Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 107

Thread: Why is the British Military so good? ?

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,376

    Default Re: Why is the British Military so good? ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    This pointless defence by you and Nick of consistent British incompetence and cowardice for the whole of WWII is intolerable, and all the more so coming from Americans.

    You appear to be referring to the raid on St Nazaire.

    I make only two points to undermine your empty defence of the British.

    1. HMS Campbeltown was an American lend-lease destroyer, previously the USS Buchanan, so once again Britain didn't really contribute anything to this operation and couldn't have executed it without American help.

    2. Anyway, the Brits didn't succeed as the incompetent Brits ran the USS Buchanan aground and destroyed it, as shown in the following photo.




    Agreed! it takes a particularly high level of incompetence to get through miles of shore batteries blowing great holes in the ship, then only to run it right into huge Doors which were plainly evident to anyone looking in that direction. One can not help but think they were intent, and deliberate in their actions. Perhaps the Bridge crew were in the ward room enjoying Brandy, and Cigars, trading witty Japes, and just didn't notice. Further,, I looked into the Archives, and discovered that Britain did not get their lease security deposit back, as running an otherwise perfectly good Bomb into Dock Doors was not considered normal wear, and tear. (America makes it's money in the fine print)
    Last edited by tankgeezer; 08-20-2018 at 11:59 AM.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,338

    Default Re: Why is the British Military so good? ?

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    There was one operation in which the British did sort of okay, (in between Honey Butter Crumpets, and Ceylon Tea)
    Yeah, well, the Brits didn't always get crumpets, never mind the honey and butter. But they soldiered on, barely existing on tea while lying down for the whole war in Europe until America won.


    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,338

    Default Re: Why is the British Military so good? ?

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    Agreed! it takes a particularly high level of incompetence to get through miles of shore batteries blowing great holes in the ship, then only to run it right into huge Doors which were plainly evident to anyone looking in that direction.
    Exactly!

    When did any competent or, up to this point, incompetent navy manage to run into a door, for Chrissake!

    Makes the Royal Navy attempts to force the Dardanelles in WWI look highly sophisticated, although that was also by the same RN and just another failure in Britain's centuries of unbroken naval and military failures and defeats.

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    One can not help but think they were intent, and deliberate in their actions. Perhaps the Bridge crew were in the ward room enjoying Brandy, and Cigars, trading witty Japes
    Nearly made a fool of myself by responding to what I misread as 'Japs' when you said 'Japes'.

    I was going to interrogate you harshly about why, first, anybody had managed to capture even one witty Jap and, second, given Admiral King's extreme hostility to British colonialism, a former USN ship would be loaded with Japs to be traded by indolent British officers which distracted them from the imminent collision with the doors.

    However, when I realised it was 'japes' and could imagine the rampant buggery, sado-masochism, cross-dressing and other forms of depravity which kept the Royal Navy afloat (and I'm referring there only to the politicians running the show but, of course, excluding Winston as he was originally Army where none of that bad bum buggery happened) but which understandably distracted watchkeepers from basic seamanship by forcing them to spend most of their time looking behind themselves, it surprised me not at all that the ship managed to find inland doors into which to crash.

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    Further,, I looked into the Archives, and discovered that Britain did not get their lease security deposit back, as running an otherwise perfectly good Bomb into Dock Doors was not considered normal wear, and tear. (America makes it's money in the fine print)
    Not quite correct.

    Britain didn't get its security deposit back at the time, much like you don't get yours back if you run your hire car into a highly visible door off the road (or, in this case, off the ocean where the ship could be expected to be covered by insurance), but it was sort of included in Britain's final payment to the US in 2006 or thereabouts for all the stuff that the US sent to Britain in WWII (or before WWII if you take the American timing for the start of WWII in December 1941 against the British - and German, French, Polish and others' timing a couple of years earlier, which is illustrated at



    which was wasted as Britain didn't actually do anything in WWII.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Main
    Posts
    40

    Default Re: Why is the British Military so good? ?

    The raid was inconsequential to the overall war effort. Besides I ask for examples of pivotal LAND battles on the European continent. And not British forces under the command of the United States, rather independent action such as that undertaken by Paton; who’s direction action led to a quick end to the war in Europe. I will grant the the British navy occasionally showed up and did, now and then fight, at least a much greater extent than the British army. The British airforce was good in action and overall did good job throughout the war. AND the British army, as previously stated in detail by other in this string, has a long and storied record of poor performances on the battlefield. But let’s keep it to WWll keep in mind that in every case the enemy, be they German or Japanese, had difficulties of their own.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Main
    Posts
    40

    Default Re: Why is the British Military so good? ?

