2nd and 3rd batteries were diverted to the southeast to Hungary and then on to Russia. However the 1st batterie was sent to fight in North Africa. It was attached to the 10. Panzer-Division as the 13. Batterie to Panzer-Artillery-Regiment 90 of the 10. Panzer-Division. It was under the command of Hauptmann Ernst Benz and it was equipped with six StuG III Ausf F/8s. Transported via rail through the Brenner Pass to Naples in Italy where they were then transferred to Siebel ferries for sea transport across to Sicily. Then marching overland to the west of Sicily they arrived at Trapani where they were losaded abord ships for transport to Tunis. During this sea transport from Sicily to North Africa the ships were attacked by allied aircraft and two of the six StuG IIIs anda SdKfz 9 and SdAnh116 trailer were lost to the sea. the battery was officially renamed to StuG Battery 90 on 30 April 1943. They also supported Fallschirm-Brigade Ramcke and then Fallschirm-Regiment Barenthin while fighting to the end in Tunisia. On 11 May 1943 the remnants of the batterie surrendered to the British at Kap Bon Peninsula.. First the captured men were interned in a British POW camp at Medjez el Bab. Then some of the batteries personnel were used by the French as forced labor. At the end of July 1943 the survivors were transported to the US and to a POW camp in Texas. In February 1946 the survivors were released and in transit to Germany they were detained in Le Havre,France and uised by the French as laborers in the lead mines in the Pyrenees until released for good at the end of December 1948.

So in total seven StuG IIIs [three Ausf CDs and 4 F/8s] fought in North Africa. No replacement assault guns were ever sent and of course all seven were lost in the fighting.

There were no StuGs allocated to the HG units in North Africa but as noted above the StuGs from the 10 PD did assist the paras in several operations in Tunisia.

So you're now magiking Stug's and their crews or Panzer Crews who were also artillerymen (Stug's were crewed by artillery not the Panzer Arm) who happened to be assigned to the afrika corps and now are able to learn how to use foreign equipment they have zero familiarisation with in less than 4 days.

This is like going in one of the monthly 'if the Kriegsmarine focused on u-boats instead' and going "All of the Bismarck's crew can be used on U-Boats." No. No they can't because u-boat training and the psychology to actually work on a u-boat is VERY different to going on a surface ship. What you're doing is again "I want Z to happen so I will use author fiat to make it happen."

Please tell me you can see the problems here.

 

[cardcarrier]

Field Artillery = 25pdr

7.2" would be in Heavy Artillery Regiments. As far as I can tell there were ZERO Heavy Artillery Regiments in 8th Army in North Africa, therefore it is very unlikely there are any in captured supplies.

No, the British had Survey Regiments dedicated to locating enemy guns.

The Natal was an ~artillery brigade~ attached to the 1st south african; again speculation because Rommel captured them and most of the rear elements of the field divisions and didnt get any heavy guns; the heavy guns were ~assigned~ to the 8th army and had been arriving at Suez... I have speculated into the timeline that Kleeman would find some at the railhead; this is not a historical certainty; conceded as semi historical speculation

 

[steamboy]

his is not a historical certainty; conceded as semi historical speculation

No its not. This is author fiat to have what you stated at the start in the title happen. At this point the British are gift wrapping and grease proofing their gear with handy signs written in German for their capture and use.

What's basically happening is you going "I want this to happen so it does and X then happens, why, because., so the guns are captured because I belive them to be there. Because."

Its like if you was writing an alternate battle of Jutland story, and you want every RN battlecruiser hit to explode. And then pointing at what happened to then apply that to ALL the ships. Even though historically it didn't happen as ships like the Tiger took repeated hits and didn't explode, but because you want this to happen in your story, it will happen, and then going 'semi-historical speculation' is a kind of guard against saying you're not being biased or putting your fingers on the scale, after all several ships DID explode so what if more did?

