Did you hear about the new tanks for the French Army?

[Spongiform]

postcount++

[Skand]

>.>

[Arminius]

[quote="Arc Orion";p="636314"]So rather then having a serious thread breaking down into jokes, we've had a joking thread break up into serious discussion.[/quote]
Yes but generally, the first one tend to happen more frequently. As long as they don't move this to PACE, we're fine.

[jnagyjr]

[quote="SunTzu";p="636272"]Im sure there were americans being pressed into service, i doubt it was a large number though. [/quote]

Even one is too large a number, you nitwit.

I know there were loads of men who were offered either jailtime, or 2 years of service in the royal navy. Thats an undisputed fact.

Irrelevant.

I am quite sure most american captains could recognize the signs, when an english sailor wants to join up quitly, fast and with no fuss, at the same time as an english man of war entered the port.

It was not rare for british ships to have hideyholes for deserters.

Irrelevant. The British still had no legal right to be boarding American ships.

[SunTzu]

And the americans had no legal right to rebel against their british masters. We're not exactly talking about an age with rules and laws for every event that can happen.

Of course every american that was being pressed into service was one too many, but unless its a big number it has nothing to do with this discussion. A war will never be started over one single (or a few) pressed sailors.

The fact that some of those sailors that were on american ships were convicts DOES matter, since that means the british were re-capturing criminals that the americans were harboring.

And we're talking international politics now, laws had very little to do with what a nation might be forced to do. AFAIK there were no international laws regarding the boarding of ships, and certinly not the kind we have now.

[HTRN]

What it boiled down to was the British Navy thought they could get away with it.

They certainly wouldn't have tried this with a ship flying French or Spanish Colors, but hey, it's only those upstart American's, what can they do?


HTRN

[jnagyjr]

[quote="SunTzu";p="636394"]And the americans had no legal right to rebel against their british masters. We're not exactly talking about an age with rules and laws for every event that can happen.[/quote]

But that is one right that our founding fathers (rightly, IMO), said we come imbued with from our Creator.

Of course every american that was being pressed into service was one too many, but unless its a big number it has nothing to do with this discussion. A war will never be started over one single (or a few) pressed sailors.

No, it was firstly a matter of principle. Secondly it is a matter of our own Constitution imbuing the government to protect its citizens from foreign powers. While a war probably wouldn't have been waged for one sailor, the political ramifications are still great.

The fact that some of those sailors that were on american ships were convicts DOES matter, since that means the british were re-capturing criminals that the americans were harboring.

Sorry, all the British could have done is asked American captains (or our government) to return those persons. They had no legal right to board American vessels unless they were in British water.

And we're talking international politics now, laws had very little to do with what a nation might be forced to do. AFAIK there were no international laws regarding the boarding of ships, and certinly not the kind we have now.

Um, yeah. It was called piracy and kidnapping.

[Bigity]

[quote="tankkisankari";p="635902"][quote="Bigity";p="635823"]Germans did not employ human wave attacks in WWII. German equipment just didn't operate well in the conditions in the Soviet Union. The soldiers did not function well in the conditions. Napoleon found out the same thing when he tried it.
[/quote]
A bigger reason IMO for Germans not winning in Russia was logistics, not the fancy equipment(altough it wasn't as robust as the Soviet stuff), Logistics were a nightmare, trucks could move because mud, not because of their higher technical level , planes couldn't bring supplies because of bad weather and lack of fuel. That meant no fuel, no food, no ammo, no parts for equipment.

Soviet equipment while simpler was also build with cheap materials which led to poorer performance.
For example if my memory serves me right the kill ratio of a Tiger was about 5/1 compared to T34 (which includes tanks that were destroyed by germans so that Soviets couldn't get them)[/quote]

Yea, German equipment did not operate well in the conditions. Meaning trucks, tanks, artillery got stuck, etc.

Posted Mon May 22, 2006 5:01 pm:

[quote="SunTzu";p="636394"]And the americans had no legal right to rebel against their british masters. We're not exactly talking about an age with rules and laws for every event that can happen.

Of course every american that was being pressed into service was one too many, but unless its a big number it has nothing to do with this discussion. A war will never be started over one single (or a few) pressed sailors.

The fact that some of those sailors that were on american ships were convicts DOES matter, since that means the british were re-capturing criminals that the americans were harboring.

And we're talking international politics now, laws had very little to do with what a nation might be forced to do. AFAIK there were no international laws regarding the boarding of ships, and certinly not the kind we have now.[/quote]

Had England recognized the US as a country by then? If so, they had no legal right to sieze American citizens. Just like the US can't just send in police into Canada to grab fugitives. Doesn't matter if Canada knew they were there in the first place or not.

And the British Navy was very heavy-handed, as they were pretty much the undisputed master of the seas at the time. With boney running around though, they decided that leaving the US alone and worrying about the French Empire would be a better idea.

[Arminius]

[quote="Bigity";p="636495"]Just like the US can't just send in police into Canada to grab fugitives. Doesn't matter if Canada knew they were there in the first place or not.[/quote]
Err... they're already doing it.

[Bigity]

Oh yea? Where?

[tankkisankari]

[quote="Bigity";p="636495"]Yea, German equipment did not operate well in the conditions. Meaning trucks, tanks, artillery got stuck, etc.
[/quote]
Trucks didn't get stuck because they were too comlicated, you could even say they got stuck because they were too simple, as in no tracks, operating capabilities of tracked vehicles was far better that of wheeled, but they couldn't go much farther than what the wheeled trucks could go.
Russian equipment didn't work much better either, they just had simpler logistics.
Any tank get's stuck in mud at some point or is hampered by cold weather, trust me, i've worked with Soviet equipment, it's far from perfect in tough conditions.

[jnagyjr]

[quote="Arminius";p="636540"][quote="Bigity";p="636495"]Just like the US can't just send in police into Canada to grab fugitives. Doesn't matter if Canada knew they were there in the first place or not.[/quote]
Err... they're already doing it. [/quote]

Technically they aren't, they extricated Steve Kubby and the self-proclaimed Prince of Pot.

[Bigity]

[quote="tankkisankari";p="636602"][quote="Bigity";p="636495"]Yea, German equipment did not operate well in the conditions. Meaning trucks, tanks, artillery got stuck, etc.
[/quote]
Trucks didn't get stuck because they were too comlicated, you could even say they got stuck because they were too simple, as in no tracks, operating capabilities of tracked vehicles was far better that of wheeled, but they couldn't go much farther than what the wheeled trucks could go.
Russian equipment didn't work much better either, they just had simpler logistics.
Any tank get's stuck in mud at some point or is hampered by cold weather, trust me, i've worked with Soviet equipment, it's far from perfect in tough conditions. [/quote]

Who said they got stuck because they were mechanically complex?

[tankkisankari]

[quote="Bigity";p="636732"]

Who said they got stuck because they were mechanically complex?[/quote]
Nobody, i thought someone had mentioned complexity as one of the reason German equipment didn't work in WW2 in Russia. But as it happens, no one did so.

[SunTzu]

[quote="Bigity";p="636495"][quote="tankkisankari";p="635902"][quote="Bigity";p="635823"]Germans did not employ human wave attacks in WWII. German equipment just didn't operate well in the conditions in the Soviet Union. The soldiers did not function well in the conditions. Napoleon found out the same thing when he tried it.
[/quote]
A bigger reason IMO for Germans not winning in Russia was logistics, not the fancy equipment(altough it wasn't as robust as the Soviet stuff), Logistics were a nightmare, trucks could move because mud, not because of their higher technical level , planes couldn't bring supplies because of bad weather and lack of fuel. That meant no fuel, no food, no ammo, no parts for equipment.

Soviet equipment while simpler was also build with cheap materials which led to poorer performance.
For example if my memory serves me right the kill ratio of a Tiger was about 5/1 compared to T34 (which includes tanks that were destroyed by germans so that Soviets couldn't get them)[/quote]

Yea, German equipment did not operate well in the conditions. Meaning trucks, tanks, artillery got stuck, etc.

Posted Mon May 22, 2006 5:01 pm:

[quote="SunTzu";p="636394"]And the americans had no legal right to rebel against their british masters. We're not exactly talking about an age with rules and laws for every event that can happen.

Of course every american that was being pressed into service was one too many, but unless its a big number it has nothing to do with this discussion. A war will never be started over one single (or a few) pressed sailors.

The fact that some of those sailors that were on american ships were convicts DOES matter, since that means the british were re-capturing criminals that the americans were harboring.

And we're talking international politics now, laws had very little to do with what a nation might be forced to do. AFAIK there were no international laws regarding the boarding of ships, and certinly not the kind we have now.[/quote]

Had England recognized the US as a country by then? If so, they had no legal right to sieze American citizens. Just like the US can't just send in police into Canada to grab fugitives. Doesn't matter if Canada knew they were there in the first place or not.

And the British Navy was very heavy-handed, as they were pretty much the undisputed master of the seas at the time. With boney running around though, they decided that leaving the US alone and worrying about the French Empire would be a better idea.[/quote]

(sorry for the crappy quoting, but i suck at it )

I believe the British had acknowledged US independence at the time, but the sailors in question were generally not american citizens, but british criminals on the run.

The british tried to actually ask for runners, but (understandably) it did not work wery well. And if they cannot get back criminals likely to be sentanced to death by hanging, by asking for them, they will have to use other means. If the americans were not so keen on recruting british criminals, there would be no need to board them.

The war of 1812 ended in 1815, after Bonaparte had been defeated. It was decided that there were nothing to gain (especially since it hadnt been a real attack at all, more a dispute over laws and violations of them).

Also, i believe the british had declared all seas to be their domain, therefore the americans were (according to british law) trespassing. As there were no international agreements or laws, they broke none.

And the line between piracy and privateering was very, very fine in the 18th and 19th century.