|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Apr 27, 2020 6:11:40 GMT
jjohnson , EwellHolmes , I think your both underestimating how heavily the US was outclassed in naval terms at this point. Its not 1898 when the Spanish navy had declined considerable and the US had built a number of new ships.
The US can definitely win, at least in the Caribbean but unless the Spanish screw things up very badly in naval terms especially it would probably take at least a year to build ships that could actually contest the Caribbean with the Spanish fleet. Then probably another year for the actual conquest of Cuba and Puerto Rico. IIRC the latter was strongly loyalist in 1898 and was only taken over as part of the peace treaty so having to fight for it might be markedly more difficult.
The Philippines would be far more difficult because of its isolation from the US and the lack of any fleet base in the region. OTL in 1898 the US Asiatic fleet that won control of the waters around the Philippines was based at Hong Kong and had to leave because Britain was neutral in the conflict. Here if the same applies their probably not going to be able to go straight to the islands, assuming that the US even has ships based in the area at this point, which they might not. Plus its still ~20 years before the coup by American planters that seizes control of Hawaii so they don't have that as a stepping stone either. The US can copy its OTL 1898 conquests if its prepared to fight for several years as it needs to build up the forces for such actions 1st and that will take some time. This could be something that its government and population decides isn't worth the effort depending on the circumstances. Also it assumes that, as I suspect would be likely, other powers try and mediate and at least one of the powers refuses such efforts. Steve
The U.S. would win, thanks to the internal disorders of Spain at this time, and annex Cuba but Cuba alone due to limited power projections at this time. This probably would also have the effect of engendering a Carlist Spain, as a result of the conflict. Even if the United States Navy is weaker and spread across many different squadrons. The Spanish Fleet is, essentially, a non-entity at this time; not only is the Third Carlist War being waged in Spain herself, but so too is the Cantonal Rebellion. The Fleet hadn't escaped said disorder, with numerous mutinies and revolts taking place, with what is left focused on dealing with the situation at home first and foremost. The Ironclad Teutan, for example, was captured by the rebels and used in the Cantonal Revolt; she and the Resolution were the only 40 gun ironclads in the entire Spanish Fleet. Numancia, the third best armed warship in the entire Navy with 34 guns, was also seized by rebels. "On 12 July 1873, the crew of a dozen warships – the very best of the Spanish fleet – mutinied in Cartagena against a republic that had belied its promise of freedom. Navy crew soldiers revolted against their officers who quickly fled from the Canton: this mutiny of gigantic proportions25 made it possible for the Cartagena Canton to last for so long."
Because the best the Spanish Navy has to offer is unavailable, while the U.S. has far better logistics and an overwhelming numerically superiority aided by local support, I think it's unquestionable that the U.S. can and will rapidly defeat the Spanish in and around Cuba. I do agree that anything beyond such is out of the question, such as the Philippines or even Puerto Rico. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033 
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 27, 2020 15:11:11 GMT
jjohnson , EwellHolmes , I think your both underestimating how heavily the US was outclassed in naval terms at this point. Its not 1898 when the Spanish navy had declined considerable and the US had built a number of new ships.
The US can definitely win, at least in the Caribbean but unless the Spanish screw things up very badly in naval terms especially it would probably take at least a year to build ships that could actually contest the Caribbean with the Spanish fleet. Then probably another year for the actual conquest of Cuba and Puerto Rico. IIRC the latter was strongly loyalist in 1898 and was only taken over as part of the peace treaty so having to fight for it might be markedly more difficult.
The Philippines would be far more difficult because of its isolation from the US and the lack of any fleet base in the region. OTL in 1898 the US Asiatic fleet that won control of the waters around the Philippines was based at Hong Kong and had to leave because Britain was neutral in the conflict. Here if the same applies their probably not going to be able to go straight to the islands, assuming that the US even has ships based in the area at this point, which they might not. Plus its still ~20 years before the coup by American planters that seizes control of Hawaii so they don't have that as a stepping stone either. The US can copy its OTL 1898 conquests if its prepared to fight for several years as it needs to build up the forces for such actions 1st and that will take some time. This could be something that its government and population decides isn't worth the effort depending on the circumstances. Also it assumes that, as I suspect would be likely, other powers try and mediate and at least one of the powers refuses such efforts. Steve
Even if the United States Navy is weaker and spread across many different squadrons. The Spanish Fleet is, essentially, a non-entity at this time; not only is the Third Carlist War being waged in Spain herself, but so too is the Cantonal Rebellion. The Fleet hadn't escaped said disorder, with numerous mutinies and revolts taking place, with what is left focused on dealing with the situation at home first and foremost. The Ironclad Teutan, for example, was captured by the rebels and used in the Cantonal Revolt; she and the Resolution were the only 40 gun ironclads in the entire Spanish Fleet. Numancia, the third best armed warship in the entire Navy with 34 guns, was also seized by rebels. "On 12 July 1873, the crew of a dozen warships – the very best of the Spanish fleet – mutinied in Cartagena against a republic that had belied its promise of freedom. Navy crew soldiers revolted against their officers who quickly fled from the Canton: this mutiny of gigantic proportions25 made it possible for the Cartagena Canton to last for so long."
Because the best the Spanish Navy has to offer is unavailable, while the U.S. has far better logistics and an overwhelming numerically superiority aided by local support, I think it's unquestionable that the U.S. can and will rapidly defeat the Spanish in and around Cuba. I do agree that anything beyond such is out of the question, such as the Philippines or even Puerto Rico. Interesting, EwellHolmes. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Apr 28, 2020 10:55:27 GMT
EwellHolmes ,
Had forgotten that Spain was in the midst of the 3rd Carlist war at this stage. That does complicate matters as it distracts Spain from any American threat, especially since the mutiny you mentioned occurred prior to the crisis so is likely to be largely unaffected. As such the forces in Cuba may well be largely unsupported initially. There is a chance that the Carlist rebellion may be ended earlier as it would be seen as dividing Spain in a period of crisis and external threat or that some support for it would be lost as it was in large part an ultra reactionary movement so people who supported it are probably highly likely to want to support the defence of the empire. However very difficult to say how things might go.
The US is developing rapidly into an industrial power so it could probably produce some fairly modern warships within a year or so and it would depend on how much Cuba could be supported from Spain. As you say if the US was determined to win regardless of the cost it would definitely win in the Caribbean eventually although depending on the forces Spain has in the region and how well they could be supported there it could be a 1-2 year conflict.
The other issue is what triggers the war compared to OTL? The US is on rather thin ground if it declares war after the executions are stopped, so does that mean that the HMS Niobe doesn't arrive for some reason? If the Spanish authorities ignored the warning from the latter's captain, who threatened to bombard the port if they continued, then it would probably mean war with Britain or at least a serious crisis until the Spanish back down which would give no time for US intervention. So for a solely US v Spain war it really needs something avoiding British intention despite the executions.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Apr 29, 2020 3:59:32 GMT
EwellHolmes ,
Had forgotten that Spain was in the midst of the 3rd Carlist war at this stage. That does complicate matters as it distracts Spain from any American threat, especially since the mutiny you mentioned occurred prior to the crisis so is likely to be largely unaffected. As such the forces in Cuba may well be largely unsupported initially. There is a chance that the Carlist rebellion may be ended earlier as it would be seen as dividing Spain in a period of crisis and external threat or that some support for it would be lost as it was in large part an ultra reactionary movement so people who supported it are probably highly likely to want to support the defence of the empire. However very difficult to say how things might go.
The US is developing rapidly into an industrial power so it could probably produce some fairly modern warships within a year or so and it would depend on how much Cuba could be supported from Spain. As you say if the US was determined to win regardless of the cost it would definitely win in the Caribbean eventually although depending on the forces Spain has in the region and how well they could be supported there it could be a 1-2 year conflict.
The other issue is what triggers the war compared to OTL? The US is on rather thin ground if it declares war after the executions are stopped, so does that mean that the HMS Niobe doesn't arrive for some reason? If the Spanish authorities ignored the warning from the latter's captain, who threatened to bombard the port if they continued, then it would probably mean war with Britain or at least a serious crisis until the Spanish back down which would give no time for US intervention. So for a solely US v Spain war it really needs something avoiding British intention despite the executions.
Steve
The Virginius Affair was a sufficient cause for the war, and very nearly was IOTL. As for the Spanish, the situation in Cuba was so bad that the Spanish Navy had effectively outsourced troop transportation, coastal monitoring and other such functions to private vessels, being unable to conduct that themselves with their own fleet. The U.S. meanwhile had pulled most of its squadrons back, including the European squadron, at the start of the crisis and now had them exercising off Florida in preparation; should the war come about, they are ready to go and have immediate numerical superiority irrespective of all the downsides of the Spanish Navy at this time. I do not see the internal disorders being prevented by this; the war scare IOTL failed to achieve anything in this regard, nor did the French interlude in 1868. I'd expect the overall course of the war to be like that of 1898; six months and done. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Apr 29, 2020 11:58:53 GMT
EwellHolmes ,
Had forgotten that Spain was in the midst of the 3rd Carlist war at this stage. That does complicate matters as it distracts Spain from any American threat, especially since the mutiny you mentioned occurred prior to the crisis so is likely to be largely unaffected. As such the forces in Cuba may well be largely unsupported initially. There is a chance that the Carlist rebellion may be ended earlier as it would be seen as dividing Spain in a period of crisis and external threat or that some support for it would be lost as it was in large part an ultra reactionary movement so people who supported it are probably highly likely to want to support the defence of the empire. However very difficult to say how things might go.
The US is developing rapidly into an industrial power so it could probably produce some fairly modern warships within a year or so and it would depend on how much Cuba could be supported from Spain. As you say if the US was determined to win regardless of the cost it would definitely win in the Caribbean eventually although depending on the forces Spain has in the region and how well they could be supported there it could be a 1-2 year conflict.
The other issue is what triggers the war compared to OTL? The US is on rather thin ground if it declares war after the executions are stopped, so does that mean that the HMS Niobe doesn't arrive for some reason? If the Spanish authorities ignored the warning from the latter's captain, who threatened to bombard the port if they continued, then it would probably mean war with Britain or at least a serious crisis until the Spanish back down which would give no time for US intervention. So for a solely US v Spain war it really needs something avoiding British intention despite the executions.