 

[Aber]

The Natal was an ~artillery brigade~ attached to the 1st south african; again speculation because Rommel captured them and most of the rear elements of the field divisions and didnt get any heavy guns

SA artillery regiments ww2
https://nigelef.tripod.com/saregt.htm
Field Regiment = 25 pdr guns.

the heavy guns were ~assigned~ to the 8th army and had been arriving at Suez.

Source for this please.

 

[cardcarrier]

Exactly in 4 days they'd have figured out how to turn them on and would start some basic driving (because all tanks handle different and have a different feel and control differently, especially tanks from other nations) whilst you're trying to also get the radios tuned into German ones and MAYBE you've got some practice shots off and have some mechanics who can read english well enough to understand the technical manuals to start fiddling around with things like the engine and suspension (all of which are alien to them). A month, maybe you'd have some moderately competent crews and know how to operate the damn thing. 4 days. no, an impossibility.

This is this story, no matter how well written it is, main problem

Z MUST happen so I will have everything leading up to it happen to make Z happen.

And then its basically not real because things don't happen like that outside of a pre-determind story or where fate is an actual force and a divinity is making it happen, which is a story, and thus not realistic because fate does not go and pre-determine the course of events, there is no Time Variance Authority after all.

What you needed to do was have *event at B happen* and then see how that goes, which could lead to Z.

Here, Z, the end is pre-determined. A decisive nazi win in the desert. So everything before the end MUST be weighted to have that event happen, and the leaning on the scales just becomes more and more obvious as you work to make Z happen. The only thing that surprises me is that you've not got Australian and British troops leaving their supplies out by the road with signs saying "Free ammunition, spare parts and fuel.Nazis welcome, please take them."

this is an alternate history bulletin board is it not?

everything in an alternate timeline explained sequentially has to be a domino/butterfly;

Rommel wins Bir Hakeim day 1... his radio spy platoon which died at Bir Hakeim doesn't die because they arent in the same place where they died, isn't that alternate history 101? If the basic premise of the thread is ~super gazala~... on an alternate history board, Rommel would have altered events that allow him to do the thing the title says he does; and if the premise is he does better than historical, then by definition I am improving his rolls... or thumbing; I am trying to keep the roll improvements/thumbing moderate which seems to be the general forum trend

Why do they have to mess with the engines and suspensions when the tanks are brand new? I had the same complaint earlier in the thread about rommel must suffer mass tank break downs (on the 3rd day of battle no less) when nearly all of his armor was fresh from the factory and had been delivered since January 42; the panzer 3 and grant tanks where robust desert runners; remarked by all sides;

the point about the dak not being to maintain or run them is probably true in the longer term even with capturing a workshop and divisional depot, and they would have to largely scuttle them in the medium term once they ran out of ammunition or they broke something that they couldn't or didnt want to be bothered fixing... but that problem isn't happening to fresh vehicles which where shipping, and railed 95 percent of the way to the spot where they got over run by the DAK, its not like they would be due for an engine or suspension overhaul if they where captured in their first battle

 

[steamboy]

this is an alternate history bulletin board is it not?

This is the After 1900's discussion board and TL's are generally held to a higher standard and are often far more heavily scritinized.

If you want to do a fanfic where author fiat is used again and again, thats what the writers forums for.

the panzer 3 and grant tanks where robust desert runners; remarked by all sides;

Yes, when you know how to maintain them. The Germans do NOT know how to maintain the Grants, they don't know anything about them other than its a tank.

 

[cardcarrier]

No.

American (and thus British) sights are different to German ones. Its not like picking up a rifle with an iron sight and then swapping to a different rifle with another iron sight. And again this is just more 200kg weights on the scales. So you're going to take crews out of vehicles you have, if the Germans even deployed STUGs to the Afrika Corps, scratch that, some 75mm ones did. How many you ask? 7. Exactly 7.




So you're now magiking Stug's and their crews or Panzer Crews who were also artillerymen (Stug's were crewed by artillery not the Panzer Arm) who happened to be assigned to the afrika corps and now are able to learn how to use foreign equipment they have zero familiarisation with in less than 4 days.

