T1B

Historically speaking (for the sake of debate, the last 200 years) how would you rate the British Army...tactically, logistically, "grand" strategy...etc...?

200 years? You're talking about the Napoleonic Wars, the peak of the British Empire during the Victorian Era, WW1, WW2 and on down to the present day.

That covers way too much ground to make a blanket statement.

Okay then, just start off by covering the War Of 1812.

I saw a cool show about that one a couple nights ago on The History Channel. They made the Brits out to be pretty fucking inept come the Battle Of New Orleans. :D

mvscal wrote:200 years? You're talking about the Napoleonic Wars, the peak of the British Empire during the Victorian Era, WW1, WW2 and on down to the present day.

That covers way too much ground to make a blanket statement.

Okay.

Crimea to the end of WWI.

Marty is very broad minded... and a bit in awe of the British Empire.

Not that I blame anyone for feeling that way. Pretty amazing what PAX Brittanica accomplished over the centuries. They were the latter day Roman Empire.

Now, not so much, but still a valuable ally.

Yeah, but now the whole place smells like falafel and curried goat 'nad.

-Pikkkle

Van wrote:Yeah, but now the whole place smells like falafel and curried goat 'nad.

-Pikkkle

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Van wrote:Okay then, just start off by covering the War Of 1812.

From the British perspective, I'd say it was a sideshow distraction from the bigger war in Europe.

They made the Brits out to be pretty fucking inept come the Battle Of New Orleans. :D

The British troops weren't slappies. These were some of Wellington's vets from the Peninsular Campaign in Spain. I think they knew the numbers were in their favor, but they didn't know the ground very well and they really didn't understand that Andrew Jackson was a seriously pugnacious motherfucker. He launched a violent spoiling attack that froze the British in place for several days and allowed his forces to dig in and fortify his position.

The British engineers totally fucked up the main assault and the infantry was shot to pieces. Casualties among the senior officers were especially high (including Wellington's brother in law, Sir Edward 'Eddie Baby' Pakenham) and the attack bogged down. That was pretty much all she wrote.

Question for Marty:

Why did the Newfoundland Premier have his heart surgery done in Florida if Canada's healthcare is so awesome?

the Napoleonic Wars, B (Held the greatest commander and army the world had ever seen to that time at bay for over a decade until he finally punched himself out in Russia. Burnt down Washington DC and inspired our national anthem in Baltimore as a diversion from plotting against Bonaparte)

the peak of the British Empire during the Victorian Era, A+ (Pwned a bunch of knuckle dragging savages, neutered the Chinese fighting spirit for 100 years by getting the whole damn country hooked on opium and then bitchslapping them during the Opium Wars, conspired with Jews to steal the Suez Canal from France and generally scared the piss out of every non white country around the globe.

WW1, C+ (It was a good thing somebody finally invented the tank or they would still be there. This grade would have been a lot lower had not Rawlinson demonstrated an ability to learn from past failures during campaigns of 1918

WW2 B (Although Monty could at times be a walking clusterfuck, they did hold the Hun at bay after France folded until we could double team the Krauts

and on down to the present day. C (They did pimpslap some uppity Argentinians and occasionally have played second fiddle to Uncle Sam's boys during the Bush Family Wars. But really there's nothing to see here.

Toddowen wrote:I've question. I've been watching World At War on The Military Channel recently, and I want to own the complete series box set withut paying $369 dollars to Amazon.

How can I add that box set to my library for something closer to pocket change?

http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/1396 ... ab=summary

BSmack wrote:(They did pimpslap some uppity Argentinians

Color me un-fucking impressed. Easter Island wasn't available?

Screw_Michigan wrote:

BSmack wrote:(They did pimpslap some uppity Argentinians

Color me un-fucking impressed. Easter Island wasn't available?

Owned by Ecuador. No way Britain goes after the Ecuadorans.

Roger Waters wrote:fuck all that we've got to get on with these
got to compete with the wily japanese
no need to worry about the vietnamese
got to bring the russian bear to his knees
well, maybe not the russian bear
maybe the swedes
we showed argentina
now lets go and show these
make us feel tough
and won't maggie be pleased

Nice trivia - the word 'gringo' comes from the song 'Green Grow The Rushes O' from the 71st regiment of foot.

They marched into Buenos Aires in 1806 under Beresford:

I'll sing you one O
Green grow the rushes O
What is your one O?
One is one and all alone
And evermore shall be O

Dr_Phibes wrote:Nice trivia - the word 'gringo' comes from the song 'Green Grow The Rushes O' from the 71st regiment of foot.

