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

[Colonel Troutstrangler]

The indirect fire comment will hamper future development of artillery practice on the field. Were balloons used in this civil war?
Or remote observers with signalling equipment? Or even naval vessels observing from offshore?

 

[Saphroneth]

The indirect fire comment will hamper future development of artillery practice on the field. Were balloons used in this civil war?
Or remote observers with signalling equipment? Or even naval vessels observing from offshore?

Balloons were used - the problem at this time with indirect fire (and it's a legitimate one, especially for the Union's massive smoothbores) is that the guns are inaccurate AND that the adjustment involves a long, cumbersome control loop. (Field telegraphs involve a battery the size of an entire wagon.)

 

[Saphroneth]

Development of Ericsson design for Requirement 5 - sea service ironclad


Ericsson's initial impulse when attempting to fulfil US Ordnance department requirements for ironclads was to produce his beloved turret vessels. His original design aimed to fulfil his initial appreciation, which was that any two-turret ship was manifestly inferior to a one-turret ship capable of a far more powerful and better protected turret on the same displacement; as such his initial monitor design for the Calvinist did not fulfil requirements and was also considered dangerously lacking stability.

Spoiler: Calvinist 1

USS Calvinist, United States of America Monitor laid down 1864

Displacement:
5,586 t light; 5,837 t standard; 6,448 t normal; 6,936 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(340.00 ft / 340.00 ft) x 50.00 ft x (25.00 / 26.52 ft)
(103.63 m / 103.63 m) x 15.24 m x (7.62 / 8.08 m)

Armament:
2 - 20.00" / 508 mm 13.0 cal guns - 2,754.66lbs / 1,249.49kg shells, 40 per gun
Muzzle loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret mount, 1864 Model
1 x Single mount on centreline amidships (forward deck)
Weight of broadside 5,509 lbs / 2,499 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 221.00 ft / 67.36 m 6.00 ft / 1.83 m
Ends: 8.00" / 203 mm 118.98 ft / 36.27 m 6.00 ft / 1.83 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 10.0" / 254 mm -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks: 2.00" / 51 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 2.00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 2.00" / 51 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 12.00" / 305 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 1 shaft, 4,268 ihp / 3,184 Kw = 14.00 kts
Range 3,000nm at 8.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,099 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
359 - 467

Cost:
£0.513 million / $2.052 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 280 tons, 4.3 %
Armour: 1,581 tons, 24.5 %
- Belts: 666 tons, 10.3 %
- Armament: 405 tons, 6.3 %
- Armour Deck: 420 tons, 6.5 %
- Conning Tower: 90 tons, 1.4 %
Machinery: 1,210 tons, 18.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,516 tons, 39.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 862 tons, 13.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
2,002 lbs / 908 Kg = 0.8 x 20.0 " / 508 mm shells or 0.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.00
Metacentric height 1.8 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 15.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 26 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.39
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.18

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.531 / 0.539
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.80 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.44 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 34 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 74
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 3.00 ft / 0.91 m, 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 3.00 ft / 0.91 m, 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 3.00 ft / 0.91 m, 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 3.00 ft / 0.91 m, 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
- Average freeboard: 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 82.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 17.9 %
Waterplane Area: 11,266 Square feet or 1,047 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 119 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 159 lbs/sq ft or 779 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.69
- Longitudinal: 1.20
- Overall: 0.73
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Ship has quick, lively roll, not a steady gun platform
Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability

After it was pointed out that this did not fulfil the requirement for the ship to have a four-gun broadside, Ericsson went away in bad temper and redid his design. This second model (Calvinist design 2) possessed the requisite four-gun broadside but was clearly the most minor alteration he felt possible to get away with.

Spoiler: Calvinist design 2

USS Calvinist, United States of America Monitor laid down 1864
Central citadel ship

Displacement:
5,578 t light; 5,837 t standard; 6,448 t normal; 6,936 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(340.00 ft / 340.00 ft) x 50.00 ft x (25.00 / 26.52 ft)
(103.63 m / 103.63 m) x 15.24 m x (7.62 / 8.08 m)

Armament:
2 - 20.00" / 508 mm 13.0 cal guns - 2,754.66lbs / 1,249.49kg shells, 40 per gun
Muzzle loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret mount, 1864 Model
1 x Single mount on centreline, forward deck centre
2 - 8.00" / 203 mm 20.0 cal guns - 179.24lbs / 81.30kg shells, 40 per gun
Muzzle loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret mount, 1864 Model
1 x Single mount on centreline, aft deck centre
Weight of broadside 5,868 lbs / 2,662 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 221.00 ft / 67.36 m 6.00 ft / 1.83 m
Ends: 8.00" / 203 mm 118.98 ft / 36.27 m 6.00 ft / 1.83 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 10.0" / 254 mm -
2nd: 5.00" / 127 mm 5.00" / 127 mm -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks: 2.00" / 51 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 2.00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 2.00" / 51 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 12.00" / 305 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 1 shaft, 4,268 ihp / 3,184 Kw = 14.00 kts
Range 3,000nm at 8.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,099 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
359 - 467

Cost:
£0.528 million / $2.111 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 324 tons, 5.0 %
Armour: 1,624 tons, 25.2 %
- Belts: 666 tons, 10.3 %
- Armament: 448 tons, 7.0 %
- Armour Deck: 420 tons, 6.5 %
- Conning Tower: 90 tons, 1.4 %
Machinery: 1,210 tons, 18.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,421 tons, 37.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 870 tons, 13.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,843 lbs / 836 Kg = 0.8 x 20.0 " / 508 mm shells or 0.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.00
Metacentric height 1.8 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 15.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 25 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.41
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.18

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.531 / 0.539
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.80 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.44 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 34 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 71
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 3.00 ft / 0.91 m, 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 3.00 ft / 0.91 m, 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 3.00 ft / 0.91 m, 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 3.00 ft / 0.91 m, 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
- Average freeboard: 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 17.9 %
Waterplane Area: 11,266 Square feet or 1,047 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 115 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 155 lbs/sq ft or 758 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.65
- Longitudinal: 1.18
- Overall: 0.69
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Ship has quick, lively roll, not a steady gun platform
Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability

At this point Dahlgren remonstrated with Ericsson, and (after some memos flew back and forth) it was decided to waive the requirement for a four-gun broadside for Ericsson's design provided that the vessel be manifestly capable of actual sea travel (including resisting the effect of waves on the ship)

Ericsson's third design included a somewhat higher freeboard, reducing the impact of the waves of the open sea on the ship, though the extra belt to be armoured and height out of the water caused Ericsson to consider it a betrayal of his "true" Monitor design with a low freeboard.
It also resulted in something very nearly as big as HMS Warrior, and still slower (as the third design reduced engine displacement to allow the hull strengthening required).

Spoiler: Calvinist design 3

USS Calvinist, United States of America Monitor laid down 1864
Central citadel ship

Displacement:
7,383 t light; 7,673 t standard; 8,379 t normal; 8,943 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(340.00 ft / 340.00 ft) x 50.00 ft x (25.00 / 26.47 ft)
(103.63 m / 103.63 m) x 15.24 m x (7.62 / 8.07 m)

Armament:
2 - 20.00" / 508 mm 13.0 cal guns - 2,754.66lbs / 1,249.49kg shells, 40 per gun
Muzzle loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret mount, 1864 Model
1 x Single mount on centreline, forward deck centre
Weight of broadside 5,509 lbs / 2,499 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 221.00 ft / 67.36 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: 8.00" / 203 mm 118.98 ft / 36.27 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 10.0" / 254 mm -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks: 2.00" / 51 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 2.00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 2.00" / 51 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 12.00" / 305 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 1 shaft, 2,942 ihp / 2,194 Kw = 12.00 kts
Range 3,000nm at 8.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,269 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
437 - 569

Cost:
£0.523 million / $2.094 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 280 tons, 3.3 %
Armour: 2,361 tons, 28.2 %
- Belts: 1,350 tons, 16.1 %
- Armament: 405 tons, 4.8 %
- Armour Deck: 500 tons, 6.0 %
- Conning Tower: 107 tons, 1.3 %
Machinery: 834 tons, 10.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,909 tons, 46.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 995 tons, 11.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
7,359 lbs / 3,338 Kg = 3.0 x 20.0 " / 508 mm shells or 1.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 2.2 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 14.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 52 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1.00
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.89

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.690 / 0.695
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.80 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.44 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 31 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 8.00 ft / 2.44 m, 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 8.00 ft / 2.44 m, 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 8.00 ft / 2.44 m, 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 8.00 ft / 2.44 m, 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
- Average freeboard: 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 49.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 46.7 %
Waterplane Area: 13,395 Square feet or 1,244 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 154 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 200 lbs/sq ft or 975 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 2.03
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather

At this point, Ericsson gave up and switched to trying to fulfil the other requirements, declaring that the Monitor was not a ship type for the open sea. His anger upon discovering that Delano had designed a two-turret vessel to fulfil the ocean going ironclad requirement was considerable.

