Tactics of a Ango-French War with the US in the late 1880's

Status
Not open for further replies.

Saphroneth

Banned
Because the it was one of the few ways they could reliably put food on the table for families. Given the choice they'd have rather been anywhere else if the could've. Also didn't you mention that Tesla was making a death ray or something?

You seem to have a rather stereotyped view of the Irish populace; that is, of all of them being so anti-British they'd rather have actively attacked armed soldiers instead of just getting on with their lives.
 
Tesla ISN'T making anything of the sort.
Good day to you sir!

Sorry I could've sworn you mentioned something like that. Anyways you're still ignoring the fact the Irish and especially Irish-Americans absolutely hated the British. Again nothing will stop them from fighting the Americans the moment they realize the British might actually wage war with the US. So if despite the relations between the US and British being ice cold for 3 years and the threat of war hanging over the US's head the Army and Navy have still been unfunded and that's what they're protesting over then I can see it. Otherwise the Irish would've been planning out of the past 3 years exactly how they're going to kill as many British soldiers as possible.
 
You seem to have a rather stereotyped view of the Irish populace; that is, of all of them being so anti-British they'd rather have actively attacked armed soldiers instead of just getting on with their lives.

Look I know the Irish in Ireland weren't all like that(Otherwise why the Hell would Northern Ireland even exist?) However in of those who immigrated to the US they were majority anti-British and they kept those views for decades. They'll fight them and fight them damn good.
 
Anybody else mention that the French sending all that manpower across the Atlantic is a big 'ol invitation to Willie II (a man with a perpetual boner for war) to send the Heer on a sight seeing excursion...to The Channel?

What a BRILLIANT war for France to dive into!

"Hey! Let's go join up with the Brits to beat up the Americans!"

"Um, Germans?"

"No, no! This all happens in a vacuum, you see; while the rest of the world is on pause, the British and us, we can do ANYTHING without needing to worry about ANYTHING!"

"Um, that's still doesn't change the fact that there's millions of Germans eager to kick our asses and take more of our land, now led by a Kaiser who practically blows a load every time he thinks about fighting a war. Y'know, establishing Mitteleurop, attaining his empire's 'place in the sun'?"

"No! No! No! We're protected by the vacuum that everything we do occurs in!"

"Uh, I don't think the Germans see it that way..."


Meanwhile, in Britain...

Marquess of Salisbury: "And there you have it: The Vacuum sealed, we and our French allies go cross the pond, whip the Yanks and etc...etc... Can I get a 'Rule Britannia!'?"

[Assembled War Planners]: "RULE BRITANNIA!"

Nigel: "Pardon me, Sir, but, with most of our military resources tied up in the Atlantic and North America, what do we do if the Russians move to expand their sphere of influence in China? Or the Punjabs revolt? Or the Boers-"

Salisbury: "Look, it's all right here in the plan! 'War Plan Vacuum'! The Russians won't do a bloody thing! They can't!"

Nigel: "Why not, Sir?"

Salisbury: "Because they can't!"

Nigel: "Yes, but I'm trying to understand why they can't. Has the Tsar agreed to some sort of secret treaty?"

Salisbury: "No."

Nigel: "Did we buy them off?"

Salisbury: "No."

Nigel: "Are we fomenting a revolution in Russia that will tie his hands?"

Salisbury: "No, dammit! Everything we do will happen in a vacuum! Nobody else can act as if we've made a terrible strategic mishap! We cannot lose!"

Nigel: "I see...tell me, Sir, is Ireland in this 'Vacuum'?"

Salisbury: "No need to worry about the Fenian swine, I assure you, they won't do anything. They LOVE us!"

Nigel: "Not the impression I get from them."

Salisbury: "The Vacuum, Man! I keep telling you: NOBODY will do ANYTHING because all of this occurs in a vacuum! NOTHING can go wrong! To prove this point, I'm going to put the barrel of this loaded revolver in my mouth and pull the trigger!"

Nigel: "Sir, I would suggest against that!!! Has he been using cocaine again?!"

Melchett: "Relax, Nigel, we're in The Vacuum! Nothing can hurt any of-"

*BLAM*

*THUD*

Nigel: "MY GOD!!!"

Melchett: "Not to worry, Nigel, I'm sure the Marquess will be good as new in a few days!"

Nigel: "HIS BLOODY BRAINS ARE SPLATTERED ALL OVER THE WALL, YOU TWAT!!!"

Melchett: "Merely a flesh wound. Pay it no mind. We're in The Vacuum!"




Written by Graham Chapman and Ben Elton

Directed by Terry Gilliam

Starring John Cleese as the Marquess of Salisbury

Rik Mayall as Admiral Jackie Fisher

Rowan Atkinson as Captain Blackadder

Tony Robinson as Pvt. Baldrick

Stephen Fry as General Melchett

And

Michale Palin as Nigel
 
Anybody else mention that the French sending all that manpower across the Atlantic is a big 'ol invitation to Willie II (a man with a perpetual boner for war) to send the Heer on a sight seeing excursion...to The Channel?

What a BRILLIANT war for France to dive into!

"Hey! Let's go join up with the Brits to beat up the Americans!"

"Um, Germans?"

"No, no! This all happens in a vacuum, you see; while the rest of the world is on pause, the British and us, we can do ANYTHING without needing to worry about ANYTHING!"

"Um, that's still doesn't change the fact that there's millions of Germans eager to kick our asses and take more of our land, now led by a Kaiser who practically blows a load every time he thinks about fighting a war. Y'know, establishing Mitteleurop, attaining his empire's 'place in the sun'?"

"No! No! No! We're protected by the vacuum that everything we do occurs in!"

"Uh, I don't think the Germans see it that way..."


Meanwhile, in Britain...

Marquess of Salisbury: "And there you have it: The Vacuum sealed, we and our French allies go cross the pond, whip the Yanks and etc...etc... Can I get a 'Rule Britannia!'?"

[Assembled War Planners]: "RULE BRITANNIA!"

Nigel: "Pardon me, Sir, but, with most of our military resources tied up in the Atlantic and North America, what do we do if the Russians move to expand their sphere of influence in China? Or the Punjabs revolt? Or the Boers-"

Salisbury: "Look, it's all right here in the plan! 'War Plan Vacuum'! The Russians won't do a bloody thing! They can't!"

Nigel: "Why not, Sir?"

Salisbury: "Because they can't!"

Nigel: "Yes, but I'm trying to understand why they can't. Has the Tsar agreed to some sort of secret treaty?"

Salisbury: "No."

Nigel: "Did we buy them off?"

Salisbury: "No."

Nigel: "Are we fomenting a revolution in Russia that will tie his hands?"

Salisbury: "No, dammit! Everything we do will happen in a vacuum! Nobody else can act as if we've made a terrible strategic mishap! We cannot lose!"

Nigel: "I see...tell me, Sir, is Ireland in this 'Vacuum'?"

Salisbury: "No need to worry about the Fenian swine, I assure you, they won't do anything. They LOVE us!"

Nigel: "Not the impression I get from them."

Salisbury: "The Vacuum, Man! I keep telling you: NOBODY will do ANYTHING because all of this occurs in a vacuum! NOTHING can go wrong! To prove this point, I'm going to put the barrel of this loaded revolver in my mouth and pull the trigger!"

Nigel: "Sir, I would suggest against that!!! Has he been using cocaine again?!"

Melchett: "Relax, Nigel, we're in The Vacuum! Nothing can hurt any of-"

*BLAM*

*THUD*

Nigel: "MY GOD!!!"

Melchett: "Not to worry, Nigel, I'm sure the Marquess will be good as new in a few days!"

Nigel: "HIS BLOODY BRAINS ARE SPLATTERED ALL OVER THE WALL, YOU TWAT!!!"

Melchett: "Merely a flesh wound. Pay it no mind. We're in The Vacuum!"




Written by Graham Chapman and Ben Elton

Directed by Terry Gilliam

Starring John Cleese as the Marquess of Salisbury

Rik Mayall as Admiral Jackie Fisher

Rowan Atkinson as Captain Blackadder

Tony Robinson as Pvt. Baldrick

Stephen Fry as General Melchett

And

Michale Palin as Nigel

Not bad.

But, yet again it seems that someone has not read the TL.
 
OP Says Willie II died and his Brother not only took over but has already knocked Bismark out of power.(aka the stupidest thing he could do)
 
I will admit however the bits regarding Russia are spot on. Same for the Boers. And the Punjabs as well. Oh and the Irish. I've said it before and i'll say it again. This is the perfect spot for the Russians to end the Great Game.
 
it turns out that it doesn't take that long at all to push out the kind of big artillery Saph here is claiming the US is years away from being able to make. In just under 11 months, from May '84 to April '85, the South Boston Iron Works turned out an experimental 12 inch rifle for the Ordnance Department.
But that was a 12in cast-iron rifle, not a modern all-steel rifle like the British are making. Do you know how it went when the South Boston Iron Works tried to make a 12in cast iron rifle with a steel tube in it? A steel tube which, like the steel tube for the 8in BL West Point made in 1885, was bought from Whitworth?
First casting (9 July 1884): Flask gave way and metal deposited in bottom of pit.
Second casting (23 December 1884): Cast breech down, lower portion of flask surrounded by dry brick wall packed around with sand in pit. Casting broke across in several places in lathe.
Third casting (16 October 1885): Cast breech up and ruptured longitudinally in pit.
Fourth casting (5 April 1886): Cast breech up. Apparently sound casting... Not completed June 20, 1886, when contract expired by limitation.
...
The simple cast-iron rifle, with which no accident occurred, was eight months in casting and eighteen in finishing; and the five castings ordered September 24th, 1883, were not all made at the expiration of two years and six months... The West Point Foundry could undertake the casting of the short bodies required for the hooped mortars, but with this exception I believe no other establishment than the South Boston Iron Works has at present any proper facilities for the work.

Captain Rogers Birnie Jr (Ordnance Department, US Army), Gun-making in the United States; reprinted from the Journal of the Military Service Institution (Washington, 1907; first issued 1888), pp.55-6 [link]; there's also an eye-witness description of the failing of the third casting here.

Just in case you intended to proceed to argue that cast-iron guns would suit perfectly well, Birnie continues:
That 12-inch cast-iron rifles may even be cast as long as may be required for modern usage is much to be doubted in view of the experience quoted, but the added length would not give the power of steel guns because of the limitations of pressure imposed upon the cast-iron... the 12-inch cast-iron rifle... began to show marked erosion about the fiftieth round, while the 8-inch steel gun shows none after 100 rounds... the greater endurance of the steel gun will enable it to continue to deliver such shots enough longer than the cast-iron gun to more than make up the difference in the original cost of the guns. And beyond this, the difference of cost is all in favour of the much lighter piece- the steel gun- for transportation, handling, and emplacement. This in itself is enough to establish the superiority of the steel gun, but it is not the most important consideration, which is, comparatively speaking, that the steel gun is safe and the cast-iron gun is unsafe.

See also the Endicott report, which compared the 12in cast iron rifle to a Krupp 12in steel gun and found the cast iron gun lacking in tube weight, length of bore, charge weight, projectile weight, velocity, pressure, energy and muzzle velocity. Incidentally, the 12in mortar which the ironworks turned out burst on trial after 20 rounds. If gun-making was easy, and any old numpty could do it, Armstrong, Krupp et al. wouldn't have made multiple fortunes out of it.

when you consider the Big Gun Shop at Watervliet Arsenal was built in about a year.
Not really. They made the decision to build the gun factory there in 1887. The money was appropriated for the site in 1888; the north wing and central section were built in 1889-90, and the east wing was built in 1891-2. While manufacture started in the first half almost immediately, using 12in forgings purchased from France, the east wing, designed for the construction of guns larger than 12in (of which the Endicott programme required 50), didn't come into operation until 1899.

It's questionable how quickly that construction could have been achieved when the county also had to fund a massive army expansion, the construction of a navy almost from scratch, an extensive programme of coastal and city fortifications, and the expansion of plant to build everything from rifles to artillery to torpedo boats to battleships to torpedoes to mines to uniforms. It's even more questionable whether they'd have the manpower to do so- after all, not only are the fortifications going to need building, and not only is the armaments industry going to be offering high wages to tempt people out of other occupations, but many healthy adult males are going to be toting a rifle or a stoker's shovel instead of a trowel.

The point is that we know that the US has the existing plant and capability to make these guns.
It's entirely your prerogative to believe this, but it doesn't seem to be true. When the US put the construction of 25 8in, 50 10in and 25 12in steel guns out to tender in 1891, they got two bids: one from the South Boston Iron Works, who said they could deliver the first 12in gun in three years and then three guns a year for eight years, and one from the Medvale Steel Company, who said they could deliver the first gun in three years and the full order in eight. The 1890 report of the secretary of war spoke about a contract for 61 8in, 10in and 12in guns with the Bethlehem Iron Works, made under appropriations from 1888, which was expected to complete in November 1893. So even after the POD we're describing here, the US had nowhere near the capacity to meet its artillery requirements (you may have missed this earlier, but they're actually quite substantial):

44 16in BL
6 14in BL
203 12in BL
225 10in BL
102 8in BL
124 6in BL (siege and naval)
701 12in mortars
16 10in mortars
2310 field artillery (field and horse)
120 heavy artillery
40 3in naval guns
630 47mm naval guns

Believing that the US could put half a dozen new big guns into key coastal forts in eight or so months actually isn't that crazy.
Actually, I think it might be: From what we've seen above, there doesn't seem to be anywhere near the capacity to build those half dozen guns in eight or so months. But if anything's crazy, it's the idea that a coastal fortification programme that required 253 "big guns" can be fulfilled by using six. I mean, the British thought they needed 10,000 regulars and 100,000 militia to defend against the US in the Trent: would anybody believe a timeline where they made do with 237 regulars and 2,371 militia?

Anybody else mention that the French sending all that manpower across the Atlantic is a big 'ol invitation to Willie II (a man with a perpetual boner for war) to send the Heer on a sight seeing excursion...to The Channel?
These guys:

Willy died, Bismark has united Germany, however AFAICT Henry was a more reasoned man, and could stand up more to Bismark, without having to stand up to. If you know what I mean.
That, and Bismarck wasn't a raving lunatic: he forged those alliances to maintain peace against a revanchist France, not so he could "earn brownie points" by launching a massive European conflict on behalf of a extra-European power whose good opinion he couldn't have cared less about.

And this guy:
a little under 1/4 of the French standing army.
...
France
1880: 544,000
...
Germany
1880: 430,000

Or the Punjabs revolt?
The Punjab is a place, not a people, and there's only one of it. And if the Sikhs didn't revolt during the Indian Rebellion, less than a decade after the independent Punjab had been incorporated into British India, I'm not sure why they would do so forty years afterwards at the news that Britain has invaded the US. Maybe they were all fans of Grover Cleveland or secretly in league with Bismarck or something. In any case, internal insurrection is pretty much the raison d'être of the Indian army, which none of us have proposed touching:

Indian Army strength (1894):
70,009 regular British
26,746 European volunteers
124,292 regular Indian
17,489 irregular soldiers
16,674 Imperial Service Troops
17,847 military police
Total: 273,057 personnel.
 
Last edited:
I love how the 800-pound Gorilla in the room that's sitting just 20 miles at the closest point from Britain just keeps getting ignored or just hand-waved away. The Irish would absolutely revolt in this situation and it could go anywhere from something like the Easter Rising to a full blown war in Ireland.

Then of course the 3000-pound gorilla that is Russia who have serious conflicting interests with the British and as I keep saying time and time again would see this as the PERFECT chance to end the Great Game on their own terms. Also need I again remind people the US and Russia had really damn good relations during this period?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I love how the 800-pound Gorilla in the room that's sitting just 20 miles at the closest point from Britain just keeps getting ignored or just hand-waved away. The Irish would absolutely revolt in this situation and it could go anywhere from something like the Easter Rising to a full blown war in Ireland.

Then of course the 3000-pound gorilla that is Russia who have serious conflicting interests with the British and as I keep saying time and time again would see this as the PERFECT chance to end the Great Game on their own terms. Also need I again remind people the US and Russia had really damn good relations during this period?

Why would the Russians see this as a good chance to end the Great Game? No troops are being moved out of India, the Indian Army's as strong as ever.

As for Ireland, at this time the majority of feeling is constitutionalism. In extremis, you might see a passage of the Home Rule bill (failed by 30 votes OTL) but it's unlikely to see some massive uprising.

