Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Belgium does not secede from The Netherlands.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
    I,for one, get the impression that you just like to imagine Britain "trounced" and delight in concocting far-fetched scenarios that might have brought that eventuality about.

    For a change ,how about using your fertile imagination and coming up with a scenario where the British actually win ?

    (And the one quality the Boer Commandoes had in both the Transvaal War and 2nd South African War was mobility ,their most effective trait).
    Look at the thread where the allies prepare to occupy Denmark on the first day of WW II. Also Pantelleria+Sardinia instead of Libya+Greece and a while ago about not abandoning Calais and Dunkirk and trouncing Guderians tin tanks with French and British naval guns, instead of allowing him to reach the coast and advance along it. There was also one about following Keyes plan in Norway during the German invasion.

    I'm also implying that the British may not have been trounced in Isandlwana, had they used quick fire Hotchkiss guns and Winchester or even Henry rifles, instead of Muzzle loading, 3" rifles and single shot Martini-Henry rifles.

    In Majunga they didn't even have artillery. They would have blasted the Boers from the hilltop with a few Hotchkiss guns.
    Last edited by Draco; 02 Jul 15, 15:02.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Draco View Post
      Look at the thread where the allies prepare to occupy Denmark on the first day of WW II. Also Pantelleria+Sardinia instead of Libya+Greece and a while ago about not abandoning Calais and Dunkirk and trouncing Guderians tin tanks with French and British naval guns, instead of allowing him to reach the coast and advance along it. There was also one about following Keyes plan in Norway during the German invasion.

      I'm also implying that the British may not have been trounced in Isandlwana, had they used quick fire Hotchkiss guns and Winchester or even Henry rifles, instead of Muzzle loading, 3" rifles and single shot Martini-Henry rifles.

      In Majunga they didn't even have artillery. They would have blasted the Boers from the hilltop with a few Hotchkiss guns.
      The British might not have lost Isandlwana if they had formed up in close ranks with artillery support using canister instead of forming a skirmish line with the infantry nearly 6 feet apart relying an rifle fire and shot from the cannon.
      Massed rifle fire versus the Zulu would have worked... It did at Roark's Drift

      Comment


      • #18
        Cannister in a rifle?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Draco View Post
          Cannister in a rifle?
          Canister in a cannon. They had cannons there supporting the regiment...

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Draco View Post
            Look at the thread where the allies prepare to occupy Denmark on the first day of WW II. Also Pantelleria+Sardinia instead of Libya+Greece and a while ago about not abandoning Calais and Dunkirk and trouncing Guderians tin tanks with French and British naval guns, instead of allowing him to reach the coast and advance along it. There was also one about following Keyes plan in Norway during the German invasion.

            I'm also implying that the British may not have been trounced in Isandlwana, had they used quick fire Hotchkiss guns and Winchester or even Henry rifles, instead of Muzzle loading, 3" rifles and single shot Martini-Henry rifles.

            In Majunga they didn't even have artillery. They would have blasted the Boers from the hilltop with a few Hotchkiss guns.
            Fair enough,although I do remember that you once referred to some Battle of Britain pilots in less than flattering terms.

            Actually ,my Great-Grandfather was present at Majuba Hill as a young redcoat stretcher-bearer (2/21st) . The tactical situation was not one that might have been easily solved by artillery support. It was a disaster,certainly, but brought about by faulty terrain intelligence.
            "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
            Samuel Johnson.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Draco View Post
              Cannister in a rifle?
              Draco,
              I know I promised to leave you alone if you got off the US West Coast invasion, but this is ridiculous.
              Quit being so obtuse. The youngest newbie on this site understood the original comment.
              GrandDad says:
              You have some knowledge and enjoy using it, regardless of how you use it, you can be welcome here. This is a Forum. We post Thread ideas then discuss the pros and cons of the point.
              You could find a great many friends here if you'd use your knowledge to support other Threads rather than your own. We are a varied bunch with opinions that can lead to flame wars. However, in my long experience here, a respectful question/response or a bit of humor is always accepted across the Board.
              Story Time: This is the first Forum I ever joined. 8 years ago I was ready to wow the members with my studies and Degrees in areas that included a broad spectrum of the social sciences. The result of my hubris was...let's say a bit bloody. The end game was my realization that a good Forum is not a place that focus' on teaching, but on learning. We post threads based upon something of interest, the OP includes a question, and members use their experience to create a dialogue. From these debates, I have probably learned as much about specific events, then I ever picked up in school.

