/k/ - Weapons

>>625363

I mean, you literally just posted him. Why even make this thread?

>>625365

>violating treaties is good

>cheating is good

>genociding your own countrymen for leftism is good

>"hurrrrr muh slavery" and then bringing your slaves into battle is good

Sherman wasn't a strong commander, he was just a dishonest kike who hated the South. He attacked unoccupied cities and burned and looted them. A war profiteer and nothing else.

>>625372

Based and redtexted

>>625363

Whoever got the two sides to fight each other.

Thomas Jackson.

Goddamn nigger jews killed him.

I'm playing Ultimate General Civil War right now, and if Thomas Jackson was alive, the rebels are gonna march to Washington and force Lincoln surrender.

>>625363

For the Union, Grant seems to have been the best field commander.

Abraham Lincoln. He alone realized politicians would fuck the union fighting over if it wasn't won quick.

>>625406

>Goddamn nigger jews killed him.

Nope. His own men killed him, mistaking him for a unionfag.

>>625420

>Believing history textbooks written & published in cities like (((Chicago))) and (((NYC)))

reeeally makes ya think.

>>625424

As opposed to believing some random faggot on the internet?

As a tactician, Lee. As a strategist, Grant or Sherman.

>>625416

Except Linc*ln was a politician who pushed for war against his countrymen for his own political gain. Moreover, his flagrant abuse of executive power set the precedent used by both Roosevelts, Wilson, and really every president of the 20th century who wasn't Coolidge to run this country into the ground. Good job, I hope Sherman's edginess was worth it, in return we got ZOG and niggers.

>>625520

>Except Linc*ln was a politician who pushed for war against his countrymen for his own political gain

Pretty sure he just responded in kind to rebel aggression at Fort Sumter, and quelling a rebellion wasn't outside of his presidential duties. If antifa tried the same shit at Ft Hood, I would expect that the US government would retaliate in kind.

>>625523

>Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's fort,

Pretty sure it was an Army fort and the US has jurisdiction on its own states. If you're going to claim that the Confederacy was a separate country, then Lincoln didn't "wage war on his own countrymen", so you can stop bitching about that part.

>The Confederate States wasn't like Bacon's Rebellion or Shay's Rebellion or Nat Turner's Rebellion, etc. This was a completely legal secession from the Union

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

Nope.

>>625528

And how is a legal case from 1869, 9 years after South Carolina seceded from the Union, relevant? Sure it says NOW states can't secede from the Union, a conclusion already known from 1865. Are you being purposely crass or are you really that retarded? As for the fort it's debatable, personally I think the state of South Carolina should've payed the US back what they payed for the land with extra, but I doubt President Buchanan would've agreed. Either way, South Carolina had every right to tell the Union Army to leave Fort Sumter, but that bastard Lincoln cooked up a nice scheme to declare war on the CSA. Even then the war was still unpopular.

>>625547

>And how is a legal case from 1869, 9 years after South Carolina seceded from the Union, relevant?

Because it's supreme court law, and the ones arguing they never seceded were…the Texans. Doesn't get any clearer than that.

>As for the fort it's debatable

No. It's not. If Texas state guard (lol) troops attacked a federal installation, it would be totally within the rights of the US government to fuck their shit up.

>Either way, South Carolina had every right to tell the Union Army to leave Fort Sumter, but that bastard Lincoln cooked up a nice scheme to declare war on the CSA

Yeah, fucking Lincoln, firing on Fort Sumter, oh wait.

>Even then the war was still unpopular.

So unpopular that desertion rates were higher for the confederacy, especially after they decided to exempt large slave owners from the draft. Top kek.

ITT: guys who have never read Madison's transcripts or any other ratification-era documents pretending to know about the civil war, a conflict founded on constitutional issues.

Low IQ fellas, read more and learn the truth that I already know.

>>625521

>>625528

Whether or not Fort Sumter was legally property of the Feds or South Carolina, it is a true statement that Lincoln and Union officials deliberately escalated the situation there. While other federal property in the South was peacefully surrendered to the Confederate government, and Anderson was ready to do the same with Fort Sumter, his higher-ups forced him to hold onto the fort. The Confederates fired the first shot of the war in name only, there was unambiguous Union aggression leading up to that fact and it's clear that the Union was trying to goad them into action.

