[IW] Non-Nazi Germany-Dominant World?

[Xenarthral]

Originally Posted by sn0wball

...hardened and experienced civil war veterans, who not only birng superior firepower, but also tactics unheard of in central europe at the time.

Would it be impertinent to mention that, judging by discussions on related
subjects over on the alternative history discussion board, American Civil
War tactics appears to have been unheard of in Europe (Central or otherwise)
more in terms of "I hadn't heard anybody still used those." than "Wow, I
never knew you could do that."

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Xenarthral

Would it be impertinent to mention that, judging by discussions on related
subjects over on the alternative history discussion board, American Civil
War tactics appears to have been unheard of in Europe (Central or otherwise)
more in terms of "I hadn't heard anybody still used those." than "Wow, I
never knew you could do that."

Um I doubt that. As for it was the first War which weapons like the Gatling gun was used in. So no i don't think their tactics will be "old hat" in Europe, and one of the first wars of the "industrial" age

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Um I doubt that. As for it was the first War which weapons like the Gatling gun was used in. So no i don't think their tactics will be "old hat" in Europe, and one of the first wars of the "industrial" age

Essentially, the Gatling gun _wasn't_ used in the ACW. There weren't enough of them in exisitence to even _show_ to half the troops imnnvolved.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Essentially, the Gatling gun _wasn't_ used in the ACW. There weren't enough of them in exisitence to even _show_ to half the troops imnnvolved.

No they weren't standard equipment, but they DID impact tactics and would deftly be in minds of vets. for that another big change the ACW brought, photography and the telegraph meant news and impact was know far wider than "those that were there"

[sn0wball]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

This is definitely a good start. I'm a little fuzzy on why he would do this: in our timeline, he thought they would cave to him and, in the end, he was right. A better showing somewhere, or an extra revolt or two, especially in the Rhineland.

As I have read, many influential people of his court were in favor of accepting the crown, including his brother Wilhelm I and Alexander von Humboldt. Especially the latter might have succeeded. Friedrich Wilhelm explained his decision by stating that he was no Friedrich the Great. Somebody might have convince him otherwise.

[sn0wball]

Originally Posted by Xenarthral

Would it be impertinent to mention that, judging by discussions on related
subjects over on the alternative history discussion board, American Civil
War tactics appears to have been unheard of in Europe (Central or otherwise)
more in terms of "I hadn't heard anybody still used those." than "Wow, I
never knew you could do that."

I don´t remember any specifics from the book or whether the author supplied any. It probably wasn´t about civil war tactics as such. Godfreys Rifles was a company of mounted riflemen or raiders or whatever. I tried to look it up in the book, but it is written in first person desciption in bavarian dialect, so I did´t find any quick answers. Maybe it was simply firepower and bravado that helped them to send the Prussian Garde Du Corps running.

I always have this western in mind, of whose title I can´t remember. Some civil war veterans with their winchesters are hired by the Mexican emperor (?) and fight with Austrian or Spanish or French curassiers over some gold train or whatever. Was it starring James Stewart or Robert Mitchum as a Confederate officer ?

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Xenarthral

Would it be impertinent to mention that, judging by discussions on related
subjects over on the alternative history discussion board, American Civil
War tactics appears to have been unheard of in Europe (Central or otherwise)
more in terms of "I hadn't heard anybody still used those." than "Wow, I
never knew you could do that."

Some of the clever commanders (mostly Mexican-American War veterans) realized that the old tactics were no longer valid, while the less clever ones got a lot of their own men killed by following the books written a generation before by people who had studied the warfare of the generation before them.

Pretty much the same lesson that has to be relearned in every war.

[wellspring]

Originally Posted by RyanW

Some of the clever commanders (mostly Mexican-American War veterans) realized that the old tactics were no longer valid, while the less clever ones got a lot of their own men killed by following the books written a generation before by people who had studied the warfare of the generation before them.

Pretty much the same lesson that has to be relearned in every war.

This is why I believe Strategy should be a TL skill.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by RyanW

Some of the clever commanders (mostly Mexican-American War veterans) realized that the old tactics were no longer valid, while the less clever ones got a lot of their own men killed by following the books written a generation before by people who had studied the warfare of the generation before them.

Pretty much the same lesson that has to be relearned in every war.

"Those who study warfare only in the light of history think of the next war in terms of the last. But those who neglect history deprive themselves of a yardstick by which theory can be measured. "
— Cyril Falls

"If there is one attitude more dangerous than to assume that a future war will be just like the last one, it is to imagine that it will be so utterly different we can afford to ignore all the lessons of the last one. "
— John C. Slessor

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

No they weren't standard equipment, but they DID impact tactics and would deftly be in minds of vets. for that another big change the ACW brought, photography and the telegraph meant news and impact was know far wider than "those that were there"

Go read HT p.127. Of the M1862 model, _12_ were acquired by General Butler of the Union Army and used in the war. 3 were obtained by the New York Times and used during the 1863 Draft Riots.

You might better look for people aware of possible gatling gun tactics among the civillly disobediant (or possilby just irate newspaper subscribers) in the NYC area. They'd be a lot more concentrated than those who saw the 12 Union Army gatling guns spread out among the general population of hundreds of thousands of war vets.

I beleive you to be factually incorrect in any assertion that the gatling gun affected tactics in the ACW. If you wish to defend your position I suggest you provide cites.

Historically i do not beleive that the implications of any sort of rapid fire weapon were sinking in to anyone until late in 1914.