This is like going in one of the monthly 'if the Kriegsmarine focused on u-boats instead' and going "All of the Bismarck's crew can be used on U-Boats." No. No they can't because u-boat training and the psychology to actually work on a u-boat is VERY different to going on a surface ship. What you're doing is again "I want Z to happen so I will use author fiat to make it happen."

Please tell me you can see the problems here.

I used Stugg... colloquially... call it panzer jaeger series 1 marder stugg; fixed casemate weapon crew.. whatever you want...21st panzer had such crews who would be easier(ish) pupils for a grant than a panzer 3 crew; although the difference is negligible bringing your machine to bear at a favorable angle is basic tank commander training, it would fall on the orphan commanders to point the 75 at the things they wanted to shoot at, and they didn't pick that up well or understand it then the tank gets knocked out and they get wounded or die; the alternative is walking through the libyan desert and dying anyway

 

[oldironside]

Why do they have to mess with the engines and suspensions when the tanks are brand new? I had the same complaint earlier in the thread about rommel must suffer mass tank break downs (on the 3rd day of battle no less) when nearly all of his armor was fresh from the factory and had been delivered since January 42; the panzer 3 and grant tanks where robust desert runners; remarked by all sides;

From tankarchives.ca, talking about Grant tanks
"Another issue with American tanks were their engines. In addition to their need for high quality gasoline, there were some reliability issues. Some instances of burning up after only 25 hours of use were recorded. The issue turned out to be with poorly working air filters and incorrect usage."

Anyone who has ever tried to read an instruction book in a language they do not actually speak will see an issue here. "Le Grill? What the hell is that?" as Homer Simpson once put it.

 

[steamboy]

I used Stugg... colloquially... call it panzer jaeger series 1 marder stugg; fixed casemate weapon crew.. whatever you want...21st panzer had such crews who would be easier(ish) pupils for a grant than a panzer 3 crew; although the difference is negligible bringing your machine to bear at a favorable angle is basic tank commander training, it would fall on the orphan commanders to point the 75 at the things they wanted to shoot at, and they didn't pick that up well or understand it then the tank gets knocked out and they get wounded or die; the alternative is walking through the libyan desert and dying anyway

Okay. Point of order

Imagine going to some people

"Okay lads what I want you to do is move off that bit of kit that you know how to use and are trained on and are pretty damn good in if I may say so! Into this thing, yep its apparently American. Treat it as you would your vehicles and fight well! Oh and you've got about 4 days to do so."

You'd be taking men away from vehicles they know how to use and putting them in completely unfamiliar kit, To do so would be utterly absurd. Also those vehicles you mentioned, far far smaller crews than a Grant. So you'd have to break up even more crews and put them into the role, on a vehicle they don't know. And again there's exactly 7 stug's ever deployed to the Africa Korps. Seven. Not 700 or 7,000. Seven. There's a total of 32 (assuming that 5 are not sunk because of course) of these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerjäger_I in North Africa, no Marders were sent there, they're all in Russia. So you've got a total of (assuming no losses) 39 vehicles which you know how to use, know how to deploy, have the crews for and who know each other and their vehicles and how to fight.

A total of 96 men from the Panzerjager 1's and 28 men from the Stugs, 124 men in total, or the full crews for 17 Grants (assuming you put all 7 crew in) and in doing so, giving up 39 vehicles, to get 17.

And you're going to put them in Grants. that they have zero familarty with and this will clearly work because A. Germans. B. Rommel and C. Well it LOOKS like a Stug so clearly its the same.

If Rommel or anyone suggested this, they'd think they were suffering from heatstroke or had gone bonkers.

Its like asking a car mechanic to mend a sports boat's engines or asking a power boat helmsman to drive a 16 wheeled HGV with zero preperation or training. Yes the Germans (and allies) used many captured tanks in the Desert, but in less than 4 days of familiarisation and expecting them to do anything good beyond figure out what revs are needed for gear changes and how to turn the thing or practice bail out drills.....yeah. No.

