So the Union looses a war with the British then what?

MrP

MrP

Banned
MrP said:
Aye, I've got the 1860-1905 Conway's. I have a feeling I've put that stuff up on here before somewhere. Let me just have a look (may have omitted armour thicknesses that time).
Click to expand...

Aye, no armour thicknesses in my old post, just displacement and such. If y'let me know the ships y'want, I'll pop all the info up here - tomorrow, probably. :)
 

stevep

Wendell said:
Steve,

My point never was that it was an alliance of equals, but rather that it is possible (even if unlikely, as in this case) for one nation to back another without any clear advantage, except weakening a third nation. I agree with you that it would not be in the material interests of Russia to allign itself formally with the United States in circumstances such as these. That said, plenty of alliances have been forged without material gains for the assisting (rather than the assisted) party. As an example, I suggested French involvement in the U.S. War for Independence.
Click to expand...

Wendell

OK, think we were slightly at cross purposes.

Actually the best bet, in terms of getting such an alliance off the ground, might have been that Russia becomes distinctly more anti-British, say because of a clash over Alaska or the straits. I suggest that way because as an autocratic state a small group that could influence the Czar could direct Russia into an alliance not really in its interests more easily than a US President dependent on public opinion and fighting off rival parties. Even then the big problem I see it is that neither side can really hurt Britain directly. Possibly a simultaneous threat to Canada in N America and the Ottomans in Euroasia. Even then, given the Russian weakness after the Crimean conflict and the probability that other nations could become involved it would be an highly uncertain route.

Must admit that my other concern would be how easily the US could break with Washington's tradition of no foreign alliances? Given that a good bit of the US identity involves a rejection of Europe and its powers and behaviour. This might be strengthened by even a limited defeat by Britain, coupled with probable tensions with France over Mexico and possibly if they were to be the 1st major power to recognise the CSA.

Steve
 

Dave Howery

I don't think you'd see the US pursuing foreign alliances in order to 'punish' Britain.... simply put, the US needs the business with the UK. Economic realities will force both sides to the markets. However, the US is really unlikely to side with the UK in any international disputes, and probably won't ally with them in WW1.... I'm thinking more of a long term latent coolness instead of hostile relations...

one question about the Brits... they generally were opposed to European nations colonizing the newly independent nations of the Americas, and were the main ones enforcing the Monroe Doctrine. So, why did they permit France to muck around in Mexico as they did?
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Dave Howery said:
one question about the Brits... they generally were opposed to European nations colonizing the newly independent nations of the Americas, and were the main ones enforcing the Monroe Doctrine. So, why did they permit France to muck around in Mexico as they did?
Click to expand...
Not an expert, but I think Britain's general policies were to do with the fact that the South American republics were relatively friendly and open to trade with us, and any European country attempting a (re-)colonisation would jeopardise that. Mexico was both less friendly to Britain and less important as a trading partner. Heck, the logic might have been that the French regime would actually stabilise the country and open it up to trade.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Mexico defaulted on debts to the UK, France and Spain, so those three moved in and occupied Vera Cruz to secure the debt. After it was clear that France had territorial ambitions (Bazaine's Corps arrived) the British and Spanish packed up in quick order.

However, the British did not desire a major war with France, especially with threatening noises coming out of the Union, normally their ally in these matters. So they indulged it.
 

Wendell

stevep said:
Wendell

OK, think we were slightly at cross purposes.

Actually the best bet, in terms of getting such an alliance off the ground, might have been that Russia becomes distinctly more anti-British, say because of a clash over Alaska or the straits. I suggest that way because as an autocratic state a small group that could influence the Czar could direct Russia into an alliance not really in its interests more easily than a US President dependent on public opinion and fighting off rival parties. Even then the big problem I see it is that neither side can really hurt Britain directly. Possibly a simultaneous threat to Canada in N America and the Ottomans in Euroasia. Even then, given the Russian weakness after the Crimean conflict and the probability that other nations could become involved it would be an highly uncertain route.

Must admit that my other concern would be how easily the US could break with Washington's tradition of no foreign alliances? Given that a good bit of the US identity involves a rejection of Europe and its powers and behaviour. This might be strengthened by even a limited defeat by Britain, coupled with probable tensions with France over Mexico and possibly if they were to be the 1st major power to recognise the CSA.

Steve
Click to expand...

Interesting ideas.
 
MrP

MrP

Banned
67th Tigers said:
It would be cool, I can update HOSI, which I haven't touched in 3 years, with US wooden ships

http://www.geocities.com/littlegreenmen.geo/HOSI/HOSI3.htm
Click to expand...

I shall begin typing up now. :)

67th Tigers said:
Mexico defaulted on debts to the UK, France and Spain, so those three moved in and occupied Vera Cruz to secure the debt. After it was clear that France had territorial ambitions (Bazaine's Corps arrived) the British and Spanish packed up in quick order.

However, the British did not desire a major war with France, especially with threatening noises coming out of the Union, normally their ally in these matters. So they indulged it.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea for an Anglo-American war against the French, that, old boy.
 

Tielhard

Banned
What is the composition of Dunlops squadron?
Click to expand...

At what date? If you look up on the recent Queries post I gave Most of the squadron in Jan and at a later date but it changed about a bit.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
I'm "battlegrouping" around major units (as was the practice at the time, a Battleship would be depot to gunships), so Dunlop was:

Sans Pareil (BB)
Donegal (BB)
Mersey (BC)
50 gunner (there's only one 50 gunner in NA waters so I can pull the data)
Ariadne (CR)

The others will be grouped into these units.

Similarly the Pacific will be grouped into the Bacchante and Topaze groups.
 