>Nope

Who gives a shit if some fag court ruling determined that the secession was illegal? The Supreme Court's also used the Commerce Clause to justify everything from alphabet soup to public schools as kosher and constitutional, remember. Regardless of whether it was "legal" or not, secession, in any form, should be endorsed or encouraged.

>>625563

>it is a true statement that Lincoln and Union officials deliberately escalated the situation there.

>Supplying things to your troops is escalation

Nope.

>While other federal property in the South was peacefully surrendered to the Confederate government

It wasn't. This happened in Texas and the guy that did it was dismissed and then joined the CSA. Stop making shit up.

>The Confederates fired the first shot of the war in name only, there was unambiguous Union aggression leading up to that fact and it's clear that the Union was trying to goad them into action.

>hurr da yankees made us shoot at them

top kek, m8.

>Who gives a shit if some fag court ruling determined that the secession was illegal?

Because they're the body that decides the ultimate legality in the US. That's why.

>The Supreme Court's also used the Commerce Clause to justify everything from alphabet soup to public schools as kosher and constitutional, remember.

Yeah, and those are legal. What does that have to do with this?

>Regardless of whether it was "legal" or not, secession, in any form, should be endorsed or encouraged.

Protip: The war is over and the rebels lost. It's time to get over it.

>inb4 American revolution

Yes, it was plainly illegal, but we won.

>>625568

>the Union won the war therefore Zionism is based, crimes mean nothing, and violating the Constitution is fine

>the ends justify the means, goy, even though the ends are an objective harm to everyone in the entire nation except for politicians who basically genocided the industry of the South through Reconstruction

Union ships blockaded Fort Sumter and surrounded them with artillery. They threatened to shoot anyone who left on sight. The only deal they would make was essentially 'rejoin the Union and we won't kill you but you all go to prison'. Reported.

>>625367

>He attacked unoccupied cities and burned and looted them

Love him or hate him, most will hate him as do I, but it cannot be understated when I say he was ahead of his time. The mid-1800's was the beginning of the era of Total War where the civilian populace is automatically enlisted in every military conflict from that point onward. He set the tone that if a hundred years later people paid attention to they would have acted accordingly.

We're a victim of ourselves not going far enough. The Russians actually were the only ones who fought WW2 correctly in the sense of the sheer brutality they showed to hostile aliens.

>>625573

>Fort Sumter is occupied by union troops

>Union threatened own troops

Kek. Why do you keep making shit up? CO wouldn't leave until starved out. This wasn't good enough, so the rebels fired on the fort. Stop making shit up.

>>625568

>It wasn't. This happened in Texas

>it didn't happen, except when it did

>Yeah, and those are legal. What does that have to do with this?

>missing the point this hard

The point, you insufferable kike, is that the letter of the law has no bearing on whether the action taken is right or wrong.

>>625586

>Love him [Sherman] or hate him, most will hate him as do I, but it cannot be understated when I say he was ahead of his time.

>The Russians actually were the only ones who fought WW2 correctly in the sense of the sheer brutality they showed to hostile aliens.

Wow, it's almost like there's a correlation between leftist shittery infecting countries and wars becoming more wantonly destructive and brutal. Medieval sieges are the patrician's method of warmaking, get whole castles to surrender without a drop of blood.

>>625595

>it didn't happen, except when it did

And I explained why those were exceptional circumstances. One officer violated his oath and flipped sides. That doesn't exactly mean the government was fine with handing over forts, retard.

>The point, you insufferable kike, is that the letter of the law has no bearing on whether the action taken is right or wrong.

But the claim was that it was legal, when it clearly wasn't.

>>625586

>The Russians actually were the only ones who fought WW2 correctly in the sense of the sheer brutality

That's because in communism human life is cheaper than bread.

>union soldiers

>anything but shit

>On December 26, 1860, six days after South Carolina seceded from the Union, U.S. Army Major Robert Anderson abandoned the indefensible Fort Moultrie, spiking its large guns, burning its gun carriages, and taking its smaller cannon with him to be trained on the city.[4] He secretly relocated companies E and H (127 men, 13 of them musicians) of the 1st U.S. Artillery to Fort Sumter on his own initiative, without orders from his superiors.[5][6][7][8][9] He thought that providing a stronger defense would delay an attack by South Carolina militia. The fort was not yet complete at the time and fewer than half of the cannons that should have been available were in place, due to military downsizing by President James Buchanan.

>In a letter delivered January 31, 1861, South Carolina Governor Pickens demanded of President Buchanan that he surrender Fort Sumter because "I regard that possession is not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina."[10] Over the next few months repeated calls for evacuation of Fort Sumter[11][12] from the government of South Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored.

I would say a lot of things about unwarranted aggression but fort Sumter is 100% warranted. South Carolina seceded, whether that shit is legal or not is another dispute, but when someone repeatedly warns you that you should get the fuck out of their land, and you don't do it, you are 100% deserving of the result.

The confederates really were the best troops and soldiers in America in that period, and it's really too bad they lost due to simple logistics, or in some cases, plain bad luck like Jackson being killed by nigger jew. This fact is similar to the Nazi in WW2.

>>625667

>This fact is similar to the Nazi in WW2.

Not quite. The CSA made quite a few strategic mistakes, I won't deny that, but their logistic situation was largely one of circumstance, whereas the Wehrmarcht's poor logistics could have been avoided if they made better decisions.

>>625686

>Confederacy has the most rail lines to the west, the most available and accessible resources, the most industry to acquire those resources, and only loses because the Union fights a war of "destroy the entire country" while they're fighting a war of "leave us alone"

>Union cripples the entire American economy to "win" like the kikes they are

vs.

>Germany doesn't know how to mine, dig for oil, or effectively cut lumber, so they have to get their steel and oil products from other countries, who they then either break treaties with or invade and destroy the governance and industry of

>Germany is running out of everything by 1942 and is sending teenage boys to war by 1943, can't even build guns anymore in 1944, starts literally making disposable guns and arming grandmas with them in 1945

>>625688

>confederacy

>the most rail lines

>the most industry

U wot. Dixie rail lines were notoriously underdeveloped, they didn't even have a standarized gauge until after the war.

>>625692

Who said anything about standardisation? I said they had the industrial path to the west, which is true. Rail in the south was used pretty much only for the shipment of goods and materials. They had long, straight lines for that specific purpose.

>>625693

>I said they had the industrial path to the west, which is true

Conceded, but by saying that you're pulling the discussion away from wartime benefits, which was the original subject. The ability to send goods West in a long straight line doesn't affect one's ability to rapidly and efficiently move troops and materiel to where they are needed most, and in that sense the Confederates were lacking in comparison to the Union. Having a unified rail gauge not only makes this process far more efficient, it makes it easier to maintain and repair the rail line itself. Because the Union imported locomotives from the bongs, all of the Northern rail lines were set for standard gauge before the war had started, and the intra-Union rail system was far more developed, thanks to the Union's more developed industrial base. And on top of that, while we associate the South with expansive plantations, they planted mostly cash crops. The Union had the advantage in edible crops like wheat and corn, as well as in heads of livestock.

The driving point is that, while I won't say the war was "unwinnable" for the South–there were some mistakes they made strategically, and they had some bad luck with Stonewall's untimely death–economic realities meant that the deck was stacked against them from the beginning. The Germs, by contrast, made a massive number of logistical errors that were easily avoidable:

>6 gorillion small arms variants in a bunch of calibers

>autistic focus on building up wunderwaffen

>tanks that had to be hand-fitted and thus had no parts interchangeability

>having to lift out tank's passenger compartments with a crane just to repair the engine

<the hard to repair tanks were also unreliable and broke down all the time

>constant expansion without stopping to consolidate new territory

>LMAO BUILDING UP A LOGISTICS CHAIN IS FOR NERDS, JUST LOOT THE NEW TERRITORIES AND USE THEM TO PAYDEBTS BACK HOME

>JUST PRINT MORE NOTES/INDUSTRIAL CERTIFICATES LMAO, WHAT COULD GO WRONG

>>625387

This. 1862 Valley Campaign was genius. If only he had survived Chancellorsville.

Lee was better than Grant. Lee's only problem was the confederate states couldn't give him proper resupplies

>>625692

>>625667

>>625585

Ironically enough, the CSA were the first to sink a warship with a submarine, often Northern cucks hate to mention that fact lol, albeit it sank after

>>628757

>Man, if the South has won, maybe the USA would have a worthwhile cavalry tradition.

Cav is for gays and every cav faggot I've met has always managed to reinforce this fact.

>>628760

Modern cav is vehicles, dumbass.

Can't get anywhere without them.

>>628757

If the South won, the CSA would have a worthwhile cavalry tradition. At least we made up for it with Patton and the rest of the armored generals.