    Where is the (a) great land battle that helped turn the tide in any theater....land battle.... but if you want to throw in naval action because it is impossible to find a significant land battle, ok, I will accept that as evidence that the British contributed to the quick end to the war. And even sighting one example pales in comparison to the consistent strings of victories by the US. Again Azaire was inconsequential AND not a land battle.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Main
    Posts
    40

    Default Re: Why is the British Military so good? ?

    Hey, it is August. Can someone start a thread about the bomb? Should we or should we have not dropped the bomb? I would do it but I am not very computer lietate.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,463

    Default Re: Why is the British Military so good? ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eastwind View Post
    Nickdfresh, great cover for the hapless Brits. I ask for battle field action by the British army.
    And of course you selectively only choose the negative ones...

    Most of what you sited only makes the point.
    Picking out Market Garden isn't most....

    The Brits were dismal in Holland and Market Garden was worse.
    Operation(s) Market (and) Garden was/were pretty much the same as their advance into Holland. The British Army moved rapidly and professionally through Belgium and actually took much of the Netherlands despite the failure of Monty's coup de main operation to breakout yet again into the Ruhr. But again judging a narrow scope of operational failures is bit silly. Did your father's US Army suck because of the abortion that was the Hürtgen Forest debacle? Kasserine Pass? Monte Cassino? The failure to anticipate the intelligence leading to The Battle of the Bulge? ..

    I wonder if the Germans had any respect for the British army? And yes they certainly were great at planning but they could not execute. Blame it on Monty.
    The Germans had much respect depending on the unit. The Waffen SS practically worshiped the British paras of the 1st Div they captured, after their bitter defense of Arnhem. But of course American divisions also took part in the defeat. Both the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions were also in Holland and the leader of the 82nd, Gen. Jim Gavin chose to secure the Oosterbeek Heights rather than quickly capture the bridge at Nijmegen. Does that make the 82nd shit? Of course not! Gavin was a hero that fought with a broken back, had some good reasons for securing the heights (although there is no question he should have rushed the bridge), and generally handled his sector well.

    Try reading a bit more...

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,376

    Default Re: Why is the British Military so good? ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eastwind View Post
    Hey, it is August. Can someone start a thread about the bomb? Should we or should we have not dropped the bomb? I would do it but I am not very computer lietate.
    That subject has been done to Death many times over, it's somewhere in the Archives, but honestly it would not attract much more attention.
    If you would like to start a new Thread, just go to the particular Board for that subject on the main page, and you'll see a blue elongated button in the upper left corner marked "+Post New Thread". click that, and follow the prompts.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,376

    Default Re: Why is the British Military so good? ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eastwind View Post
    Where is the (a) great land battle that helped turn the tide in any theater....land battle.... but if you want to throw in naval action because it is impossible to find a significant land battle, ok, I will accept that as evidence that the British contributed to the quick end to the war. And even sighting one example pales in comparison to the consistent strings of victories by the US. Again Azaire was inconsequential AND not a land battle.
    Well aside from the method of ingress, The St. Nazaire Raid surely was a land Battle. (whether you accept that, or not) The general membership are not here to appease your sense of what is, or is not fact, or acceptable. This site is for sharing of information among ourselves. The outcome of the Raid crippled the Axis capacity to repair it's largest Ships, resulting in their not being placed at risk on the open Oceans. Hardly a minor outcome.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,376

    Default Re: Why is the British Military so good? ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    Exactly!

    When did any competent or, up to this point, incompetent navy manage to run into a door, for Chrissake!

    Makes the Royal Navy attempts to force the Dardanelles in WWI look highly sophisticated, although that was also by the same RN and just another failure in Britain's centuries of unbroken naval and military failures and defeats.



    Nearly made a fool of myself by responding to what I misread as 'Japs' when you said 'Japes'.

    I was going to interrogate you harshly about why, first, anybody had managed to capture even one witty Jap and, second, given Admiral King's extreme hostility to British colonialism, a former USN ship would be loaded with Japs to be traded by indolent British officers which distracted them from the imminent collision with the doors.