They marched into Buenos Aires in 1806 under Beresford:

I'll sing you one O
Green grow the rushes O
What is your one O?
One is one and all alone
And evermore shall be O

Someone has fed you a bunch a bullshit on that note. Gringo had been in use to identify people who spoke foreign languages and Spanish in a foreign accent in literature originating from Malaga and Madrid, Spain since at least shortly prior to the 1750s; specifcally the Irish. In Terreros y Pando's "Diccionario" (published in 1750) it was defined as "someone who spoke gibberish". Spanish soldiers and sailors sent to Mexico brought the phrase to the Western Hemisphere during the 1760s. It was again published by Terreros y Pando's in "Diccionario castellano con las voces de Ciencias y Artes y sus correspondientes en las 3 lenguas francesa, latina e italiana" in 1786.

The story which says the word "gringo" was derived from the song, "Green Grow the Rushes, O" by Scottish poet Robert Burns, as it was sung by English sailors in Mexican seaports is a crock of guano, and not supported by any real evidence. Charles E. Ronan S.J., of the Department of History of Loyola University of Chicago, discredits that alleged origin in his article, "Arizona and the West." He gives many examples of the use of "gringo," prior to Buenos Airies in 1806 or the Mexican/American War (which is another common myth perpetrated to be the origin of the word "gringo") to include "Diccionario" from 1750 Madrid.

SunCoastSooner wrote:"Diccionario"

IN!!!!

sin

The British military during its imperial era was in fact never a great army--and never really won a serious war. Which? The Boer War? Okay, they slogged out a bitter stalemate. India? No, it was in fact conquered by the East Indian Trading Company. How about that Crimean War? Ooooooh...let's not go there. How about the softening up of China with tons of opium? Now that was classic British conniving. Britain's participation WWI will always be represented by lunatics like Douglass Haig marching hundreds of thousands of men into a meat grinder again and again...and again--and finally stabbing the Arab allies in the back with Balfour and gassing the Kurds when they demanded independence. The British presence in WWII was basically retreating from Dunkirk, cowering in London, and bombing Dresden.

Since then the sun has decisively set on the inbred islanders, no more military forays at all (Falklands didn't count of course), but they've have maintained a rapacious advance on the capital and resources of other nations, engaging whole hog in the predatory practices of "neoliberal" policy. Like the Cayman Islands or Panama, Britain now functions primarily as an off shore banking service, providing secrecy and security for all manner of transnational corporate looters. The tallest building in Britain now is a mosque. And it's quickly becoming a Muslim nation.

local British neighborhood mosque


Oxford mosque


local Brits taking it to the streets



Now...how did a lovely gray land like Britain fall to a bunch of Muslims?

Hmmm...ask this guy..

His name was Zangwill and he was very much on the same page...

I hate you


..as this guy

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Now...how did a lovely gray land like Britain fall to a bunch of Muslims?

Rubbish like this...


...and then you claim to "hate Zionism" and it's inherent "evil racism"...



Go choke yourself.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The British military during its imperial era was in fact never a great army--and never really won a serious war. India? No, it was in fact conquered by the East Indian Trading Company.

And the East India Co. was led by whom? Your point isn't entirely inaccurate. British hegemony during the Victorian Era was founded on unrivaled naval and economic power. The ground forces were serviceable if unremarkable and their chief virtue seems to have been the ability to lean forward and take an appalling beating whenever their inept leadership stepped in shit.

WW1? Well, let's just say they weren't the only nation to squander a generation in utter futility. It wasn't characterized by any great tactical or strategic vision on any side. The Germans were able to enjoy a measure of success on the Eastern Front against the Russians where operational mobility remained an option but, once the fighting in the west bogged down into trench warfare, the technology to force a decision simply did not exist. Artillery lacked the necessary mobility. Tactical air support was ineffective and mechanized formations were only experimental.

The British (and French) failure was to draw the appropriate conclusions from that experience in time for WW2. Mechanized warfare requires you to be able to do three things effectively: shoot, move and communicate. The fact that the French enjoyed a numeric as well as qualitative advantage in armor over the Germans meant nothing because they didn't have radios in every vehicle or a coherent doctrince with which to employ them. The Germans got inside their OODA Loop (observe, orient, decide and act) and once that happens you're done. You are reacting to circumstances which no longer apply with forces that no longer exist to an enemy which is no longer where you thought they were. It is the military equivalent of getting buttfucked in the mouth.