Tielhard

Banned
As far as I can tell from the Pig War and what is in US records the British Pacific Squadron largely operated as single ships and they seem to have had an awful lot to do.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Tielhard said:
As far as I can tell from the Pig War and what is in US records the British Pacific Squadron largely operated as single ships and they seem to have had an awful lot to do.
Click to expand...

Hecate and Devastation are paddlewheelers, and are useful ships but have no place in the battleline (British opinion of the time).

Clio and Charybdis are Cadmus class Corvettes (11kts, heavy hulls 20x 32pdr and a chaser (either 68pdr of 110pdr Rifle)).

Termagant is interesting, she's an early screw frigate now retired to Coast Guard duties, but has been used as a baseship for gunboats (i.e. the two in the squadron) so is perhaps a viable unit.
http://www.pdavis.nl/ShowShip.php?id=95

The Camelon and Mutine are okay sloops, the main thing to note is that 2 Camelon class were converted to ironclads (as Research and Enterprise).
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Another two interesting ships, HMS Recruit and Weser are shallow draft double ender sidewheel gunboats with iron hulls, armed with 4x 8" shell guns and 2x 32 pdr broadside pieces. They're with the Med Fleet and might be able to make it to the Lakes.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Just for your interest, a list of RN shipbuilding facilities ca 1859

In the UK: Pembroke Dock, Portsmouth, Devonport, Chatham, Sheerness, Woolwich and Deptford in Britain, Queenstown (Cork) in Ireland

In the Med: Malta and Gibraltar

In the Americas: Bermuda, Jamaica, Antigua, Halifax, Quebec and Kingston on Lake Ontario

In Africa: Capetown

In India: Trincomalee and Bombay
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Of possible interest, the fortifications of the US in 1861:

Fort Capacity Guns Location State
Fort Morgan, 700 1 Mobile Point Ala.
Fort Gaines, 400 0 Dauphin Island, Ala.
Fort at Proctor's Landing 100 0
Ala.
Alcatraz Island, 500 85 Harbor of San Francisco Cal.
Fort Trumbull, 350 1 New London Harbor Conn..
Fort Delaware, 750 0 Delaware River, Del.
Fort Marion and sea-wall at Saint Augustine 100 0 St Augustine Fla.
Fort Barrancas and barracks 250 0 Pensacola, Fla.
Fort Pickens, 1,260 59 Pensacola harbor, Fla.
Fort McRee, 650 1 Foster's Bank, Pensacola Harbor, Fla.
Fort Clinch, 650 89 Cumberland Sound, Fla.
Fort Tayor, 550 0 Key West Fla.
Fort Jefferson, 1,000 52 Garden Key, Tortugas Fla.
Redoubt of Fort Barrancas, 1,500 0
Fla.
Redoubt of Fort Barrancas, 100 0
Fla.
Fort Jackson, 70 0 Savannah River, Ga.
Fort Pulaski, 800 1 Cockspur Island, Ga.
Fort Saint Philip, 600 0 Mississippi River, La.
Fort Saint Philip, 600 0 Mississippi River, La.
Fort Pike, 300 1 Rigolets, La.
Fort Macomb 300 0 Chef Mentaur La.
Battery Bienvenue, 100 0 Bayou Bienvenue, La.
Tower Dupre, 50 0 Bayou Dupre La.
Fort Jackson, 600 0 Mississippi River, La.
Fort Livingston 300 0 Barrataria Bay, La.
Fort at 60 0 New Bedford Harbor, Mass.
Fort Warren, 1,500 0 Boston Harbor, Mass.
Fort Independence, 500 1 Boston Harbor, Mass..
Fort Winthrop, 400 0 Boston Harbor, Mass..
West Head Battery, 400 0 Governor's Island (Boston), Mass..
Southeast Battery, 400 0 Governor's Island (Boston), Mass..
Fort McHenry, 350 146 Baltimore Harbor, Md..
Fort Madison, 150 1 Annapolis River, Md..
Fort Washington, 400 1 Potomac River, Md..
Fort Carroll, 800 0 Soller's Point Flats, Baltimore Harbor Md..
Fort Preble 200 1 Portland Harbor, Me..
Fort Scammel, 300 0 Portland Harbor, Me..
Fort McClary, 80 0 Portland Harbor, Me..
Fort Knox, 500 0 opposite Bucksport Me..
Fort at Ship Island 400 0
Miss.
Fort Macon (and preservation of its site) 300 1 Beaufort Harbor N. C.
Fort Caswell, 400 1 Oak Island N. C.
Fort Constitution, 250 1 Portsmouth Harbor, N. H..
Fort on Sandy Hook Point 1,000 0
N. J.
Fort Colombus, 800 613* Governor's Island, N. Y... 613 actual for all three works Castle William, 800 613* Governor's Island, N. Y... 613 actual for all three works South Battery, 800 613* Governor's Island, N. Y... 613 actual for all three works Fort Gibson, 80 0 Ellis Island N. Y...
Fort Wood, 350 350 1 Bedloe's Island N. Y...
Fort Richmond, 1,000 0 Staten Island, N. Y...
Fort Tompkins, 1,000 0 Staten Island, N. Y...
Battery Hudson, 1,000 0 Staten Island, N. Y...
Battery Morton, … 1 Staten Island, N. Y...
Fort Schuyler, 1,250 1 Throg's Neck, East River N. Y...
Fort Hamilton, 800 8 New York Harbor N. Y...
Fort Lafayette, 370 1 Narrowa, New River, Pa..
Fort Miffin, 200 1 Delaware River, Pa..
Fort Adams, 2,440 1 Newport harbor R. I.
Castle Pinckney, 100 0 Charleston Harbor, S. C.
Fort Moultrie, 300 0 Charleston Harbor, S. C.
Fort Sumter, 1,120 0 Charleston harbor, S. C.
Fort Monroe, 2,450 464 Old Point Comfort, Va.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top