Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Post Civil War US seeks revenge on Great Britain

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Author
Kevinmeath View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 16-May-2011
Location: Ireland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 84
  Quote Kevinmeath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Post Civil War US seeks revenge on Great Britain
    Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 20:55
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Not the Union the US. They almost went to war in the 1840's.

This is interesting. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Rebellion
Almost but not why? USA against Britain 1840 is almost  as bad as as 1868
cymru am byth
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 21:00
How would the Americans take Britain's naval bases in the Caribbean? These were well-defended by shore batteries, Marines and warships anchored nearby
http://www.bermuda-online.org/rnd.htm
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 21:08
No one has a comment on the Red Ruver Rebellion? You all claim the South will revolt but right here is an example of Canada revolting!
Back to Top
Jack Torrance View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 17-Aug-2012
Location: USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 20
  Quote Jack Torrance Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 21:51
Originally posted by Kevinmeath

Britain had Ocean going Iron warships in 1868 not Ironclads.
 
Why does Britain have to blockade the coast to attack American trade?


My posting was directed at two postings made by other members who believe that the RN was capable of blockading the US. The RN was certainly more than capable of attacking US shipping but I don't believe the British government would have risked a war with a large nation such as France if the French insisted on trading with the US. Considering that a blockade of the US was not possible the British government could not legally prevent the French or the Dutch or Spanish from trading with the US.

Having posted my thoughts on the subject however, I think it would have been unwise for the US to have a war with the UK. Neither power could finish each other as the US was too big and powerful for any other nation to defeat it and the UK had the RN and was too far away for the US to defeat it. I was reading about the USN in the years immediately after the Civil War and the number of warships available for duty was something like 250 with only 60 or so in commission. A small number from which to try to make up the difference if the USN was to challenge the RN in the high seas.

On the other hand the coastal and inland waterways I believe were invulnerable to attack by the large British ironclads as I think these large ships probably  had too deep a draft to enter the narrow channels of the coastal inlets, lakes and rivers. During these period I think the US was pretty much self-sufficient when it came to food production and important strategic stuff such as coal, iron-ore, and whatever else was of critical importance in maintaining a nation through hard times. The Confederacy proved during the Civil War that it could put up a good fight for an extended period under much worse circumstances that those the US would face in a war with the UK in 1868.


Back to Top
Jack Torrance View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 17-Aug-2012
Location: USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 20
  Quote Jack Torrance Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 22:02
Originally posted by Nick1986

Originally posted by Jack Torrance

Were ironclads capable of crossing the Atlantic in 1868? If not then I don't see how the RN could place an effective blockade of the very extensive American coast. The US had numerous ironclads that could travel the inland waterways and destroy any number of wooden sail ships of the line if the RN chosed to employ a close to the shore blockade and if the RN had to use an off shore blockade the southern confederacy proved that it was easy to evade a naval blockade until the Union captured Port Royal in South Carolina. With the establishment of a strong naval base at Port Royal the Union could now place ships to blockade just about the entire southern coast from Jacksonville to North Carolina. For the RN to place an effective blockade of the US coast it also had to have a naval base close to shore and strategically placed so as to reduce the time of a ships sailing from and to the home port. Both Bermuda and Nassau could not have served this purpose for the RN blockade fleet as Bermuda is too far into the Atlantic and the Bahamas are too far south and also very vulnerable to capture by an amphibious attack by the US. The only option available for the RN to have the capability of placing an effective blockade of the US east coast then would be to capture at least two inland bases in the Atlantic coast of the US (such as Port Royal, SC and Wilmington, NC) and then hold on to them. IMO, I don't see this happening at any time. I don't see the RN having the strength to capture any territory worthy of being captured or of being able to hold on to such territory in the highly unlikely event of such territory being captured.



The same could be said for the US: even if they advanced into Canada they'd never be able to hold such a vast territory due to resistance from Indians, militias and patriotic colonists. The Brits woudn't need to invade America to win the war, just repel the invasion force as they did in the War of 1812


I don't think the US had to actually occupy all of Canada in order to defeat the British there. All the US had to do was to capture Quebec City and the entrance of the St. Lawrence River and the rest of Canada cannot be supplied or reinforced. By 1868 the US was most capable of capturing Quebec City as there were plenty of veteran troops available for call up and plenty of experienced officers to command them. The US army of 1812 was but a shadow of the possible huge veteran outfit that could be raised in a short period of time to capture Quebec City.
Back to Top
Jack Torrance View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 17-Aug-2012
Location: USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 20
  Quote Jack Torrance Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 22:03
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Where would they get the manpower to repel the massive armies of the Union?


Exactly!
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 19:22
Originally posted by Jack Torrance

Originally posted by Nick1986

Originally posted by Jack Torrance

Were ironclads capable of crossing the Atlantic in 1868? If not then I don't see how the RN could place an effective blockade of the very extensive American coast. The US had numerous ironclads that could travel the inland waterways and destroy any number of wooden sail ships of the line if the RN chosed to employ a close to the shore blockade and if the RN had to use an off shore blockade the southern confederacy proved that it was easy to evade a naval blockade until the Union captured Port Royal in South Carolina. With the establishment of a strong naval base at Port Royal the Union could now place ships to blockade just about the entire southern coast from Jacksonville to North Carolina. For the RN to place an effective blockade of the US coast it also had to have a naval base close to shore and strategically placed so as to reduce the time of a ships sailing from and to the home port. Both Bermuda and Nassau could not have served this purpose for the RN blockade fleet as Bermuda is too far into the Atlantic and the Bahamas are too far south and also very vulnerable to capture by an amphibious attack by the US. The only option available for the RN to have the capability of placing an effective blockade of the US east coast then would be to capture at least two inland bases in the Atlantic coast of the US (such as Port Royal, SC and Wilmington, NC) and then hold on to them. IMO, I don't see this happening at any time. I don't see the RN having the strength to capture any territory worthy of being captured or of being able to hold on to such territory in the highly unlikely event of such territory being captured.



The same could be said for the US: even if they advanced into Canada they'd never be able to hold such a vast territory due to resistance from Indians, militias and patriotic colonists. The Brits woudn't need to invade America to win the war, just repel the invasion force as they did in the War of 1812


I don't think the US had to actually occupy all of Canada in order to defeat the British there. All the US had to do was to capture Quebec City and the entrance of the St. Lawrence River and the rest of Canada cannot be supplied or reinforced. By 1868 the US was most capable of capturing Quebec City as there were plenty of veteran troops available for call up and plenty of experienced officers to command them. The US army of 1812 was but a shadow of the possible huge veteran outfit that could be raised in a short period of time to capture Quebec City.

The Americans would never be able to hold such vast territory: there were many forts garrisoned by professional British soldiers (including Scottish highlanders) in addition to the local militias. The Brits could last for months in these forts while Indian raiders cut off American supply lines and pick off small bands of Yanks. Eventually the Americans would have no choice but to withdraw as the Brits would have had time to mobilise their fleet of seagoing ironclads. These were equipped with 9 inch guns and Somerset cannons that could kill other ironclads and thick armor that kept out anything the Yanks could throw at them. The British would control the sea and bring reinforcements to retake Canada then march south onto American soil
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 19:35
The fact is forts fall. America has the manpower and much easier logistics. The cannon of the time can easily take doen any walls and the garrisons are nowhere near large enough as the US armies are vastly experienced. As for your claims on the armor I want proof. From what I've read the US also had armor piercing shells. Not to mention rams worked even against the most advanced ironclads. Fact is the British can't effectively supply any large invasion force due to its comittments to the colonies and at home. She would also have to have convoys taking up more ships. Not to mention the US navy was plenty large enough to achieve local superiority at any one point. Also the forts were huge and very very hard to fight at sea.
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 19:47
Here you go Delenda: the Minotaur class battleships which entered service in 1867. Her hull was completely encased in iron and boasted a full broadside of rifled guns
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ivnifGibOSEJ:www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/uk/uksh-m/minotr68.htm+minotaur+ironclad&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Edited by Nick1986 - 20-Aug-2012 at 20:18
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 19:55
Your link doesn't work mate,
Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 19:56
Post a quote?
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 20:17
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 20:20
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060
Photo # NH 71225:  HMS Minotaur in port, after 1875

Online Library of Selected Images:
-- SHIPS of the BRITISH NAVY --

HMS Minotaur (Broadside Ironclad, 1867-1922)

HMS Minotaur, a 10,690-ton broadside ironclad built at Blackwall, England, was one of six vessels built to the original British concept of an armored battleship: a very long and relatively fast iron-hulled steamer, carrying an extensive sail rig and a large broadside battery of medium-sized (by emerging standards) guns. She was also one of the three completed with five masts and, with her sister, HMS Agincourt, had her gun deck almost completely coated with iron armor, a longer expanse of protection than fitted to the other four ships of the type.

Minotaur took a long time to reach active service: keel laid in September 1861, launched in December 1863, completed for experimental service in 1865 and commissioned in April 1867 (though some standard sources don't have her completed until December 1868). During the next twenty years, with time out for refit and rearmament in 1873-1875, Minotaur was flagship of the Channel Squadron, flying the flags of a dozen Admirals. Other than the pomp and circumstance of flagship duty, her career was relatively free of notable events. In 1868 she nearly sank HMS Bellerphon in a collision, and in July 1882 missed by a day the Royal Navy's only battleship combat action of her era, the bombardment of Alexandria, Egypt. Present at Spithead during Queen Victoria's Jubilee Naval Review in mid-1887, she was decommissioned at the end of that year.

Now thoroughly obsolete, Minotaur was placed back in service in 1893 as a harbor training ship, first at Portland and, from 1905 to late 1919, at Harwich. As was often the case for such subsidiary service vessels, she was renamed several times, becoming Boscawen II in 1904, Ganges in 1906 and Ganges II in 1908. The old battleship was sold for scrapping in 1922.

Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 20:20
That one also failed.
Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 20:22
Originally posted by Nick1986

<h5>
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060
</h5>

Photo # NH 71225:  HMS Minotaur in port, after 1875

<h3>Online Library of Selected Images:
-- SHIPS of the BRITISH NAVY --</h3>

<h2>HMS <b style="color:black;:#ffff66">Minotaur (Broadside <b style="color:black;:#a0ffff">Ironclad, 1867-1922)</h2>

HMS <b style="color:black;:#ffff66">Minotaur, a 10,690-ton broadside <b style="color:black;:#a0ffff">ironclad
built
at Blackwall, England, was one of six vessels built to the original
British concept of an armored battleship: a very long and relatively
fast iron-hulled steamer, carrying an extensive sail rig and a
large broadside battery of medium-sized (by emerging standards) guns.
She was also one of the three completed with five masts and, with
her sister, HMS Agincourt,
had her gun deck almost completely coated with iron armor, a longer
expanse of protection than fitted to the other four ships of the
type.



<b style="color:black;:#ffff66">Minotaur took a long time to reach active service: keel
laid in September 1861, launched in December 1863, completed for
experimental service in 1865 and commissioned in April 1867 (though
some standard sources don't have her completed until December
1868). During the next twenty years, with time out for refit and
rearmament in 1873-1875, <b style="color:black;:#ffff66">Minotaur was flagship of the Channel
Squadron, flying the flags of a dozen Admirals. Other than the
pomp and circumstance of flagship duty, her career was relatively
free of notable events. In 1868 she nearly sank HMS Bellerphon
in a collision, and in July 1882 missed by a day the Royal Navy's
only battleship combat action of her era, the bombardment of Alexandria,
Egypt. Present at Spithead during Queen Victoria's Jubilee Naval
Review in mid-1887, she was decommissioned at the end of that
year.



Now thoroughly obsolete, <b style="color:black;:#ffff66">Minotaur was placed back in
service in 1893 as a harbor training ship, first at Portland and,
from 1905 to late 1919, at Harwich. As was often the case for
such subsidiary service vessels, she was renamed several times,
becoming Boscawen II in 1904, Ganges in 1906 and
Ganges II in 1908. The old battleship was sold for scrapping
in 1922.



No info on piercing shells or cannons. She had masts a defect?
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 20:23

British Broadside Ironclads - 1860s

Painting of HMS MINOTAUR at sea, ca. 1868
HMS Minotaur of 1868 under full power of sail and screw. To enlarge, click here.

Developing further from the Warrior model, Royal Navy architects created a series of ever-longer ironclad frigates, gradually increasing the size, horsepower, armament, and modern iron hull construction of their designs. These were some of the most imosing ships ever built. With a towering sailing rig to increase their range, the larger vessels spread the greatest area of canvas ever deployed on a British warship. Their haughty demeanor owed much to their beaked bows. Otherwise they were distinguished by two funnels and the presence of openwork bridges for command. A first for these ships was an armored conning tower placed aft between the 4th and 5th masts. While the ram determined the shape of the bow, another noteworthy change took place at the other end of the hull. It was made in response to a defect in the design of the Warrior: the lack of protection for rudder and screw. DNC Reed's solution was to adopt the bluff buttock lines which are well seen here, creating an overhanging stern without the vulnerable, hollow lines seen in the slimmer counter stern characteristic of clipper ships, yachts, and certain ocean liners. And at the bows, these ships curved outwards: they bore a large ram under the surface, like virtually all warships built between 1862 and 1910.

HMS Agincourt of 1868 firing a salute: 2 funnels, 5 mastsAt right, the mighty Agincourt of 1868 fires a thunderous salute in a contemporary postcard (click here to enlarge). At this time, the British fielded a fleet in European waters that no rival could hope to match. Besides the Warrior and her sister, the Black Prince, the Royal Navy roster included six armored frigates of all-iron construction: Achilles, Agamemnon, Minotaur, Valiant, Agincourt, and Northumberland. The Minotaur,launched 1863, was the longest broadside ironclad ever constructed. She was meant to be Britain's "reply" to the French Magenta class battleships. She mounted the same number of guns on one deck as the iron-sheathed wooden French ships carried on two. Britain's broadside ironclads were masterfully constructed ships, and survived 30 or more years' service under the White Ensign before "being sold out of the service" -- a polite euphemism usually involving a trip to the shipbreakers.

Statistics for the 3-ship Minotaur class: Length: 407' Beam: 59'6" Draft: 27'9"; Displacement: 10,690 tons. Armament: (4) 9" MLR; (24) 7" MLR; (8) 24-pdr SB. Propulsion: 2-cyl. Penn Trunk engine, 6700 IHP, shafted to single screw. Speed: 14.8 kts.

HMS Northumberland of 1868, sister ship to Minotaur, made a capital subject for patriotic postcards and other ephemera -- great quality ephemera that have lasted, unexpectedly, down the dusty corridors of Time. This typical period "chromo" shows the ship under full sail and with the boilers also lit. The great length of these ships posed handling and power challenges to designers and to the naval officers entrusted with navigating them. The square rig was one part of these ships that was continually being revamped, from 3 to as many as 6 masts, with masts being moved about in an attempt to optimize performance under sail alone. However, all the reshuffling and re-rigging was in vain; these ships performed wretchedly under sail no matter what was tried. The practise of providing auxiliary sail reached a climax of cynicism a few years later when HMS Inflexible was completed with a full brig rig mainly to exercise the crew in seamanship: the vessel, with its two-foot-thick iron hull, was too heavy to actually move at any speed under sail alone. The sailing rig was removed from Inflexible within 3 years of her commissioning, to be replaced by military masts. Steam engines were gradually catching up to the challenge of propelling very heavy warships at battle speed; but the Inflexible of 1881 could only manage 14 knots on a good day. Lighter-weight steel hulls and triple-expansion engines, rolled out in the later 1880s, provided the solution for both these problems.

Despite their intent as modern mechanized killing machines, 1860s ironsclads retained some naval conventions that seem quaint to us, nearly a century after WWI shot conventional notions of honour into bits and introduced a new way of approaching things. Oak-paneled officer's quarters and chintz curtains -- decorative figureheads and cast-bronze scrollwork were still carried bow and stern as a nod to naval convention. To be sure, these indulgences were carried to more fanciful degrees in certain Continental navies than in the Royal Navy. But indulgences still occasionally erupted in decorative splendor recalling the exuberance of H.M. ships of war in former times. At right is the bow of HMS Minotaur of 1863, the Royal Navy's largest class of broadside ironclads derived from the Warrior. The only things missing were the lion and the unicorn. For a treatise on the survival of figureheads and decorative art into the industrial age, see our figureheads page.

One immediately obvious distinction of the broadside frigates of the 1860s from the Warrior class was the substition for a clipper bow of a outward-curving ram bow. For a discussion of the pluses and minuses of ram warfare in the age of iron and steam, see our discussion of ramming tactics and technology.
One of the logical outgrowths of the ram as a primary battle tactic, was the search for means of shooting straight ahead while making a ramming approach. This was manifestly impossible with the bulk of the ship's guns disposed in broadside fashion. Only a bow chaser mounted on one side or the other of the fo'c'sle head could accomplish this in a traditionally laid-out sailing ship, for one could not shoot through the headsails, vital to maneuvering the ship. Accordingly, the next step was to experiment with a bumped-out battery on the ship's beam, in the first emanations of what would be called the central battery ship. The creation of fore-and-aft cutouts to enable axial fire while minimizing blast damage to the ship, gave the central battery ship its characteristic tall, narrow form, with geometric cutouts and shapes in the hull form that broke dramatically with more curvilinear, sailing ship-based designs of the 1860s armored frigates seen here.


A British Broadside Ironclad Gallery


HMS Northumblerland in towering 3-mast rig, c. 1869.

Gun crew at practice, HMS  MINOTAUR, 1860s

A crack gun crew aboard the Minotaur demonstrates the operation of the 9" Armstrong MLR. As with American Civil War guns, the carriages pivoted to train the guns; iron casters on the inboard end traveled on metal tracks on the deck. Officers watch from the break of the quarterdeck.


HMS Minotaur at Pembroke, in 5-masted ship rig.


HMS Minotaur in 5-mast guise, 1875.

Side view of HMS AGINCOURT
HMS Agincourt in 5-mast rig in port at Malta, 1868.

Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 20:49
No info on the specifics of the cannons or ammo.
Back to Top
Kevinmeath View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 16-May-2011
Location: Ireland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 84
  Quote Kevinmeath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2012 at 06:43
Why are masts a defect? for an ocean going ship of the time it actually seems rather sensible given that coaling stations would have been few and far between.
cymru am byth
Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2012 at 08:41
Yes but in the article it said they were inneffectual at best,
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2012 at 15:17
Delenda, have you been to a Victorian-era fort? These didn't have walls, but thick earth ramparts that absorbed cannon fire. The troops sheltered deep below the earth in bunkers connected with tunnels and were well-supplied with rations that included tinned corn beef, dried peas, plum jam, rum, and crackers that lasted for years. Gun crews returned fire with Armstrong rifled cannons that outranged the Americans' own Napoleons. America did have heavier and more powerful cannons, but these would take time to move into place as they had to be transported by rail or ship
http://www.victorianforts.co.uk/armstrong.htm
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.080 seconds.