    However, when I realised it was 'japes' and could imagine the rampant buggery, sado-masochism, cross-dressing and other forms of depravity which kept the Royal Navy afloat (and I'm referring there only to the politicians running the show but, of course, excluding Winston as he was originally Army where none of that bad bum buggery happened) but which understandably distracted watchkeepers from basic seamanship by forcing them to spend most of their time looking behind themselves, it surprised me not at all that the ship managed to find inland doors into which to crash.



    Not quite correct.

    Britain didn't get its security deposit back at the time, much like you don't get yours back if you run your hire car into a highly visible door off the road (or, in this case, off the ocean where the ship could be expected to be covered by insurance), but it was sort of included in Britain's final payment to the US in 2006 or thereabouts for all the stuff that the US sent to Britain in WWII (or before WWII if you take the American timing for the start of WWII in December 1941 against the British - and German, French, Polish and others' timing a couple of years earlier, which is illustrated at



    which was wasted as Britain didn't actually do anything in WWII.
    Yes, we are always,(and sometimes Fashionably) Late for Wars. We have to bring the Cat in, check the mail, look over the sports page while drinking Coffee. (sorry, no Crumpets) . Then after a good stretch, and a shave, we finally get moving, and join in. These Days, the Millenials will wake up at the crack of 1pm, check the I-phone, and say,, What another War?! can I do it on Face Book? (of course I jest, in truth, it would be 2 pm) .

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Main
    Posts
    40

    Default Re: Why is the British Military so good? ?

    Nazaire was inconsequential. In any case I ask for a major land battle on the European continent. I will grant the the British navy occasionally showed up and did fight now and then. Their Air Force was good and performed well throughout the war. The British army, not so much. So what pivotal land battle in Europe did the Brits win? And not Brits under us command or mixed in with the Allies. Patton’s actions shortened the war. Where did the British engage and destroy the enemy such that it shortened the war in Europe? (Or any theater for that matter)

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Main
    Posts
    40

    Default Re: Why is the British Military so good? ?

    Oops my apologies it seems I repeat myself.
    We are going to have to agree to disagree agree. I am way, way to tired to get into the weeds and breakdown every campaign. Big picture is the Brits needed the Yanks, where as the Yanks could have gone it alone.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,376

    Default Re: Why is the British Military so good? ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eastwind View Post
    Oops my apologies it seems I repeat myself.
    We are going to have to agree to disagree agree. I am way, way to tired to get into the weeds and breakdown every campaign. Big picture is the Brits needed the Yanks, where as the Yanks could have gone it alone.
    I disagree heartily. The U.S. Armed forces may have been able in the very long run to prosecute the war, but did very badly need the British, and their very nicely situated Islands to ensure a Victory for the peoples, and Nations of the Planet. Each Allied Nation needed the other in order to have the manpower, and resources with which to finish the War successfully. Normally, I have no trouble agreeing with Texans, but in this case, No Sale.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,376

    Default Re: Why is the British Military so good? ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    Exactly!

    When did any competent or, up to this point, incompetent navy manage to run into a door, for Chrissake!

    Makes the Royal Navy attempts to force the Dardanelles in WWI look highly sophisticated, although that was also by the same RN and just another failure in Britain's centuries of unbroken naval and military failures and defeats.



    Nearly made a fool of myself by responding to what I misread as 'Japs' when you said 'Japes'.

    I was going to interrogate you harshly about why, first, anybody had managed to capture even one witty Jap and, second, given Admiral King's extreme hostility to British colonialism, a former USN ship would be loaded with Japs to be traded by indolent British officers which distracted them from the imminent collision with the doors.

    However, when I realised it was 'japes' and could imagine the rampant buggery, sado-masochism, cross-dressing and other forms of depravity which kept the Royal Navy afloat (and I'm referring there only to the politicians running the show but, of course, excluding Winston as he was originally Army where none of that bad bum buggery happened) but which understandably distracted watchkeepers from basic seamanship by forcing them to spend most of their time looking behind themselves, it surprised me not at all that the ship managed to find inland doors into which to crash.



    Not quite correct.

