RE: What new scenarios would you like to see?

RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III

Message

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 9:10:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sstevens06 quote: ORIGINAL: bluermonkey Has there ever been a TOAW scenario covering the Japanese war in China from 1936 onwards? Could be interesting... Not that I know of. Due to the size and scope of that conflict the scenario would have to be a 'monster.' [:)] I'd look at the fighting around Shanghai in 1937-1938. It went on for six months -- and my understanding is that the Chinese army proved considerably harder to beat than the Japanese had anticipated.

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 9:16:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Or stay put. Losing Antwerp would be inconvenient -- not the kiss of death. Well, we can't supply twenty plus divisions by air. Maybe five- given good weather. Clearly they'd have to break back into contact with the rest of France. First, given that the Germans had been able to supply five or six divisions by air in the winter of 1941-42 with their resources and using the infrastructure available on the Eastern front, I'm sure you grossly underestimate Allied aerial resupply capabilities. Second, note that Holland does have ports. These can be occupied. The point is that broadly, the Germans taking Antwerp does unhinge the Allied logistical machine and does rule out the sort of lavishly- supplied broad front offensive the Allies historically practised. It doesn't really create any starving armies forced to either 'break out' or surrender. 'Break out' to where? Holland's ports are just as good as France's.

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 9:26:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms quote: ORIGINAL: redcoat [Quote]If- as according to redcoat- the two states are on good terms, the Confederacy can hardly be withholding sales of oil to the Union. quote: So the US received most of its oil imports from Mexico in the 1930s. I didn’t know that. It seems to me that the Mexicans wouldn’t want to live next door to an expansionist re-united United States of America. Better to live next door to the CSA. I think that Mexico would have joined an oil embargo against the US soon after the shooting started. It's certainly a topic which is ripe with possibility as concerns alternate history. Consider the following possibility: In the wake of a Confederate victory, there is no American "army of observation" on the Mexican border. No American volunteers in Juarez's army. American diplomatic pressure on France, if that even occurs, has no substance. France does not have to withdraw support from Maximilian and the Conservatives in Mexico. Juarez is eventually defeated, and close ties between the Confederacy and France lead to close ties between the Confederacy and Mexico into the 20th century. No Mexican oil for the Union come wartime. The flip side of this is that if Juarez does eventually defeat the French/Conservatives anyway, and the Confederacy had been helping them, Mexico is going to be incredibly hostile to the Confederacy. Another question would be whether or not Mexico has a major revolution around the time it did historically(1910-1920), and what you think the US and Confederate role would be in that. You really could write a plausible alt history that could go in any number of directions. Other points to consider: does the Confederacy remain true to its agrarian ideals, or only pay them lip service? Does it embark on a program of colonialism and expansion in Latin America and the Caribbean in particular? For my money, I think the Confederacy is likely to only be on good terms with Latin America if a) it directly administers the parts we're talking about, b) there is some sort of reactionary regime in power(e.g. Maximilian in Mexico) or c) the United States is viewed as the greater threat. Largely, you illustrate why I tend to shy away from these more ambitious hypotheticals. One can take a different decision a few months earlier and come up with a Sealion scenario for the summer of 1940. Only so much can vary, and only by so much. No airlifted Tiger II's. Go with the seventy-year span between a Southern victory in 1863 and a 1933 USA-CSA hypothetical and you can have any damned thing you want. Hell, figure the increased military tension has led to American ingenuity being turned more to arms. Put in jet fighters if it suits you.

redcoat -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 9:28:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: redcoat All I would like to see now is a good wargame based upon the concept. Right. Well I suggest you start by finding a map.... :) As they say, if you want something done properly, do it yourself. My 1933 atlas of the world covers the US (CSA) quite well. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of TOAW anymore! What a shame. I can't possibly design the scenario ... Anyway. This concept deserves the attention of an experienced designer.

