| Author |
 Topic  |
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
 Posted - August 11 2005 : 05:39:13 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
[quote]
6. Blather, Wild. One of the reasons soldiers were kept in tight formations despite the pointlessly high casualties throughout our Civil War was so they - including NCO's and drummers - could hear their officers for whatever activity. What I said.
I suspect that had as much to do with tradition and the inflexibility of the Civil War generals rather than anything else. In the era prior to the Civil War, when soldiers were equipped with a flintlock musket which had an effective range of 80-100 yards, and a rate of fire of 2 to 3 rounds per minute, it made sense to concentrate your firepower by massing your troops together. Useful for bayonet charges as well.
Its probably just the same as it was on numerous other occasions, tactics lagging behind the leaps of technology. Another case example would be WWI with its futile massed charges across no mans land, when it should have been blatantly obvious to the higher ups that their tactics were obsolete and had been for quite some time (which would have been obvious had they have studied the Russo-Japanese war of 1904). |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 11 2005 : 09:53:33 AM
|
I'll look up Koenig's children's book with big pictures. In the War of 1812, there were a few one on one battles between American and Brit frigates, a fight on the Great Lakes between far lesser ships, and that was it. The Guerriere and the Java had 18 pounders as their primary armament, and the Constitution closed with both because it could and that's how you won, and that's how the Constitution won.
Here's the fight between the Constitution and the Guerriere, note the Brits fire first while we close, etc. http://beej.us/constguerr.html
Here's a detailed descriptions of the differences between Brit and Yank frigates that conflicts with your source, since we carried carronades as well, and the 18 pounders had the same range as our 24's. http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/5443/supfrig.htm
Close formations lasted into the Civil War so their soldiers could hear the officers and operate as one. One of the reasons, never said the only reason. Not silly and true.
Silly is you inverting sense and words and then accusing me of making your error and, yet again, not admitting it.
So, you're not arguing your nonsense about Trafalgar anymore. And now, moving to the Nile, rather than look at the picture, read the text to realize how absurdly wrong you are. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - August 11 2005 : 3:15:02 PM
|
| Terri, not only Gray, Camp didn't believe White Man Runs Him either. Curtis was a good photographer, but not a student of the battle. Sklenar is a good read, but he is too pro-Custer for some on this forum. But maybe Dark Cloud and Wild I will be content to fight naval battles for a while. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 11 2005 : 4:23:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
We've moved on. It's Sumerian chariot wheel rims, this week. Pay attention.
Speaking of Sumeria, here's a web addy for you, DC.
http://www.jameswbell.com
His specialty is Sumerian culture and mythology ... he'll be sure to answer any questions you think you already know the answer to (and I'm sure there's quite a few).
hoka hey |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on August 11 2005 4:24:51 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 12 2005 : 04:51:40 AM
|
Well shivver me timbers and flying jibs what's this about landlubber chariot wheels?
Am rushing a copy of me spiffing big pitcher epic battles and daring do buk to ya DC as google is not your forte.
As pointed out in your reference the Constitution outranged and out manoeuvered the Guerrier.For over an hour it waltzed around it's opponent first bringing it's weather battery to bear then it's leeward battery.God I just love those naval terms don't you sailor?
Close formations lasted into the Civil War so their soldiers could hear the officers and operate as one. One of the reasons, never said the only reason. Not silly and true.
Then why if they were so concerned about voice communication did they not position the officers in the middle of this massed formation with bull horns?And what were bugles for?
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 12 2005 : 5:58:58 PM
|
Don't bother, Wild, I'll get to the library. What's with the reference to Google? You seem to be counting on people not reading the entries, as you're pretending to things that aren't there.
You don't know what crossing the T is if you're using a punctured line as an example. You aren't crossing the T taking fire from two sides. The Nile doesn't show that, Nelson didn't claim it, nobody else does.
In the urls I sent you, I've done a search for the world "outrange" and cannote find it. You say the Constitution outranged the Guerriere. Where? It outfought and outsailed her. I also don't find your description of the battle in those urls. The descriptions there say the G fired first, so it certainly thought it was in range, and hit the C on second broadside. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 13 2005 : 4:14:19 PM
|
DC
You don't know what crossing the T is if you're using a punctured line as an example.
