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

Reader mode

cerebropetrologist

Saphroneth said:
it is understood, however, that others (such as Pennefather) had some input... A joke which does the rounds at Horse Guards is that the Duke's secretary has clearly removed most of the profanity and bad language.
Click to expand...
Undoubtedly:

'General Pennefather, who commanded at Aldershot in my time, literally “swore himself” into office. On one occasion, when the Queen was on the ground, he wished every regiment so vehemently to the “bottom of the bottomless pit” that it frightened the gracious lady, who sent an equerry to remind him of her presence. The monition had the desired effect for ten minutes, when the bombardment commenced afresh, and brought the field-day to an abrupt termination. The Queen had bolted in sheer trepidation of an earthquake.'

'Gazing one afternoon on the placid features of the “Royal George” before the new War Office, the occasion on which he once visited a station not 100 miles from London and told the colonel and officers generally that he didn’t believe a word they said, and stamped and fumed and swore and threatened, came vividly to my mind. There had been a fracas in the canteen during the officers’ mess hour, which eventually developed into a riot, and then was quelled. No one in the mess-house appears to have heard it, and it was only next morning that the matter, after investigation, was reported to the Horse Guards. The “Royal George,” who was distinctly apoplectic, ran many such chances of combustion in his younger days, for the old warrior was by no means mealy-mouthed and was not above playing to the gallery, as represented by the Press, and although he could never aspire to rank with General Pennefather, he could, when circumstances demanded, swear like any trooper.' (from London in the Sixties, by 'One of the Old Brigade'- AKA Donald Shaw, 86th Foot 1860-1876)
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Ah, the Victorian army. One wonders whether they intended to simply refine their command of invective to the point they could make entire battalions run from the field by pure, distilled sarcasm.
 

Thoresby

Saphroneth said:
Ah, the Victorian army. One wonders whether they intended to simply refine their command of invective to the point they could make entire battalions run from the field by pure, distilled sarcasm.
Click to expand...

As General Melchett said "if in doubt shout, shout and shout again."
 

Machiavelli Jr

Saphroneth said:
24 September

The Duke of Cambridge's memo on Lessons From the American War arrives in Britain. Much discussion takes place at Horse Guards as a result - it is understood, however, that others (such as Pennefather) had some input.

Among the points addressed are:

1) Quick reaction forces are essential for dealing with wars in the colonies.
2) These forces should be concentrated in the United Kingdom as far as possible.
3) Mobilized militia is not an effective replacement for line infantry, but can be an effective supplement (i.e. a second line).
4) The muzzle loading rifle's advantages in range and accuracy are so great that any breech loading rifle which causes more than a small reduction in these properties should be rejected.
5) Breech loading artillery of the Armstrong type has some minor reliability issues relating to the vent piece, but is otherwise capable, powerful, long ranged and accurate.
6) The breech loading carbines lately adopted for cavalry should not be permitted to quash the spirit of the offensive.
7) Bayonet charges should be emphasized not as a replacement for fire but as an addition to fire.
8) The close order formation is no longer necessary except in the presence of skilled enemy cavalry or defending an embrasured position.
9) Better doctrine is required to direct the Armstrong guns of the artillery arm - their full range is hard to use on the battlefield. (Pennefather suggests use of short range telegraph, though major concerns are in place over how viable this actually is.)
10) The current army should not be reduced in size by more than 20,000 or so, and that only over the Duke's protests - a 10% reduction of the size of the army would result in a 25% reduction in the home force, thus significantly reducing the ability of the Army to deploy troops in a crisis. Indeed, an increase might be preferable.
11) Militia and volunteer movements at home are all very well, but they should be trained as close to the standard of regular infantry as possible. (There is a one-page diatribe on the capabilities of Canadian militia, though he does allow almost as an afterthought that they are at least better than what they were facing.)
Click to expand...

Quite a lot of sense in there, though 6) is going to get a lot of cavalry massacred and 4) isn't going to be true for very long - hopefully, however, the improvement of breech-loaders will be recognised in a reasonably timely manner. 7 and 8 sound like a statements of the bleeding obvious, but it wasn't that obvious in OTL... 9 really needs radio or at least balloon spotting.