And again, you don't see the author fiat/hand of the author here? We know how this is going to end, and what you're doing is just set dressing to make it happen.

 

[cardcarrier]

No its not. This is author fiat to have what you stated at the start in the title happen. At this point the British are gift wrapping and grease proofing their gear with handy signs written in German for their capture and use.

What's basically happening is you going "I want this to happen so it does and X then happens, why, because., so the guns are captured because I belive them to be there. Because."

Its like if you was writing an alternate battle of Jutland story, and you want every RN battlecruiser hit to explode. And then pointing at what happened to then apply that to ALL the ships. Even though historically it didn't happen as ships like the Tiger took repeated hits and didn't explode, but because you want this to happen in your story, it will happen, and then going 'semi-historical speculation' is a kind of guard against saying you're not being biased or putting your fingers on the scale, after all several ships DID explode so what if more did?

The way you are using the term "author fiat" leaves no room for actual alternate history, which by it's definition is fiction inside of a historical event. I have blended (far more than most of the other post 1900 timelines I have browsed on this site) actual historical and altered fiction; My having all the armored brigades leave their HQ and supply tails exposed in the southern desert isn't an author fiat, the British did that historically in the opening stages of the battle and it's why they lost;

Having Rommel win Bir Hakeim is fiction, and the spin off effects is where I feel we enter alternate history, IE his radio platoon which died, doesn't die; or 21st panzer doesn't have to wait for lack of secure supply corridor and instead displaces further east and gets on to 22nd armored brigades tail and decapitates them; such a battle is alternate history speculation, if the storyline is Rommel wins super Gazala, then you can expect to see fictional events which permit this

Again based on browsing this site, I don't believe my timeline is grossly outside of permitted plausibility bounds, and I did double check the rules and ask a moderator, there are no rules against axis military only alternate histories

 

[TimTurner]

The way you are using the term "author fiat" leaves no room for actual alternate history, which by it's definition is fiction inside of a historical event. I have blended (far more than most of the other post 1900 timelines I have browsed on this site) actual historical and altered fiction; My having all the armored brigades leave their HQ and supply tails exposed in the southern desert isn't an author fiat, the British did that historically in the opening stages of the battle and it's why they lost;

Having Rommel win Bir Hakeim is fiction, and the spin off effects is where I feel we enter alternate history, IE his radio platoon which died, doesn't die; or 21st panzer doesn't have to wait for lack of secure supply corridor and instead displaces further east and gets on to 22nd armored brigades tail and decapitates them; such a battle is alternate history speculation, if the storyline is Rommel wins super Gazala, then you can expect to see fictional events which permit this

Again based on browsing this site, I don't believe my timeline is grossly outside of permitted plausibility bounds, and I did double check the rules and ask a moderator, there are no rules against axis military only alternate histories

The way people are using the term "thumb on the scale" is more than a bit incorrect here. If anything, whether they intend it or not, they are essentially asking for you to put a thumb on the scale to make the story more like OTL, force-fitting if you like, when that in fact would not be plausible as they realize. I just want to let you know not all those who freuquent this thread think that way.

 

[cardcarrier]

From tankarchives.ca, talking about Grant tanks
"Another issue with American tanks were their engines. In addition to their need for high quality gasoline, there were some reliability issues. Some instances of burning up after only 25 hours of use were recorded. The issue turned out to be with poorly working air filters and incorrect usage."

Anyone who has ever tried to read an instruction book in a language they do not actually speak will see an issue here. "Le Grill? What the hell is that?" as Homer Simpson once put it.

