|
Post by Enderminion on May 30, 2017 8:16:17 GMT -6
From the famous Cornerstone Speech by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephans "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." Even after the American Civil War proved this type of ideal government was a bad idea, South Africa wanted to find out for themselvesNow, does this speech change anything? Was the war really about slavery or was this just one man’s opinion. The Confederate constitution did not give any of the states any more rights than our constitution, in fact, it did not allow for states to secede. Which is interesting. I still believe that this war was about the rights of states. Lincoln stated in his speeches before his first election that he did not have the right to eliminate slavery and no will to do so. Why then would this cause the states to secede. Possibly they knew that this was just politics and that he was really against slavery? BTW, the date of the now famous "cornerstone" speech was March 4th, 1861 which was Lincoln's Inauguration Day.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 28, 2017 16:55:26 GMT -6
Did the treaty scrap anything we had building? Cause otherwise it is nothing but good for us... Time to build somemore light forces, and maybe get the Teck for a proper CA instead of a AC. Also to quote from somewhere else on the forum "they say that that day a distraught Jacky Fisher threw himself from the cliffs of Dover" both Heavy and Armoured Cruisers are CAs
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 28, 2017 11:51:59 GMT -6
Well, then we agree. But slavery was always a point of contention between the northern and southern states since the 1820's. But what started the war, is a moot point now. It is two years since the start and slave traders are still following Lee's army into the north, grabbing freed slaves and returning them back to the South. The fiscal situation in the South is worsening, and only an end to the war will stop it. They will get no help from Europe unless they free the slaves and they aren't going to waste two years of fighting and privation just to end it. So, the South is on its own but they have an opportunity here. The North is getting tired of the war. The South only needs to push the northern states to possibly get peace talks. So the question for Robert E. Lee and Jeff Davis is, how best to do that? Sitting on the Rappahannock River across from an ever growing Army of the Potomac with a starving army isn't a good plan. Retreating back about 50 miles and taking up positions around your base of supply which also happens to be the capital of the South, isn't a good solution either. So, Lee's plan is simple, do what he did in 1862 but failed at Antietam, head north into Pennsylvania, gathering supplies for his army and the South, disrupt the railroads headed east and west in Pennsylvania, take and destroy Harrisburg, then move on Washington and eventually fight a decisive battle against Hooker, a man he has already bested at Chancellorsville. Well, that is the solution he arrives at and both Davis and Seddon agree. Was it the best solution? Probably but it was dependent on good intelligence from his favorite cavalry officer, JEB Stuart. A move north is risky and requires absolutely excellent combat intelligence arriving daily as to the location and direction of the Union Army. He has to know which roads he is taking and at which time. Without that information, he could be surprised in the wrong position. And that is what actually happens. But what Lee doesn't know is that Hooker created the Bureau of Military Intelligence under Sharpe. This bureau is doing a fine job of collecting information from deserters, slaves and cavalry to put together a reasonably good picture of what Lee is planning and doing at any moment. This will keep the Army of the Potomac, at least three days ahead of lee especially after Stuart fails to provide the necessary information that Lee requires during the movement north. The game is on. yes the game is on. good Intel can win most any battle, it was only due to French Code-breakers that kaiserschlacht failed, etc, etc
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 28, 2017 7:56:00 GMT -6
... barato is cheap in spanish though... I guess somebody wanted to use the terminal O trope
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 27, 2017 15:27:18 GMT -6