Take a line of warships [in line astern]and extend an imaginery line both forward and aft of that line then that is the line I'm refering to.That line can be breached along the ship line or along the imaginery line.At Trafalgar it was breached in two places along the ship line at the Nile it was breached forward and along the imaginery line.The breaching of the line [crossing the "T"] allows the attacking force to concentrate its strenght against a portion of the enemy fleet in other words defeat it in detail.Nothing surprising or novel in that. A tactic much used by the Romans.Just as I pointed out genius comes from carrying out procedures well not as you suggested in ignoring them. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 19 2005 : 5:42:25 PM
|
Right. You didn't know what it means, among other things. Crossing the T without ranged weapons would be particularly stupid for the Romans, meaning as it would they were displaying themselves to be rammed.
In any case, today is the day the Constitutiion blew apart the crappy Guerriere because it was bigger, faster, stronger, and had a better crew not exhausted by being at sea in seeming perpetuity. Huzzah! |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 20 2005 : 3:59:03 PM
|
I'm far from expert, but I recall reading as a boy that the Constitution/Guerriere fight offered a classic example of "crossing the T." In fact, Constitution did it maybe as many as 14 times. Those American frigates had great advantage with their speed. Of course, once its masts were gone, you could have crossed the T on Guerriere with a row boat.
At Trafalgar, Nelson didn't Cross the T, per se...he drove straight through the French line, breaking it up and completely disrupting the French battle plan. I see Crossing the T as a maneuver achieved by individual ships, not lines of them. When lines of ships do it, it's called, "Dotting the i." |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 20 2005 : 5:30:59 PM
|
I would find it hard to believe 14 times, myself, since 14 broadsides into any ship's bows at close range would splinter it to nothing (14 x 22 = 308 direct hits into a small area), and indicate an enemy dead in the water, sinking, and likely to surrender. It would also take a real long time. It was a project to bring those babies about, having to achieve a certain speed to do so.
Crossing the T is very much a fleet manuever, discussed in Mahan, and only makes sense with powered ships and turret guns. The fleet being crossed could only reply with forward guns. At Trafalgar, in contrast, Nelson ALLOWED HIS OWN T to be crossed because he knew they couldn't hit much at distance before he was among them, so clearly it wasn't a big deal back then. In fleet action it happened four times, two of which were at Jutland, one by the Japanese over the Russians, and once by the US over Japan at Leyte Gulf, although that was an embarrassingly one sided fight. Of the four times, the Jutland half produced a draw, Leyte so one sided as not to count, and only Togo pulled it off in a fair fight.
So, like all military terminology lovingly utilized, in actuality it didn't happen much and only can be said to have 'won' 25% of the time. Of course, maybe naval warfare is different, since Nelson said 'fight alone' and encouraged tactical disintegration because his navy was better in a knife fight. Losing no ships and rendering 25 of the enemy dead or captured, he seems to have been prescient. But great tactic? It was mere audacity. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on August 20 2005 5:32:10 PM |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 20 2005 : 5:52:36 PM
|
| That was a long time ago...the reading of it. But, I also recall a diagram of the maneuvers....It may have been as low as eight "crossings" or as many as 12-14. Anyway, it was a bunch. It seems I also recall something of a message in that fight. I believe Guerriere was one of the English ships noted for kidnapping Americans and pressing them into service. So, a few extra volleys into her bowels may have been deemed appropriate at the time. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 20 2005 : 6:28:07 PM
|
Oh, I think ALL the British ships were doing that, they were pretty desperate for men fighting the French. But the G and C had a history, and I think the G was one of the ships in that fleet the C rowed away from early on in that dead calm. The Master and Commander movie references all this, and explains the French ship is so good because it was built in the US and those sailors have the model and its Humphrey's design for our frigates.
I just cannot imagine any captain allowing 14 unanswerable broadsides, nor his ship surviving it that long.
Grew up in Massachusetts and visited the Constitution several times. Nothing compared to the Victory, but still impressive and it is beautiful under sail. Absolutely. A lovely ship. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 20 2005 : 6:54:06 PM
|
D.C.
I just took off and read the reports of both captains--neither mentioning a "crossing the t" at all...I reckon you're right, from a boy's mind, those 14 crossings may have grown in number over the years. Still, I recall it being a textbook case. You're quite correct that it was a mismatch-- 38 English guns to 54 U.S.-- plus speed, quality construction, durability, ect. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 21 2005 : 12:20:29 PM
|
I'm constantly amazed at what I think I recall reading that bears zero resemblance to what I actually read there on the page today, so don't feel like the Lone Ranger. It's abject stupidity in my case.