Fidel_Helms -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 9:34:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Largely, you illustrate why I tend to shy away from these more ambitious hypotheticals. One can take a different decision a few months earlier and come up with a Sealion sceanrio for the summer of 1940. Only so much can vary, and only by so much. No airlifted Tiger II's. Go with the seventy-year span between a Southern victory in 1863 and a 1933 USA-CSA hypothetical and you can have any damned thing you want. Hell, figure the increased military tension has led to American ingenuity being turned more to arms. Put in jet fighters if it suits you. Yeah. You just have to decide whether or not that appeals. The usefulness of such hypotheticals comes in creating a gaming situation which can be more or less custom designed to one's tastes, while not being science fiction or fantasy.

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 9:39:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious Grant could probably come up with an argument for how the south could have survived until 1930. I'll agree that it's unlikely. Certainly the South would have had to have changed a lot. I'll admit that I don't see why this is unlikely if our starting point is a Confederate victory in the Civil War. The sooner this comes, the less economic damage has been done to the South. No March to the Sea, no Sheridan denuding the Shenandoah, etc. In addition to this, having let the Confederacy become established as a sovereign nation, it's going to be much harder to reconquer it later on. Then there's also the question of whether or not the North has the will to attempt to do so at all. It would have lost the war in the first place because of a failure of political will. Where does the political will come from to try and reconquer the South at a later time? Radical President from New England exploits an American Dolchstosslegende to radicalize the Yankee volk against hook-nosed Southerners? As for the South changing, I think everyone makes the assumption that it wouldn't- without much basis. This is especially surprising given the current situation in the United States, which sees the South growing at the expense of the Northeast and the Rust Belt, and the South dominating the political life of the country. The South had its own technocrats, industrialists, and pragmatic centralizers. I think something like the boll weevil infestations which devastated cotton crops in the 1870s would have led to them becoming ever more powerful. This is about what happened historically- look at the development of Birmingham, Alabama. I'm assuming that this process would have been more pronounced than it was historically without the South having been economically devastated in the Civil War and not being controlled by Northern interests. It's always been my view that even if the CSA had won the war, the component Southern states would have just drifted back into the Union. The economic ties are too great, the cultural differences aren't all that great, and the political theory that justified the CSA hardly gave the nation much in the way of any machinery for compelling adherence. The fact of the Mississippi River system alone means that Louisiana's natural trading partner is Ohio rather than Virginia. They'll get their grain from Iowa, not the Sheanadoah Valley. Texas beef is gonna want to go Chicago -- no matter what the boundries are. By 1900, there wouldn't have been a CSA. The net long-term effects are (1) less certainty that the United States wins all its wars, (2) less of a triumph for federal absolutism, and (3) a different history for Black emancipation and race relations. Of course no one likes this. The Unionists dislike the need for the war being questioned. The Confederate sympathizers want their glorious CSA -- not just the discovery that by 2005 they'd be about where they are now anyway.

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 9:48:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms An interesting point to consider in all of this is that at the time this scenario would take place, the vast majority of American oil imports came from Mexico. Neither Venezuela nor the Middle East were major producers at the time. So a Confederacy which has good relations with Mexico(or has annexed parts of it) and holds most of the Southwest drastically alters the strategic position and the industrial capacity of the United States during this time frame. You've made this argument before. While it has some validity, it ignores the fact that Mexico borders on California, which presumably is still in the Union. Also, California itself -- particularly at this time -- was a pretty significant oil producer.

Fidel_Helms -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 10:01:51 PM)
quote: You've made this argument before. While it has some validity, it ignores the fact that Mexico borders on California, which presumably is still in the Union. Also, California itself -- particularly at this time -- was a pretty significant oil producer. Actually, I think that Redcoat had California partitioned between the two, but let's assume that it's still in the Union. Mexico's oil fields are on the Gulf of Mexico. The only practical way for this oil to get into the Union is through the Confederacy or by sea. Obviously the Confederacy can shut down the land route; the sea route can be seriously affected by submarines in time of war, especially if we assume that the Caribbean is a Confederate lake. quote: If- as according to redcoat- the two states are on good terms, the Confederacy can hardly be withholding sales of oil to the Union. She can in wartime. In peacetime, instead of Union companies drilling wells, it'll be Confederate oil companies doing so and selling the oil at a nice profit to the Union, or extracting massive concessions from Union companies to permit them to drill. As I said before, the Union isn't deprived of oil, but it's in a much weaker position than historically.