The British were brave enough on an individual basis but their operational and strategic leadership was piss poor at best. They never developed a functional combined arms doctrine and coordination between infantry, armor and artillery was always problematic. The Battle of Britain was won due to German mistakes. Singapore was an unmitigated and a criminally stupid disaster. Dieppe was an epic fail. The battles around Caen during the Normandy invasion were spastic and ineffectual. The failure to clear the Scheldt Estuary and open the port of Atwerp remains an unexplained mystery. The only time British forces were able to flash any degree of panache was against the pitiful Italians in North Africa.

The British shoved aside Basil Liddell Hart's battle field theories on mechanised warfare.

The Germans were not as stubborn with entertaining brilliance (Guderian).

Martyred wrote:The British shoved aside Basil Liddell Hart's battle field theories on mechanised warfare.

I believe you are thinking of JFC Fuller. Hart was more of a strategic theorist. Fuller got down to the nuts and bolts of a working operational doctrine. Both of them were, of course, ignored.

Hart wrote a great book on Scipio Africanus to illustrate his theories on the indirect approach. I'd recommend it.

SunCoastSooner wrote:
Someone has fed you a bunch a bullshit on that note.

As related by Carlo D'este, I'll trust him over you ripping off takes from online Honduran newspapers.

Martyred wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Now...how did a lovely gray land like Britain fall to a bunch of Muslims?

Rubbish like this...


...and then you claim to "hate Zionism" and it's inherent "evil racism"...



Go choke yourself.

Come now, b-juice, I'm only suggesting that Britain's connivance, its style of shamelessly and ruthlessly advancing its agenda--in the Middle East especially--has come back to not so much bite it in the ass, but to devour it. Subsume, if you prefer. The fuckstain I offered was emblematic of the nefarious backstabbing on Balfour--and the ensuing good times. What are you supposed to be, again?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:...its agenda--in the Middle East especially--has come back to not so much bite it in the ass, but to devour it.

Why are you equating living among Muslims to be a curse? Why is it terrifying that a Muslim would take up residence in Britain?

Go fuck yourself, you paranoid fraud.

mvscal wrote:

Martyred wrote:The British shoved aside Basil Liddell Hart's battle field theories on mechanised warfare.

I believe you are thinking of JFC Fuller. Hart was more of a strategic theorist. Fuller got down to the nuts and bolts of a working operational doctrine. Both of them were, of course, ignored.

Hart wrote a great book on Scipio Africanus to illustrate his theories on the indirect approach. I'd recommend it.

I think he's right, what Hart theorised before the war and what he claimed he theorised afterward are two different things. He dressed himself up as some sort of early guru and he wasn't, he tried to build this myth around himself.

And if your talking about 'Strategy', it's pretty shit. He just regurgitates some Clausewitz and says things like 'ooo weren't we clever at Siddi Barani? ooo yes we were!' pffft.

Dr_Phibes wrote:And if your talking about 'Strategy', it's pretty shit. He just regurgitates some Clausewitz and says things like 'ooo weren't we clever at Siddi Barani? ooo yes we were!' pffft.

No. I'm talking about Scipio Africanus: Greater than Napoleon from 1926 and he legitimately was ahead of the curve in strategic thought among British circles.

prick.

Dr_Phibes wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:
Someone has fed you a bunch a bullshit on that note.

As related by Carlo D'este, I'll trust him over you ripping off takes from online Honduran newspapers.

That didn't come from a Honduran article it came from my ex-fiance's sister. Who is far more an expert on the issue (Baylor Undergrad, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla masters and doctorate) than I am and definitely more than some commie canoodian.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/40167090

http://www.jstor.org/pss/334365

http://books.google.com/books?id=09NEuG ... do&f=false

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10459325/La ... %EF%BF%BDa

http://www.rae.es/rae/gestores/gespub00 ... narios.htm

Repeatedly cited and please do try an debate the fact that "Gringo" was a word in use long before Buenos Aires.

Martyred wrote: Why are you equating living among Muslims to be a curse?

As opposed to what?

SunCoastSooner wrote: That didn't come from a Honduran article it came from my ex-fiance's sister.

Well that's weird. Apparently your ex-fiance's sister was writing Honduran editorial letters in the 90s and you've mysteriously copied and pasted it into your reply and passed it off as your own. Small world.

http://www.marrder.com/htw/jan97/editorial.htm

And the 1806 example is first in the Americas of the word being used as a negative term for outlanders - in the same context it's used today.
This makes it an innovation of the British army and possibly, by proxy - British.

so..


Go fuck yourself, gringo.