Steve
The Virginius Affair was a sufficient cause for the war, and very nearly was IOTL. As for the Spanish, the situation in Cuba was so bad that the Spanish Navy had effectively outsourced troop transportation, coastal monitoring and other such functions to private vessels, being unable to conduct that themselves with their own fleet. The U.S. meanwhile had pulled most of its squadrons back, including the European squadron, at the start of the crisis and now had them exercising off Florida in preparation; should the war come about, they are ready to go and have immediate numerical superiority irrespective of all the downsides of the Spanish Navy at this time. I do not see the internal disorders being prevented by this; the war scare IOTL failed to achieve anything in this regard, nor did the French interlude in 1868. I'd expect the overall course of the war to be like that of 1898; six months and done.
Your overlooking the point that in 1898 the US had a decent navy and an industrial base to maintain it. Plus a markedly higher population and had largely overcome the resentments from the civil war, albeit in large part by sacrificing the interests of the black minority. The US nearly suffered some nasty defeats in 1898, such as Roosevelt's famous charge, which would probably have been an utter disaster if mot for logistical problems on the Spanish side with the wrong ammo supplied to the Spanish troops holding the hill.
Plus as I pointed out unless the Spanish don't stop the executions once Niobe arrives that probably means war with Britain. If they do then the US has a political/diplomatic problem deciding on war without a clear cause for it. Possibly if there's dispute over compensation but that would probably seems an unlikely issue.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Apr 30, 2020 1:13:35 GMT
The Virginius Affair was a sufficient cause for the war, and very nearly was IOTL. As for the Spanish, the situation in Cuba was so bad that the Spanish Navy had effectively outsourced troop transportation, coastal monitoring and other such functions to private vessels, being unable to conduct that themselves with their own fleet. The U.S. meanwhile had pulled most of its squadrons back, including the European squadron, at the start of the crisis and now had them exercising off Florida in preparation; should the war come about, they are ready to go and have immediate numerical superiority irrespective of all the downsides of the Spanish Navy at this time. I do not see the internal disorders being prevented by this; the war scare IOTL failed to achieve anything in this regard, nor did the French interlude in 1868. I'd expect the overall course of the war to be like that of 1898; six months and done.
Your overlooking the point that in 1898 the US had a decent navy and an industrial base to maintain it. Plus a markedly higher population and had largely overcome the resentments from the civil war, albeit in large part by sacrificing the interests of the black minority. The US nearly suffered some nasty defeats in 1898, such as Roosevelt's famous charge, which would probably have been an utter disaster if mot for logistical problems on the Spanish side with the wrong ammo supplied to the Spanish troops holding the hill.
Plus as I pointed out unless the Spanish don't stop the executions once Niobe arrives that probably means war with Britain. If they do then the US has a political/diplomatic problem deciding on war without a clear cause for it. Possibly if there's dispute over compensation but that would probably seems an unlikely issue.
Steve
The U.S. in 1873 had become the largest economy in GDP (PPP) terms and by 1880 had surpassed the British in steel output, so the large economy and population base was already there but, just as in 1898, wouldn't really be needed; the war was just six months IOTL, so it was hardly a matter of the U.S. outproducing the Spanish. As I noted previously, the Spanish Navy is unable to be deployed to face the U.S. Navy, which has already forward deployed to Key West and thus was amassed, ready for combat. The Spanish Navy is virtually non-existent in the Caribbean, and what there is so heavily outnumbered by the U.S. as to make the outcome assured in American favor. Resentments from the Civil War are not an issue; numerous ex-Confederates, during the War scare, offered to return to the U.S. Army in order to fight for the reunified nation. Perhaps most famous in this regard is Nathan Bedford Forrest, the founder of the Ku Klux Klan. As for the cause of the war, I'd presume it would be the executions. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Apr 30, 2020 11:27:54 GMT
Your overlooking the point that in 1898 the US had a decent navy and an industrial base to maintain it. Plus a markedly higher population and had largely overcome the resentments from the civil war, albeit in large part by sacrificing the interests of the black minority. The US nearly suffered some nasty defeats in 1898, such as Roosevelt's famous charge, which would probably have been an utter disaster if mot for logistical problems on the Spanish side with the wrong ammo supplied to the Spanish troops holding the hill.
Plus as I pointed out unless the Spanish don't stop the executions once Niobe arrives that probably means war with Britain. If they do then the US has a political/diplomatic problem deciding on war without a clear cause for it. Possibly if there's dispute over compensation but that would probably seems an unlikely issue.
Steve
The U.S. in 1873 had become the largest economy in GDP (PPP) terms and by 1880 had surpassed the British in steel output, so the large economy and population base was already there but, just as in 1898, wouldn't really be needed; the war was just six months IOTL, so it was hardly a matter of the U.S. outproducing the Spanish. As I noted previously, the Spanish Navy is unable to be deployed to face the U.S. Navy, which has already forward deployed to Key West and thus was amassed, ready for combat. The Spanish Navy is virtually non-existent in the Caribbean, and what there is so heavily outnumbered by the U.S. as to make the outcome assured in American favor. Resentments from the Civil War are not an issue; numerous ex-Confederates, during the War scare, offered to return to the U.S. Army in order to fight for the reunified nation. Perhaps most famous in this regard is Nathan Bedford Forrest, the founder of the Ku Klux Klan. As for the cause of the war, I'd presume it would be the executions.
As the video mentions that US navy at this point is a small obsolete largely brown water force. The Spanish are having problems at home but they do have some ships in Cuba, as shown by the capture of the blockade runner. It would be a hell of a risk going against them with what the USN consisted of at this point. Ditto while the recent conflict gives a lot of people with experience of conflict the US would have to recruit people again and have they still got the weapons to equip them with? Prior to 1945 the US very quickly dismantled the military structures they built up in wartime and even 8 years is even for a hell of a lot to be lost.
I know that the build up during the CW and the intensive government involvement afterwards helped build up a massive economic expansion but this was also in part because they avoided major military commitments. They are going to win, given the problems in Spain if they commit to it but their likely to see some set-backs 1st. Also would the intent be to annex Cuba as a colony, like they did the Philippines OTL in 1898 or would they recognise its independence.
Difficult to use the executions as a cause when their been stopped.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Apr 30, 2020 19:44:49 GMT
The U.S. in 1873 had become the largest economy in GDP (PPP) terms and by 1880 had surpassed the British in steel output, so the large economy and population base was already there but, just as in 1898, wouldn't really be needed; the war was just six months IOTL, so it was hardly a matter of the U.S. outproducing the Spanish. As I noted previously, the Spanish Navy is unable to be deployed to face the U.S. Navy, which has already forward deployed to Key West and thus was amassed, ready for combat. The Spanish Navy is virtually non-existent in the Caribbean, and what there is so heavily outnumbered by the U.S. as to make the outcome assured in American favor. Resentments from the Civil War are not an issue; numerous ex-Confederates, during the War scare, offered to return to the U.S. Army in order to fight for the reunified nation. Perhaps most famous in this regard is Nathan Bedford Forrest, the founder of the Ku Klux Klan. As for the cause of the war, I'd presume it would be the executions.
As the video mentions that US navy at this point is a small obsolete largely brown water force. The Spanish are having problems at home but they do have some ships in Cuba, as shown by the capture of the blockade runner. It would be a hell of a risk going against them with what the USN consisted of at this point. Ditto while the recent conflict gives a lot of people with experience of conflict the US would have to recruit people again and have they still got the weapons to equip them with? Prior to 1945 the US very quickly dismantled the military structures they built up in wartime and even 8 years is even for a hell of a lot to be lost.
I know that the build up during the CW and the intensive government involvement afterwards helped build up a massive economic expansion but this was also in part because they avoided major military commitments. They are going to win, given the problems in Spain if they commit to it but their likely to see some set-backs 1st. Also would the intent be to annex Cuba as a colony, like they did the Philippines OTL in 1898 or would they recognise its independence.
Difficult to use the executions as a cause when their been stopped.
Steve
I'm not a big fan of videos and this is a good example of why; a single civilian ship getting captured is not evidence of the strength of the Spanish Navy. As noted previously by the source I posted, most of the major fleet units were in Spain itself or in rebel hands, with almost none of the armored ironclads that concerned the U.S. available. Having pulled back their foreign squadrons and amassed them off the coast of Florida, the U.S. would be entering the war in the vicinity of 8:1 in numerical superiority. The wooden frigates that composed the overwhelming majority of the Spanish Navy also have no technical advantage over the U.S. Navy, especially compared to the 50 ironclads the U.S. can bring to the fight. As the Civil War showed, monitors against wooden ships isn't a good fight unless the later has overwhelming numbers...which the Spanish don't. Outside of that, in terms of land combat, in 1898 the U.S. was able to organize, land, and carry out the Spanish War in Cuba in six months with their most recent experience in industrialized warfare being 40 years previously with the Civil War. Here, it has only been eight years so I have absolutely no doubt that, with the experience much more recent, that the U.S. can do the exact same. As for the executions, I'm saying they still happen; apparently it was a last second decision on the part of the Spanish. I see the war lasting six months or so, with the U.S. annexing Spain as a territory. Carlos Manuel de Céspedes, one of the prominent Cuban leaders at this time, was an advocate for US annexation. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 1, 2020 11:57:01 GMT
As the video mentions that US navy at this point is a small obsolete largely brown water force. The Spanish are having problems at home but they do have some ships in Cuba, as shown by the capture of the blockade runner. It would be a hell of a risk going against them with what the USN consisted of at this point. Ditto while the recent conflict gives a lot of people with experience of conflict the US would have to recruit people again and have they still got the weapons to equip them with? Prior to 1945 the US very quickly dismantled the military structures they built up in wartime and even 8 years is even for a hell of a lot to be lost.
I know that the build up during the CW and the intensive government involvement afterwards helped build up a massive economic expansion but this was also in part because they avoided major military commitments. They are going to win, given the problems in Spain if they commit to it but their likely to see some set-backs 1st. Also would the intent be to annex Cuba as a colony, like they did the Philippines OTL in 1898 or would they recognise its independence.
Difficult to use the executions as a cause when their been stopped.