Nelson and Custer have a lot in common, though. Reduced to essentials, Nelson's theory was close and conquer in audacious attack. He died in victory, and if Custer had been killed rather than Hamilton at the Wa****a, he might be solely recalled as a lesser but still great inspirational leader. Nelson would, in all likelihood, eventually have met his superior enemy and lost like Custer did. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 21 2005 : 3:54:36 PM
|
Well, that crossing the T business was of impressive numbers but I will defer standing on anything until I (or we) come up with the record.
I'm going to disagree with you for the most part on the Nelson-Custer comparison. I think you're very right that Custer's legacy would have been much different had he gone down at the Wa****a--heroic death in victory (although it was a bloody massacre, mostly of innocents). Nelson's "heroic death in victory" came with perhaps the greatest ever triumph by the British Navy, Spanish Armada not withstanding.
Had Nelson lived, I cannot for the life of me think who could ever have whipped him--not with the ships and fleet that he had. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 21 2005 : 4:29:27 PM
|
The secret of success is a lousy enemy, and the admiral in charge of the French and Spanish was from Central Casting under that heading. It's not so much Nelson's win as their loss. The Brits should have lost, really. They were outnumbered and outgunned big time.
And they did lose to the U.S. less than a decade later, after all, a nation not impressed by Nelson's aura. We just had no ships till the Civil War. We had monitors and Farragut and probably could have given them a sorry time in our coastal waters, at least.
The problem was that after Nelson, the British Navy had no viable enemies, such was his rep, and by the time of Jackie Fisher the Brit Navy actually was awful. Very much like the US Army after the CW.....resting on rep and laurels. They didn't practice because it dirtied the paint to fire the guns. They didn't have live fire at sea drills or any training approaching situations that they might encounter. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 21 2005 : 5:16:21 PM
|
Central Casting, huh? That's a classic and I not only agree, I'm grateful for the chuckle--good to have on a busy day.
But, still, Nelson whipped them good and proper, despite being outnumbered and outgunned. I think it's fair to give him the credit, rather than the dumb luck of poor leadership on the other side. I think you'd agree that the English were also capable of putting commanders in charge based on their birth, rather than skill. However, they have a record of mucking along pretty well until Jutland. I think that battle, and superior German marksmanship, underscores your point about not practicing and keeping the paint ship shape.
Constitution could easily handle the likes of Guerriere and Java..I'm not so sure of her luck against, say, HMS Victory. Anyway, the Brits learned a lesson and issued an order avoiding one-on-one fights with American frigates... |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 21 2005 : 7:17:38 PM
|
Villanueve (?) knew he was about to be removed from command - his replacement got delayed - and under pressure from Napoleon V tried to break for Cadiz. Captured, he killed himself on his return to France. He was not the ideal choice for the job.
I give Nelson full credit, but I hesitate to grant anyone the Great Military Seer Label. It wasn't till Fisher, I don't think, that the Navy ceased being the birthright of second and third sons of second tier nobility of the sort that made the House of Lords a drunken hoot from an early time. If Fisher hadn't come along and shaped everyone up, Germany would have easily clocked the English Navy and then where we have been in 1916? No dreadnoughts and Germany would have had the newer and better ships. Horrible thought, that.
We could out race anything we couldn't fight, and British ships of the line would still be in New York Harbor once we launched the Monitor and its children. Just saying, it was image more than fact. Like, ahem, the 7th. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 22 2005 : 1:03:10 PM
|
he Brits should have lost, really. They were outnumbered and outgunned big time.
The Spanish ships were not under the command of Villaret-Joyeuse and in fact hated the French.Some Spanish crews actually offered to change sides.
Nelson and Custer have a lot in common,
What ? About as much as Homer Simson and Oppenheimer had in common.
Nelson would, in all likelihood, eventually have met his superior enemy and lost like Custer did.
His great contemporary Wellington went on to become Prime Minister and died in his bed.As Heavyrunner points out there was nothing left to beat.
Crossing the T is very much a fleet manuever, discussed in Mahan, and only makes sense with powered ships and turret guns.This is one of your best DC.
A turret can probably traverse through 270 degrees which means that with the slightest adjustment of course all heavy guns can be brought to bear on an enemy.With guns capable of firing at ranges of 16000 yards crossing the T would set your fleet up as if in a shooting gallery.All in nice straight lines all at the same range.Brilliant tactic. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 22 2005 : 3:15:15 PM
|
by paragraph.