 

[Saphroneth]

Bit of thought on the development of US/CS cruisers.

Now, as each of the American powers has a rather hostile neighbour just over the Ohio and the Chesapeake (not the canal) then there's a strong driver for them to rely on short range and powerful ships (coastal ironclads and to some extent what could be called battleships, as well as gunboats). But both are still going to want at least a few cruisers, meaning long-range ships of moderate size.

Large frigates may be a bit of a luxury (the CSA is building three, partly for prestige and partly as mobile ships of force - absent ironclads they could potentially control the Chesapeake, Delaware and Hudson estuaries; the US may build a few too) but smaller cruising vessels of a couple of thousand tons may proliferate as commerce raiders (relatively speaking). I'd expect them to be built as good sailers first and to include engines as a secondary matter, to be high freeboard (and hence able to ride out weather well), to be lightly armed with rifles, and to possibly have a thin armoured belt to protect against shells at the waterline (as several US cruisers have been badly damaged by hits near the waterline - this has actually been due to the upright boiler).

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

Seems plausible -

 

[Saphroneth]

Good to know.

Something I'm actually wondering is if the CSN (or USN, or indeed RN) would go in for a "battlecruiser" concept - a single very large, very fast, somewhat armoured vessel intended to kill enemy wooden ships (possibly with Martin's Shell) and to run away from enemy ironclads.

 

[diestormlie]

Good to know.

Something I'm actually wondering is if the CSN (or USN, or indeed RN) would go in for a "battlecruiser" concept - a single very large, very fast, somewhat armoured vessel intended to kill enemy wooden ships (possibly with Martin's Shell) and to run away from enemy ironclads.

Something of a dead end, design-wise, however. If there's something that the Trent War has proven, it's that the Woodclad warship is on the way out. Investing into a Ship class that will swiftly beginning running out of targets, especially against the UK-Shaped Elephant in the room.

 

[Cymraeg]

Something of a dead end, design-wise, however. If there's something that the Trent War has proven, it's that the Woodclad warship is on the way out. Investing into a Ship class that will swiftly beginning running out of targets, especially against the UK-Shaped Elephant in the room.

True, but then you have to remember that this is the start of the period of naval design madness, where all kinds of ideas are thrown at the wall to see what sticks. The Battle of Lissa led to bloody rams being installed on battleships for decades afterwards - and then there was this madness.

 

[Saphroneth]

I'm going to have a bit of fun with the Mad Period.

Something of a dead end, design-wise, however. If there's something that the Trent War has proven, it's that the Woodclad warship is on the way out. Investing into a Ship class that will swiftly beginning running out of targets, especially against the UK-Shaped Elephant in the room.

That's the thing, the Royal Navy fleet has maybe thirty ships that aren't wood sided and the vast majority of those are floating batteries. Functionally the RN's going to take decades to be finished with wooden cruising ships - heck, the Amethyst class (LD 1871) was wooden.

 

[Machiavelli Jr]

I'm going to have a bit of fun with the Mad Period.


That's the thing, the Royal Navy fleet has maybe thirty ships that aren't wood sided and the vast majority of those are floating batteries. Functionally the RN's going to take decades to be finished with wooden cruising ships - heck, the Amethyst class (LD 1871) was wooden.

Most of the corvettes used as station ships in out-of-the-way places until the 1890s were of composite or even all-wood construction, because they weren't intended ever, ever to engage the warships of a first-rate navy - they were intended to be fixable with the resources available to an RN station in the ass end of nowhere. Daphne, 1888, was the last teak-skinned major warship of the RN, albeit over an iron frame and the basic ACW-era sloop hull was still being built in all-steel into the 1900s. Had there been a two-ocean power with a penchant for commerce raiding that policy might have come out rather different - I think the practice of using old battleships for colonial duties might have been intensified, though that's going to be pretty rough on the crews of early ironclads serving way past their sell-by dates in out-of-the-way places.