The DAK service personel had figured out the air filters for running the desert in 1941; and would have captured spare air filters in a divisional depot, the grants in most histories of the desert war are rated as good reliable vehicles, and most complaints boil down to high profile, rivets, and traverse of the 75; crew ergonomics and reliability are often praised

if they fuck up and let the air filter get clogged; which any desert tank crew member would know to inspect, then they have to scuttle; 1942 German tank crews from that division are not imbeciles; some things like dont flood the engine with sand are kind of common sense

 

[EWHM]

Anyone here ever served in an Armor unit, and have experience with switching tank types on a hasty basis?

 

[David Flin]

Again based on browsing this site, I don't believe my timeline is grossly outside of permitted plausibility bounds, and I did double check the rules and ask a moderator, there are no rules against axis military only alternate histories

Those are two different issues. The site has no problems with Timelines where one side does better or worse than they did in OTL. That's not in question. I've even seen timelines where the author sets out to give every conceivable advantage to one side, with a view to seeing how that turns out assuming plausible responses to unfolding events from both sides.

That's not in question. What is being questioned here is the plausibility of specific events described (the Germans being able to use captured Grant tanks as operational units within four days of capture, for example. That is not plausible. Not even a little bit).

What is also being questioned is how every single butterfly is flapping in the direction of the Germans, and not one against them. Luck runs hot and cold. That is where accusations of thumb involvement on the scale arises from. It is turning into a Rommel wank. Which is a shame, as it had potential at the start.

 

[cardcarrier]

Okay. Point of order

Imagine going to some people

"Okay lads what I want you to do is move off that bit of kit that you know how to use and are trained on and are pretty damn good in if I may say so! Into this thing, yep its apparently American. Treat it as you would your vehicles and fight well! Oh and you've got about 4 days to do so."

You'd be taking men away from vehicles they know how to use and putting them in completely unfamiliar kit, To do so would be utterly absurd. Also those vehicles you mentioned, far far smaller crews than a Grant. So you'd have to break up even more crews and put them into the role, on a vehicle they don't know. And again there's exactly 7 stug's ever deployed to the Africa Korps. Seven. Not 700 or 7,000. Seven. There's a total of 32 (assuming that 5 are not sunk because of course) of these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerjäger_I in North Africa, no Marders were sent there, they're all in Russia. So you've got a total of (assuming no losses) 39 vehicles which you know how to use, know how to deploy, have the crews for and who know each other and their vehicles and how to fight.

A total of 96 men from the Panzerjager 1's and 28 men from the Stugs, 124 men in total, or the full crews for 17 Grants (assuming you put all 7 crew in)

And you're going to put them in Grants. that they have zero familarty with and this will clearly work because A. Germans. B. Rommel and C. Well it LOOKS like a Stug so clearly its the same.

Its like asking a car mechanic to mend a sports boat's engines or asking a power boat helmsman to drive a 16 wheeled HGV with zero preperation or training.

And again, you don't see the author fiat/hand of the author here? We know how this is going to end, and what you're doing is just set dressing to make it happen.

ugh they had other self propelled artillery as well on panzer 1/2 chassis including improvised/hybrid weapons, the point stands that they had crews who had operated fixed casement weapons; this is really belaboring the point, a panzer 3 crew can be popped into a grant, it's a tank and they are tank crewmen; they might be terribly in effecient and break the thing eventually; the alternative isn't their panzer 3, that was knocked out at my fictional battle of sidi muftah, it's knocked out; maybe they can go back to their tank if it can be repaired; or they can receive a new one from the factory if it can be shipped and brought up; but hopping into a captured vehicle lets them stay with the division;

these are orphan crews; ie men who lost their German vehicle and have NO ALTERNATIVE which is why the DAK did this as a general policy anyway; they aren't being sent to Kursk to go fight Provarovka, they are following their division and bringing the vehicles along; if I introduce improvised Grant crews rout British armored brigade call me out on it, chasing after routed infantry and general road marching are not great markers of crew mastery; or golden BB's on a battleship or some other big daddy fiction

the sheer nitpicking and ball busting in my thread is excessive; again based on limited browsing; I believe I have made and am continuing to make a representative effort on fictional but plausible; there are no other timelines of 42-43 era on this board to even compare this thread too, I looked; so try to give it a little space