1. Villaret-Joyeuse wasn't even there, was he? And as far as Napoleon was concerned, and history, Villeneuve was the Allied admiral. The Spanish weren't enthused, true. As I said, a lousy enemy.
2. They both made their reputations on audacity and attack, and they didn't vary much from that.
3. The Americans had the Brits number, had armored ships long before them, and both considered the other a potential enemy into the 20th century. And Russia, of course. It's not like the Brits wowed the world at the Crimea with their navy. But without France, no, there wasn't much. But the British didn't change an iota through the 19th century. Good enough for Nelson, good enough for anybody attitude. That's Fisher's take, and he knew. But if Nelson had lived, he'd have mucked up somewhere in some candyass colonial action of no importance. It always seems to happen.
4. Well, you read A. T. Mahan or even the Time-Life illustrated books you love. I don't own it, but I recall a chapter in the Dreadnought issue all about crossing the T. I gave you the only four times in fleet warfare it happened. You initially claimed it as the standard tactic in Nelson's time, and have yet to produce any evidence for it. In contrast, I gave you the urls where it was discussed as a dream of Nelson's but impossible with the technology - ie range of available cannon - then available. They're still there in my posts. Look them up.
In any case you miss the point. The crossing lines can bring all their guns to bear on any enemy ship; the enemy cannot. And it's often more than just that missing 90 degrees. It's the blast from the guns that can't really be fired as close to the superstructure as your described arc suggests, something not known till they tried it. That's why the Nelson battleships in WWII had ALL their main guns facing forward and the conning tower way aft. That was a bad idea as well, but they were trying to deal with this issue.
This isn't debatable. It's not my intepretation, it's the claim of the various navies who fought these battles with these ships. Togo was the first to pull it off. Here's yet another reference that blows you out of the water.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jul/9907lett.htm
which references this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99mar/victory.htm
from which: "Even then naval battles were a swarming melee, and geometry was not a factor in strategy until the British Admiralty issued its "Fighting Instructions" in 1653, creating the line-ahead formation of ships. The "crossing the T" maneuver became possible only with the advent of steam, and it was not actually realized until this century, in the Russo-Japanese Battle of Tsushima Strait (1905) and the First World War Battle of Jutland (1916)." Got it? You are wrong claiming that crossing the T was the main tactic in Nelson's time and not battle line.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on August 22 2005 3:18:58 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - August 22 2005 : 6:30:03 PM
|
Villaret-Joyeuse wasn't even there,
OK so I got my "V"s crossed.One to you.
They both made their reputations on audacity and attack, and they didn't vary much from that.
There was only one Nelson.Flash brigadiers were 2 a penny ,they made no difference to world history.Custer was a nonentity.
The Americans had the Brits number, had armored ships long before them,
Wrong.The Brits built their first Ironclad HMS Warrior IN 1860.
In any case you miss the point. The crossing lines can bring all their guns to bear on any enemy ship;
In an age when naval battles were waged using long range guns fired from fast highly manoeuverable ships,torpedos,mines,cruiser screens not to mention spotter aircraft crossing the "T" was as outmoded as the grappling hooks and boarding parties.
That's why the Nelson battleships in WWII had ALL their main guns facing forward and the conning tower way aft.
No.The design was just too expensive and they cut the ships off short.
You are wrong claiming that crossing the T was the main tactic in Nelson's time and not battle line.
It was the only tactic that could ensure a decisive outcome.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 22 2005 : 9:20:07 PM
|
by paragraph...
1. Yes.
2. Custer was no flash. He won consistently throughout the CW and only lost once in his life. Rather compelling loss, yes, but let's not get carried away. There were more Custers than Nelsons, but Farragut was just as audacious, and so were Confederate captains, like the guy in the Alabama. It's hard not to like Nelson, though, which is why so few dis him. But you'd think along the line that someone would correctly predict Nelson's moves and trap him along the way. I do, anyway. He was a type, like Custer and Murat and others. Also, Lady Hamilton was a bodacious babe. Extra credit with one eye, one arm.
3. My error. Should have said 'armoured vessel exclusively powered by steam with turreted guns.' The Warrior was such a dead end they built no others, but the Monitor became the Dreadnought and Yamato and Missouri.
4. Battleships themselves were outmoded by WWII, but when confronted with surface artillery, you crossed their T if you could when they could only reply with the bow turrets. In any case, Wild, crossing the T ONLY OCCURED IN THE AGE OF THE POWERED BATTLESHIP WITH TURRETED GUNS, not during Nelson's day as you claim, Further, the only times crossing the T was attempted and worked was in the midst of all those cruiser screens, torpedos, and torpedo boat destroyers. Go figure.
5. Er, you're kidding, right? They put three turrets before the con.
6. Wrong, given all those devastating naval battles that never used it to Togo's day like, you know, Trafalgar, which was decisively won by the team that allowed its T to be crossed. Even if the cannon would work it, think of the range and wind conditions that would have to exist for a sailing fleet to pull that off against another? And it's a lucky shot from 500 yards that did any damage with mere cannon; the velocity dropped like a paralyzed falcon. Even the Guerriere's shot bounced off the Constitution when they managed to hit her hull at all at close range. Just admit you were wrong, Wild. Christmas. I have quotes from Naval War College instructors that completely contradict you. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - August 23 2005 : 10:59:35 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
by paragraph...
3. My error. Should have said 'armoured vessel exclusively powered by steam with turreted guns.'
The Warrior was such a dead end they built no others,
Wrong.
HMS Black Prince (the Warriors sister ship)
HMS Achilles
HMS Bellerophon
HMS Nelson
HMS Hercules
There were numerous others, but I think the point is made.
Broadside ironclads were by no means evolutionary deadends, anymore than their sucessors were. After all you could argue that any battleship built after the introduction of the torpedo launch was a deadend, or if you don't buy that argument, then any built after 1921? when the first aerial bombing trials were carried out on surplus WWI battleships. Broadside ironclads were simply just another phase in the onward march of technology which became outmoded just as the Yamato and the Missouri were in WWII.
Its worth pointing out that broadside ironclads had greatly longer ranges (courtesy of their sails) than the first generation of Monitor like ironclads, and had vastly superior sea handling qualities as well. And seeing as the British empire was a global concern back in those days, it made an a lot more sense to build that type of ship, rather than a monitor.
When the British did begin building monitors, they quickly developed variants which were far more sea worthy than their American predecessors. If my memory is working, the earliest of these improved monitors (referred to as a breastwork monitor) was HMS (HMVS) Cerberus, launched 1871.
quote:
but the Monitor became the Dreadnought and Yamato and Missouri.
Yes, and the Monitor became the Monitor by way of the Gloire and the Warrior. Just as the Dreadnought came as much from the lineage of the Cerberus and Devastation, as from the Monitor. Arguably the first modern warship, which was steam powered, effectively sea-going and had rotating turrets was HMS Devastation (launched 1873).
I'm not dismissing the Monitors place in history, it truely was a revolutionary vessel when it was launched, and is deservedly remembered as one of those ships which created a paradigm shift in ship design. But ultimately, Monitor style ships were as transitionary as broadside ironclads. The last major use of Monitors being made in WWI where the British used them in a specialist coastal bombardment role. By then they had been obsolete as a general purpose warship for some decades. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 23 2005 : 12:21:15 PM
|
I did not know the Warrior had a sister ship or that they replicated such an expensive and crappy type, a penalty of the quick reply. I stand corrected. Shamed. Even suicidal. (that Celtic blood....) I thought its sole function was to defend against that one French ship. The Warrior had limited powered range, sailed like a brick, and didn't last long at all on active duty.
I'd still claim it and its ilk dead ends.
The Warrior had one or two breech loaders, but it mostly had muzzle loading cannon like the Victory. The Monitor was way beyond that, and although it was a joke outside of a flat calm, any broadside ship built after it was a Collector's Item. Even the Kearsage and Alabama were more advanced with flexible weapons absent their wooden hulls, although smaller. Enlarge the Guerriere, build it of iron, give it a screw and boilers, and you have the Warrior. Retro, large, clumsy, and Then.
Someone could argue that the torpedo doomed the battleship, but I would not. It was the aerial delivery system that doomed it, and even then not till WWII. That a ship anchored and not defending itself could be sunk over a period of days by air bombing was only testimony to the stupidity of admirals who said such could not eventually be done, not the brilliance of Billy Mitchell.
I don't see Warrior on Dreadnought's evolutionary tree, but they shared common ancestors like the Guerriere. But it's a straight line from Monitor to Iowa.
Still, I suppose if I have to, viewed from certain angles in declining light, while drunk, my previous position might be construed by the unwary as less than it ought to have been, which inferior people might refer to as "wrong." Mumble......... |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Custer & White Man Runs Him
