War of 1812

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Sometimes you have no choice but to fight.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Even lovely old Halifax has swarmers.
The best defence? Bigger swarmers. A size 12 steel toe helps too.

I was bringing a box of items to a neighbor's house for my mom when I was about 11. I looked in this box and noticed there were a bunch of kitchen tools, paying no mind to the contents, I continued on my journey. On the next block I got confronted by 3 or 4 local bullies. I grabbed the first thing I could get my hands on from the box. IT TURNED OUT BE BE A MEAT CLEAVER! Didn't even have to take a swing, I think they're still running away!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That would have made me run too.

 

[Anonymous]

I guess my post showing the number of European soldiers that have died in Afghanistan does not mean anything. Tell that to the families of the soldires that died.

Oh no, it matters. But don't you think those numbers,

As of May 9, 2005, there have been 219 coalition deaths in Afghanistan and other theaters of war during Operation Enduring Freedom -- 182 American, 14 German, 7 Canadian, 4 British, 3 Danish, 3 Romanians, 2 French, 2 Italians, 1 Australian, and 1 Norwegian.

have to be taken in perspective?

US population: ~295 million
US losses in Afghan per capita: 0.61 / million

European (countries you listed only) population: 347 million.
Euro losses in Afghan per capita: 0.1 / million.

For every European family that has lost someone in Afghanistan, there are almost seven such American familes.

Is this the kind of support that Europe recieved from the USA when it was in need?

 

[Nonskimmer]

Right on, FJ! Much more menacing than a spoon!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I guess my post showing the number of European soldiers that have died in Afghanistan does not mean anything. Tell that to the families of the soldires that died.

Oh no, it matters. But don't you think those numbers,

As of May 9, 2005, there have been 219 coalition deaths in Afghanistan and other theaters of war during Operation Enduring Freedom -- 182 American, 14 German, 7 Canadian, 4 British, 3 Danish, 3 Romanians, 2 French, 2 Italians, 1 Australian, and 1 Norwegian.

have to be taken in perspective?

US population: ~295 million
US losses in Afghan per capita: 0.61 / million

European (countries you listed only) population: 347 million.
Euro losses in Afghan per capita: 0.1 / million.

For every European family that has lost someone in Afghanistan, there are almost seven such American familes.

Is this the kind of support that Europe recieved from the USA when it was in need?

Does it matter. The point is, they are there. YOu can not count Iraq because technically it is not the same thing as Afganistan. I do not blame them for not being in Iraq.

 

[Anonymous]

Adler - what justification do you have for banning me?

Lunatic

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont need justification and I am ending it right now.

 

[Anonymous]

And I didn't count Iraq Adler, that's just Afghanistan.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No all of us Admins have decided to ban you. Obviously this red card thing does not work, so I am going to ask you to stop posting here until we get this thing sorted out and then you will not be allowed to do so.

 

[Anonymous]

when you talk of ww 1 it should be noted that the black troops of the us army were the first on line and stayed on line the longest they were made to serve with the french and to wore french uniforms /every war the the us has fought black men have had to prove over and over again they would and could fight///the irony of this is up until the viet nam war the revolutionary army was the most intergrated force the us had fielded
jasman

 

[plan_D]

All the original U.S troops in World War 1 had to serve with the British and French because they lacked combat experience. Do you have any proof that African-American troops were the first on the U.S lines and were the longest on the lines?

 

[James Pickering]

British American naval edged weapons and small arms references:


edged weapons: http://jp29.org/fsew.htm

small arms: http://jp29.org/fssa.htm

 

[syscom3]

Lets get back to the war of 1812 and the british and american relations up to the end of the US civil war.

Its fascinating stuff.

How many of you here have ever heard fo the "Trent" incident of 1862?

 

[plan_D]

I have. The Union came extremely close to destruction with that - after all, both Britain and France were willing to join a war together against the Union.

But events like that show to us all how tightly bonded the U.S and U.K are. The relationship has been built on argument then compromise, which has created the strongest bond between two world powers - a bond, that I think is unbreakable from the outside.

 

[syscom3]

I have. The Union came extremely close to destruction with that - after all, both Britain and France were willing to join a war together against the Union.

I disagree. I did my thesis about this in my college class on the history of England.

In 1862, the Union was growing stronger by the month and there was no way a combined English/French army could be formed to seriously threaten the Union.

Remember that the Union was industrializing and had an interior communications system made up of a good sized railroad network. The English/French forces would have to transport an army of 200,000 or so, over the Atlantic and would have to keep them supplied.