Steve
I'm not a big fan of videos and this is a good example of why; a single civilian ship getting captured is not evidence of the strength of the Spanish Navy. As noted previously by the source I posted, most of the major fleet units were in Spain itself or in rebel hands, with almost none of the armored ironclads that concerned the U.S. available. Having pulled back their foreign squadrons and amassed them off the coast of Florida, the U.S. would be entering the war in the vicinity of 8:1 in numerical superiority. The wooden frigates that composed the overwhelming majority of the Spanish Navy also have no technical advantage over the U.S. Navy, especially compared to the 50 ironclads the U.S. can bring to the fight. As the Civil War showed, monitors against wooden ships isn't a good fight unless the later has overwhelming numbers...which the Spanish don't. Outside of that, in terms of land combat, in 1898 the U.S. was able to organize, land, and carry out the Spanish War in Cuba in six months with their most recent experience in industrialized warfare being 40 years previously with the Civil War. Here, it has only been eight years so I have absolutely no doubt that, with the experience much more recent, that the U.S. can do the exact same. As for the executions, I'm saying they still happen; apparently it was a last second decision on the part of the Spanish. I see the war lasting six months or so, with the U.S. annexing Spain as a territory. Carlos Manuel de Céspedes, one of the prominent Cuban leaders at this time, was an advocate for US annexation.
I know you don't like sources that disagree with you but this poster is very knowledgeable, albeit largely about the period starting with formal ironclads and it is worrying that he seems to be unaware of the Carlist rebellion and its impact on the Spanish navy at this point. Also admittedly he doesn't give as many references as for the military history site I have previously mentioned. Did you ever look at any of those I mentioned before?
How many of those coastal ironclads, most of which have been laid up since the CW can actually cross to Cuba? Yes the Americans have veterans to call on, assuming that many will be interested, but they were fairly lucky in 1898 so could face some problems here.
If you mean that the local authorities reject the ultimatum from HMS Niobe then that probably means war with Britain. Which apart from the panic that would cause in Madrid, probably ordering their forces in Cuba to stand down immediately if it doesn't probably means that the US doesn't have time to do anything to Cuba.
If Cuba was annexed its likely to be pretty restless given the large number of blacks there and the religious and cultural tensions in the US at this point. It might calm down but you could need a bloody repression like with the Philippines, which didn't endear the population to US rule.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on May 1, 2020 15:42:11 GMT
I'm not a big fan of videos and this is a good example of why; a single civilian ship getting captured is not evidence of the strength of the Spanish Navy. As noted previously by the source I posted, most of the major fleet units were in Spain itself or in rebel hands, with almost none of the armored ironclads that concerned the U.S. available. Having pulled back their foreign squadrons and amassed them off the coast of Florida, the U.S. would be entering the war in the vicinity of 8:1 in numerical superiority. The wooden frigates that composed the overwhelming majority of the Spanish Navy also have no technical advantage over the U.S. Navy, especially compared to the 50 ironclads the U.S. can bring to the fight. As the Civil War showed, monitors against wooden ships isn't a good fight unless the later has overwhelming numbers...which the Spanish don't. Outside of that, in terms of land combat, in 1898 the U.S. was able to organize, land, and carry out the Spanish War in Cuba in six months with their most recent experience in industrialized warfare being 40 years previously with the Civil War. Here, it has only been eight years so I have absolutely no doubt that, with the experience much more recent, that the U.S. can do the exact same. As for the executions, I'm saying they still happen; apparently it was a last second decision on the part of the Spanish. I see the war lasting six months or so, with the U.S. annexing Spain as a territory. Carlos Manuel de Céspedes, one of the prominent Cuban leaders at this time, was an advocate for US annexation.
I know you don't like sources that disagree with you but this poster is very knowledgeable, albeit largely about the period starting with formal ironclads and it is worrying that he seems to be unaware of the Carlist rebellion and its impact on the Spanish navy at this point. Also admittedly he doesn't give as many references as for the military history site I have previously mentioned. Did you ever look at any of those I mentioned before?
How many of those coastal ironclads, most of which have been laid up since the CW can actually cross to Cuba? Yes the Americans have veterans to call on, assuming that many will be interested, but they were fairly lucky in 1898 so could face some problems here.
If you mean that the local authorities reject the ultimatum from HMS Niobe then that probably means war with Britain. Which apart from the panic that would cause in Madrid, probably ordering their forces in Cuba to stand down immediately if it doesn't probably means that the US doesn't have time to do anything to Cuba.
If Cuba was annexed its likely to be pretty restless given the large number of blacks there and the religious and cultural tensions in the US at this point. It might calm down but you could need a bloody repression like with the Philippines, which didn't endear the population to US rule.
Steve
It's not that I don't like sources that disagree with me; I'll gladly go where the evidence takes me. The problem with videos like these are that they are infotainment and are thus poorly sourced and often full of random throwaway lines for the sake of getting views. I have a Minor in History, another in Political Science and then my Bachelors is in Social Science overall; if I tried citing a YouTube anywhere in an academic environment, I would get laughed at and failed for very obvious reasons. In debating history, as I said, you go where the evidence takes you and that requires actual leg work. Not just taking some random line a video and running with it. Case in point is here, because it's self evident the creator didn't bother to do actual research on the time period. Talking about the shiny guns and armor of the Spanish Ironclads is nice and all until you do the actual fact of finding out, as I did, they they are incapable of service due to the situation at home. For someone knowledgeable, it's very weird he doesn't bother to talk about the Cartagena Mutiny at all. With that said, as for the situation at hand in 1873, the U.S. had, as noted by the shipping list, 9 ironclads in North America, 3 in the South Atlantic and 5 in the European Squadrons; all of these had been recalled and amassed off the coast of Florida in the Keys. That's 17 ironclads, while the overall ship total is, if I counted right, in the vicinity of 8:1 overall against the Spanish. Outside of naval affairs, the matter of recent experience isn't simply one of how many veterans they can grab, but in terms of institutional knowledge of how to organize and run things, which is the crucial factor in modern warfare. If a U.S. 40 years out from the Civil War can successfully do it in six months, I see no reason the U.S. just eight years out couldn't do the same. As for Cuba, the rebel leadership was in favor of annexation and so was the overall rank and file; most of the rebels were inspired by the recent Union victory in the Civil War and the ending of American slavery. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 2, 2020 10:49:47 GMT
I know you don't like sources that disagree with you but this poster is very knowledgeable, albeit largely about the period starting with formal ironclads and it is worrying that he seems to be unaware of the Carlist rebellion and its impact on the Spanish navy at this point. Also admittedly he doesn't give as many references as for the military history site I have previously mentioned. Did you ever look at any of those I mentioned before?
