The US independence doesn’t strike me as the best analogy… It would be more like an independence war in the Pacific… Each planet as an island… You would need to go toe to toe with confed ships, as if the US were to face the Royal Navy on their independence war…
I mean, it would have been a “Navy” war… And the union didn’t have a very impressive one.
Then I offer a better analogy; The War of 1812. We actually had a Navy at that pont.
The difference between us and the BWs was as follows,
The quality of the US ships in comparison to British is significant. The United State's Navy, though only a fraction in size, the quality of the Warships built were considerably higher.
Thier designs were controversial for their time being long on keel, narrow of beam, and mounting very heavy guns. Again they were unusual in that they used a diagonal scantling (rib) scheme that was intended to restrict hogging (sagging of the ship at the ends from the middle) while giving them extremely heavy planking. This gave the hulls a strength that other more lightly built frigates simply couldn't match.
Plus they held 38-44 guns to against the more conventional 36 Guns held by the British Frigates.
Now, before I stray too far from the argument, Roguebanshee, while your argument is somewhat compelling, I fear you are incorrect. The United States fought a totally defensive war and, even with the defense of these new frigates, were unable to stop the British. Half of thier best ships were lost, and Britain captured several strategic targets, including Washington DC. Now, history tells us that this war was a victory for the United States, because the British withdrew...
Honestly, the United States lost this war. In my humble opinion, the only reason we sing "God bless America" instead of "God bless the Queen." Is because the British had bigger fish to fry while trying to deal with the French and hadn't the forces to commit to fighting the US.
I agree with Houkiboshi you can NOT win a war fighting totally defensive. You can force a withdrawal if your forces are powerful enough (and the UBWs weren't), you may even break the enemy fighting spirit, but a defensive war means that it is totally fought in your territory against your bases and cities, and like it or not, damage is will be done. The most you can accomplish during a defensive war is a stalemate.
Now I understand that my argument is dealing with about 1,000 years of difference, but I believe the point is there. The Union Navy had state of the art ships, whereas the UBW were using old, out-of-date, ships that were all but falling to pieces. Now I'm not saying that they could not have made a glorious stand. If they had skilled officer's they may have even been able to strike a damaging blow against the Confederation, but that doesn't change the inevitable fact that in the end, they most definitely would have lost.
The Battle of Terra was a perfect example, Confed was completely out-numbered and completely out-gunned but they found a way to beat the odds.
If I'm not mistaken, Confed casualties during the battle were staggering. Also, I believe that battle was the turning point in the War. For the most part we see the Confederation on the offensive right up until WC3. After the battle of Terra, Confed's ability to fight the war was severly deminished. Yes they won Terra, but at what price? Win or loss, that battle nearly cost Confed the war.
The ripple effect is not something historians use in their analysis. It's something the History Channel uses to explain complex situations to dumb people.
Heh, well played Dundradal.