New Government in Holland.

[TexanCowboy]

May be more, but guess how many of them made 6-10 cannon a piece, then called it a day?

[Carthaginian]

Grant could have beaten them with one Confederate and one Yankee army... steamrolling the Prussians.
Lee, and a properly supplied Army of Northern Virginia, could have killed them with a million papercuts.

Moltke could have stopped neither, not even with all his staff... especially if Lee still had Jackson on his.


Also, I'm aware that Stonewall had problems with leaks developing- most of the oceangoing ironclads did- but she gave excellent service to both nations... actually becoming the foundation of the Nippon Kaigun as we know it. Without her, there would have been no sun to rise over the Pacific.

[Laertes]

Given the logistical problems even people as meticulous as McClellan had, let alone the more famous Marching Generals, I doubt very much that an American army could have supplied itself from a Lisbon beachhead all the way to Berlin.

[damocles]

Given the logistical problems even people as meticulous as McClellan had, let alone the more famous Marching Generals, I doubt very much that an American army could have supplied itself from a Lisbon beachhead all the way to Berlin.

Europe had better roads and forage than the US. Sherman would have felt right at home.

[ctwaterman]

But would Europe have felt at home after Sherman got done with it...??????

Realistically Europe has better roads but the USA at least the north had better railroads at the time.   Europe you need to use the Canal and river networks.  In addition the number of river crossings and mountains between Portugal/Spain and Berlin is daunting.

Charles

[damocles]

But would Europe have felt at home after Sherman got done with it...??????

Depends on what he leaves standing.

Realistically Europe has better roads but the USA at least the north had better railroads at the time.   Europe you need to use the Canal and river networks.  In addition the number of river crossings and mountains between Portugal/Spain and Berlin is daunting.

Charles

http://americancivilwar.com/vicks.html

[Kaiser Kirk]

Interesting little discussion

My opinion :
I am not a fan of Sheridan, his handling of the scouting and failures to guide and screen the infantry between the Wilderness and Spotsylvania was not acceptable. Indeed he was reprimanded by Meade, and went whining to Grant. Letting his force get surprised by Early at Cedar Creek is also not accepatable.

He wins acclaim because he beat Stuart at Yellow Tavern, but by that time he had a larger, fresher, veteran force, equipped with repeaters, and did eventually beat Early's much smaller force in the Shenandoah. 

A good Brigadier or Division commander, I don't think he was adequate for independent Corps command, and I simply would not accept his evaluation of army level strategic combat as well thought out and accurate.

As for Grant, I think he was very good, borderline great. Persistance was a virtue, and he appreciated attrition, supply, initiative and mobility. All very good traits in a commander.

But as overall commander , his oversight of the Army of Potomac wound up with Burnside's Corps, Sheridan's Cavalry and the AoP not being well coordinated.  Despite having twice the forces, and better fed and equipped, he suffered heavy losses and was caught in the Wilderness- see above for Spotsylvania, nearly was trapped at North Anna, Cold harbor isn't a feather, though the march to Petersburg was. 

But considering it took 8 weeks from the Start of the Wilderness to Petersburg, a distance far less than Lisbon-Berlin, and against a much smaller force in less defensible terrain... Sheridan's claim is simple BS. 

[damocles]

Interesting little discussion

My opinion :
I am not a fan of Sheridan, his handling of the scouting and failures to guide and screen the infantry between the Wilderness and Spotsylvania was not acceptable. Indeed he was reprimanded by Meade, and went whining to Grant. Letting his force get surprised by Early at Cedar Creek is also not acceptable.

1. No cavalry on Earth could have operated in the Wilderness then and succeeded. The fact that Union cavalry actually tried to pass through that JUNGLE does them credit. I'm surprised that Grant was able to cross the river there and forced Lee back-especially after he, Grant, was badly flanked.
2. Remember that although Sheridan is the premier cavalryman of the Civil War (Forrest? pfui!) he was actually an infantry commander by training. Wilson shares a lot of the blame here for failing to push forward along the correct axes as Meade ordered. The cavalry he, Wilson, commanded got LOST. (No maps). People forget that the US was not mapped well in those days, and that what maps the US Army Corps of Engineers provided as late as 1865 were complete jokes.        
3. The Savo Island Disease(Kasserine Pass Disease if you are the US Army), where the absence of the key American commander at a critical point, and an enemy surprise attack throws the American force's junior commanders into confusion, is certainly present at Cedar Creek, but what was the end result? Sheridan destroyed Early after a meaningless initial reverse. How does Sheridan get the feather here, and Grant get laurels for Shiloh? Give the "Bantam" some credit.

He wins acclaim because he beat Stuart at Yellow Tavern, but by that time he had a larger, fresher, veteran force, equipped with repeaters, and did eventually beat Early's much smaller force in the Shenandoah.

