67th Tigers
Banned
Crimean War tactics might be one thing, but that wasn't "the last war" for France--that honor belonged to the Sardinian War.
Or even the smaller 1864 Roman campaign. Or indeed Mexico itself, it's hardly a minor campaign.
Crimean War tactics might be one thing, but that wasn't "the last war" for France--that honor belonged to the Sardinian War.
Crimean War tactics might be one thing, but that wasn't "the last war" for France--that honor belonged to the Sardinian War.
Relatively (although i wouldn't say "extremely") short, yeah, but far from low casualties ones.The book didn't explicitly name the wars, but it did say that European wars had recently been very short, so the European publics expected WWI to be over quickly--ignoring the example of the American Civil War.
It was an explanation for the whole "we'll be home by Christmas" thing that didn't happen.
IIRC the Franco-Prussian War and Russo-Japanese War were both extremely short, and wasn't the Austro-Prussian War known as "the Seven Weeks' War"?
For 50'000? Yes, pretty much - notice that the link mentions 2'300 troops on Rio Grande.Impossible to advance overland, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican–American_War#Northeastern_Mexico
Sigma7 wrote:
Well, oddly enough I have, but I've always understood that it was something to do with secession, rather than anything else.
Yes, but be careful. Some around here have no tolerance for that observation.
Cynical, sarcastic, ... a man after my own heart. I like you already.
Now on the subject of "The Great French Naval Superiority" that's going to wipe the U.S. Navy from the face of the planet, how many folks here are familiar with the fate of La Gloire's sister ships?
Yeah, funny story about those, seems they were under-gunned, ie; the original batteries were ineffective against armor, so they required a refit...but that didn't happen until 1868.
Another funny story about Invincible (which would have ended up with the most ironic name in the history of warfare had she actually seen combat against the USN in 1866/67) and Normandie?
They were made from substandard timbers and were both stricken in 1871, less than ten after entering service.
BTW, in 1866, La Glorie herself is packing the same guns as her sister ships. The ones that can't penetrate armor.
Granted, she was better built, but that still doesn't change the fact that her guns wouldn't penetrate armor.
The USN didn't have as many ironclads as the French did, but I'll tell ya what they did have after fighting ironclad warfare for the previous four years and that's a substantial knowledge of what works and what doesn't when armored warships are engaging each other.
Gee, I wonder where the Americans got that knowledge?![]()
Well, if it was really to do with protecting black people, why did it take until the early 1960's for most of them to be able to vote? Why did segregation persist until the late 1950's? Why were black people still being lynched in the 1940's? (and note that I count only incidents where the whole town turned out to watch, not random killings by a few rednecks). It seems clear that once the Confederate states were prevented from seceding, any alleged concern for black people went out the window.Yes, and the reason those states seceded?
It had to do with...what?
AFAIK, they did that anyway, DOW wasn't neededAs for the USA... that 50,000 man 'Army of observation' on the border isn't going to be able to go all that far, due to supply lines. However, they have piles of older armaments they can splurge on the Juaristas, and that's likely what they'll do first. If the USA declares war (and that's a big if), it wouldn't be for a while yet, waiting to see if the French back down first or are beaten by the Juaristas. So, basically, it comes down to the French vs. the Juaristas...
Sigma7, what of the other, more advance French ironclads? Couronne, Magenta class, Provence class, Belliqueuse, and the Alma class. Your critiques of the Gloire class is spot-on, but you ignore the fact that she was the first ocean-going ironclad vessel, and she was launched in 1859 - nearly a decade prior to the OP's scenario. There had been quite a bit of advancement in French ironclads after Gloire; plenty of which influence the Americans. How would the US' ocean-going ironclads like USS Dictator or USS Puritan, or even the possibility of a recommissioned USS Dunderberg compare to the French ships?
Now, USS Puritan, I like her chances if a war with France results in her being completed as a breastwork monitor with twin turrets as the navy originally wanted it. That'd be a tough ship for the Franch navy's best ironclads to take on head-to-head, and if the USN makes an entire class out of the Puritan...the war at sea is going to get really ugly, really fast for France.
Dunderberg, as she was, could be intriguing as a stop-gap ironclad, if properly armed for ironclad warfare (her ram's going to be useless) her armor and fitting with armor defeating guns would make her a good ship to have at a time when oceangoing ironclads aren't exactly choking American ports.
Dictator is kinda like Puritan; refitted as a breastwork ironclad, she'd be a dangerous adversary for the French navy. If she can be fitted with a second turret, all the better, but I'm not sure her initial configuration would allow for that possibility.
Also, there's the matter of the USS New Ironsides.
If they mount a pair of twin gun turrets on her, mount proper armor piercing guns on her gun deck and improve her power plant, making her a sort early armored cruiser, that could be interesting to say the least.
I wish I could have answered your question about those other French ironclads better, though as I simply don't have the materials necessary to properly evaluate them.
The "reconstructed" Puritan was a completely new ship. The Navy lied to Congress about her being a "reconstruction" of the uncompleted (and rotten) Ericcson monitor. Had Puritan been completed with the 20" Dahlgren's she'd be an interesting ship. The 20" could put a hole in any French ship at 1,000 yards, but waiting the hour to reload both guns would be fatal.
She required a massive amount of work by OTL France even for harbour defence. Her engines are especially problematic, as was the extremely weak armour belt.
Sigma7 said:She might be rather useful as a practical applications platform; the USN could evaluate her as a basis for the development and construction of further ironclad frigates.
Dictator is Dictator. She was never reconstructed as a Breastwork Monitor. In fact that ship type does not yet exist. Reed, the British Chief Naval Constructor, designs the first of the type (HMVS Cerberus) in mid-late 1866.
?
Mount turrets on her and you increase her metacentric height to such a degree I suspect she'll o under.
The problem is you seem to be evaluating ships by the standards of the 1880's. Technology advanced incredibly quickly during this period. In 1866 the wooden steam frigate was still a very viable unit for example.