              Mr Naive says: You have spent hours posting on this Forum. Ergo, you must enjoy the format. Remember, the system only exists if there is a quid-pro-quo. Check out your first alt history post and the various number of members responding. Fast forward to your latest threads and you will see that you are down to a few members that just beat you like baby seals. If you simply continue your present approach, responses will end, you will not be banned, just ignored. The membership would lose your impute on other threads, and that would be a shame.
              Hal
              My Avatar: Ivan W. Henderson Gunner/navigator B-25-26. 117 combat missions. Both Theaters. 11 confirmed kills. DSC.

              Comment


              • #22
                The comment that I was waiting for months...
                That rug really tied the room together

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Draco View Post
                  The secession of Belgium resulted in 2 small, weak countries, which had to support 2 governments, [...]
                  No, there are 4. The Netherlands have 1. The Belgians have 3 - one federal money destroying machine and Flames and Walloons who spend more money fighting each other.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by holly6 View Post
                    Draco,
                    I know I promised to leave you alone if you got off the US West Coast invasion, but this is ridiculous.
                    Quit being so obtuse. The youngest newbie on this site understood the original comment.
                    GrandDad says:
                    You have some knowledge and enjoy using it, regardless of how you use it, you can be welcome here. This is a Forum. We post Thread ideas then discuss the pros and cons of the point.
                    You could find a great many friends here if you'd use your knowledge to support other Threads rather than your own. We are a varied bunch with opinions that can lead to flame wars. However, in my long experience here, a respectful question/response or a bit of humor is always accepted across the Board.
                    Story Time: This is the first Forum I ever joined. 8 years ago I was ready to wow the members with my studies and Degrees in areas that included a broad spectrum of the social sciences. The result of my hubris was...let's say a bit bloody. The end game was my realization that a good Forum is not a place that focus' on teaching, but on learning. We post threads based upon something of interest, the OP includes a question, and members use their experience to create a dialogue. From these debates, I have probably learned as much about specific events, then I ever picked up in school.

                    Mr Naive says: You have spent hours posting on this Forum. Ergo, you must enjoy the format. Remember, the system only exists if there is a quid-pro-quo. Check out your first alt history post and the various number of members responding. Fast forward to your latest threads and you will see that you are down to a few members that just beat you like baby seals. If you simply continue your present approach, responses will end, you will not be banned, just ignored. The membership would lose your impute on other threads, and that would be a shame.
                    Hal
                    I doubt that the youngest newbie knows that one cannot use cannister in the 3", muzzeloading rifles, which predominated in Isandlwana (the balls are forced centrifugally upon leaving the rifled barrel. So only a smooth bore can fire cannister). The 3" rifles fired elongated, explosive shells, not shot as the self proclaimed expert TAG stated and the 3" rifles are far more expensive and heavy and have a much slower rate of fire and more difficult to manhandle in a battle than hotchkiss guns.

                    A single Hotkiss gun would have blown to pieces the Boer sharpshooters over 600 yards below the British position in Majunga in a few minutes. Black powder revealed the shooter's location and a 42 mm shell has a flat trajectory at that range and downhill.
                    Last edited by Draco; 03 Jul 15, 13:26.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Draco View Post
                      I doubt that the youngest newbie knows that one cannot use cannister in the 3", muzzeloading rifles, which predominated in Isandlwana (the balls are forced centrifugally upon leaving the rifled barrel. So only a smooth bore can fire cannister). The 3" rifles fired elongated, explosive shells, not shot as the self proclaimed expert TAG stated and the 3" rifles are far more expensive and heavy and have a much slower rate of fire and more difficult to manhandle in a battle than hotchkiss guns.

                      A single Hotkiss gun would have blown to pieces the Boer sharpshooters over 600 yards below the British position in Majunga in a few minutes. Black powder revealed the shooter's location and a 42 mm shell has a flat trajectory at that range and downhill.
                      Anyone who has studied muzzle loading 19th century cannon for even 10 minutes knows any one of them could and did fire canister. Cannon of that period also fired case (shrapnel) rounds, explosive, and solid shot.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canister_shot

                      Even in WW 1 and 2 some guns fired canister. The US 37mm antitank gun fired canister and was used with it extensively by the USMC in the Pacific.

                      http://www.civilwarartillery.com/shottables.htm

                      notice how on these shot tables canister (and even grape) is listed for rifled cannon.

                      All the rifling does is give a spiral twist to the shot pattern with some of it going high as a result. It doesn't change you can fire canister from a rifled gun.

                      So, once again, Draco proves:

                      1. He has done no research whatsoever on what he's talking about.

                      2. That he, as a result, has no idea what he's talking about.

                      and

                      3. Is totally wrong.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Draco View Post
                        I doubt that the youngest newbie knows that one cannot use cannister in the 3", muzzeloading rifles, which predominated in Isandlwana (the balls are forced centrifugally upon leaving the rifled barrel. So only a smooth bore can fire cannister). The 3" rifles fired elongated, explosive shells, not shot as the self proclaimed expert TAG stated and the 3" rifles are far more expensive and heavy and have a much slower rate of fire and more difficult to manhandle in a battle than hotchkiss guns.

                        A single Hotkiss gun would have blown to pieces the Boer sharpshooters over 600 yards below the British position in Majunga in a few minutes. Black powder revealed the shooter's location and a 42 mm shell has a flat trajectory at that range and downhill.
                        No, it wouldn't.
                        "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                        Samuel Johnson.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          This is the artillery piece used at Islandwanda:

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RML_9_...and_6_cwt_guns


                          http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol035dh.html

                          Military History Journal
                          Vol 3 No 5 - June 1976
                          AMMUNITION ó PART II 9-PR 8 cwt RML
                          by MAJOR DD HALL

                          Shell, RML, shrapnel, 9 pr.
                          It is possible that the fairly extensive use of shrapnel by the Royal Artillery resulted from the number issued to each gun. There were 96 shrapnel shells per gun, compared with 48 common smells and 4 case shot. The shrapnel shell had its interior filled with 63 bullets embedded in resin.
                          Shrapnel was used against scattered troops and skirmishers in open, fairly level ground, beyond the effective range of case. It was considered to be merely case adapted to long ranges. Although the shell could be fired to 3200 m (3500 yds) at 11deg 27min elevation, the time fuze was effective only to 9 seconds which meant a shrapnel range of only 2 650 m (2 900 yds).


                          Shot, RML, case, 9 pr
                          According to the Gun Drill, case was to be used against infantry or cavalry at very close quarters. It consisted of a tin cylinder filled with 110 bullets of lead, hardened with antimony, packed in clay and sand. On being fired, the cylinder broke up in the bore and the bullets scattered at the muzzle. It was used when the situation was desperate and there was a possibility that the guns would be overrun. Case had a spread of about 45deg with the density of bullets greatest in the centre. This spread gave a lateral coverage of about 115 m (125 yds) at 137 m (150 yds), but thereafter bullets on the fringes fell off sharply in velocity. Coverage was about 27 m (30 yds) at 320 m (350 yds) which was the maximum effective range.

                          In the Zulu War, certainly case was used frequently. At Ulundi for example, the gunners used all their case against an enemy who swept up to within thirty metres of the guns, and they then had to fire reversed shrapnel which had a similar effect. The defenders of Eshowe were equipped with 7 prs but they also experienced a shortage of case shot. It was noticed that Mortonís jam tins exactly fitted the bore and an order went out that, as soon as they were empty, the tins were to be given to the gunners for conversion into case shot!
                          Emphasis mine.


                          Note, in British terminology, canister is called "case" shot.
                          Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 03 Jul 15, 19:52.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Doveton Sturdee View Post
                            All of enormous relevance to the secession of Belgium!

                            In 1977 the Turks used Winchester rifles (much better than the Herny) to repel the Russians in Plevna.

                            I must confess I missed that one. Probably was watching the late night snooker on television instead.
                            I was always an Eddie Charlton man. Loved the hair.
                            Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Redwolf View Post
                              No, there are 4. The Netherlands have 1. The Belgians have 3 - one federal money destroying machine and Flames and Walloons who spend more money fighting each other.

                              No : we have 5 governments

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                                No : we have 5 governments
                                Don't bother - Belgium is a land too intricate for colonials to even grasp,

                                let alone debate the essence of it
                                High The Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.
                                Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor - The Napoleonic Wars Campaign.

                                Captain Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Co.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X