1. The numbers were 2/1 with Stuart having carbine-armed cavalry and no artillery-which artillery Sheridan had, fortunately. The battle was a misuse of Union cavalry in popular history reported, as the AotP desperately needed its screen to slow down the ANV: so the popular view is that the actual raid was pointless.
2. BUT...a. the Confederate cavalry was disrupted at a point where the actual result was that Lee was blind as well as Grant. Stuart was killed (never underestimate the value of propaganda). b. Suppose Rommel had been killed before Auchinleck had to go up into First Alamein? We would be singing the praises of the Auk instead of Monty. Early, as a replacement for the incompetent Stuart, was actually an ANV command improvement as Arnim or Thoma might have been over Rommel in the DAK! Command disruption is a valid victory outcome here. The morale difference here achieved, was also crushing. The Confederate cavalry now knew it was whipped, and would never beat Sheridan-ever.      
2. See my comment about Cedar Creek.    

A good Brigadier or Division commander, I don't think he was adequate for independent Corps command, and I simply would not accept his evaluation of army level strategic combat as well thought out and accurate.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/SheridanShenadoah.htm

You are wrong.

As for Grant, I think he was very good, borderline great. Persistance was a virtue, and he appreciated attrition, supply, initiative and mobility. All very good traits in a commander.

I already said that the Germans would beat Grant. Nothing I've seen here changes that assessment.

But as overall commander , his oversight of the Army of Potomac wound up with Burnside's Corps, Sheridan's Cavalry and the AoP not being well coordinated.  Despite having twice the forces, and better fed and equipped, he suffered heavy losses and was caught in the Wilderness- see above for Spotsylvania, nearly was trapped at North Anna, Cold harbor isn't a feather, though the march to Petersburg was.

1. The PDF I cited earlier explains what he was up against as to the art of war. The miracle is that with Granny Lee throwing up earthworks everywhere that Grant still turned those works no less than eleven times and kept driving Lee back. The casualties were 2 attackers for every defender, as opposed to the 7-1 expected.

But considering it took 8 weeks from the Start of the Wilderness to Petersburg, a distance far less than Lisbon-Berlin, and against a much smaller force in less defensible terrain... Sheridan's claim is simple BS.  

What about from the German border to Paris with a bumbler like Nappie III as defender/commander? Sheridan was qualified to make the call. I don't agree with him, but he was a proven general. If Burnside had said it, then I would agree with you as to incompetence.    

[TexanCowboy]

If it took 6 weeks for Grant to hit Cold Harbor, a distance of maybe 150 miles from D.C., how long do you think it would take him to hit Berlin, at least 650 miles from Lisbon, with at least 8x more troops against him.

[damocles]

The same time it took him from Cairo, Illinois, from where he started; to get to Richmond.

[Carthaginian]

The same time it took him from Cairo, Illinois, from where he started; to get to Richmond.

LOL... you either underestimate the value of supplies, or greatly overestimate Grant's abilities.
Remember that by the time that Sherman was turned loose on the Confederates were suffering from massive shortages- it's the only way that Sherman managed to make the headway that he did into the Deep South. Had the Confederates been as well-supplied as the Germans would be on their home turf... well, Sherman likely wouldn't make it into Spain, much less to Berlin.

Contra-wise, had the Confederates been properly supplied, Grant would have never made Richmond. I know from family writings what kind of situation that Confederate forces in the area were facing- Grant was simply slitting the throat of an animal already mortally wounded. The Confederate Army would have been defeated by starvation and material shortages in only a few months had Lee not surrendered. I think all the 'Miracles' you attribute to Grant's genius in earlier posts are more likely the fault of Confederate supply shortages than the natural talent of Grant.

[damocles]

I already said that the Germans would beat Grant. Nothing I've seen here changes that assessment.

The same time it took him from Cairo, Illinois, from where he started; to get to Richmond.

LOL... you either underestimate the value of supplies, or greatly overestimate Grant's abilities.
Remember that by the time that Sherman was turned loose on the Confederates were suffering from massive shortages- it's the only way that Sherman managed to make the headway that he did into the Deep South. Had the Confederates been as well-supplied as the Germans would be on their home turf... well, Sherman likely wouldn't make it into Spain, much less to Berlin.

Contra-wise, had the Confederates been properly supplied, Grant would have never made Richmond. I know from family writings what kind of situation that Confederate forces in the area were facing- Grant was simply slitting the throat of an animal already mortally wounded. The Confederate Army would have been defeated by starvation and material shortages in only a few months had Lee not surrendered.

1. The PDF I cited earlier explains what he was up against as to the art of war. The miracle is that with Granny Lee throwing up earthworks everywhere that Grant still turned those works no less than eleven times and kept driving Lee back. The casualties were 2 attackers for every defender, as opposed to the 7-1 expected.

Quote

But considering it took 8 weeks from the Start of the Wilderness to Petersburg, a distance far less than Lisbon-Berlin, and against a much smaller force in less defensible terrain... Sheridan's claim is simple BS.

What about from the German border to Paris with a bumbler like Nappie III as defender/commander? Sheridan was qualified to make the call. I don't agree with him, but he was a proven general. If Burnside had said it, then I would agree with you as to incompetence.

