lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,342
Likes: 45,303
|
Post by lordroel on May 12, 2023 13:31:38 GMT
On today's WWII post a little bit missing I think here.
Presumably the US 2nd Corp were attacking a river line or down a valley but the name is missing. The previous day's post mentions it involved in the attack on the Gustav line but not where. Otherwise looks OK. Steve
Will edit, thanks for the spotting.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 23,225
Likes: 11,871
|
Post by stevep on May 13, 2023 11:04:12 GMT
On today's USCW thread this last bit is interesting.
Given how much war materials were being ordered/purchased by the union within a few months, if not weeks, then that policy obviously didn't last long. Let aside the smaller amounts sold to the south by assorted groups. Plus given the number of anti-slavery volunteers that came from Britain and Canada to serve in the union forces. Be interesting to see when it changes and under what circumstances.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,342
Likes: 45,303
|
Post by lordroel on May 13, 2023 11:11:26 GMT
On today's USCW thread this last bit is interesting.
Given how much war materials were being ordered/purchased by the union within a few months, if not weeks, then that policy obviously didn't last long. Let aside the smaller amounts sold to the south by assorted groups. Plus given the number of anti-slavery volunteers that came from Britain and Canada to serve in the union forces. Be interesting to see when it changes and under what circumstances.
Steve
Nor want to jump ahead, but just wait a couple and days and you can see the United States responds to this announcement.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,283
|
Post by miletus12 on May 14, 2023 14:52:43 GMT
On today's USCW thread this last bit is interesting.
Given how much war materials were being ordered/purchased by the union within a few months, if not weeks, then that policy obviously didn't last long. Let aside the smaller amounts sold to the south by assorted groups. Plus given the number of anti-slavery volunteers that came from Britain and Canada to serve in the union forces. Be interesting to see when it changes and under what circumstances.
Steve
That is not accurate. Prior to the 1888 reforms, that prohibited states from independently letting contracts with foreign governments and companies for the purchase of foreign equipment, the individual state governments were able to send purchase commissions overseas to contract services and equipment deliveries for their "volunteer militias" at any time of their choice. As deep into the war as 1863, my own state of New York purchased Enfield rifles to make up shortfalls in federal arms supplied to New York "Volunteer Infantry" units. With the rampant corruption in the War Department at the start of the war ( Simon Cameron), it is no wonder that the more "honest" Union states sent purchase commissions abroad to procure anything from tents to uniforms, usually from the British, who would sell anything they made to anybody. Hence, the "Union" never purchased foreign arms and equipment. The same situation, except for naval items, such as complete British-made warships, manned by recruited pirates, purchased by Confederate agents in Britain, was to be seen with Confederate states.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 23,225
Likes: 11,871
|
Post by stevep on May 14, 2023 21:40:16 GMT
On today's USCW thread this last bit is interesting.
Given how much war materials were being ordered/purchased by the union within a few months, if not weeks, then that policy obviously didn't last long. Let aside the smaller amounts sold to the south by assorted groups. Plus given the number of anti-slavery volunteers that came from Britain and Canada to serve in the union forces. Be interesting to see when it changes and under what circumstances.
Steve
That is not accurate. Prior to the 1888 reforms, that prohibited states from independently letting contracts with foreign governments and companies for the purchase of foreign equipment, the individual state governments were able to send purchase commissions overseas to contract services and equipment deliveries for their "volunteer militias" at any time of their choice. As deep into the war as 1863, my own state of New York purchased Enfield rifles to make up shortfalls in federal arms supplied to New York "Volunteer Infantry" units. With the rampant corruption in the War Department at the start of the war ( Simon Cameron), it is no wonder that the more "honest" Union states sent purchase commissions abroad to procure anything from tents to uniforms, usually from the British, who would sell anything they made to anybody. Hence, the "Union" never purchased foreign arms and equipment. The same situation, except for naval items, such as complete British-made warships, manned by recruited pirates, purchased by Confederate agents in Britain, was to be seen with Confederate states.
So your basically saying Lincoln's government used a loop-hole? Even assuming all foreign purchases of weapons for the union were by the individual states then that still requires them getting funding from the central government for this. It also requires the British government turning a blind eye to such a breach of their own rules. Have to see what Lordroel says.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,283
|
Post by miletus12 on May 14, 2023 22:15:27 GMT
That is not accurate. Prior to the 1888 reforms, that prohibited states from independently letting contracts with foreign governments and companies for the purchase of foreign equipment, the individual state governments were able to send purchase commissions overseas to contract services and equipment deliveries for their "volunteer militias" at any time of their choice. As deep into the war as 1863, my own state of New York purchased Enfield rifles to make up shortfalls in federal arms supplied to New York "Volunteer Infantry" units. With the rampant corruption in the War Department at the start of the war ( Simon Cameron), it is no wonder that the more "honest" Union states sent purchase commissions abroad to procure anything from tents to uniforms, usually from the British, who would sell anything they made to anybody. Hence, the "Union" never purchased foreign arms and equipment. The same situation, except for naval items, such as complete British-made warships, manned by recruited pirates, purchased by Confederate agents in Britain, was to be seen with Confederate states.
So your basically saying Lincoln's government used a loop-hole? Even assuming all foreign purchases of weapons for the union were by the individual states then that still requires them getting funding from the central government for this. It also requires the British government turning a blind eye to such a breach of their own rules. Have to see what Lordroel says.
Lincoln's administration had nothing to do with it. He called for volunteers which was the limit of his authority. The states were assigned quotas and the volunteers were expected to arrive "equipped" out of the state arsenals created from state revenues set aside for that purpose. HARPERS FERRY was one of two federal arsenals and a Virginia specific arsenal for their militia that they subsidized. Attacking it was John Brown's treason against Virginia, not the United States. It amazes me that people do not know this.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 23,225
Likes: 11,871
|
Post by stevep on May 17, 2023 15:40:01 GMT
On today's WWI post, about ships lost, you have:
I don't know if there is a Mers-el-Kebir in Libya, although I suspect not but there is one in Algeria, very close to Oran. This was the main French naval base in Algeria in WWII. Makes a lot more sense that such a damaged ship was beached near the attack point rather than several hundred miles away in Libya.
Otherwise looking good.
Thanks
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,342
Likes: 45,303
|
Post by lordroel on May 17, 2023 15:45:45 GMT
On today's WWI post, about ships lost, you have: I don't know if there is a Mers-el-Kebir in Libya, although I suspect not but there is one in Algeria, very close to Oran. This was the main French naval base in Algeria in WWII. Makes a lot more sense that such a damaged ship was beached near the attack point rather than several hundred miles away in Libya.
Otherwise looking good. Thanks Steve
When looking at the Wikipedia page of ships sunk on May 1918, i get the same results: World War I: Convoy GB 35: The cargo ship was torpedoed and damaged in the Mediterranean Sea 60 nautical miles (110 km) north west of Oran, Algeria by SM U-39 ( Imperial German Navy). She was beached at Mers-el-Kebir, Libya The bow section of the ship was destroyed by an explosion during salvage operations and she was abandoned as a total loss.Seems Wikipedia also makes mistakes, will never the less change it to Algeria.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,283
|
Post by miletus12 on May 17, 2023 16:15:46 GMT
On today's WWI post, about ships lost, you have: I don't know if there is a Mers-el-Kebir in Libya, although I suspect not but there is one in Algeria, very close to Oran. This was the main French naval base in Algeria in WWII. Makes a lot more sense that such a damaged ship was beached near the attack point rather than several hundred miles away in Libya.
Otherwise looking good.
Thanks
Steve
You might want to look at this, then. Wrong ocean and wrong U-boat. I think we can postulate that the wiki entry is inaccurate, unless there were TWO such ships?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,342
Likes: 45,303
|
Post by lordroel on May 17, 2023 18:11:06 GMT
On today's WWI post, about ships lost, you have: I don't know if there is a Mers-el-Kebir in Libya, although I suspect not but there is one in Algeria, very close to Oran. This was the main French naval base in Algeria in WWII. Makes a lot more sense that such a damaged ship was beached near the attack point rather than several hundred miles away in Libya.
Otherwise looking good. Thanks Steve
You might want to look at this, then. Wrong ocean and wrong U-boat. I think we can postulate that the wiki entry is inaccurate, unless there were TWO such ships? This page also says a merchant ship named Sculptor was sunk on May 17th 1918 My conclusion, these where two different ships but who carried the same name, as the same website also has the 1918 mentioned: SS Sculptor (+1918)
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 23,225
Likes: 11,871
|
Post by stevep on May 17, 2023 18:21:55 GMT
OK thanks for clarifying.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,283
|
Post by miletus12 on May 17, 2023 18:34:39 GMT
Lose 1 and rename the SS Saint Andrew, Sculptor in memorium; so the Germans get her too? Okay. Don't name ships, "Sculptor".
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,342
Likes: 45,303
|
Post by lordroel on May 17, 2023 18:40:19 GMT
Lose 1 and rename the SS Saint Andrew, Sculptor in memorium; so the Germans get her too? Okay. Don't name ships, "Sculptor". Whel i did not find a "Sculptor" sunk during World War II, but then again i might need to dig deeper.
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on May 31, 2023 2:00:03 GMT
This might be important: "A tripartite Anglo-Spanish-Portuguese agreement had been signed on 24 July (1940) which would somewhat alleviate the situation in Spain." They're referring to the food situation - later, Portugal would sell them 100,000 tons of wheat. On Page 26, if you want to add it. It seems important, but I don't have details.
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 1, 2023 3:46:19 GMT
Read for the 20th of May in the Civil War thread that the Confederate Congress decided to take a summer break of two months, no less.
Somehow strange. There's a war going on, and they make holidays. What are we supposed to learn from that? You don't need a parliament to make war?
|
|