How many of those coastal ironclads, most of which have been laid up since the CW can actually cross to Cuba? Yes the Americans have veterans to call on, assuming that many will be interested, but they were fairly lucky in 1898 so could face some problems here.
If you mean that the local authorities reject the ultimatum from HMS Niobe then that probably means war with Britain. Which apart from the panic that would cause in Madrid, probably ordering their forces in Cuba to stand down immediately if it doesn't probably means that the US doesn't have time to do anything to Cuba.
If Cuba was annexed its likely to be pretty restless given the large number of blacks there and the religious and cultural tensions in the US at this point. It might calm down but you could need a bloody repression like with the Philippines, which didn't endear the population to US rule.
Steve
It's not that I don't like sources that disagree with me; I'll gladly go where the evidence takes me. The problem with videos like these are that they are infotainment and are thus poorly sourced and often full of random throwaway lines for the sake of getting views. I have a Minor in History, another in Political Science and then my Bachelors is in Social Science overall; if I tried citing a YouTube anywhere in an academic environment, I would get laughed at and failed for very obvious reasons. In debating history, as I said, you go where the evidence takes you and that requires actual leg work. Not just taking some random line a video and running with it. Case in point is here, because it's self evident the creator didn't bother to do actual research on the time period. Talking about the shiny guns and armor of the Spanish Ironclads is nice and all until you do the actual fact of finding out, as I did, they they are incapable of service due to the situation at home. For someone knowledgeable, it's very weird he doesn't bother to talk about the Cartagena Mutiny at all. With that said, as for the situation at hand in 1873, the U.S. had, as noted by the shipping list, 9 ironclads in North America, 3 in the South Atlantic and 5 in the European Squadrons; all of these had been recalled and amassed off the coast of Florida in the Keys. That's 17 ironclads, while the overall ship total is, if I counted right, in the vicinity of 8:1 overall against the Spanish. Outside of naval affairs, the matter of recent experience isn't simply one of how many veterans they can grab, but in terms of institutional knowledge of how to organize and run things, which is the crucial factor in modern warfare. If a U.S. 40 years out from the Civil War can successfully do it in six months, I see no reason the U.S. just eight years out couldn't do the same. As for Cuba, the rebel leadership was in favor of annexation and so was the overall rank and file; most of the rebels were inspired by the recent Union victory in the Civil War and the ending of American slavery.
That depends on the source. There are a hell of a lot of books that aren't worth the paper their printed on as well, just as there are a hell of a lot of crap videos out there. The source I mentioned previously, for military history visualized, if you actually looked at a few, you would see he is continuously referencing and quoting numerous source books. Just as another source I look at sometimes, although with my gaming not as much as I should, are videos of lectures by experts, often to military and other professionals. To simply dismiss all video sources without looking at them is unwise. I'm not saying accepting even the latter without querying if something sounds off but judge the item by the contents not the cover.
With Drachinifel he is definitely an expert in his field. Part of the problem in this case is that while largely talking about the 1898 conflict he briefly mentions the Spanish superiority in 1873, which I have also seen suggested elsewhere. Which is a weakness and I suspect he didn't investigate the political background and realised the civil war is on. In that he made an error and a bad one but again most people outside Spain had never heard about the Carlist wars at all. An error on his part. However I still think your binary viewpoint is overlooking the difficulties involved for the US or another great power as you have done in the past. [Just replied to you elsewhere on the problems Germany would have faced in 1938 if war had developed over Czechoslovakia].
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on May 2, 2020 11:01:18 GMT
It's not that I don't like sources that disagree with me; I'll gladly go where the evidence takes me. The problem with videos like these are that they are infotainment and are thus poorly sourced and often full of random throwaway lines for the sake of getting views. I have a Minor in History, another in Political Science and then my Bachelors is in Social Science overall; if I tried citing a YouTube anywhere in an academic environment, I would get laughed at and failed for very obvious reasons. In debating history, as I said, you go where the evidence takes you and that requires actual leg work. Not just taking some random line a video and running with it. Case in point is here, because it's self evident the creator didn't bother to do actual research on the time period. Talking about the shiny guns and armor of the Spanish Ironclads is nice and all until you do the actual fact of finding out, as I did, they they are incapable of service due to the situation at home. For someone knowledgeable, it's very weird he doesn't bother to talk about the Cartagena Mutiny at all. With that said, as for the situation at hand in 1873, the U.S. had, as noted by the shipping list, 9 ironclads in North America, 3 in the South Atlantic and 5 in the European Squadrons; all of these had been recalled and amassed off the coast of Florida in the Keys. That's 17 ironclads, while the overall ship total is, if I counted right, in the vicinity of 8:1 overall against the Spanish. Outside of naval affairs, the matter of recent experience isn't simply one of how many veterans they can grab, but in terms of institutional knowledge of how to organize and run things, which is the crucial factor in modern warfare. If a U.S. 40 years out from the Civil War can successfully do it in six months, I see no reason the U.S. just eight years out couldn't do the same. As for Cuba, the rebel leadership was in favor of annexation and so was the overall rank and file; most of the rebels were inspired by the recent Union victory in the Civil War and the ending of American slavery. That depends on the source. There are a hell of a lot of books that aren't worth the paper their printed on as well, just as there are a hell of a lot of crap videos out there. The source I mentioned previously, for military history visualized, if you actually looked at a few, you would see he is continuously referencing and quoting numerous source books. Just as another source I look at sometimes, although with my gaming not as much as I should, are videos of lectures by experts, often to military and other professionals. To simply dismiss all video sources without looking at them is unwise. I'm not saying accepting even the latter without querying if something sounds off but judge the item by the contents not the cover.
With Drachinifel he is definitely an expert in his field. Part of the problem in this case is that while largely talking about the 1898 conflict he briefly mentions the Spanish superiority in 1873, which I have also seen suggested elsewhere. Which is a weakness and I suspect he didn't investigate the political background and realised the civil war is on. In that he made an error and a bad one but again most people outside Spain had never heard about the Carlist wars at all. An error on his part. However I still think your binary viewpoint is overlooking the difficulties involved for the US or another great power as you have done in the past. [Just replied to you elsewhere on the problems Germany would have faced in 1938 if war had developed over Czechoslovakia]. Steve
This is interesting, we find out more which Spanish ships where with the government and which ships where with the rebels during the Third Carlist War In mid-1873, the First Spanish Republic was beset with the Cantonal Revolution while fighting the Third Carlist War. The revolutionaries seized Cartagena on 12 July while the bulk of the Mediterranean Squadron was in port. This included the armored frigates Vitoria, Numancia, and Tetuan, in addition to Méndez Núñez. The German and British ironclads SMS Friedrich Carl and HMS Swiftsure seized Vitoria and a wooden steam frigate as pirates after they threatened to bombard Almeria unless a ransom was paid and later turned them over the national government on 26 September. In August, Numancia and Méndez Núñez attacked coastal fortifications defending Alicante and were lightly damaged. On 11 October, all three Cantonist ironclads, Numancia, Tetuan, and Méndez Núñez were at sea when they were attacked near Cartagena by a small government fleet led by Vitoria. Reluctant to actually sink the rebel ships, the government ships kept their distance and thwarted rebel attempt to close with them. The latter suffered 13 dead and 49 wounded in the skirmish. The government blockaded Cartagena on 23 October and the city surrendered on 12–13 January 1874.
So even if in 1873 the Spanish have a beterr fleet than the United States, it looks like they are divided between the government and rebel forces, and that is not including i think the Spanish Pacific Squadron and the Spanish Caribbean Squadron. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 2, 2020 11:18:20 GMT
That depends on the source. There are a hell of a lot of books that aren't worth the paper their printed on as well, just as there are a hell of a lot of crap videos out there. The source I mentioned previously, for military history visualized, if you actually looked at a few, you would see he is continuously referencing and quoting numerous source books. Just as another source I look at sometimes, although with my gaming not as much as I should, are videos of lectures by experts, often to military and other professionals. To simply dismiss all video sources without looking at them is unwise. I'm not saying accepting even the latter without querying if something sounds off but judge the item by the contents not the cover.
With Drachinifel he is definitely an expert in his field. Part of the problem in this case is that while largely talking about the 1898 conflict he briefly mentions the Spanish superiority in 1873, which I have also seen suggested elsewhere. Which is a weakness and I suspect he didn't investigate the political background and realised the civil war is on. In that he made an error and a bad one but again most people outside Spain had never heard about the Carlist wars at all. An error on his part. However I still think your binary viewpoint is overlooking the difficulties involved for the US or another great power as you have done in the past. [Just replied to you elsewhere on the problems Germany would have faced in 1938 if war had developed over Czechoslovakia]. Steve
This is interesting, we find out more which Spanish ships where with the government and which ships where with the rebels during the Third Carlist War In mid-1873, the First Spanish Republic was beset with the Cantonal Revolution while fighting the Third Carlist War. The revolutionaries seized Cartagena on 12 July while the bulk of the Mediterranean Squadron was in port. This included the armored frigates Vitoria, Numancia, and Tetuan, in addition to Méndez Núñez. The German and British ironclads SMS Friedrich Carl and HMS Swiftsure seized Vitoria and a wooden steam frigate as pirates after they threatened to bombard Almeria unless a ransom was paid and later turned them over the national government on 26 September. In August, Numancia and Méndez Núñez attacked coastal fortifications defending Alicante and were lightly damaged. On 11 October, all three Cantonist ironclads, Numancia, Tetuan, and Méndez Núñez were at sea when they were attacked near Cartagena by a small government fleet led by Vitoria. Reluctant to actually sink the rebel ships, the government ships kept their distance and thwarted rebel attempt to close with them. The latter suffered 13 dead and 49 wounded in the skirmish. The government blockaded Cartagena on 23 October and the city surrendered on 12–13 January 1874.