Might I assume from your 3,000 lb gorilla comment that you consider Russia the single largest concern here, in terms of the thing which most helps America?
 
Why would the Russians see this as a good chance to end the Great Game? No troops are being moved out of India, the Indian Army's as strong as ever.

Its not that troops aren't being moved out of India its that the British if they truly are aiming to put the US down can't troops TO India. Basically a war with the US puts the British between a rock and a hard place come how the other great powers(especially Russia who they have very conflicting interests with). They either lose Canada or Lose India and again I must point out the obviousness of which of those two the British would rather lose.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Its not that troops aren't being moved out of India its that the British if they truly are aiming to put the US down can't troops TO India. Basically a war with the US puts the British between a rock and a hard place come how the other great powers(especially Russia who they have very conflicting interests with). They either lose Canada or Lose India and again I must point out the obviousness of which of those two the British would rather lose.

I'm still not seeing, I'm afraid. If the British can't deploy many troops overseas (as has been asserted) then why would those troops they could potentially move to India change things?

Put another way, if the British Indian Army is ~200,000 men, and the Russian invasion route goes essentially through Afghanistan, why would the relatively small number of troops the British are deploying to America (only ~half their regular home establishment, irrespective of militia/volunteers/enlistment) turn the trick?

Especially since.. well, this will sound completely stupid, but... why didn't the Russians jump at the chance to take India in 1900, when (so we are told) the British were sending over four hundred thousand troops to South Africa to handle 90,000 Boers? (Including actually drawing down Indian establishment and sending Indians over.)


Perhaps it's the rising instability in Russia - a Tsar was assassinated in 1881, after all.
 
I'm still not seeing, I'm afraid. If the British can't deploy many troops overseas (as has been asserted) then why would those troops they could potentially move to India change things?

Put another way, if the British Indian Army is ~200,000 men, and the Russian invasion route goes essentially through Afghanistan, why would the relatively small number of troops the British are deploying to America (only ~half their regular home establishment, irrespective of militia/volunteers/enlistment) turn the trick?

Especially since.. well, this will sound completely stupid, but... why didn't the Russians jump at the chance to take India in 1900, when (so we are told) the British were sending over four hundred thousand troops to South Africa to handle 90,000 Boers? (Including actually drawing down Indian establishment and sending Indians over.)


Perhaps it's the rising instability in Russia - a Tsar was assassinated in 1881, after all.

Plus, logistical and supply difficulties. The Russian train network in Central Asia wasn't going to support a large army, and even if it could, the most likely invasion route into India would go through Afghanistan, and we all know what trouble the Afghans have traditionally given to foreign armies.
 
Plus, logistical and supply difficulties. The Russian train network in Central Asia wasn't going to support a large army, and even if it could, the most likely invasion route into India would go through Afghanistan, and we all know what trouble the Afghans have traditionally given to foreign armies.

Nevermind the trouble of supplying the army there, even if the Afghans DO cooperate.

No matter how many troops the Russians can support in Uzbekistan, they'll be able to support maybe a tenth of that in Punjab - probably less.

And the Irish, of course, won't revolt unless the war actually severely hurts Britain - if they're going from the victorious battle of New York to the glorious capture of New Orleans, there'll be less chance of a revolt than in peacetime, IMO.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Nevermind the trouble of supplying the army there, even if the Afghans DO cooperate.

No matter how many troops the Russians can support in Uzbekistan, they'll be able to support maybe a tenth of that in Punjab - probably less.

And the Irish, of course, won't revolt unless the war actually severely hurts Britain - if they're going from the victorious battle of New York to the glorious capture of New Orleans, there'll be less chance of a revolt than in peacetime, IMO.

That's actually a fair point - OTL the Boer War didn't lead to a rising. Heck, OTL the Easter Rising itself was not significant - what mattered was how events unfolded after that.

It does rather feel (to me, in any case) like listing the Russians, the Germans and the Irish as ready to strike in the event of British/French preoccupation is more-or-less trying to get those nations to even the balance of a fairly stacked deck.


But I could be wrong. I simply reiterate my request for the single strongest argument against Allied victory.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top