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 10:05:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Largely, you illustrate why I tend to shy away from these more ambitious hypotheticals. One can take a different decision a few months earlier and come up with a Sealion sceanrio for the summer of 1940. Only so much can vary, and only by so much. No airlifted Tiger II's. Go with the seventy-year span between a Southern victory in 1863 and a 1933 USA-CSA hypothetical and you can have any damned thing you want. Hell, figure the increased military tension has led to American ingenuity being turned more to arms. Put in jet fighters if it suits you. Yeah. You just have to decide whether or not that appeals. The usefulness of such hypotheticals comes in creating a gaming situation which can be more or less custom designed to one's tastes, while not being science fiction or fantasy. Yeah. To my mind, though, such hypotheticals have an aura of unreality. It's like the 'World of Tomorrow' exhibits of 1940 -- according to which, we should all have our own private helicopter by now. First off, all concrete details are more or less arbitrary. Would the tanks used look anything at all like what historically had been developed by 1930? No particular reason why they should. What would Southern units be called? Just because a regiment was called the '19th Virginia' in 1862 is no reason to think the same system would be in place in 1930. Hell, presumably Southern English has evolved somewhat differently. (You could go ahead, figure out what 'Standard Southern' would be in this time-line, and drive everyone crazy by writing your briefing in it.) Secondly, imagination persistently fails. We keep running into this assumption that the rest of the world just runs along as it did in spite of this change. Let's assume that the South had won. Well, there goes any claim to US hegemony over Latin America. Quite likely, it becomes a cockpit for France, Britain, probably Germany, and of course the USA and the new CSA. Latin America is a much more appealing field for expansion than bloody Africa -- and the stakes will be a lot higher. If pure national pride could produce Fashoda, God knows what butting heads over Argentina could lead to. Maybe our probable war is an 1890's World War One that sort of looks like the Seven Years War with better toys. So when such factors are taken into consideration, our 1930's USA-CSA hypothetical just looks like a bunch of virtually arbitrary choices plonked down on a map of America. That map is about all that has any real aura of authenticity. This opposes to Sealion. Yep, 43rd Wessex really did exist. Yep, that's about where it would have been. Yep, that's about what it would have been equipped with. One still has a sense of tracing the outlines of a reasonably definable reality.

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 10:10:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms quote: You've made this argument before. While it has some validity, it ignores the fact that Mexico borders on California, which presumably is still in the Union. Also, California itself -- particularly at this time -- was a pretty significant oil producer. Actually, I think that Redcoat had California partitioned between the two, but let's assume that it's still in the Union. Mexico's oil fields are on the Gulf of Mexico. The only practical way for this oil to get into the Union is through the Confederacy or by sea. Obviously the Confederacy can shut down the land route; the sea route can be seriously affected by submarines in time of war, especially if we assume that the Caribbean is a Confederate lake. quote: If- as according to redcoat- the two states are on good terms, the Confederacy can hardly be withholding sales of oil to the Union. She can in wartime. In peacetime, instead of Union companies drilling wells, it'll be Confederate oil companies doing so and selling the oil at a nice profit to the Union, or extracting massive concessions from Union companies to permit them to drill. As I said before, the Union isn't deprived of oil, but it's in a much weaker position than historically. Mexico did have railroads, you know. The thing is that I'm sure the CSA can make oil expensive for the United States -- maybe even so expensive that the United States does what Germany did and starts synthesizing it from coal. I don't think, though, that the South really has a war-winning weapon here. The United States still has some domestic supplies. It can either synthesize or import whatever more is required.