I wonder if 1 might lead to there being less tendency for the home units to concentrate all the 'Society' officers and units whilst the mere grunts get the foreign service. I can see that being e.g. an 11th Hussar or a Guardee might be less attractive to the Army's more chinless elements if they're first in line to hop on a troopship to God-knows-where...
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The reason for (1) is that it's pretty obvious the ability to pack fifty thousand infantry off to Canada by the thaw was what made this war relatively painless. The more likely consequence is that the Cardwell reforms, if they happen, are not going to be OTL.

(4) is actually broadly correct at the time - the Enfield against the Dreyse needle gun is actually a wash because the Enfield has so much longer a range (and repeaters are worse). The key point here is that it's not an argument to avoid breech loaders, and indeed the Duke is quite a fan of the Westley-Richards. It's instead an argument to go for a breechloader not because it's a breechloader but because it has useful other properties.

(6) is, again, broadly correct (with nuance) - cavalry charges by competent cavalry remained viable or at least useful a lot longer than is sometimes thought. There's important and useful cavalry charges even in WW1 on quite a large scale! (They're very vulnerable to organized enemy formations, but four regiments of cavalry are a fair price for disrupting an entire enemy army corps - see "Von Blulow".)

(7) and (8) are basically "don't be bloody fools like the Americans have been" - hence they're being reiterated. Cambridge has seen in the Trent War examples of British troops making successful bayonet assaults and examples of Union troops just stalling out and not managing them.
That said, it's also a good way to get swarmed by twenty thousand Zulus.

(9) is... yes, it's a flaw in the technology as it currently exists. Field telegraph has been deployed by this point (it first sees use in the Crimea!) but actually laying it in a hurry is not easy and it's a non ideal method of transmitting corrections.
 

RodentRevolution

Banned
Saphroneth said:
(4) is actually broadly correct at the time - the Enfield against the Dreyse needle gun is actually a wash because the Enfield has so much longer a range (and repeaters are worse). The key point here is that it's not an argument to avoid breech loaders, and indeed the Duke is quite a fan of the Westley-Richards. It's instead an argument to go for a breechloader not because it's a breechloader but because it has useful other properties.
Click to expand...


Thus still basically sets up the Snider-Enfield as the winner of the breech loading rifle program.
 
27 September - 3 October 1862
  • Index

    • Saphroneth

    Banned
    27 September
    The Red River area and mainland Oregon Country are formally dropped from the British demands for the Treaty of Havana (in return for the recognition of the islands of Puget Sound as part of British Columbia), and the Union grudgingly admits to the sensibility of the 37th Parallel border up to the Great Divide (which the Confederacy accepts, also somewhat grudgingly as it means saying goodbye to prospects for Kansas and Missouri). The proposed State of Colorado (lower California) is still under debate.
    The repeated riots in Maryland have also caused the Union negotiators to admit that there is no practicable way to keep the area of the state around Baltimore.

    At this point, the following areas are disputed:
    - Maine
    - The precise dimensions of the St Lawrence Buffer
    - Grand Island on the Niagara river
    - Upper Michigan
    - Delmarva
    - Kentucky
    - Northwest Virginia
    - NW Maryland
    - Southern California
    - Who is paying an indemnity to whom

    Progress feels distinctly slow.

    Quietly, a Federal study is also instituted as to where the capital should be moved if it becomes necessary to move the capital.

    29 September

    The somewhat delayed coronation of Frederick III of Prussia takes place in Konigsberg. It is a grand affair, with much pageantry and not a little beer.
    Queen Victoria I of the United Kingdom attends, though she is clearly subdued - the loss of her beloved Albert is still recent, though she does not want to dismay her eldest daughter (now Queen Victoria of Prussia, with no regnal number).
    HMS Princess Royal, selected from the ships of the line rotated out of the blockade of the Union, delivers a thunderous salute. She would have been accompanied by the Royal Frederick, but no ship by that name exists despite two having been laid down in an eight year period - one was renamed to Queen and the other to Frederick William. (Her Majesty the Queen suggests that such name be used for one of the new ironclad frigates.)