So even if in 1873 the Spanish have a beterr fleet than the United States, it looks like they are divided between the government and rebel forces, and that is not including i think the Spanish Pacific Squadron and the Spanish Caribbean Squadron.
Would agree, On this Drachinifel - like other comments I have seen elsewhere on the issue - seems to have failed to check the political facts for 1873 and seen there was a civil war going on. That makes it looks like little or no aid would come in the short term from Spain itself which greatly aids the US provided its forces is adequate for the crossing to Cuba. [One problem with a lot of the USCW ironclads was that most couldn't safely cross open water due to their very low water clearance. The original Monitor's deck was only 4" above the waterline IIRC - although a quick check on Wiki suggests 18" and most of the others were similarly very low so any sort of storm could be very bad for them. Often they were towed by other, sea going ships while unmanned and sometimes loaded with cork or other such material to make them less prone to flooding.
As I said under those circumstances if there was a solo war between the US and Spain then the latter is likely to win in the Carribean but its not going to be as simple for them. as epichistory is assuming.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on May 2, 2020 11:20:58 GMT
This is interesting, we find out more which Spanish ships where with the government and which ships where with the rebels during the Third Carlist War In mid-1873, the First Spanish Republic was beset with the Cantonal Revolution while fighting the Third Carlist War. The revolutionaries seized Cartagena on 12 July while the bulk of the Mediterranean Squadron was in port. This included the armored frigates Vitoria, Numancia, and Tetuan, in addition to Méndez Núñez. The German and British ironclads SMS Friedrich Carl and HMS Swiftsure seized Vitoria and a wooden steam frigate as pirates after they threatened to bombard Almeria unless a ransom was paid and later turned them over the national government on 26 September. In August, Numancia and Méndez Núñez attacked coastal fortifications defending Alicante and were lightly damaged. On 11 October, all three Cantonist ironclads, Numancia, Tetuan, and Méndez Núñez were at sea when they were attacked near Cartagena by a small government fleet led by Vitoria. Reluctant to actually sink the rebel ships, the government ships kept their distance and thwarted rebel attempt to close with them. The latter suffered 13 dead and 49 wounded in the skirmish. The government blockaded Cartagena on 23 October and the city surrendered on 12–13 January 1874.
So even if in 1873 the Spanish have a beterr fleet than the United States, it looks like they are divided between the government and rebel forces, and that is not including i think the Spanish Pacific Squadron and the Spanish Caribbean Squadron. Would agree, On this Drachinifel - like other comments I have seen elsewhere on the issue - seems to have failed to check the political facts for 1873 and seen there was a civil war going on. That makes it looks like little or no aid would come in the short term from Spain itself which greatly aids the US provided its forces is adequate for the crossing to Cuba. [One problem with a lot of the USCW ironclads was that most couldn't safely cross open water due to their very low water clearance. The original Monitor's deck was only 4" above the waterline IIRC - although a quick check on Wiki suggests 18" and most of the others were similarly very low so any sort of storm could be very bad for them. Often they were towed by other, sea going ships while unmanned and sometimes loaded with cork or other such material to make them less prone to flooding.
As I said under those circumstances if there was a solo war between the US and Spain then the latter is likely to win in the Carribean but its not going to be as simple for them. as epichistory is assuming.
Steve
Also is 1873 not to soon after the end of the Civil War in America, would Southern states be willing to go to war over this. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 2, 2020 11:30:22 GMT
Would agree, On this Drachinifel - like other comments I have seen elsewhere on the issue - seems to have failed to check the political facts for 1873 and seen there was a civil war going on. That makes it looks like little or no aid would come in the short term from Spain itself which greatly aids the US provided its forces is adequate for the crossing to Cuba. [One problem with a lot of the USCW ironclads was that most couldn't safely cross open water due to their very low water clearance. The original Monitor's deck was only 4" above the waterline IIRC - although a quick check on Wiki suggests 18" and most of the others were similarly very low so any sort of storm could be very bad for them. Often they were towed by other, sea going ships while unmanned and sometimes loaded with cork or other such material to make them less prone to flooding.
As I said under those circumstances if there was a solo war between the US and Spain then the latter is likely to win in the Carribean but its not going to be as simple for them. as epichistory is assuming.
Steve
Also is 1873 not to soon after the end of the Civil War in America, would Southern states be willing to go to war over this.
Some might be reluctant and also there were restrictions on a number of states for a few years after the war - don't have time to check up as to where and how long. However EwellHolmes, is right that quite a few of the leading figures of the rebellion and very likely also the rank and file were willing to fight again for the US army, sometimes very soon after the defeat. It might depend on the economic issue as to how eager people were to enlist but also the killing of Americans from the crew is going to be a recuiter if it goes to war. On the other hand so soon after the CW there could be a lot more reluctance to go through that sort of bloodshed again as compared to 1898 when there was an eager young generation with no experience of war. However the US should be able to moblise a fair number of volunteers. How well their equipped and trained if not already experienced might be an issue but sheer weight of numbers and that the US has made considerable economic steps in the last decade.
Steve
|
|
