|
SeanBeansShako posted:So the idea of the Victorian British doing anything military intervention wise like joining with either side in the US Civil War just seems adorable and silly. The Indian Mutiny caught them on the hop and the Crimean War was a slogfest now. I can't imagine they'd have anyone that insane or title hungry enough to do such a thing. At least in our own history. By "military intervention wise" I'm guessing you mean an invasion. In case you don't (because military intervention can take all sorts of shapes) I'll just say that it's not any kind of secret that William Gladstone and Lord Russell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary respectively, both advocated heavily for intervention. To whit, on October 7, 1862, Gladstone declared in a public speech that "We know quite well that the people of the Northern States have not yet drunk of the cup [of defeat] — they are still trying to hold it far from their lips — which all the rest of the world see they nevertheless must drink of. We may have our own opinions about slavery; we may be for or against the South; but there is no doubt that Jefferson Davis and other leaders of the South have made an army; they are making, it appears, a navy; and they have made, what is more than either, they have made a nation." This is tantamount to officially recognizing the CSA. When the issue of intervention came to Parliament, the Secretary of War, George Cornwall Lewis, advised strongly against it and it was struck down. War was certainly unlikely given Lewis' staunch opposition but to think no-one in the government wanted it is naive. Incidentally, Russia was possibly the Union's closest ally, and that alliance helped check Anglo-French interventionism.
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:By "military intervention wise" I'm guessing you mean an invasion. To be honest, I'm not sure quite how you get from that speech to 'and therefore we'll start shooting at the North'...
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Watch as the US Navy tries to answer the question: How many missiles and torpedoes does it take to get to the center of a decommissioned US frigate? This is straight war porn, with the faking part and everything. And I'm loving it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 13:34
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:By "military intervention wise" I'm guessing you mean an invasion. Yeah pretty much, sending an actual armed force of soldiers to take some ground with naval support really.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:To be honest, I'm not sure quite how you get from that speech to 'and therefore we'll start shooting at the North'... I was specifically talking about things other than invasion, such as supplying arms and ships. You can still get into a shooting war over that, and probably would have given that the Federal Government treated the war as an internal matter. Internal affairs have very different diplomatic significance to a war between nations. Hell, the American ambassador to London threatened war over the building of ironclad steam rams in the UK for the Confederacy. The European powers could also provide themselves with further pretext to intervene by proposing a ceasefire, which would either be rejected by the Union and thus give pretext for war, or be accepted and thus allow the South to remain separate and cement its legitimacy. The French and British would then have free reign to intervene.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Yes and I'm interested in the details on the mythos and hearsay. Same, and yes, it was a very interesting read. Thanks for posting it!
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I was specifically talking about things other than invasion, such as supplying arms and ships. You can still get into a shooting war over that, and probably would have given that the Federal Government treated the war as an internal matter. Internal affairs have very different diplomatic significance to a war between nations. Hell, the American ambassador to London threatened war over the building of ironclad steam rams in the UK for the Confederacy. It's quite a leap from "I'm going to sell you poo poo" to "I'm going to assemble an expeditionary force"
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:To be honest, I'm not sure quite how you get from that speech to 'and therefore we'll start shooting at the North'... The Union insisted that formal political recognition of the Confederacy as an independent nation would be equivalent to an act of war against the Union, so that speech came pretty close to "and therefore the North will start shooting at us" territory. As for "intervention", you're stuck thinking of it in 20th-century terms. A British intervention in the Civil War would likely have been done with the objective of forcing an end to the war, not crushing the Union, and would be primarily economic rather than military (although since a likely response would be a Union invasion of Canada, there would almost certainly be a shooting war as a result).