Fidel_Helms -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 10:24:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Mexico did have railroads, you know. Sure. However, obviously railing oil across the breadth and width of Mexico, up into California, and then back across North America is not exactly an ideal scenario, not even taking into account the capacity of the Mexican rail network. quote: The thing is that I'm sure the CSA can make oil expensive for the United States -- maybe even so expensive that the United States does what Germany did and starts synthesizing it from coal. I don't think, though, that the South really has a war-winning weapon here. The United States still has some domestic supplies. It can either synthesize or import whatever more is required. I'm not saying that the lack of oil would have made the Union into a feudal state or something. But industry requires energy; the cheaper the better. I think it's fairly obvious that limiting the Union's access to cheap energy is going to retard its industrial development. Consider that historically, the United States produced over half of the world's oil supply during this time frame. I think it's pretty hard to argue that replacing "United States" with "Confederate States and Mexico" is not going to have a serious effect on the Union. For one thing, guess who bought most of Mexico's oil exports to the US? The US Navy.

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 10:39:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Mexico did have railroads, you know. Sure. However, obviously railing oil across the breadth and width of Mexico, up into California, and then back across North America is not exactly an ideal scenario, not even taking into account the capacity of the Mexican rail network. quote: The thing is that I'm sure the CSA can make oil expensive for the United States -- maybe even so expensive that the United States does what Germany did and starts synthesizing it from coal. I don't think, though, that the South really has a war-winning weapon here. The United States still has some domestic supplies. It can either synthesize or import whatever more is required. I'm not saying that the lack of oil would have made the Union into a feudal state or something. But industry requires energy; the cheaper the better. I think it's fairly obvious that limiting the Union's access to cheap energy is going to retard its industrial development. Consider that historically, the United States produced over half of the world's oil supply during this time frame. I think it's pretty hard to argue that replacing "United States" with "Confederate States and Mexico" is not going to have a serious effect on the Union. For one thing, guess who bought most of Mexico's oil exports to the US? The US Navy. Well, first off, a mere lack of indigenous oil is not going to severely retard the North's development: witness Britain and Germany. Secondly, this sort of impoverishment assumes a CSA that is so hostile to the USA that even in peacetime it refuses to sell to its natural best customer. Thirdly, when does Southern oil come to dominate? As I recall, Spindletop was in 1909. So we've got the South supplying oil at all only for the last twenty years before our scenario. We've got ample alternative sources overseas even if the South tries to put on the squeeze. We don't have oil as a primary engine of economic development at all until about 1920. So it don't see this stunted Northern economic development. I see some pretty stringent rationing when war breaks out.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 10:39:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms Where does the political will come from to try and reconquer the South at a later time? Radical President from New England exploits an American Dolchstosslegende to radicalize the Yankee volk against hook-nosed Southerners? Randolph Butler, 32nd President of the United States. One people, one America, one President. A final solution to the Dixie problem... quote: I think something like the boll weevil infestations which devastated cotton crops in the 1870s would have led to them becoming ever more powerful. That could do it. All your impoverished smallholders demanding that Richmond do something for them drown out the particularist aristocrats. President Lee begins paying generous subsidies to new industrial enterprises.

Fidel_Helms -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 10:39:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Yeah. To my mind, though, such hypotheticals have an aura of unreality. To the extent that's true, I'm not bothered by it. I loved Fall Grau. I found something indescribably fun about trying to retake Birmingham, Alabama from 1st SS Panzer or whatever. So yeah, I'm up for having the Army of Northern Virginia march on Caracas or whatever. To me it's the same motivation that compels me to play Pelle's Petsamo. I could care less about the Eastern Front, but that is a very interesting gaming situation. Hypotheticals are often the most interesting from a gaming point of view, and have more color.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 10:42:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright I'd look at the fighting around Shanghai in 1937-1938. It went on for six months -- and my understanding is that the Chinese army proved considerably harder to beat than the Japanese had anticipated. Yeah, this would make a good scenario- if you can find any sources. Probably some fairly complete study- out of print and in Japanese.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 10:44:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Second, note that Holland does have ports. These can be occupied. This calls for us to a) go on a new offensive after having been cut off b) beat the historical advance rate and c) repair those ports in double quick time. I say we just smash the Germans behind us and probably retake Antwerp.

