History of Byzantium in the 19th Century.

[Tanthalas]

Is not a debate about what sort of gun the cannon-fodder carry only marginally more important then what sort of swords they get?
I think an army with smoothbore muskets supported by QF-artillery will hands down beat an army with SLR;s and muzzle-loading artillery. Since 16th century artillery has been the main battlefield killer, and is the arm that matters.

Initialy your quite right, atleast in Europe and eastern NA, as the rules work (atleast as I understand them atm) it realy dosnt matter what weapons you say your army uses its all just Fluff (although I enjoy Fluff especialy about my Army) any 2 units of say 1895 infantry are esentialy identical (so it will come down to the guy giving the orders realy if numbers are even marginaly equal).

Anyway im done posting in this thread its suposed to be for Mike to post his backstory stuff and IMHO we have totaly hijacked it

[miketr]

Tanthalas its no problem Carthaginian's fire and brimstone post confused me more than anything.

Just to clear up if you want to do a story about the M1895 Colt-Browning machine gun being R&D for your nation that is fine.  Very late 1880's first design, early 1890's pro-types and then in 1895 the design model is finished.  The next 10 years or whenever you get the 1905 tech the gun is around but is in very limited use.  Could be budget reasons, could lack of tactics to make use of weapon, big headed response of higher command, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1895_Colt-Browning_machine_gun
The M1895 was used in several battles in the Philippines and Cuba.
Gatlings were also extensively use in both conflicts.

The fact that idiots in power were slow to adopt them is not an issue... the real fact is that people in the U.S. Military actually sprung for them ON THEIR OWN NICKLES because they were so useful. They were not experimental models, they were not in limited production, and they were not fulkl of unrealized potential.

We are not dealing with old hide-bound military structures here.
The North American nations are, by and large, like the United States military... young, forming new tactics for a new environment, and developing the kind of organizational structures that were already set in stone in European nations. Heck, Acadia (which will have no automatic weapons that don't have cranks) will only be 10 years old at the start of the sim.

They will naturally be more open to new ideas than nations like Byzantium, if they are role-played correctly. :D

This needs to be said... In military terms the United States was a military backwater through much of the 19th century.  Even the USN the most advanced and respected of US military services was never considered great power till the end of the 19th century and far longer for it to clear take Neptune's Trident. 

The USA of today is not the USA of 1944 or the USA of 1904 or of 1874 and so on.

Now lets look at your example in more detail.

http://www.spanamwar.com/Coltmachinegun.htm

Notice something?  Its a couple of MG's total out of an invasion force of what?  10K, 15K or 20K?  Its experimental the US army didn't even want the things which you yourself admit but don't see the significance of.

Now as to your other statement, it didn't have any unrealized potential.  What sort of tactics are we seeing it used with?  The examples show it being used as a purely static and defensive role.  While useful its actual role is highly limited, its was a stepping stone.  Each stepping stone builds the knowledge base, refines the TACTICS and so increases the utility of the weapon.

Once again its one thing to have a neat weapon its another to get the full effect out of it.  The USA was NOT getting the full effect out of that weapon.

Check out the following besides On Infantry

http://www.amazon.com/Kaisers-Army-Politics-Technology-1870-1918/dp/0195179455/
http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Studies-International-History-Politics/dp/0691015953

If you read the books or others on change in military tactics / technology there is a clear learning curve for weapons.  So sorry and no, the Colt Browning is neither a fully refined MG, in wide spread use nor do the tactics exists to get the full potential out of it.

Michael

[miketr]

Is not a debate about what sort of gun the cannon-fodder carry only marginally more important then what sort of swords they get?
I think an army with smoothbore muskets supported by QF-artillery will hands down beat an army with SLR;s and muzzle-loading artillery. Since 16th century artillery has been the main battlefield killer, and is the arm that matters.

Initialy your quite right, atleast in Europe and eastern NA, as the rules work (atleast as I understand them atm) it realy dosnt matter what weapons you say your army uses its all just Fluff (although I enjoy Fluff especialy about my Army) any 2 units of say 1895 infantry are esentialy identical (so it will come down to the guy giving the orders realy if numbers are even marginaly equal).

Anyway im done posting in this thread its suposed to be for Mike to post his backstory stuff and IMHO we have totaly hijacked it

In a nut shell yes.

Michael

[Carthaginian]

This needs to be said... In military terms the United States was a military backwater through much of the 19th century.  Even the USN the most advanced and respected of US military services was never considered great power till the end of the 19th century and far longer for it to clear take Neptune's Trident. 