Historical gazala to someone who had never seen it/read about it and just looked at the preponderance of forces would be absurd, so anything inside that battle can have that feeling but it's not heavy handed thumbing... heavy handed would be case blue is cancelled and Hitler orders decisive push in Africa; by comparison to other timelines/threads on this board I believe I am one of the more light handed

 

[TimTurner]

I also feel that the language used by some here is utterly hyperbolic in practice. Just because some things are changed in the timeline doesn't mean that inevitably Rommel is going to stride his way into Cairo without opposition at any point from the British and he's going to mop up all the British elements in the Eastern Med extremely easily etc. or that the author would even be willing to write such a storyline.
Everything to me points to the author knowing what they are doing with a small-scale POD and just exploring the consequences. All they've really changed is ONE battle, in what was a chaotic front OTL, and accusations of a Naziwank start flying. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. This TL has been really quite overscrutinized in a sense, beyond what is rational or necessary. No, I'm not saying that scrutiny is bad, it's very good. But it's being nitpicked to a fault. That being said I don't really mind it, it just is coming from sort of a wrong place. The author has had to deal with this from before they even changed any actual history.

 

[steamboy]

the sheer nitpicking and ball busting in my thread is excessive; again based on limited browsing; I believe I have made and am continuing to make a representative effort on fictional but plausible;

Unfortunately this is working as intended. People are going to criticise your story, bring up minor technical details, discuss crew training. You want pedantic? You should look into the debates that rage when it comes to 'What if X country used Y ammunition type' or better yet, WW2 aircraft engines. The technical minutea in those is amazing and it shows the bredth of peoples knowledge, and indeed how much nitpicking can be done.

If you go "These guys can use a Grant because its like a stug despite them having zero familiarity with it and I say its like a stug because it kinda looks like one" which you basically are, then people are gonna go "Uhh...no...."

And whats happening as that Rommel and co are rolling so many 6's that again its getting more and more implausable.

They captured 7.2 inch guns that were not there but they've captured them because you said they were there, when actual records say they were not.
They capture huge amounts of supplies that the British forces make ZERO effort to sabotage or destroy in the face of the advancing enemy because you need it to happen to that the things in the future can happen.
They capture tanks that they have never, ever seen and put crews in them and expect them to do well or fight normally. and they will break down later because they will as you said they will.

Again you're not seeing the problems here with why folks are saying fingers on the scales and so on. When all this is happening, its going beyond plausability into wank territory.

 

[CalBear]

I used Stugg... colloquially... call it panzer jaeger series 1 marder stugg; fixed casemate weapon crew.. whatever you want...21st panzer had such crews who would be easier(ish) pupils for a grant than a panzer 3 crew; although the difference is negligible bringing your machine to bear at a favorable angle is basic tank commander training, it would fall on the orphan commanders to point the 75 at the things they wanted to shoot at, and they didn't pick that up well or understand it then the tank gets knocked out and they get wounded or die; the alternative is walking through the libyan desert and dying anyway

I have been very careful to stay away from this thread except to try to keep things civil.

That said, at some point the handwave gets too vigorous to simply let slide. Post 1900 threads have to be at least somewhat plausible.

This thread has, or soon will, Jumped the Shark into pure implausibility.

The OP can either

A) Pull things back into some realm of actually possible without miles of handwave and nearly unlimited magical thinking. This may make it difficult for the OP to complete this work as envisioned. It is however necessary if this thread is to continue in Post-1900.

OR

B) Have the thread moved to Writer's Forum where massive handwave and magical thinking is not a problem and the OP will be able to pursue their work as envisioned.

What can't happen is the current trajectory of the thread. It is unreasonable to expect members to not disagree with unlimited ahistorical handwave and magical thinking in a Forum that is not meant for that sort of narrative.

NOTE: This DOES NOT mean that people can start taking pot shots at the author or at each other. It would be... unfortunate, if anyone misunderstood this.