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 10:46:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Yeah. To my mind, though, such hypotheticals have an aura of unreality. To the extent that's true, I'm not bothered by it. I loved Fall Grau. I found something indescribably fun about trying to retake Birmingham, Alabama from 1st SS Panzer or whatever. So yeah, I'm up for having the Army of Northern Virginia march on Caracas or whatever. To me it's the same motivation that compels me to play Pelle's Petsamo. I could care less about the Eastern Front, but that is a very interesting gaming situation. Hypotheticals are often the most interesting from a gaming point of view, and have more color. I suppose. Maybe it's the timelines that bother me. They always have such yawning holes in them. Better Jeremy's 'yes, of course it couldn't have happened. Now, disregarding that...' Sure, this war could have happened. What the conditions would have been, though, is virtually impossible to predict. We can with reasonable certainty be assured that North America is indeed still populated by bipeds. Beyond that, though...

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 10:48:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms She can in wartime. In peacetime, instead of Union companies drilling wells, it'll be Confederate oil companies doing so and selling the oil at a nice profit to the Union, or extracting massive concessions from Union companies to permit them to drill. As I said before, the Union isn't deprived of oil, but it's in a much weaker position than historically. They can't extract "massive concessions". The Union companies will just go drill in some other country. The Confederacy will get just the same nonspectacular price for its oil that everyone else does.

Fidel_Helms -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 10:51:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Well, first off, a mere lack of indigenous oil is not going to severely retard the North's development: witness Britain and Germany. Both of whom had an industrial output far inferior to that of the United States. Again, I am not saying that the Union never fully industrializes or something- just that the United States of the 1930s and 1940s is not the 300 pound gorilla that it historically was. quote: Secondly, this sort of impoverishment assumes a CSA that is so hostile to the USA that even in peacetime it refuses to sell to its natural best customer. Thirdly, when does Southern oil come to dominate? As I recall, Spindletop was in 1909. Mexican and Texan fields began to be exploited around the turn of the century. As for your first point, did you even bother to read my last post? I am not supposing that the Confederacy is not selling oil to the Union in peacetime. quote: We've got ample alternative sources overseas even if the South tries to put on the squeeze. Where? Oil wasn't discovered in Venezuela until the early 1920s, and production didn't pick up until the 30s. At best, the US has these long maritime supply lines like Britain did during the World Wars. That makes her much weaker than she was historically.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 10:52:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms To the extent that's true, I'm not bothered by it. I loved Fall Grau. I found something indescribably fun about trying to retake Birmingham, Alabama from 1st SS Panzer or whatever. So yeah, I'm up for having the Army of Northern Virginia march on Caracas or whatever. To me it's the same motivation that compels me to play Pelle's Petsamo. I could care less about the Eastern Front, but that is a very interesting gaming situation. Hypotheticals are often the most interesting from a gaming point of view, and have more color. I probably fall about halfway between the two of you. I do find the uncertainty of such a complicated hypothetical to be a little disconcerting- but I did love Fall Grau. Would probably play this scenario too, if it were made.

golden delicious -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 10:56:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms Both of whom had an industrial output far inferior to that of the United States. I believe that at the time we're talking about- the early 30s- the USA's industrial output was about the same in proportion to its population as Britain's. You only started going off the chart in the Second World War. quote: Where? Oil wasn't discovered in Venezuela until the early 1920s, and production didn't pick up until the 30s. At best, the US has these long maritime supply lines like Britain did during the World Wars. That makes her much weaker than she was historically. The Dutch East Indies are a popular source. Helps that the convoys are going to be out of reach of the vast majority of Confederate raiders.