First myth to dispel is that Lincoln and the Republicans were not against slavery but declared themselves against the EXTENSION of slavery into the territories . Yes that is what I said, the Civil War was not fully about slavery until Lincoln made it about slavery with the emancipation proclamation. These territories were not states yet and were under the control of Congress and the President. They were against any interference with slavery in the states which already had it but they demanded freedom for the vast unorganized territory west of the Missouri. Charleston, South Carolina was an ultra pro-slavery state and it was eager to secede. They were very happy when Lincoln became president, for it now they could use it as an excuse to leave the union. They regarded their slaves as property like horses and mules. Lincoln did not like slavery and felt it was wrong in regards to the constitutional rights of free people but he was not going to intercede in states. Again the watch word is states rights, which he agreed with. To answer the question about the origin of States Rights, here is a good article that should explain it. www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/states-rightsAs to the issue of trade, the southern states were advocates of free-trade since that would provide them the avenue to continue to buy and sell slaves along with machinery and other goods with their cash crop. The north was not a free-trade advocate because they were industrialized and wanted tariff protection against European goods which might be cheaper than the locally produced. It was a serious bone of contention between the two rivals. Thats what I said
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 27, 2017 10:57:36 GMT -6
that's true, but the south also tried to get Europe on side... by embargoing cotton exports before the blockade hit, mistakes were made. As for Lee, he would have fought for the North if he thought he could protect Virginia the best that way. I agree that if Virginia had stayed in the Union, Lee would have been the Commander in Chief of the Union Army which was offered to him. The issue of the South trying to get recognition from foreign nations and failed, was ultimately caused by the issue of slavery. Interestingly, the Civil War was more about states rights than the issue of slavery. Had the South simply abolished slavery, they probably would have gotten recognition from Great Britain and France. it was not about slavery until Lincoln made it about slavery. of all the reasons why the war started states rights is but one of many. What was the reason for states rights anyway? Another reason the war started was trade, the north wanted to be mechanized so as to not be reliant on imported machined goods and to achive that they wanted higher tariffs on machined goods while the swouth just wanted to buy things with the cotton they made. their was the powder keg laced with nitroglycerin and mercury fulminate of weather new states would be free or slave states. as for recognition from forigen powers, that would have lead to a world war which britian and france could not have won, the Royal Navy was big but Ironclads were hitting the water, submarines were plowing the waves, steamships were running blockades, ballons were directing fire and dropping bombs, the Royal Navy and French Navy could not have landed troops on American soil.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 26, 2017 9:27:01 GMT -6
if Lee had better intel and recon he could have won, but thats true of everything, if he hadn't been as shaken by the lose of good commanders he could have won, Lee had no home front anyway, Sherman and Grant were tearing up the deep south, the blockade and cotton embargo had killed the souths economey so he didn't have as many or as good guns (some union battalions with reapeaters were reported as regiments), if he had hit hard and fast and didn't let up till he hit trenches he might have won. When you analyze combat operations after their completion, you can always find areas where such and such should have been done differently. Many factors are out of the control of Admirals and Generals. The south was not an industrial economy so it had to have known the future difficulties it would find itself in when it made the decision to fire on Fort Sumter. I believe it misread the North. In short, the south declared independence, then hoped the north would fold its hand.... it didn't and now they had a real fight for which they were not prepared. Lee was really fighting to protect his home state of Virginia. He was not fighting for states rights or slavery... he was fighting for Virginia, that's all. If you review his actions in the war, this attitude of protecting Virginia seems to pervade them. This colored his view of the whole strategic situation for the south. that's true, but the south also tried to get Europe on side... by embargoing cotton exports before the blockade hit, mistakes were made. As for Lee, he would have fought for the North if he thought he could protect Virginia the best that way.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 25, 2017 21:36:31 GMT -6
if Lee had better intel and recon he could have won, but thats true of everything, if he hadn't been as shaken by the lose of good commanders he could have won, Lee had no home front anyway, Sherman and Grant were tearing up the deep south, the blockade and cotton embargo had killed the souths economey so he didn't have as many or as good guns (some union battalions with reapeaters were reported as regiments), if he had hit hard and fast and didn't let up till he hit trenches he might have won.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 24, 2017 20:18:43 GMT -6