I too have family papers, from great great gramps, from Shiloh to Vicksburg; that describes how Grant started to cut that throat.

[damocles]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Clankety clankety.

Major Hind, fresh back from his little trip, watches the contraption forge the artificial river (a canal) at the Namur test range.  
"Where's Colonel Geiner? This is his project." he asks.
POM! POM! POM! POM! POM! POM!
The BRNO representative replies: "He's missing along with van Seik; otherwise I would talk to them, instead of someone like you."
Majoor Hind , swallowing hios anger: "Okay, so talk to me. Why this machine? I thought you, idiots, worked on the Mark IV. This seems sort of 'odd' based  on what we learned in exercises, before I left. I thought we decided that armored cars were cheaper and better than pantserettes for us, and that we would try for an in-between wagen as a standard pantserwagen instead of the GBW Is?"
BRNO flake: "We need to get something out to the NOI troopen now the way things go . Besides we need it elsewhere for you know what."
Hind: "Well that explains all the crude flat square plates, all those bolts, instead of rivets, and the very simple rolled sheet steel over the steel box construction I see. I suppose the BRNO engine you use is an aircraft inline six?"
BRNO flake: "Actually its an MK, Zhandong V-6 aero-engine..." Embarrassed: "The MK are ahead of us in ICE tech as well as small arms...you see..."
   
     

[Carthaginian]

I too have family papers, from great great gramps, from Shiloh to Vicksburg; that describes how Grant started to cut that throat.

The throat wasn't cut by Grant... the Union Navy wielded the knife.
*sigh*
Without the naval blockade, Grant would have simply thrown masses of men against superior tactics and well-supplied troops. The War Between the States would have been more akin to murder than war had the Confederacy been able to supply from Europe. It was bad enough for the Union even with the Confederate armies under-supplied, starving, and barefoot; Confederate forces still inflicted more casualties and won more battles.

You are apparently misunderstanding what I'm saying- you're saying Grant would loose to the Germans.
I'm saying that Grant would die on the beaches without ever getting to wipe the sand off his boots.


That being said... the tank looks like someone tried to build a Bradley AFV in 1920.

[damocles]

I too have family papers, from great great gramps, from Shiloh to Vicksburg; that describes how Grant started to cut that throat.

The throat wasn't cut by Grant... the Union Navy wielded the knife.
*sigh*

Who was it that suggested to Porter to run the Vicksburg batteries? Who was it that conducted the Port Royal landings and managed the campaign against Johnson towards Jackson?  
 
http://www.nps.gov/history/abpp/battles/ms008.htm

Without the naval blockade, Grant would have simply thrown masses of men against superior tactics and well-supplied troops. The War Between the States would have been more akin to murder than war had the Confederacy been able to supply from Europe. It was bad enough for the Union even with the Confederate armies under-supplied, starving, and barefoot; Confederate forces still inflicted more casualties and won more battles.

http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1257

What blockade was that again, sir?

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-6f.htm

CSS Florida.

You are apparently misunderstanding what I'm saying- you're saying Grant would loose to the Germans. I'm saying that Grant would die on the beaches without ever getting to wipe the sand off his boots.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/VicksburgCampaignAprilJuly63.png

Let me ALSO quote someone.

Grant could have beaten them with one Confederate and one Yankee army... steamrolling the Prussians.
Lee, and a properly supplied Army of Northern Virginia, could have killed them with a million papercuts.

Moltke could have stopped neither, not even with all his staff... especially if Lee still had Jackson on his.

Also, I'm aware that Stonewall had problems with leaks developing- most of the oceangoing ironclads did- but she gave excellent service to both nations... actually becoming the foundation of the Nippon Kaigun as we know it. Without her, there would have been no sun to rise over the Pacific.

That being said... the tank looks like someone tried to build a Bradley AFV in 1920.

That tank was based off the Fiat 2000 with a couple of design changes as noted here:

The Italians built one in 1917 called the Fiat 2000.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Italy/ItalianTanks.html

Lighten by ten tons, and cut down the top deck by one full meter with the same engine. Use a Holt tractor as the underdesign.

Fiat 2000 - Model 17

The first Italian tank. It was conceived by Fiat as a private venture in October 1916. The first prototype was ready in June 1917. Fiat donated 2 tanks to Italian Army in February 1918. Total production until the end of 1919. encompassed 6 vehicles. Arguably the finest heavy tank built in WW1 and a great "what if...". The Fiat 2000 never saw combat. For more detail, go to: TANKS! e-Magazine Winter 2001 Issue #2
Specifications Crew     10
Engine     240hp - gasoline
Weight     40 tons
Speed     4.5 - 6mph (depending on the source)
Armament     6 x MG, 1 x 65mm Main Gun
Length     24' 3"
Width     10' 2"
Height     12' 5"
Armor     15 - 20mm.

Not too far off for something with only a half-inch of armor... speed or otherwise.
Easily knocked out by anything over a .50 caliber round, but a real pain in the ass for infantry to handle alone (as heavy machine guns were still kind of 'special' about now).