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Watch as the US Navy tries to answer the question: How many missiles and torpedoes does it take to get to the center of a decommissioned US frigate? That's pretty loving impressive. Okay, some of the hits were with small missiles, and everything that was flammable or explosive had been removed, but the inventory used looks to have been: 4x Harpoon 3x Hellfire 1x Mk84 1x GBU-12 1x Mk48 ADCAP Interesting contrast to USS Caron, a vessel of twice the Thach's displacement, where they set a 500lb charge off in the engine room to collect weapon-effects data, but inadvertently sank the ship, sending all the data recorders and data to the bottom. The FFGs were tough little ships. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Jul 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:As for "intervention", you're stuck thinking of it in 20th-century terms. A British intervention in the Civil War would likely have been done with the objective of forcing an end to the war, not crushing the Union, and would be primarily economic rather than military (although since a likely response would be a Union invasion of Canada, there would almost certainly be a shooting war as a result). Rodrigo said earlier 'In case you don't (because military intervention can take all sorts of shapes)'. That's what we've been talking about here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:It's quite a leap from "I'm going to sell you poo poo" to "I'm going to assemble an expeditionary force" Please tell me where I said they would assemble an expeditionary force. Edit: They would garrison Canada, as Pain Mainframe suggests, but I don't know enough about Union war plans or British to say what that war would be like. I'd definitely expect combat at sea, given the blockade. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Jul 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Rodrigo said earlier 'In case you don't (because military intervention can take all sorts of shapes)'. That's what we've been talking about here. This sounds like a disagreement over the definition of "military intervention", given that Rodrigo has already cited "supplying arms and ships" as an example of something that he considers to be a military intervention.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That's pretty loving impressive. I think a couple of them were SM-6s. That's a lot of money hitting that poor ship. Also the exercise was really more like "how many things can we shoot this ship with and not sink it", which seems like a fun challenge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Did the ADCAP even sink it in the end? Pretty obviously a mission kill, since I doubt it could sail in that condition without inducing massive flooding, but I was still impressed by how happily it seemed to keep floating there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 17:28
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
How does that Frigate compare to the destroyers and destroyer escorts at Samar?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Fangz posted:How does that Frigate compare to the destroyers and destroyer escorts at Samar? Kind of similarly, the principles of proper subdivision have been well understood for a very long time, the DD/DE's at Samar were about half the tonnage or less of that frigate, but survived significant amounts of fire, the Johnston (a DD) survived 3 hits from 14 inch shells, those shells weigh around 700 kg, which is roughly three times as large as the warhead on a harpoon (though a lot more of the weight on the shell will be the casing rather than the explosive filler i would imagine), as well as several 6 inch shell hits and managed to escape into a squall, repair and rejoin the fight (where it was unsuprisingly later sunk by the entire Japanese force shooting at it.) The Perry is a suprisingly tough ship given that with some excellent damage control efforts after hitting a mine that broke the keel in the persian gulf the Samuel B Roberts managed to stay afloat and able to fight until it could receive help. If you look at ships in the Falkands war that were sunk, the Sheffields main cause of sinking was the fact that the missile severed the fire main and set the ship on fire, the Antelope lost electrical power and had detonations in its magazines, the Ardent had uncontrollable fires, and the Coventry was hit by a particularly lucky bomb that breached the bulkhead between the two largest subdivisions. Its really hard to actually sink a properly designed modern ship without blowing up its magazine, setting it on fire or breaking its back as long as it has power and men to run damage control, if it doesnt sink quickly it isnt likely to sink at all if damage control can continue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Its really hard to actually sink a properly designed modern ship without blowing up its magazine, setting it on fire or breaking its back as long as it has power and men to run damage control, if it doesnt sink quickly it isnt likely to sink at all if damage control can continue. Kinda makes me wonder if the most modern ships that cut down on the crew by automating stuff are actually that much of a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 18:12
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:By "military intervention wise" I'm guessing you mean an invasion. A lot of liberals in the cabinet and elsewhere were sympathetic to the South because they ideologically believed in a right to self-determination; that limited support totally evaporated once emancipation was the announced program of the North. It, in any event, would never have added up to military involvement, which was the original topic. In that sense any involvement would be time limited. In any event, while the British were content to sell arms to the South but they weren't doing it as a pretext for further involvement. The ball was in the Union's court to make it a shooting match. Luckily cooler heads prevailed. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jul 19, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Kinda makes me wonder if the most modern ships that cut down on the crew by automating stuff are actually that much of a good idea. The way I've heard it was merchies could run around with minimum crew and not a ton of make-work, but fighting ships needed a good supply of expendable crew to make sure there were enough left over for damage control, et cetera. (Also to supply enough "rations" in event of disaster.  )
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Remember also that there was a serious interest in the UK in seeing the US cut down to size a bit....they saw the writing on the wall for the US to become a superpower over the next couple of decades and the two countries weren't exactly on good terms at the time. A lot of British politicians saw a divided America as a very good thing in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Did the ADCAP even sink it in the end? Pretty obviously a mission kill, since I doubt it could sail in that condition without inducing massive flooding, but I was still impressed by how happily it seemed to keep floating there. It got posted in GiP and consensus there is that the ADCAP did sink it, flooding just takes time unless a ship's massively hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Fangz posted:How does that Frigate compare to the destroyers and destroyer escorts at Samar? It's a complicated question. First, a bit bigger. The FFGs are larger than a WWII destroyer by some several hundred tons, and over twice as large as a DE. But those WWII destroyers were being hit by shellfire, not missiles, and missiles carry a lot more explosive weight than shells since they don't have to withstand huge accelerations when they're fired. At the ultimate extreme, a 16" HE shell from an Iowa packs about 150 lbs of explosive, a Harpoon carries three times as much. Then there's the issue is that the FFGs have stuff on board that the WWII ships don't need to worry about; there are no chillwater pipes on a WWII DD that are needed to keep her combat systems cool enough to operate. The fundamental principles of damage control and ship design were pretty well understood in WWII (Well, maybe the Japanese didn't get the memos), and I'd say the largest change between then and now is the understanding of shock damage works, how it breaks things, and how to design ships to withstand it. WWII showed us that most ship incapacitations weren't the result of direct hits that hosed up the hull, but were rather non-contact explosions, with critical systems being knocked out by the shock of a nearby explosion. The Navy really took that to heart and has done a shitload of research on how to harden ships and ship systems against that. In fact, a representative ship of every class needs to be subjected to an FSST, a Full Ship Shock Trial, where they set a big underwater charge off next to a fully-crewed and operational ship to verify that it responds as expected. They just did this off of Jacksonville over the weekend with LCS-6. Explosion was detected as a 3.7-magnitude earthquake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:In fact, a representative ship of every class needs to be subjected to an FSST, a Full Ship Shock Trial, where they set a big underwater charge off next to a fully-crewed and operational ship to verify that it responds as expected. Please tell me they're going to do this with one of the Ford class CVNs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:It got posted in GiP and consensus there is that the ADCAP did sink it, flooding just takes time unless a ship's massively hosed up. If I were guessing there was probably a miss bias in the torpedo shot that intentionally put it on the bow; if a heavyweight torpedo detonated under the stern it would have sunk much more quickly and might've prevented some useful data collection and some killer video.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Please tell me they're going to do this with one of the Ford class CVNs. They have to. Congressional mandate. Navy wanted to wait and use the second one off the line, they were overruled and ordered to carry the test out on the Ford. http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2015/08/11/pentagon-directs-shock-tests-carrier-ford/31479077/ Here's the one they did on the Teddy Roosevelt:  I've posted the one I was tangentially involved in before (They fired this one off a week before I started working for this particular department of NAVSEA, so I got to process data for it. Some of my cow orkers were in the trailers on the fantail, others were in the thirty-eight boat towing the charge.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qiZK_ZIjB4
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
drat, I knew Switzerland had a bunch of hidden/multipurpose bases and such from John McPhee, but this goes beyond a simple "cave full of airbase": http://www.messynessychic.com/2015/06/26/fake-chalets-unmasking-the-bunkers-disguised-as-quaint-swiss-villas/ The one just after the rock-wall doorway, I'm not so sure about. Looks awfully warhammy to me - is it supposed to be a (very large) shrub or something? (No image because they've blocked the free hosts at work again.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Zamboni Apocalypse posted:drat, I knew Switzerland had a bunch of hidden/multipurpose bases and such from John McPhee, but this goes beyond a simple "cave full of airbase": Yeah they have this poo poo all over the place. In the early 2000s some dude took a wrong turn in one of the mountain complexes and found a load of mothballed military equipment circa ww2 era everyone had forgotten about. Milions of swiss francs worth. Also all the highways and bridgea are mined, every village has an underground barracks and it used to be that every new building had to be built with a bomb shelter (these are conveniently perfect humidity and temperature for wine cellars most of the time). Not sure if the latter is still true because Switzerland is in the middle of de-militarisation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:They have to. Congressional mandate. Navy wanted to wait and use the second one off the line, they were overruled and ordered to carry the test out on the Ford. This (or something like it) is what I assume was the cause of the "earthquake" off Daytona earlier this week?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:This (or something like it) is what I assume was the cause of the "earthquake" off Daytona earlier this week? Yep! 3.7 magnitude. They were shock-trialling one of the new littoral combat ships.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Yep! 3.7 magnitude. They were shock-trialling one of the new littoral combat ships. They literally dissolve in water, what possible battle damage could they take without sinking immediately.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:They literally dissolve in water, what possible battle damage could they take without sinking immediately. Shock damage isn't the same as getting hit with an Exocet. This is to make sure pipes don't burst and cables pop loose, doors don't fly open, ammo doesn't fly out of storage, etc. Think near-ish miss versus direct hit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Words I Learned: plesurit- wounded. From French blessure, injury despect- the opposite of "respect," of course
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:They have to. Congressional mandate. Navy wanted to wait and use the second one off the line, they were overruled and ordered to carry the test out on the Ford. Just imagining being the dude who has to ensure that the billion-dollar boat and the shitload of explosives are parked sufficiently far apart is giving me cold sweats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 10:09
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Words I Learned: despect is a word that needs to make a comeback. "Massive despect, bro. That was some of the dumbest poo poo I have ever heard."
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:despect is a word that needs to make a comeback. edit: the verb is despectieren or despetiren or however you want to spell that HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 10:34 on Jul 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
"Despektierlich" is still ever so slightly usable in contemporary Bildungsbürger-German.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:"Despektierlich" is still ever so slightly usable in contemporary Bildungsbürger-German. german is still comparatively boring now
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:german is still comparatively boring now Calling cellphones "Handy" is creative and fun 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Calling cellphones "Handy" is creative and fun it's creative and fun until the soldiers roll into town looking for "handies", then poo poo gets extremely real and bad
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
"I'll give you my handie for a handy" 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 15:17
|
|
