Latest images
I have some major issues with the currently canon (or noncanon) time period of 1947-1952, as well as several general issues with the history. In many ways, it seems unrealistic that a war in that time frame is realistic, or good for the union.
1) The technology - In all honesty, a war at this time frame would be so destructive, that we would have no world today. First off, the atomic bomb was created in 1945. Without the bombing of the heavy water plants and cutting off that production, the Germans could have had it earlier, 1944 or even 1943. No doubt the Trents or Okanese (who I’m assuming are just like the Germans and the Japanese of the era) would use it in an instant if they can win the war. Also, jets and rockets would totally tip the war to one side, or cause MASSIVE destruction. The Germans had jets at the start of the war, but they were very raw prototypes. By late 1943 they had functional jets. The only problem was that by the stage of 1944 and 1945, the facotries were being bombed so heavily, and they had so little time that they could not amass the numbers for their jets to make any real impact. Their V-1 and V-2 rockets, however, were very effective all throughout the war. If used against troops, they could be even more effective, but the Germans used it against the civilians in England, and eventually lost most of their launch facilities by the end of 1944. These technological issues are just a few that come to mind when we have a time frame of 1947-1952.
2) Tactics - This wouldn’t be as huge of an issue, but we all know what happened in the wars of the early 1900s and latter half of the 1800s. The American Civil War and World War I come to mind, among a few. The commanders in charge of these wars lacked the knowledge of the deadliness of the modern weapons. They still relied heavily on charges and cavalry, which were largely ineffectual with the modern, more accurate and longer distance artillery, as well as the machine guns. In the Battle of the Somme, the British lost 60,000 men in ONE DAY. Granted, this is the extreme of the argument, it represents the charges, small and large, that were deadly. In the days before machine guns, you could charge and only faced direct cannon fire (1700s) and musket fire. But with the advent of the machine gun, the men were quite literally mowed down before they could take 10 steps. This led to the trenches, which used machine guns quite effectively, and World War I which turned into a war of inches, where taking 100 feet in a day was a great success. The Minie bullet in the U.S. Civil War was deadly accurate, mass produced, and very effective once it hit it’s target. These technological advancements made war deadly.
Without the prior wars (WWI or the U.S. Civil War), a lot of these issues may not have been known. Thus, we’d be having a WWI (trenches, charges, heavily-used cavalry) with even more modern and effective weapons. This represents a huge problem, as we’d be causing such massive casualties that there’d be nothing left.
These are just two of my issues with a war in this time frame, as well as a lack of prior wars. I hope this helps persuade you to add a war in the early 1900s, and definitely move the time frame back at least a few years (Perhaps 1942 to 1947?)
Thank you for your time,
Chris
1) The technology - In all honesty, a war at this time frame would be so destructive, that we would have no world today. First off, the atomic bomb was created in 1945. Without the bombing of the heavy water plants and cutting off that production, the Germans could have had it earlier, 1944 or even 1943. No doubt the Trents or Okanese (who I’m assuming are just like the Germans and the Japanese of the era) would use it in an instant if they can win the war. Also, jets and rockets would totally tip the war to one side, or cause MASSIVE destruction. The Germans had jets at the start of the war, but they were very raw prototypes. By late 1943 they had functional jets. The only problem was that by the stage of 1944 and 1945, the facotries were being bombed so heavily, and they had so little time that they could not amass the numbers for their jets to make any real impact. Their V-1 and V-2 rockets, however, were very effective all throughout the war. If used against troops, they could be even more effective, but the Germans used it against the civilians in England, and eventually lost most of their launch facilities by the end of 1944. These technological issues are just a few that come to mind when we have a time frame of 1947-1952.
2) Tactics - This wouldn’t be as huge of an issue, but we all know what happened in the wars of the early 1900s and latter half of the 1800s. The American Civil War and World War I come to mind, among a few. The commanders in charge of these wars lacked the knowledge of the deadliness of the modern weapons. They still relied heavily on charges and cavalry, which were largely ineffectual with the modern, more accurate and longer distance artillery, as well as the machine guns. In the Battle of the Somme, the British lost 60,000 men in ONE DAY. Granted, this is the extreme of the argument, it represents the charges, small and large, that were deadly. In the days before machine guns, you could charge and only faced direct cannon fire (1700s) and musket fire. But with the advent of the machine gun, the men were quite literally mowed down before they could take 10 steps. This led to the trenches, which used machine guns quite effectively, and World War I which turned into a war of inches, where taking 100 feet in a day was a great success. The Minie bullet in the U.S. Civil War was deadly accurate, mass produced, and very effective once it hit it’s target. These technological advancements made war deadly.
Without the prior wars (WWI or the U.S. Civil War), a lot of these issues may not have been known. Thus, we’d be having a WWI (trenches, charges, heavily-used cavalry) with even more modern and effective weapons. This represents a huge problem, as we’d be causing such massive casualties that there’d be nothing left.
These are just two of my issues with a war in this time frame, as well as a lack of prior wars. I hope this helps persuade you to add a war in the early 1900s, and definitely move the time frame back at least a few years (Perhaps 1942 to 1947?)
Thank you for your time,
Chris
)
Putting forth ideas for the GAW is always accepted by me.