I believe narrow belt means a belt which only protects the waterline, as opposed to stretching all the way up to the deck, but I'm not certain. Extended belt is the bow and stern portion, which on most historical designs was thinner than that over the 'citadel' (ammo magazines and machinery spaces). Not sure about extended deck Same thing as extended belt, just for the deck. A lot of the terminology is explained in the manual, found in the game install directory.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 20, 2017 13:40:43 GMT -6
So apparently I, as Japan, open fire and sank a German fishing boat. My entire fleet is in Northeast and Southeast Asia. I took all of Germany's colonies in those 2 regions last war. How were we even in the same waters with a German fishing boat??? "Fishing" for radio messages
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 19, 2017 20:03:23 GMT -6
planes blow up anyway, so if you used oxygen torpedos which can have a range of over 20,000 yards, could that work? The type 93 Long Lance oxygen driven torpedo weighed 5952 lbs. The largest airborne torpedo, the type 91 deployed in 1944 weighed 2319 lbs. The torpedoes used at Pearl Harbor weighed 1872 lbs. See why oxygen could not be used on aircraft? As the question of aircraft blowing up, they certainly do. But why would I risk an experienced crew, an expensive aircraft and an expensive ordnance when I can do the job easier and safer with a dive bomber which is faster, and safer. On other hand, many times it is better to mission kill a ship, force it out of formation and home to be repaired, than to sink it. One of the problems for the Japanese was their lack of available dockyard and repair facilities. They either had to build new ships or repair them. They could not do both and many damaged ships sat in the harbor waiting for dockyard space. Also the loss of repair ships hampered repairs in areas like Truk and Rabaul. Sinking isn't always the answer, mission killing can be beneficial. I play a game called children of a dead earth, which is a space game where you can design ships, modules, and missiles, missile design is not the best thing for me, but I have sub-metric ton assault missiles. as for torpedo design, it's going to blow up so swapping the LOX for liquid flourine (you know the stuff in mouth wash) which is more reactive to eek out more thrust and range, 2.1mm of steel plating with ~450kg of bomb, ~400kg of propellant and 100kg to represent the mass of the wet-heater type engine, the motor is Flourine Methane instead of methanol because its simpler, the whole thing masses one metric ton, less then the Type-91. no idea how far or fast it will go or how fast but the flourine will react with the seawater as well
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 19, 2017 16:12:14 GMT -6
Thanks for the answers. I guess if their was to be a country with the high possibility of being to build the H-44 it would either the US or the UK. And that is if we completely ignore the political will necessary to have such a very expensive shipbuilding program plus the supporting logistics and infrastructure carried out. My next question is about the Douglas TB2D Skypirate. From what I read on this it could have a payload of 4 torpedos. Yet I have read on a forum that in order to be able to carry such a load, it would have only a short range to do so. Is this true? The concept of the torpedo carrying aircraft sounds interesting but has some inherent weaknesses. In order to drop the aerial torpedo effectively, you have to be below 150 feet on the deck flying at a speed of less than 125 knots. This makes the plane an easy target for light, medium and heavy AA guns along with combat air patrols. The only way to defeat these problems is to A. fly suppression of enemy air defenses which simply means you fly fighters across the target, firing its machine guns and cannons to get the light AA gunners to duck and/or drop 500 lbs. bombs to destroy light and medium AA guns. B. Coordinate the torpedo bombers attacks with dive bombers and fighter escorts. The dive bombers will draw the CAP aircraft up to them, and then the torpedo bombers can sneak in below. If this does not work, then the result is what happened at Midway with VT-3, VT-6 and VT-8. They were destroyed due to lack of coordination. No matter how fast the torpedo bomber flies or how high, it always has to drop to the deck and slow down, making it vulnerable. This is why the US Navy used dive bombers more, they were inherently safer. planes blow up anyway, so if you used oxygen torpedos which can have a range of over 20,000 yards, could that work?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 18, 2017 21:14:12 GMT -6
wow
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 18, 2017 21:12:08 GMT -6
I can stop thinking about the FCM-2 whenever I see you're shipyard skyblazer
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 18, 2017 21:09:19 GMT -6
somebody had to carry the bomb, bad luck for the ship that did The bomb had already been delivered and the Indianapolis was ordered to sail, alone in submarine infested waters to Guam, then to the Philippines to prepare for the invasion of Japan. She should have been escorted. o
|
|