 

[Saphroneth]

Most of the corvettes used as station ships in out-of-the-way places until the 1890s were of composite or even all-wood construction, because they weren't intended ever, ever to engage the warships of a first-rate navy - they were intended to be fixable with the resources available to an RN station in the ass end of nowhere. Daphne, 1888, was the last teak-skinned major warship of the RN, albeit over an iron frame and the basic ACW-era sloop hull was still being built in all-steel into the 1900s. Had there been a two-ocean power with a penchant for commerce raiding that policy might have come out rather different - I think the practice of using old battleships for colonial duties might have been intensified, though that's going to be pretty rough on the crews of early ironclads serving way past their sell-by dates in out-of-the-way places.

Composite or wooden construction is essentially because it's cheaper for the required role of cruising - cruisers need to be resistant to fouling as much as possible as they'll spend months to years at a time between bottom cleanings, and that means something other than iron bottoms. (Iron-hulled woodskins, ie composites, were intended in part to allow copper bottoms - for electrolytic reasons that's something that's just not possible with an unsheathed iron hull.)


As for old ironclads serving in out-of-the-way places, they might do better than you'd think so long as they're re-gunned every so often - even Warrior would make a workable 2 class cruiser into the late 1880s at least with modern weapons, as she's got fairly reasonable compartmentalization and a lot of length to mount guns in.
By the looks of things she could probably carry (weight wise) a couple of dozen QF 4.7" guns and two or three 8" BL guns, and while not a match for a modern armoured cruiser she's still better than nothing!

 

[Machiavelli Jr]

As for old ironclads serving in out-of-the-way places, they might do better than you'd think so long as they're re-gunned every so often - even Warrior would make a workable 2 class cruiser into the late 1880s at least with modern weapons, as she's got fairly reasonable compartmentalization and a lot of length to mount guns in.
By the looks of things she could probably carry (weight wise) a couple of dozen QF 4.7" guns and two or three 8" BL guns, and while not a match for a modern armoured cruiser she's still better than nothing!

Fair - but Warrior is definitely one of the more sensible (and definitely one of the more seaworthy) designs of the 1860s-70s.

 

[Saphroneth]

Fair - but Warrior is definitely one of the more sensible (and definitely one of the more seaworthy) designs of the 1860s-70s.

Correct on seaworthiness (though the iron hull makes her less amenable to coppering than the Bulwark class conversions) but she's also very underarmoured by even the standards of what the British were producing by 1865. Minotaur (LD 1863) had 5.5" thick battery armour, say.

Really I'd divide the (OTL) RN ships of the civil war era into two types - the seaworthy ones like Warrior which are good for moderate cruising, and the less seaworthy ones like the 'floating batteries' which can still see overseas service as, well, floating harbour defence batteries. (TTL the Zodiacs also fit that category.)

In the former category OTL we have
Warrior
Black Prince
Defence
Resistance
Hector
Valiant
Achilles
Minotaur
Agincourt
Northumberland
Prince Consort
Caledonia
Ocean
Royal Oak
Royal Alfred
Zealous
Repulse
Lord Clyde
Lord Warden
Pallas
and Bellerophon.

OTL the second category included
Thunder
Glatton
Trusty
Erebus
Aetna
Thunderbolt
Terror
Research
Enterprise
Favorite
Scorpion
Wivern
Royal Sovereign
Prince Albert
and TTL also includes the Zodiac class and the A'a and Pahoehoe (the latter of which built for Hawai'i).

The former category are potentially workable as cruisers, the latter as guardships.

 

[RodentRevolution]

I think one of the things to consider is that ships meant to oppose raiders don't need to look to sink them. Significant damage will totally compromise a raider's mission and worse it tends to be far away from means of repair. Even heavy ammunition expenditure could effectively cripple a raider's ability to conduct further raids.

 

[Tocomocho]

19 Mar

Battle between Mexican Republic and French-Mexican Empire forces at Delicias. There is no particular great victory, with the pro-Maximilian forces holding the field but the pro-Juarez forces taking only light casualties.

Minor point: If this is Delicias, Chihuahua, it was not founded until 1933 and the area was uninhabited before a railway was built in the 1880s.

The Polish affair is hotting up rapidly, and Fred III may well be making a serious statement on the matter - like, say, recognizing Poland as an independent state. They're not getting any of what's now Prussia, of course, but they might get tacit support in reclaiming Congress Poland with a quid pro quo that the Lithuanian half of the Commonwealth is largely on its own.
Russia will be pissed, but not wanting to take on Prussia - the theoretical Prussian mobilization is actually larger than OTL as the Landwehr are all "counted", though less well trained, and the Russian army's still being rebuilt.

I also think it is a great mistake for Prussia to alienate Russia and Austria at the same time, with no aparent gain for Prussia (as pointed, it is easier and most profuctive to cooperate with Russia in keeping the Poles down).