Also remember that a naval revolution had just occured with the Monitor and Merrimac. Any attempt at blockading the Union would have meant having to use wooden ships up against union ironclads.

My thesis said that if, and thats a might big if, enough forces could be sent to Canada, they would only be strong enough to fight to a draw with the eastern seaboard troops (because of the ineptness of the Union generals in the east). However, Union forces from the midwest and west would maul any European forces around the Great Lakes. I said that Canada would fall to the Union simply because of the logistics.

Fortunatly, President Lincoln saw the issue at hand was to fight the rebs, and not Britain. Plus the British govt didnt want a repeat of the War of 1812 where privateers tore up the commerce fleet.

It was also great timing where President Lincoln issued his emancipation proclamation after the battle of Antietam in late 1862. Once the war was defined politically as a fight to end slavery, then there was no way the British or French govts could actively intervene on the side of the confederacy.

 

[plan_D]

Are you honestly trying to state that the Union could fend off the Royal Navy and the French Navy? Then state that the Union could fight, effectively, three countries at once? One of which being the most powerful nation in the world?

If Britain can manage to supply forces all over the planet, in the farthest reaches of it's Empire. I'm pretty sure it could repeat the performance of 1812 logistically.

You seem to be forgetting that the Royal Navy still was the largest, and most powerful navy on the planet. Any commercial vessels going to or from the United States would vanish beneath the waves. The Royal Navy could have easily lifted the Union blockade of the Southern States - and most likely would have used the South as a supply base.

On top of that, both France and Britain could have just sent over the manpower to join the Confederacy. I know you're all patriotic - so much so ...you blatantly lie about Budweiser being a good beer ... but you cannot honestly say that the Union could have defeated Britain, France and the Confederacy.

I forgot to mention, concerning the Union ironclads - have you never heard of HMS Warrior - 1861? Research it.

There's a picture of it, for you.

 

[syscom3]

..... ...you blatantly lie about Budweiser being a good beer ... but you cannot honestly say that the Union could have defeated Britain, France and the Confederacy......

Come on now, arguing about beers was for fun and jest.

The Union navy could not have defeated the royal navy in the long run, but would have inflicted punishing damage and loss's. All the Union ironclads had to do was sail a few hundred miles to the confederate ports and take on any foreign navies.

And unlike the royal navy, which was a beaurocracy that wasnt known for moving quickly, the Union navy was being built from scratch using ironclad warships as its heart. The loss's of the three wooden ships to the Merrimack made a deep impression on the Union naval commanders, and they learned the bitter truths from defeat.

You have to look at a the logistics of the civil war to see the Union was going to win. No matter how much help the Brits or French could help the confederates, the end result would still be a union victory. You add troops to the confederacy, the union gets troops from the border states that would be offended by foreign troops on American soil.

In any scenario, you pose, I can counter that the superior logistics and communications of the Union would more than cancel out any hypothetical force you could muster. For instance, a dozen cannon cast in Pennsylvania could be readied and shipped to any location in the north within a few days. You would need three weeks to do the same to cast a cannon in England and ship it to a Candian port and then hope it can get to where its was needed.

As I said, the Union armies of the eastern seaboard were ineptly commanded and although more than able to stop an English/French invasion coming south from Canada, wouldnt have been able to invade northwards. However, the Union army in the west (Army of the Cumberland/Ohio) was an army that could have decisevely defeated any European army in its path.

In the end, my scenario was that Union forces were strong enough to defeat any confederate invasion into the north, while enough forces in the west would have invaded Canada through the Great Lakes and flanked your armies. The most you Britain could spare was 100,000. The Union was more than capable to raise more than that number.

 

[plan_D]

I was hardly bringing the beer up as a serious point, sys.

The Union Navy wouldn't have been able to handle itself in any situation against an obviously superior Royal Navy that was then building all it's ships as Ironclads, which were superior in design to anything from the North American continent.

The Royal Navy couldn't be slow - for the simple reason that it had to protect an the Empire. Once war had been declared, the Royal Navy would be on the spot in the double quick time. That was the whole purpose of the navy, it was the mobile fire brigade of the Empire.

You seem to be forgetting, while mentioning logistics, that Britain in 1812 managed to combat both the U.S and Napoleon. While, I admit, that fighting over in North America would be hard on the supply system of the British forces - previous wars in the same situation that Britain managed to wage prove that, once again, Britain would be able to wage effective war in the same situation.