Notice something?  Its a couple of MG's total out of an invasion force of what?  10K, 15K or 20K?  Its experimental the US army didn't even want the things which you yourself admit but don't see the significance of.

Uhm... backwater- sure, who cares about the 'backwater' part.
Marginalization is an attempt at distraction... I am aware of the history of the US Army, having worked for them an all.
Notice that the word 'Gatlings' always showed up in my discussions as well as 'Colt?' Also, you are looking at the entire force; the only unit I have info on as having rapid-fire weapons was the 1st US Vols... which carried no less than FIVE rapid-fire weapons for 1060 men: two Colt's and three Gatlings in .30-40 Kraig. They did eventually loan the Colts out to someone else later, and one of their Gatlings farther on- but they basically hit upon the German tactic direct infantry use of machine guns about 20 years early.

Now as to your other statement, it didn't have any unrealized potential.

http://www.amazon.com/Kaisers-Army-Politics-Technology-1870-1918/dp/0195179455/
http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Studies-International-History-Politics/dp/0691015953

If you read the books or others on change in military tactics / technology there is a clear learning curve for weapons.  So sorry and no, the Colt Browning is neither a fully refined MG, in wide spread use nor do the tactics exists to get the full potential out of it.

There is a learning curve for any weapon... but it's not something that took decades to realize- people were using it very, very effectively within a few years of it's introduction. We were not seeing the kind of full-on maneuver warfare that one sees after the introduction of the Lewis or Bren- but we ARE seeing infantry advances covered by forward-positioned machine guns, and even limited movement of those weapons to support the advance. Are the tactics refined to the point of what I learned to use with my SAW - NO. Are their tactics evidently different than the near trench warfare that the US Military had previously engaged with during the latter part of the War Between the States - oh, heck yeah.

So, yes, this is an effective use of automatic weapons... and they are spread throughout the world at this time. They are limited in number as much due to the fact that battles in this time period are generally small as they are to the fact that the weapon wasn't effective. People are learning how to use the weapon- but this does not stop it from being effective, a clear game-changer, and desired enough that soldiers would spend their own money to have them along (if the money was available).

[miketr]

This needs to be said... In military terms the United States was a military backwater through much of the 19th century.  Even the USN the most advanced and respected of US military services was never considered great power till the end of the 19th century and far longer for it to clear take Neptune's Trident. 

Notice something?  Its a couple of MG's total out of an invasion force of what?  10K, 15K or 20K?  Its experimental the US army didn't even want the things which you yourself admit but don't see the significance of.

Uhm... backwater- sure, who cares about the 'backwater' part.
Marginalization is an attempt at distraction... I am aware of the history of the US Army, having worked for them an all.
Notice that the word 'Gatlings' always showed up in my discussions as well as 'Colt?' Also, you are looking at the entire force; the only unit I have info on as having rapid-fire weapons was the 1st US Vols... which carried no less than FIVE rapid-fire weapons for 1060 men: two Colt's and three Gatlings in .30-40 Kraig. They did eventually loan the Colts out to someone else later, and one of their Gatlings farther on- but they basically hit upon the German tactic direct infantry use of machine guns about 20 years early.

Not really first of all it was what it was.  An isolated unit and not policy.

Second the Gatlings were USA Armies, 10th Cav Buffalo Soldiers I believe.

Third they attacked the defenders how is this any different than establishing a base of fire with any other weapon?  Massed Rifle Fire, Artillery, Mortar or a MG?  Attempting to used a crew served weapon to suppress the defenders is nothing new.  Lee tried it at Gettysburg before Pickets Charge and many, many other battles.

Fourth even if it was as you say the US Army forget getting to Stormtroop tactics 20 years before the Germans in a hurry.  Once again it was NOT policy, at best a stepping stone in the evolution of warfare.

Over all you are spouting not historic record but folk version.  Teddy Roosevelt was a powerful man with powerful friends in government and the world.  He used this to get the 1st Vol very well equipped and then he and others put out a highly skewed version of events.

The 10th Cav and not the 1st Volunteer did the heavy lifting.  Yes they (1st Vol) played their part but its VERY over rated.

Basic question what hill did the 1st Vol charge up and what hill are they remembered to have charged up?  Two different hills and two different versions of events.  It helped that Teddy was rich and well known while the 10th was a black unit.

As to getting the 2 MG's it was not out of some innate insight into the value of massed fire.  It was to be blunt fan boy love of the newest military tech with no consideration of what to do with it.  Its no different than ABC nations engaging in a naval arms race, it was classic me too!  Me too!  Big nations have BB's so we will have them also. 

Now as to your other statement, it didn't have any unrealized potential.

http://www.amazon.com/Kaisers-Army-Politics-Technology-1870-1918/dp/0195179455/
http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Studies-International-History-Politics/dp/0691015953

If you read the books or others on change in military tactics / technology there is a clear learning curve for weapons.  So sorry and no, the Colt Browning is neither a fully refined MG, in wide spread use nor do the tactics exists to get the full potential out of it.

There is a learning curve for any weapon... but it's not something that took decades to realize- people were using it very, very effectively within a few years of it's introduction. We were not seeing the kind of full-on maneuver warfare that one sees after the introduction of the Lewis or Bren- but we ARE seeing infantry advances covered by forward-positioned machine guns, and even limited movement of those weapons to support the advance. Are the tactics refined to the point of what I learned to use with my SAW - NO. Are their tactics evidently different than the near trench warfare that the US Military had previously engaged with during the latter part of the War Between the States - oh, heck yeah.

So, yes, this is an effective use of automatic weapons... and they are spread throughout the world at this time. They are limited in number as much due to the fact that battles in this time period are generally small as they are to the fact that the weapon wasn't effective. People are learning how to use the weapon- but this does not stop it from being effective, a clear game-changer, and desired enough that soldiers would spend their own money to have them along (if the money was available).

As to the rest you have at last figured out the point I am trying make.  The point is there are more than just military gear to make an army.  Training (unit quality) and tactics are just as important if not more so than the gear that equipped it.  The Germans in WW1 and WW2 had some very fine weapons but many highly mediocre ones also.  What setup them apart was their tactical skill and training; that and a ruthless instinct for the jugular.  Just crap long term strategic insight but this was a feature and not of bug of the Prussian - German military system back to Frederick the Great it was all win, NOW, NOW.

Michael   

[TexanCowboy]

Actually, I expect the more "established" nations wouldn't be that good in that regard. Me and Foxy, for example, might be a little more innovative than Byzantium, but not much. Same goes for NERF and UCAS.

[Carthaginian]

As to the rest you have at last figured out the point I am trying make.  The point is there are more than just military gear to make an army.  Training (unit quality) and tactics are just as important if not more so than the gear that equipped it.  The Germans in WW1 and WW2 had some very fine weapons but many highly mediocre ones also.  What setup them apart was their tactical skill and training; that and a ruthless instinct for the jugular.  Just crap long term strategic insight but this was a feature and not of bug of the Prussian - German military system back to Frederick the Great it was all win, NOW, NOW.

And you are saying what I am...

Younger nations are more likely to be innovative than old ones.
Deseret will probably be the MOST likely nation to jump of the inventions of their native son. They also have V-A-S-T amounts of open space, perfect for extended killing grounds,and per-prepared firing positions to allow mobility for the guns to shift emplacements under cover of fire from either cooperating guns or infantry fire. They would also be more likely to use the 'daring' and 'undeveloped' techniques, refine them faster and actually lead the way in developing the tactics for said weapons.

As for the battle of San Juan Hill:

Colonel Wood was in charge of the 10th AND the 1st Vol Cav, meaning that whoever the revolvers belonged to, they were used in unison with ALL the forces under his command, supporting both units in addition to the 1st Cav regulars.

I am also very well aware of the charge on Kettle Hill, and the unnecessary and dangerous flanking maneuver that allowed Teddy to truthfully claim that he had made his way up San Juan Hill- albeit after the fighting had died down.
But I am also aware of Trooper Langdon's account:
"We were exposed to the Spanish fire, but there was very little because just before we started, why, the Gatling guns opened up at the bottom of the hill, and everybody yelled, "The Gatlings! The Gatlings!" and away we went. The Gatlings just enfiladed the top of those trenches. We'd never have been able to take Kettle Hill if it hadn't been for Parker's Gatling guns."

Mike- 'policy' doesn't make battles.
Policy is determined by battles- unless you are following the Soviet style of command, in which case the policy does dictate the battle... although, if they found something successful, even the Sovs would allow for changes to The Holy Plan (though you generally had to get to Army Group level to obtain permission to deviate). The more successful military units are the ones that innovate, not the ones that wait for 'higher up' to let them do it officially.

'Field Expedient Modification' - my favorite phrase in the English language.