    Britain didn't get its security deposit back at the time, much like you don't get yours back if you run your hire car into a highly visible door off the road (or, in this case, off the ocean where the ship could be expected to be covered by insurance), but it was sort of included in Britain's final payment to the US in 2006 or thereabouts for all the stuff that the US sent to Britain in WWII (or before WWII if you take the American timing for the start of WWII in December 1941 against the British - and German, French, Polish and others' timing a couple of years earlier, which is illustrated at



    which was wasted as Britain didn't actually do anything in WWII.
    Great bit of film that,, I howl with laughter!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	18301372_10155347484765972_5768136127597075869_n.jpg 
Views:	46 
Size:	78.5 KB 
ID:	7921  

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,338

    Default Re: Why is the British Military so good? ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eastwind View Post
    Big picture is the Brits needed the Yanks, where as the Yanks could have gone it alone.
    From where and how would the US have launched its sole assault on Western Europe if Britain hadn't fought alone for the first two years of the war and preserved Britain as the launching place for invading Western Europe, as well as preserving the Mediterranean for Allied use? The US would have been struggling to invade a German occupied and fortified Britain, never mind getting into Western Europe. As for the Mediterranean, the Italian and German naval forces there would have been undamaged. Mediterranean entry to and exit from the Suez Canal would have been controlled by the Italians and Germans. In the Atlantic the major German capital ships would have been out and fighting.

    Plus the Soviets might have been defeated or more probably neutralised if Britain hadn't diverted German land, sea and air forces to deal with Britain's sole fight against Germany 1939-41 and especially from mid-1941and notably the Greek campaign delaying Barbarossa by about six weeks, which became critical as the Germans approached Moscow. Defeating or neutralising the Soviets would have released massive German forces and resources to fortify an occupied Britain and Western Europe against any US invasion launched from the US east coast.

    Your belief that the US was and is all-powerful is exactly the same wrong and arrogant attitude that saw the US blunder into and lose or be fought or brought politically to a standstill in every one of its gravely ill-considered major engagements since WWII, starting with Korea and going on to Vietnam, Iraq both times, and Afghanistan.

    There is also the fact that American land troops learnt a lot from Britain's experience, as demonstrated by the American difficulties with green troops in Operation Torch and, for that matter, in New Guinea. The experienced Germans noted after D Day that American troops made a lot of basic mistakes, but they were quick learners and soon became competent troops. The fact remains that trying to invade a heavily fortified west coast of Britain with green troops was unlikely to succeed.

    Meanwhile the useless British managed to defeat the communist insurgency in Malaya, all the lessons of which the US chose to ignore in its subsequent blundering big army approach to a guerrilla and at worst brigade size war in Vietnam, and to win in the Falklands.

    Before you say that Malaya and the Falklands were small wars, yes, they were. But, unlike the Americans, since WWII and apart from the Suez fiasco the British have generally had the good sense not to initiate bigger and unnecessary wars they knew they couldn't win.

    If Britain had been defeated by Germany at any time before mid-1941, the British wouldn't have been supporting the US and Dutch oil embargo on Japan. Japan would have taken Burma, Malaya, Singapore and perhaps even India in the same way it took French Indo-China in September 1940 as a consequence of the French surrender to Germany, giving Japan control of Burmese oil and Malayan tin and rubber, which would have relieved some of the pressures which impelled Japan to war as a result of the American, Dutch and British oil embargo. Whether there would have been a Dutch embargo is debatable as the Dutch embargo was possible only because the Dutch government in exile was in Britain from May 1940. If Britain was defeated by mid-1941 when the combined oil embargoes were imposed, and unless the Dutch government in exile was able to move elsewhere, there would not have been any Dutch support for the oil embargo. Nor would there have been any prospect of successful resistance by the Dutch in the oil rich Netherlands East Indies to any Japanese invasion, especially given that the Japanese managed in the real war to roll up the NEI very easily after conquering Malaya and the Philippines. Once Japan had the NEI, it had all the oil it needed, and indeed a good surplus to sell elsewhere.

    In these circumstances Japan had no need to attack the Philippines or Hawaii, which makes it most unlikely that the staunchly isolationist America would have been sufficiently outraged to go to war with Japan.

    It is much more probable that, without Britain holding out on its own for the first two years of the war, the only way that America as the sole remaining capitalist democracy would go it alone would be by reaching commercial trading agreements with Germany and Japan to America’s commercial advantage.

    Any reasonably well-informed analysis demonstrates that America couldn’t, and wouldn’t, have been able to go it alone without Britain fighting alone for the first two years of the war.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •