www.ditl.org

Captain Seafort wrote:Speaking of the war

I think that's the first time you've ever made me laugh.

Well my laptop just bit the dust I think. It made some odd clicking noises, froze, and now I can't restart it, even in safe mode. At least I have my itouch so the next 4 hours of work won't be spent staring out the window.

Captain Seafort wrote:We saw which way your country was going and decided we didn't want it any more.

You guys are never short on excuses are you...

Captain Seafort wrote:Speaking of the war

No longer active, what was on it?

The thing with attacking the US is, if you lose, then you've lost, but if you win, now you've got the US.

Cpl Kendall wrote:The thing with attacking the US is, if you lose, then you've lost, but if you win, now you've got the US.

Yeah, except that's not what happened. The U.S. attacked the GWN - in the most ill-planned and poorly-executed attack in the history of ever - and then finally got you riled enough to return the favor. When you did, we let you attack our most important seaboard and capital; and the only resistance we provided was the fact that we ran away faster than you could chase us.

The limeys still lost.

Hardly, unless effectively stopping trade along the entire eastern seaboard and overwhelming one of your crack frigates in less than fifteen minutes counts as loosing. Speaking of which, why on earth does the US Navy make such a big deal of Lawrence's order "Don't give up the ship", given that the crew did precisely that five minutes later?

Oh, you took a ship, in battle, using another ship of equal standing... I guess that really shows something!

As to stopping trade, wrong. Trade wasn't but slowed. A major difference though I doubt a limey would ever be clever enough to figure it out.

No one won or lost that war. It was a rally of screw ups by both sides. In the end it really solved nothing and just cost lives and money on both sides.

Deepcrush wrote:Oh, you took a ship, in battle, using another ship of equal standing... I guess that really shows something!

It wasn't the simple fact of taking the Chesapeake, but the fact that she was considered one of the best in the US Navy and Shannon overwhelmed her so quickly.

As to stopping trade, wrong. Trade wasn't but slowed.

Fair enough. We still caused serious financial problems.

No one won or lost that war.

As I've said before, you were trying to seize Canada, we were trying to stop you. You failed, we succeeded, ergo we won.

It was a rally of screw ups by both sides.

No disputing that. I'd really like to know who's bright idea it was to put Packenham in charge of the attack on New Orleans - he'd demonstrated in the Peninsular that while he was a competent divisional commander he simply wasn't up to independent command.

In the end it really solved nothing and just cost lives and money on both sides.

True

Did I just see Seafort agree with Deep... twice in the same post.

Three times actually. I know, it's shocking - we're going to need that gaffer tape to fix the universe again at this rate.

Captain Seafort wrote:unless effectively stopping trade along the entire eastern seaboard and overwhelming one of your crack frigates in less than fifteen minutes counts as loosing.

I was referring to the war, not any one battle. (Psst... the whole thing was a bit more of that "piss-taking" of which you're so fond. )

Captain Seafort wrote:Speaking of which, why on earth does the US Navy make such a big deal of Lawrence's order "Don't give up the ship", given that the crew did precisely that five minutes later?

#1 - I think civilian culture makes more of a big deal about that than the USN does. As you know, the average civilian citizen of the world is far better versed in catch-phrases than in actual historical fact.

#2 - I don't know. Probably for the sentiment, rather than actual application.

Captain Seafort wrote:As I've said before, you were trying to seize Canada, we were trying to stop you. You failed, we succeeded, ergo we won.

If that's how you want to look at it, then it would more properly go like this:
The Canadian regiments won their end of the war. The regimetns which landed along the Chesapeake and ultimately sacked Washington, D.C. were in no strategic way there in order to drive the Americans from the Canuckian borders. They were there to a) perform punitive actions, which they accomplished, and b) to take and hold American territory and to inacpacitate the government, which they did not.

Captain Seafort wrote:No disputing that. I'd really like to know who's bright idea it was to put Packenham in charge of the attack on New Orleans - he'd demonstrated in the Peninsular that while he was a competent divisional commander he simply wasn't up to independent command.

TBF, I don't think any British commander would have been properly prepared for Jackson's ability to raise and control an effective fighting force from the Creoles, Cajuns, Indians, and assorted dregs which he found at New Orleans.

Deepcrush wrote:In the end it really solved nothing and just cost lives and money on both sides.

HA! Especially since the British had actually agreed to end by treaty the main American grievance before the war even started.

Captain Seafort wrote:It wasn't the simple fact of taking the Chesapeake, but the fact that she was considered one of the best in the US Navy and Shannon overwhelmed her so quickly.

Which is why the line became famous. Because there was a reason to remember it. IF the battle had lasted hours, both ships wrecked each other and then one side finally won. It would have just been another hard fought engagement. However, due to the embarrassing nature of the battle, it remained on the minds of the people for a greater deal of time. USS Constitution vs HMS Guerriere is a good point to remember for the UK's view. In the US, it was a victory. In the UK, it was "The USN cheating in war by using a ship and crew of greater quality then that of the UK's". The press in the UK made it sound like the USN had a Frigate that should have been called a First Rate Ship of the LIne.

Captain Seafort wrote:Fair enough. We still caused serious financial problems.

Well, that goes along with a blockade. There'd be a really serious problem is the RN couldn't cause financial problems against a small nation like the US at that time.

Captain Seafort wrote:As I've said before, you were trying to seize Canada, we were trying to stop you. You failed, we succeeded, ergo we won.

You've said before, and you were wrong before. Its a running habit for you on this topic any time it comes up. There was ONE division that tried to take Canada. A rabble of militia with an ego driven leader. However, the UK also tried to reclaim parts of the US, retake the mouth of the Mississippi River and take the City of Baltimore. The UK failed in all of those respects as well. If both sides fail at their goals, then its a draw.

When two nations go to war and neither gets what they want... thats a draw.

Captain Seafort wrote:No disputing that. I'd really like to know who's bright idea it was to put Packenham in charge of the attack on New Orleans - he'd demonstrated in the Peninsular that while he was a competent divisional commander he simply wasn't up to independent command.

I think the battle there was foolish to begin with. There was far to much delay in the attack, which should have been launched months before. So to ensure the US couldn't fortify the position. Also, I always wondered why England was spending efforts fighting the US in the wilderness? It doesn't make sense to send professional soldiers to battle in a place that is anything but professional.

Captain Seafort wrote:True

Oh, forgot, it also gave us a break from hating each other so that we could come together in our joint hate of the French.

Mikey wrote:The regiments which landed along the Chesapeake and ultimately sacked Washington, D.C. were in no strategic way there in order to drive the Americans from the Canuckian borders. They were there to a) perform punitive actions, which they accomplished, and b) to take and hold American territory and to inacpacitate the government, which they did not.

They were certainly there partially to conduct punitive raids, but they were also there to force the US to divert forces away from the Canadian border, not to try and take any territory. Pakenham's assault on New Orleans had much the same objective - to inflict serious damage on the US economy and force the US to divert forces south by seizing control of the lower Mississippi.

Captain Seafort wrote:They were certainly there partially to conduct punitive raids, but they were also there to force the US to divert forces away from the Canadian border, not to try and take any territory. Pakenham's assault on New Orleans had much the same objective - to inflict serious damage on the US economy and force the US to divert forces south by seizing control of the lower Mississippi.

Both objectives failed.

Deepcrush wrote:Both objectives failed.

At New Orleans? I'd've thought that thought that was pretty obvious.