Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
Quoted
We are dismayed to hear that the Kingdom of Bharat feels that their continued membership of the Cleito Treaty is no longer viable. However, in view of the international climate, especially with regard to Indias recent embroilment in conflict over Asir and the somewhat contrary practices of other parties claiming to abide by the Cleito Treaty, we can appreciate that this course of action is the only one which permits Bharat to continue to effectively protect its seaward defences.
It is our belief that, as a nation which has hitherto acted with the utmost regard to the Treaty, its objectives and the desire to maintain peace, Bharat will not threaten world security. Regardless of the underhand play which is apparently accepted in other parts of the world, we trust that Bharat will remain an upstanding nation.
Quoted
Sir,
I am heartened to learn that the British Army is no longer planning to fight Bonaparte again, and has at least undertaken to provide for combat from motor vehicles rather than horses. However, it is apparent that despite this concession to modernity, they still plan on fighting the Kaiser, and at that, doing it badly.
The Cavalry are, I am told, being equipped with new armoured tanks, in order that they might better exploit a breach in a new Enemys lines. Equally, the Infantry is receiving improvements to its existing Liberty heavy tanks, a design some fifteen years old already. For a modern armed force, these Mark Eight vehicles are no more than death-traps: even in 1918, there were weapons capable of defeating their armour. Since then, the armaments of the rest of the world have only improved, yet British thinking has not advanced.
It is inevitable that other nations with which we might be obliged to engage in combat operations will also possess tanks: not being blinkered into thinking in terms of 1916, it is inevitable that they will have provided at least adequate protection against our 2-pound gun, and certainly a weapon capable of penetrating the weak armour of our own vehicles.
Only our heavy tanks might be able with luck to survive combat with an enemy tank, but at the price of their speed: the engine which powers them is even older than the tanks, so that they are more often than not stopped for repairs, and even when moving, moving at little more than a mans pace. Thus, it is scarcely conceivable that any enemy with a fast tank would choose to fight such a vehicle, as military strategists have time and time again shown that it is foolhardy to attack a strong point.
In consequence, only our fast, Cavalry tanks might be able to oppose an enemy tank attack, and it is they which might be forced to fight them in the process of exploiting a weakness in the enemy. Surely, then, it is incumbent upon us to supply our troops with a tank which has some chance of success when in combat, whether on the offensive or in defence.
It would appear to me, and surely to others, that this tank is not the heavy tank. It may have its utility still, when a breakthrough must be forced in a strong enemy defensive line. The main tank, though, ought to have a gun which can defeat an enemy tanks armour, which will surely be something other than the 2-pounder currently favoured. The armour should clearly be adequate to protect against the fire of other tanks, not merely that of heavy machine guns. In order to carry all this, the tanks weight will plainly be more than that of the present A9 Cruiser, but this tanks high speed must be maintained: the Liberty engine will not suffice, and a new engine must be found.
If, today, we were forced to fight against a modern enemy, our troops would be massacred, and our interests defeated. To prevent such a calamity, we must provide new tanks, tanks able to fight the next war rather than the last.
Yours faithfully,
Anonymous
Quoted
It is with the utmost dismay that we receive the news that the Japanese Empire has left the Cleito Treaty. Whilst we understand the desire to be freed from its constraints, and to be free to act as desired when threatened, it is clear to us that this action has the potential to seriously aggravate the comparatively minor threats that Japan is exposed to. Nonetheless, we are hopeful that no such aggravation will take place if it can possibly be avoided.
Quoted
Sirs, we find the deployment of Italian naval vessels to Santiago da Cuba an unsettling development. Certainly, we recognise the desire for joint training between the Marina Militare and the Iberian Navy, and have no wish to hamper this process. However, we are concerned that this training is occurring in an area already inflamed by civil war, which has opened up deep mistrust between Mexico and Italy.
Whilst we hope and believe that this mistrust is in error, it nonetheless seems an unnecessary complication to be sending ships to within easy sailing distance of the Mexicans. As you are no doubt aware, the Mexicans have a disconcerting tendency to shoot, then ask questions of the survivors; we do not wish the Italian squadron in Cuba to fall foul of this, much less for any such incident to escalate into a more general conflict.
Certainly, it would appear to be particularly unnecessary, considering the close proximity of Iberia and Italy, to send forces to the Americas for training. However, we do believe that there is good reason for this though we may not be privy to it and are hopeful that this is does not prove to be the trigger for a new war.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "RLBH" (Mar 22nd 2007, 5:53pm)
Quoted
Details of the new ships have not been forthcoming, although Vickers-Armstrong has reported that orders have been received for forty 16.5 and forty-five 15 naval rifles. The Admiralty has announced that it will distribute the details of the new ships in due course.
Quoted
It is our belief that, as a nation which has hitherto acted with the utmost regard to the Treaty, its objectives and the desire to maintain peace,
Quoted
Certainly, it would appear to be particularly unnecessary, considering the close proximity of Iberia and Italy, to send forces to the Americas for training.
Quoted
Boulton-Paul has today announced that the Defiant bomber destroyer will not be ready for production for some time yet. Difficulties have been experienced integrating the hydraulically-operated turret into the aircraft, and this will put the program back several months. The company has assured customers that the aircraft will, however, be in production by the end of the year.
Quoted
60 miles for a carrier group of 72 aircraft is indeed "Close" enough.
Quoted
Obviously Japan didn't think that the country's in the region would mind that they join in on the intimidation of Mexico while on their "Goodwill" visit in the region.
Quoted
Originally posted by Rooijen10
Quoted
60 miles for a carrier group of 72 aircraft is indeed "Close" enough.
Don't forget about the Togo Taskforce with 100 planes.
Quoted
Obviously Japan didn't think that the country's in the region would mind that they join in on the intimidation of Mexico while on their "Goodwill" visit in the region.
Intimidation of Mexico?? The Empire knows nothing about that.
"Goodwill" visit?? The Empire knows nothing about that.
Let's just say that that bit isn't finished yet and someone isn't going to be too happy about what is happening there.
Quoted
...nuts as in 3 nations intimidating Mexico, a nation that Iberia alone could quite effectively deal with?
Quoted
I wonder if the outcome will be what Japan expects.....
Quoted
How it transformed from OOC hypothetical ship designs into IC animosity is beyond me...
Quoted
You guys are aware that you have to work together to script a conflict, aren´t you? Sounds like some have forgotten this little bit....
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Red Admiral" (Mar 23rd 2007, 1:42pm)
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH