If they will not meet us on the open sea (a Trent TL)
- Thread starter Saphroneth
- Start date
-
- Tags
- trent
ATLs we want to see #3891:
The battle of the two superpowers: Liechtenstein and San Marino.
CaekDaemon
Donor
I just realized: the incomplete Washington Monument would have just fallen into Confederate hands.
It was barely even half done at the time the Civil War caused the construction to halt, so I wonder what the Confederates will do with it. They wouldn't destroy it, that's for sure, but I don't think they have the money to finish it either...and leaving it in a half-complete state is actually kind of poetic now that I think about it, since the US is missing so much of itself in this timeline. Maybe whenever the two merge back together, if it ever happens, they'll finish the monument
It was barely even half done at the time the Civil War caused the construction to halt, so I wonder what the Confederates will do with it. They wouldn't destroy it, that's for sure, but I don't think they have the money to finish it either...and leaving it in a half-complete state is actually kind of poetic now that I think about it, since the US is missing so much of itself in this timeline. Maybe whenever the two merge back together, if it ever happens, they'll finish the monument
Saphroneth
Banned
That's the thing, the Confederacy does in fact have a fairly viable export engine TTL - all that cotton money.It was barely even half done at the time the Civil War caused the construction to halt, so I wonder what the Confederates will do with it. They wouldn't destroy it, that's for sure, but I don't think they have the money to finish it either...and leaving it in a half-complete state is actually kind of poetic now that I think about it, since the US is missing so much of itself in this timeline. Maybe whenever the two merge back together, if it ever happens, they'll finish the monument
It will only go so far, they'll still have to economize on many things, but that, other raw materials and Mississippi tolls (all but inevitable to be quite lucrative, so long as they don't make them too harsh) are going to mean that they have money to waste on prestige projects (and the Confederacy is nothing if not into prestige). So they might well finish the Washington Monument, on the grounds that Washington was a proper Virginia American and not one of those sissy Yankees.
Skallagrim
Banned
I'm absolutely certain they'd finish it. In one book about the Confederacy, the national character of the fledgling CSA was described as being defined by "having more pride than good sense". They'll finish that monument for the sake of glory, even if they can't afford it. (Which they can, in this TL.) In fact, expect lots and lots of statues of Confederate military heroes to be commissioned, all over the place. There's going to be one in every town square worth its name.
You see a surprising lot of that kind of stuff - patriotic-minded Confederate memorials and stuff - in the South in OTL, and they lost in OTL. In a world where they won, I imagine one might go deaf from hearing all the chest-thumping...
You see a surprising lot of that kind of stuff - patriotic-minded Confederate memorials and stuff - in the South in OTL, and they lost in OTL. In a world where they won, I imagine one might go deaf from hearing all the chest-thumping...
Saphroneth
Banned
I think the simplest description of the Confederate mindset is to understand one important detail.
They thought of themselves as the real America, and furthermore they thought of themselves as the real America in the same way that the early Revolutionaries of the American War of Independence thought of themselves as the true heirs to the British tradition and of the King as a tyrannical interference with that. In the same vein, they see Britain as their "France" (especially TTL).
...of course, that may result into running headlong into Reality.
They thought of themselves as the real America, and furthermore they thought of themselves as the real America in the same way that the early Revolutionaries of the American War of Independence thought of themselves as the true heirs to the British tradition and of the King as a tyrannical interference with that. In the same vein, they see Britain as their "France" (especially TTL).
...of course, that may result into running headlong into Reality.
So.... Instead of just crowning the cap with 'more expensive than gold, wonder of science metal' (Aluminum), they clad the whole monument with it. Completing the project the year before the Hall-Héroult process comes on line.... (1886, simultaneous discovery by both Hall and Héroult, on two continents, so not likely to be butterflied much).
24-26 April 1863
Saphroneth
Banned
24 April
A spirited discussion takes place at Hythe over the proper mode of use of the Snider, which is starting to be issued in large numbers to cavalry. Everyone agrees that accuracy is critical, but the elevated rate of fire of the breech loading weapon (around four to five times that of the Enfield it is being converted from) means that ammunition consumption has suddenly become an issue of sharp importance.
A basic load for a soldier is to carry about 60-70 rounds. With the Enfield, loading as fast as possible would see these rounds take half an hour to expend in measured, carefully aimed fire - with the Snider, the time is more like six minutes and there is a considerably increased danger of 'fire frenzy' where the soldier fires without taking the time to aim.
Several possible remedies are advanced. One is to restrict the permitted rate of fire except in the direst emergency, perhaps by requiring the soldier to load rounds taken individually from his pouch and not permitting them to make additional rounds ready; another is to largely abandon long ranged fire and focus on sudden bursts of accurate, controlled fire at close range (which would mean the use of the 'fire' command, something Hythe has eliminated entirely from the drillbook and which would materially impair long range sharpshooting); a third is to refine the skirmish line system so that under most circumstances only one company out of an entire regiment would be in the firing position and to cycle this company every few minutes. The idea of simply providing much increased quantities of ammunition is also raised, but considered impractical in many cases during actual campaigns (especially for the infantry) though cavalry seem likely to be able to take increased ammunition loads.
One particularly interesting suggestion is the idea that soldiers' drill should include that they are not to open individual ten-round boxes until the order is given; another, that soldiers should be given an increase in pay but have to purchase their ammunition expended at the end of the week to discourage wastage.
There is a ferment of ideas, and very few agreed-upon solutions. One Sgt. Crawford sums up the general feel, with his comment that they know how to use rifles, and how to use muskets, and even how to use rifle-muskets - but the Snider is too good a weapon for them to know how to make best use of it.
Trials are recommended, ideally against moving targets. Someone suggests using hundreds upon hundreds of sheep.
26 April
The French ironclad Solferino turns up off the west coast of Mexico in an attempt to capture or defeat the "Mexican Ironclads Guadelupe and Montezuma" said to be operating in the area.
In the event, the Solferino - one of the world's only two-decker ironclads - turns out to be a fantastic overexaggeration of the firepower required, as neither Mexican ship can really be called an ironclad (there is a case of mistaken identity involved - they have the same names as Mexican warships from the 1840s, but are large gunboats of about six hundred tons, civilian ships with iron sheathing improvised along the lines of Farragut's modifications from Chesapeake Bay) and both have been operating for the last year or so out of a port not really capable of handling their servicing.
A spirited discussion takes place at Hythe over the proper mode of use of the Snider, which is starting to be issued in large numbers to cavalry. Everyone agrees that accuracy is critical, but the elevated rate of fire of the breech loading weapon (around four to five times that of the Enfield it is being converted from) means that ammunition consumption has suddenly become an issue of sharp importance.
A basic load for a soldier is to carry about 60-70 rounds. With the Enfield, loading as fast as possible would see these rounds take half an hour to expend in measured, carefully aimed fire - with the Snider, the time is more like six minutes and there is a considerably increased danger of 'fire frenzy' where the soldier fires without taking the time to aim.
Several possible remedies are advanced. One is to restrict the permitted rate of fire except in the direst emergency, perhaps by requiring the soldier to load rounds taken individually from his pouch and not permitting them to make additional rounds ready; another is to largely abandon long ranged fire and focus on sudden bursts of accurate, controlled fire at close range (which would mean the use of the 'fire' command, something Hythe has eliminated entirely from the drillbook and which would materially impair long range sharpshooting); a third is to refine the skirmish line system so that under most circumstances only one company out of an entire regiment would be in the firing position and to cycle this company every few minutes. The idea of simply providing much increased quantities of ammunition is also raised, but considered impractical in many cases during actual campaigns (especially for the infantry) though cavalry seem likely to be able to take increased ammunition loads.
One particularly interesting suggestion is the idea that soldiers' drill should include that they are not to open individual ten-round boxes until the order is given; another, that soldiers should be given an increase in pay but have to purchase their ammunition expended at the end of the week to discourage wastage.
There is a ferment of ideas, and very few agreed-upon solutions. One Sgt. Crawford sums up the general feel, with his comment that they know how to use rifles, and how to use muskets, and even how to use rifle-muskets - but the Snider is too good a weapon for them to know how to make best use of it.
Trials are recommended, ideally against moving targets. Someone suggests using hundreds upon hundreds of sheep.
26 April
The French ironclad Solferino turns up off the west coast of Mexico in an attempt to capture or defeat the "Mexican Ironclads Guadelupe and Montezuma" said to be operating in the area.
In the event, the Solferino - one of the world's only two-decker ironclads - turns out to be a fantastic overexaggeration of the firepower required, as neither Mexican ship can really be called an ironclad (there is a case of mistaken identity involved - they have the same names as Mexican warships from the 1840s, but are large gunboats of about six hundred tons, civilian ships with iron sheathing improvised along the lines of Farragut's modifications from Chesapeake Bay) and both have been operating for the last year or so out of a port not really capable of handling their servicing.
Last edited:
How is this solved OTL? Does it require breaking the tradition 'block' formation into something more modern?
Wales trembles...
Saphroneth
Banned
Basically they did it by moving back to controlled fire for the most part - that means that ammunition consumption is strictly regulated, which is good, but it also means they lose some of the laser accuracy of the Hythe method because under Hythe the soldier fires like a "hunter" (alone at the best moment for them) instead of in a volley (where there are inevitable compromises).
They were still good - reportedly they actually outshot the Boers on the rifle range, they were just worse at "snap" shooting which means taking opportunistic off-axis shots... something Hythe would have left them better at. But Hythe-era rifle fire would have not been able to stop the Zulu charges in the Anglo-Zulu war (with OTL troop numbers, that is) as the rate-of-fire would have been too low.
Everything's tradeoffs, really. And the compromise between accuracy, rate-of-fire and ammunition expense is probably the main reason a given breechloader is not always a straight upgrade.
The rate of fire question is still a subject of debate in modern military circles.
Saphroneth
Banned
Yes, though for modern (infantry) weapons reload time is essentially negligible and it's a distinction between full-auto and measured shots. Even for a Snider, though it's a huge improvement over other weapons of the day, the reloading is still the considerable majority of the time a good shot will take. My rough estimate is that you could have about six to eight shots a minute with careful aiming, and perhaps ten or twelve if you just blazed away without regard for accuracy - while a modern weapon in three-round-burst mode will manage much more shots than the "blaze away" of the Snider.
Except most modern rifles are moving away from having burst fire capability in favour of just semi-auto so as to reduce usage.
Saphroneth
Banned
Fair enough, I'm not very familiar with the intricacies of the subject.
I wonder what Hythe would have thought of the FAMAS...
RodentRevolution
Banned
It is our friend with the moustache again who has conducted an experiment that might provide some useful context. Though his experiment pitted the Snider against the later Martini-Henry it does give you an idea of the accuracy that could be obtained whilst blazing away at speed.
Saphroneth
Banned
When I say "blaze away" I'm thinking of what the Prussians called schnellfeur - something they noticed in the 1871 war. But yes, I should have realized Canadian Mustache Man had done a Snider video or three!
Would it be realistic to use a 'Reload' command, rather than a 'Fire' command, to control rate of fire?
thats what I found on Montezuma and Guadalupe
The first ship of this dual threat, by name the "Guadeloupe", was being constructed from French Naval Plans in the British shipyard of Jonathan Laird in Birkenhead, England and was specifically designed to operate in the shallow waters of the Gulf. She drew only 10 feet of water and was further designed to be fully dependent upon steam power for movement, and her weapons battery was as modern as her propulsion. She was of 788 tons displacement, 183 feet in length, and had the means within her propulsion system to develop a full 180 HP.1 She had two 32 pdr. long guns and two 68 pdr swivel Paixhan's pivots--"the guns with the explosive shells as large as good-size pumpkins."2 Ultimately this was armament that would render all other weapons of the period obsolete. "Guadeloupe" was the first iron steam warship in the world to be launched and when she was launched, the largest iron vessel ever built.3 A further feature that was unusual for the period was her construction in the use of watertight compartmentation throughout.4 Although not accepted into the Royal Navy, the British Admiralty maintained a careful surveillance of this vessel and her performance throughout her seafaring career and added many of her particular features to later vessels built for seaborne warfare.
The second vessel of discussion was the "Montezuma." She was a wooden hulled iron-clad and even larger than the "Guadeloupe." She displaced 1164 tons, extended in length to 203 feet, and possessed a surprising 280 HP in her engines. Her extensive armament consisted of two 68 pdr swivel and six 42 pdr long Paixhans guns.5 She was built in London in the shipyards of Greens and Wigrams. She was a heavy-timbered wooden vessel constructed along what were then ultra-modern lines.6 With such heavy guns, and under able management, these two steamers alone were (on paper) far more than a match for the Texan Fleet which did not mount a gun heavier than several long 24 pdrs.
The first ship of this dual threat, by name the "Guadeloupe", was being constructed from French Naval Plans in the British shipyard of Jonathan Laird in Birkenhead, England and was specifically designed to operate in the shallow waters of the Gulf. She drew only 10 feet of water and was further designed to be fully dependent upon steam power for movement, and her weapons battery was as modern as her propulsion. She was of 788 tons displacement, 183 feet in length, and had the means within her propulsion system to develop a full 180 HP.1 She had two 32 pdr. long guns and two 68 pdr swivel Paixhan's pivots--"the guns with the explosive shells as large as good-size pumpkins."2 Ultimately this was armament that would render all other weapons of the period obsolete. "Guadeloupe" was the first iron steam warship in the world to be launched and when she was launched, the largest iron vessel ever built.3 A further feature that was unusual for the period was her construction in the use of watertight compartmentation throughout.4 Although not accepted into the Royal Navy, the British Admiralty maintained a careful surveillance of this vessel and her performance throughout her seafaring career and added many of her particular features to later vessels built for seaborne warfare.
The second vessel of discussion was the "Montezuma." She was a wooden hulled iron-clad and even larger than the "Guadeloupe." She displaced 1164 tons, extended in length to 203 feet, and possessed a surprising 280 HP in her engines. Her extensive armament consisted of two 68 pdr swivel and six 42 pdr long Paixhans guns.5 She was built in London in the shipyards of Greens and Wigrams. She was a heavy-timbered wooden vessel constructed along what were then ultra-modern lines.6 With such heavy guns, and under able management, these two steamers alone were (on paper) far more than a match for the Texan Fleet which did not mount a gun heavier than several long 24 pdrs.
Saphroneth
Banned
Yes, I saw that - but frankly, if she was an ironclad by the modern definition she'd have been completely invulnerable to the Texan fleet.
Not to mention that the first iron steam warship was the Nemesis, built by Laird several years earlier. I think the balance of probability is in favour of the Guadeloupe being an iron paddle steamer, and the Montezuma being a wooden paddle steamer.
There is a bigger problem, though- both ships were sold to the Spanish in 1846. I think you'd have to amend it to rumours of the Mexicans improvising an ironclad with sheet iron, or something similar.