We provided this:
From Our Iron-Clad Ships: Their Qualities, Performances, and Cost (1869), by Edward James Reed, naval architect: 'Let us take as an illustration the very important quality of power to ram an enemy. The first sea-going iron-clad, the 'Warrior,' possessed this quality to a minor degree. She isn't, it should be understood, wholly unfit to act as a ram. Any strong and well-built iron ship would deliver a formidable blow in striking an enemy at even a moderate speed; but the 'Warrior' is much more than an ordinary ship in this respect, having a massive solid forged ram-stem well supported by bulkheads and frames, worked within her elegant knee-of-the-head, expressly to adapt her for delivering a destructive blow upon an enemy.'The above quote should have ended it, but noooooo. The nitpicker was unassuaged.
Unless you can prove that we royally screwed up*, we don't care. It's rivet counting. As Chris Crawford once said about his brilliant game, Patton Strikes Back, 'If you can prove that the 272nd Volksgreandier Division had a battery of 88s, good for you.'
The nitpicker was kind enough to download Arctic Storm as he served in the US Army in the 80s.
Great, I can't wait to hear how everyone knows the artillery forward observer went by Bethel-9 not Green-9.
We write novels not technical manuals.
In the meantime, if you'd like to enjoy some fun naval alternate history:
*And we have, just check out the Amazon Australia reviews of ANZACS.
I thoughly enjoy it it would make a great full length novel if you chose to expand it
ReplyDelete