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 10:58:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Second, note that Holland does have ports. These can be occupied. This calls for us to a) go on a new offensive after having been cut off b) beat the historical advance rate and c) repair those ports in double quick time. I say we just smash the Germans behind us and probably retake Antwerp. ... without looking up it, I doubt if the German defenses of Holland were all that formidable. The place probably wasn't taken because no one really tried. Antwerp can fall. Supplies will be disrupted and the primary effect will be merely to create two separate Allied fronts where there was one. There's not going to be any desperate mass of half a million 'surrounded' Allied troops. There's going to be a shortage of airlift space for birthday cakes and no driving because you're tired of walking. ...and for only a little bit. The Germans are going to stop Patton from driving north? Who knows, maybe Montgomery will actually manage to start driving south. After all, the alternative would be to be rescued by Patton... A German seizure of Antwerp could, as the more realistic German planners hoped, unhinge the Anglo-American drive into Germany for a few months and give the Germans a window of opportunity to try to deal a shattering blow to the Russians. Not that that'll work...

Fidel_Helms -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 10:59:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious They can't extract "massive concessions". The Union companies will just go drill in some other country. The Confederacy will get just the same nonspectacular price for its oil that everyone else does. But they can. It's what America did to the British and Dutch when oil fields began to be discovered in the Middle East and the Dutch East Indies. American companies were excluding from drilling there, until America passed a law which barred foreign oil companies from having access to American oil and mineral reserves. Despite the fact that the British and Dutch had their own massive reserves, they caved and allowed American companies to drill in their territories. There's also the point that the Confederate companies would have a huge experience edge. This does matter. In the 1930s, the major oil companies were largely American, British, and Dutch. About the same now.

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 11:07:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Well, first off, a mere lack of indigenous oil is not going to severely retard the North's development: witness Britain and Germany. Both of whom had an industrial output far inferior to that of the United States. Again, I am not saying that the Union never fully industrializes or something- just that the United States of the 1930s and 1940s is not the 300 pound gorilla that it historically was. As Ben notes, you're mistaken about US industry prior to 1930. Worse, you seem to virtually ignore what. The South isn't supplying this vital oil prior to 1910. After 1910, she's probably supplying it anyway. Prior to the outbreak of war, I don't see why US industrial development is substantially affected by the fact that oil fields are in Texas. So what if oil costs a bit more? All that means is that more trains continue to be coal fired, those trains are used more than trucks are, and having a car is a bit more of a luxury than it historically was. NOT that economy killing blow you're looking for. quote: quote: Secondly, this sort of impoverishment assumes a CSA that is so hostile to the USA that even in peacetime it refuses to sell to its natural best customer. Thirdly, when does Southern oil come to dominate? As I recall, Spindletop was in 1909. Mexican and Texan fields began to be exploited around the turn of the century. As for your first point, did you even bother to read my last post? I am not supposing that the Confederacy is not selling oil to the Union in peacetime. Okay, so it is selling oil to the US in peacetime. Then I fail to see the major impact on US ecomomic development. Indigenous oil is NOT necessary to economic development. Ask Japan. quote: quote: We've got ample alternative sources overseas even if the South tries to put on the squeeze. Where? Oil wasn't discovered in Venezuela until the early 1920s, and production didn't pick up until the 30s. At best, the US has these long maritime supply lines like Britain did during the World Wars. That makes her much weaker than she was historically. ...but until the early twenties, there's no squeeze anyway. Look at what hauled cargo in 1905. It wasn't trucks. After the early 1920's, as you've noted, the South is selling its oil to the US anyway. I don't see this dramatic impact on US economic development. That there are oil fields in Texas is going to exert a barely perceptible influence until the outbreak of hostilities. It's going to affect US strategic planning. We might do what Britain did and secure ourselves an Iran. There's a good chance we'll look into synthetic oil production. I guess California oil might be studied more carefully.

Fidel_Helms -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 11:10:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious The Dutch East Indies are a popular source. Helps that the convoys are going to be out of reach of the vast majority of Confederate raiders. "At best, the US has these long maritime supply lines like Britain did during the World Wars" Right. You can see how this is less desireable than getting that oil from Texas, correct? Not to mention that US companies couldn't drill in the Dutch East Indies for most of the 20s. I also don't see why Confederate raiders wouldn't be able to get to those convoys.

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 11:21:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious The Dutch East Indies are a popular source. Helps that the convoys are going to be out of reach of the vast majority of Confederate raiders. "At best, the US has these long maritime supply lines like Britain did during the World Wars" Right. You can see how this is less desireable than getting that oil from Texas, correct? Not to mention that US companies couldn't drill in the Dutch East Indies for most of the 20s. I also don't see why Confederate raiders wouldn't be able to get to those convoys. ALL of this is majestically irrelevant to your originally thesis that US industrial development prior to the war would be hamstrung. Obviously, the impact would be nil. Once war breaks out, the US is roughly in the position that Germany was when it still held Rumania and Hungary; we've still got California, Pennsylvania, and whatever synthetic production we can come up with. Supplies are straightened -- not cut off. This assumes an effective Southern submarine campaign. It also assumes that British Petroleum et al are unwilling to sell oil to the US even thought she's offering top dollar. Finally, it assumes that the South can effectively defend all of West Texas as well as her eastern heartland. The WORST CASE sees the US unable to motorize all its infantry divisions. She's probably able to mount barely twice the war effort of Nazi Germany circa 1941. Obviously doomed... I just don't see it. Oil is not going to win the war for the South. She's got even less of a monopoly on it than she had on cotton -- and THAT didn't win the first war for her. Forcing the US to use 'less convenient' sources of supply is not going to win the war for the South. That's like arguing that I can bend you to my will by forcing you to do your grocerry shopping at the Piggly-Wiggly on the other side of town.

Fidel_Helms -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 11:31:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright As Ben notes, you're mistaken about US industry prior to 1930. Ben's point is a red herring. What's important is potential, not actual output. quote: Okay, so it is selling oil to the US in peacetime. Then I fail to see the major impact on US ecomomic development. Indigenous oil is NOT necessary to economic development. Ask Japan. Maybe if I repeat this enough it'll stick. That's not what I'm saying. In a nutshell, without oil, I don't see the US as being the 300 pound gorilla that she was in World War II. She can't build this massive mechanized army and stomp all over the South- what's it going to run on? The US Navy bought most of the oil that Mexico historically exported to the US. What are its ships going to run on? Without widespread civilian autmobile ownership, what factories will churn out aircraft and tanks as was done historically? That's what I'm driving at- the US military is going to be outmoded, and the Union is going to be reliant on long maritime supply lines. As for Japan, she declared war on us because we placed an oil embargo on her, then promptly seized the Dutch East Indian oilfields for her use, and was ultimately crippled by attacks on her shipping. I think this proves my point quite nicely- not that I think that same fate would have befallen the North, but obviously this is a less than ideal situation to be in.

ColinWright -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 11:31:39 PM)
We should write the scenario with a blatantly pro-Southern briefing. Mad-dog Northern Amero-Nazis decide to crush Southern independence. Britain winds up being the 'arsenal of democracy.' Heroic Southern tankers equip themselves with Matilda II's -- latest product of British military technology.

Fidel_Helms -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 11:34:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright That's like arguing that I can bend you to my will by forcing you to do your grocerry shopping at the Piggly-Wiggly on the other side of town. I dunno. Have you seen the part of town Piggly Wiggly is usually in?

Fidel_Helms -> RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? (11/6/2005 11:36:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright We should write the scenario with a blatantly pro-Southern briefing. Mad-dog Northern Amero-Nazis decide to crush Southern independence. Britain winds up being the 'arsenal of democracy.' Heroic Southern tankers equip themselves with Matilda II's -- latest product of British military technology. Part of your problem is that you react to any hypothetical I put forth on this subject as me wanting a "glorious CSA". All I've said is that I see a South which is still independent, partially industrialized, and had engaged in the typical spate of colonialism in the late Victorian era.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.5947266