Latin insult BODE

Martyred wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:...its agenda--in the Middle East especially--has come back to not so much bite it in the ass, but to devour it.

Why are you equating living among Muslims to be a curse? Why is it terrifying that a Muslim would take up residence in Britain?

Go fuck yourself, you paranoid fraud.

"Take up residence"?

Is this some stupid joke? Ask the Dutch how they like Muslims "taking up residence" in their nation.

British Muslims practicing their new Western freedom of expression


Here's Van Gogh's grandson after a newly immigrated Muslim took offense to his freedom of expression





B-juice, I recall your one effort to actually offer a take longer than a sentence. You suggested some mealy nonsense about my not empathizing enough with the victims of Zionism. Suffice to say I can understand why you don't post anything more than sarcastic snippets.

Perhaps you're as stupid as you appear, after all you don't seem particularly educated or informed. But, really, try and investigate something first before just automatically offering some idiotic PC nonsense. :wink:

So, Muslims are a threat because they are treacherous, murderous zealots...fanatical in their aims...


Hmmm...where have we heard that before, Felchco?

Oh yeah, every one of your hysterical, racist rants against Zionism. Thanks for "pulling the veil off" and exposing your self as the hateful, lunatic paranoiac that you always were.

On a positive not, your newly exposed Islamophobia should endear you to your secret lover, mvscal.
Bring condoms.

Dr_Phibes wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote: That didn't come from a Honduran article it came from my ex-fiance's sister.

Well that's weird. Apparently your ex-fiance's sister was writing Honduran editorial letters in the 90s and you've mysteriously copied and pasted it into your reply and passed it off as your own. Small world.

http://www.marrder.com/htw/jan97/editorial.htm

And the 1806 example is first in the Americas of the word being used as a negative term for outlanders - in the same context it's used today.
This makes it an innovation of the British army and possibly, by proxy - British.

so..


Go fuck yourself, gringo.

Latin insult BODE

I give a fuck where she got it from. I do know she is far more learned and experienced in the matter than either of us.

It was used by the Spanish to insult the Irish immigrants for over half century prior your claims moron... documentation in Mejico was allsome during the 18th century...

From the online dictionary....for what it's worth....

Word Origin & History

gringo

1849, from Mex.Sp. gringo, contemptuous word for "foreigner," from Sp. gringo "foreign, unintelligible talk, gibberish," perhaps ult. from griego "Greek." The "Diccionario Castellano" (1787) says gringo was used in Malaga for "anyone who spoke Spanish badly," and in Madrid for "the Irish."

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

Martyred wrote:So, Muslims are a threat because they are treacherous, murderous zealots...fanatical in their aims...


Hmmm...where have we heard that before, Felchco?

Oh yeah, every one of your hysterical, racist rants against Zionism. Thanks for "pulling the veil off" and exposing your self as the hateful, lunatic paranoiac that you always were.

On a positive not, your newly exposed Islamophobia should endear you to your secret lover, mvscal.
Bring condoms.

I've indicated no comparison between the ZIoNazi state and the Muslim immigration issue in Europe. There is, however, certainly a connection between the historical British support for Zionism and the current hatred of Britain and its and culture by its new very fertile immigrants. But you're still apparently far too simplistic a snipster to grasp the real reason of Britain becoming a Muslim nation, which has been the complete abandonment of the nation by its rapacious corporate overlords--just like in America--who are desperately stuffing themselves of all that can be looted before some complete bottoming out of their IMF/World Bank scam. Do you know anything about capital flight and the Jersey offshore money laundering industry?

As for being anti Islamic, of course I am. Just as I have always been vehemently opposed to the entire monotheistic contagion of Judaism and its bastard offspring--the Christer and Mohammed cults. As usual you appear clueless to the obvious.

Look at the picture of Van Gogh's grandson lying there with an axe in his chest and tell me again how "paranoid" and "hateful" I am. Sure, and this coming from a mewling snipster who has never once actually spelled out an opinion on anything more complex than which photoshopped Sarah Palin pic is hottest.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:There is, however, certainly a connection between the historical British support for Zionism and the current hatred of Britain and its and culture by its new very fertile immigrants.

No, there isn't. The vast majority of Britain's Muslim immigrants come from Pakistan, you stupid, dick eating fucktard.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:...the real reason of Britain becoming a Muslim nation...

Stick to crop circles and chem trails.

You are way out of your league on this, you dribbling half-wit.

B-Juice, since you can't offer more than an ankle biting snippet, why don't you at least amuse us with a dance...



Meanwhile.....