 

[Saphroneth]

Minor point: If this is Delicias, Chihuahua, it was not founded until 1933 and the area was uninhabited before a railway was built in the 1880s.

Thanks for that - I hadn't been sure. I'll change it to Santa Cruz de Rosales if that makes sense.

I also think it is a great mistake for Prussia to alienate Russia and Austria at the same time, with no aparent gain for Prussia (as pointed, it is easier and most profuctive to cooperate with Russia in keeping the Poles down).

This is really a matter of the personality of Frederick III, who's very much the liberal rather than being a hard-nosed conservative (and foreign policy is in Landwehr and Crown hands, not those of Bismarck).

As for Austria, he's not alienating them - OTL the Austrians and Prussians fought side by side against Denmark in the Second Schleiswig War.

 

[Tocomocho]

Thanks for that - I hadn't been sure. I'll change it to Santa Cruz de Rosales if that makes sense.

Sounds right. The Spanish Wikipedia even has a nice anecdote about the place:

President Benito Juárez passed through there in his 1862 retreat north. He was received with a banquet and dance in his honor, during which he acceeded to dance the second piece, a polka named "La Escobita" that was of his liking. Later when he established himself in Chihuahua City he wanted to hear it again, but since he ignored its name he called it "La segunda de Rosales", name that became popular and is how it is known as today.

This is really a matter of the personality of Frederick III, who's very much the liberal rather than being a hard-nosed conservative (and foreign policy is in Landwehr and Crown hands, not those of Bismarck).

As for Austria, he's not alienating them - OTL the Austrians and Prussians fought side by side against Denmark in the Second Schleiswig War.

Alright, since this was a plan for the future I wasn't sure when it would happen exactly.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Woof. Just caught up again after a couple of weeks. Wow.

 

[Saphroneth]

11 August

Troop landings take place in and around Charleston, using the threat of the British ships now able to go where they wish in the harbour to make the landings go more smoothly. The process takes most of the morning, and by noon about twelve thousand troops are ashore.
In the face of potential naval gunnery, the Charleston (and hence South Carolina) government has evacuated northwards, joining up with the SC militia to the north of the city itself. Many of the residents also do so, though a large number elect to remain in their homes - and are somewhat dismayed to discover that the British follow an old principle of theirs, which is that slaves belonging to an enemy are to be freed essentially at will.
(There are, indeed, some concerns over whether there is space on the transports to take all the freed slaves.)


News of this liberationism reaches the South Carolina militia at about half past two, and the reaction is very angry indeed. With the exception of the regiments shredded by the 67th (most of whom have gone home anyway) morale is high and the commanders assemble plans for a battle to defeat the British and make it impossible for them to hold Charleston.


The HMS Caledonia, carrying an armament of 68 pounders and 110 pounders (with her planned Somerset guns unavailable) puts in at Gosport in Virginia for a courtesy call.
This underlines the current British position on the Confederacy - which is, essentially, that it is not their fault as a whole that South Carolina is being so terrible.


In Kyoto, an emissary of the Shogun explains to the volcanically angry Maitland that he was honour-bound to attack by his Emperor. As the attack has failed, however, he wishes to apologize and to make restitution both for earlier and recent incidents.
The price demanded in compensation is a little eye-watering, and one which Iemochi considers would be intolerable to the Japanese people to simply pay - however, the wreckage in Kyoto harbour has given him an idea.
Having heard tales of the recent Trent War, he formally offers to purchase a Zodiac class ironclad - a class of ship he is aware the British are likely to have too many of - for a substantial markup on the original purchase price.

Reports suggest that Maitland came close to bursting out laughing at this point.
Taking the offer under advisement, he decides that it would perhaps be appropriate for him to head back to the United Kingdom and deliver his report in person - it is already late for his return, indeed his inheritance of the Earldom of Lauderdale is some months old and were it not for the Japanese crisis coming on the heels of the Trent crisis he would already be back in England.

 

[Saphroneth]

n.b. I discovered that I'd mixed up Maitland's rank - he was an admiral and Bacchante was his flagship, not post-captain. I don't think I ever actually stated what his rank was, but it does make the situation in Japan a bit tricky.
My assumption to keep things in continuity is that - with the reduction in tensions in the US and the increase in Japan - Bacchante (and Maitland) was sent to the western Pacific before heading home, and that there is now a new admiral on the West Coast of America as per OTL.