You make out as if the European armies of the late 19th Century were a laughable rag-tag bunch of school children playing soldiers, sys. These were not ill-trained men, these would be fighting soldiers of the two great world powers. Both of which probably still contained seasoned veterans of the Crimean War - which you only need to look at to see how well British troops fought.

Numbers do not always win wars, sys. And what Generals have Britain given to lead the armies? Blind, disabled ferrets? You make the destruction of armies sound so simple. Any attempt by Union forces to move into Canada would most likely be a follow up of the War of 1812 - only in the 1860s, there's France fighting alongside Great Britain.

You're talking of a situation where the Union is surrounded by the Confederates, United Kingdom and France. The Union Navy is out-gunned by the Royal Navy alone, let alone the combined fleet of the English and French navies.

You say Britain can only spare 100,000? May I ask where this figure popped up from? And what of France, who had at least double the population of Great Britain in the 19th Century...

 

[syscom3]

The Union Navy wouldn't have been able to handle itself in any situation against an obviously superior Royal Navy that was then building all it's ships as Ironclads, which were superior in design to anything from the North American continent.

The Union navy was building monitors with turrets and very low profile. They werent the most seaworthy of ships, but only slight modifications were needed to at least get them out of port on stormy days and go hunting for your ships. Quite simply, they would have been well below your gun's field of fire.

The Royal Navy couldn't be slow - for the simple reason that it had to protect an the Empire. Once war had been declared, the Royal Navy would be on the spot in the double quick time. That was the whole purpose of the navy, it was the mobile fire brigade of the Empire.

The royal navy was just like most navies in having a vast fleet that was out of date. Key point is on how many iron clads were available. And of course you just admitted that your fleet was deployed world wide. How many months untill you could concentrate them into the Atlantic and not worry about the Indian Ocean, the Med and the Pacific from privateers?

You seem to be forgetting, while mentioning logistics, that Britain in 1812 managed to combat both the U.S and Napoleon. While, I admit, that fighting over in North America would be hard on the supply system of the British forces - previous wars in the same situation that Britain managed to wage prove that, once again, Britain would be able to wage effective war in the same situation.

We are talking about 1862, which was nearly 50 years after the end of the War of 1812. In those 50 years, the US has grown far more powerfull relative to you. Remember, you would have to be suppling a huge army across an ocean against an opponant that was your equal, fighting with interior lines of contiental communications.

You make out as if the European armies of the late 19th Century were a laughable rag-tag bunch of school children playing soldiers, sys. These were not ill-trained men, these would be fighting soldiers of the two great world powers. Both of which probably still contained seasoned veterans of the Crimean War - which you only need to look at to see how well British troops fought.

The Crimean War was not a high point in English Warfare. In fact, a war in North America would be totally unlike one that the RA had fought in its recent memory.

Numbers do not always win wars, sys. And what Generals have Britain given to lead the armies? Blind, disabled ferrets? You make the destruction of armies sound so simple. Any attempt by Union forces to move into Canada would most likely be a follow up of the War of 1812 - only in the 1860s, there's France fighting alongside Great Britain.

Dont rely on the French at this time period. Remember, they couldnt even beat the Mexican peasant army in 1867. And did you realize that the US civil War was rapidly becoming the first industrial war in history? I dont think you have ever read accounts on how the Union and Confederate armies in the west fought. Totally unlike anything the RA would have seen. These were frontiersman with just enough discipline to fight as savagely as needed plus plenty of self reliance to be their own engineers.

Just out of numbers, the Union forces would have won. 1812 was a half century ago. Things had changed since then. By the way, you are aware that the finest generals of the war (for the union) were commanding the western forces?

You're talking of a situation where the Union is surrounded by the Confederates, United Kingdom and France. The Union Navy is out-gunned by the Royal Navy alone, let alone the combined fleet of the English and French navies.

You forget to factor in the huge population of the Union, which would be fighting on its own ground, with a war economy picking up steam, with a top notch railroad system to move things around, with a large number of southern troops who would rally to the union because of british (and french) troops on American soil. And the Union navy of ironclad warships is just beginning to get deployed, who in the past proved perfectly capable of bloodying the nose of the RN.

You say Britain can only spare 100,000? May I ask where this figure popped up from? And what of France, who had at least double the population of Great Britain in the 19th Century...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Affair And it doesnt matter if France had so many people. The issue is how many troops could they transport and SUPPLY. And besides, you still had an empire to maintain, which is labor intensive.