    1 October
    A bill passes the Confederate House and Senate without much examination. It contains language which "confirms that the State of Louisiana retains all rights, prerogatives and exemptions under the Confederate States as under their former association with the United States" - similar bills are being passed for other states, including (optimistically, perhaps?) Missouri and Delaware.
    This was perhaps a bill the Confederacy would have preferred to scrutinize further, as one of the aforementioned exemptions (and one which was quashed early in the year but which this bill reinstates) is the opt-out of the "whites only" provision of the Militia Act.
    This is almost immediately noticed by the free blacks of New Orleans, who resurrect the Louisiana Native Guard the next day.

    3 October
    Sustained debate begins about whether the Militia Act can be re-revised to remove the black volunteers a second time. This becomes tangled up with states' rights issues, and goes nowhere fast.
     
  • Index

    • Saphroneth

    Banned
    diestormlie said:
    Yeah, sure, pass it, whatever...

    OH SHIT ARMED BLACK PEOPLE! AARGH!
    Click to expand...

    Funny thing. At this point that's the only black regiment in the service of either America. (The USCT weren't raised yet TTL because finding enough guns for whites has been nigh impossible.)

    That won't last.
     

    Thoresby

    Saphroneth said:
    Funny thing. At this point that's the only black regiment in the service of either America. (The USCT weren't raised yet TTL because finding enough guns for whites has been nigh impossible.)

    That won't last.
    Click to expand...

    Will the rump Union or Canada have enough Blacks to warrant a seperate Regiment and will the CSA want any more armed Blacks?
     

    Saphroneth

    Banned
    Thoresby said:
    Will the rump Union or Canada have enough Blacks to warrant a seperate Regiment and will the CSA want any more armed Blacks?
    Click to expand...
    Canada's not counted in that list and probably has a couple of majority coloured regiments somewhere (probably among the Nova Scotia or New Brunswick militia from the Merikin communities, or similar).

    The Union, meanwhile, may well have a slave state list consisting of "Missouri" and a burning need to differentiate themselves from the racially segregated and slave-owning South. Estimates of free blacks range as high as 200,000 in 1860 (fewer than in the slave states, which had about 280,000 free blacks) and 200,000 people is enough to support perhaps 15,000-20,000 militia.

    The Confederacy... well, on their current course they're very unlikely to want any armed black men. That may change, but not without some major event to force it.
     

    Saphroneth

    Banned
    diestormlie said:
    Bear in mind that the Union's OTL Colored Troops contained everyone who wasn't white. Natives Americans, for one.
    Click to expand...
    A fair point, though they're going to overwhelmingly consist of black troops because that's what the Union largely has in quantity and in a recruitable situation.
     

    Thoresby

    Saphroneth said:
    Canada's not counted in that list and probably has a couple of majority coloured regiments somewhere (probably among the Nova Scotia or New Brunswick militia from the Merikin communities, or similar).

    The Union, meanwhile, may well have a slave state list consisting of "Missouri" and a burning need to differentiate themselves from the racially segregated and slave-owning South. Estimates of free blacks range as high as 200,000 in 1860 (fewer than in the slave states, which had about 280,000 free blacks) and 200,000 people is enough to support perhaps 15,000-20,000 militia.

    The Confederacy... well, on their current course they're very unlikely to want any armed black men. That may change, but not without some major event to force it.
    Click to expand...

    Firstly 10% of the population in the milita suggests a fairly militarised society with high levels of defense spending, secondly considering the prevailing racism of 19th century North America while I understand the desire to differentiate between the Union and the Confederacy I don't think armed blacks would be any more popular in Missouri than in Arkansas. Plus if the Union really wanted to differentiate itself from the Confederacy surely integration would be a very distinctive way to do.
     

    Saphroneth

    Banned
    Thoresby said:
    Firstly 10% of the population in the milita suggests a fairly militarised society with high levels of defense spending, secondly considering the prevailing racism of 19th century North America while I understand the desire to differentiate between the Union and the Confederacy I don't think armed blacks would be any more popular in Missouri than in Arkansas. Plus if the Union really wanted to differentiate itself from the Confederacy surely integration would be a very distinctive way to do.
    Click to expand...

    Theoretically all adult males in some countries (like Canada until the late 1850s) are "enrolled" in the militia. It does depend, it's true.

    And the armed blacks in this case wouldn't be in Missouri, they'd be in (e.g.) Pennsylvania and New York.
    Integrationism is possible, but I'm not sure there's the will for it just yet.
     
    Reader mode
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Top
    Top