Best War General Ever!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Albatross wrote:
Frazzled wrote:What the Brits conveniently forget is that Napoleon ran amok for years. it wasn't the Brits that stopped him at all. It was the Russian winter. They also forget in only 100 days from his escape Napoleon wielded together an army sufficient to fight both the British and the Prussians. Had Wellington actually faced a younger (not sick) Napoleon, and not "Hey I know lets charge again" Ney he would have had his ass handed to him Austerlitz style.

If, if, if.... totally pointless, because we aren't talking about a parallel universe. The British won. In THIS universe.

You might as well argue that if it wasn't for the French, the USA would still be the Thirteen Colonies and you'd be speaking Spanish. Or you could say that if The British Empire had allied with The Third Reich, that the Nazis would have won WWII!

It just seems that you're one of 'those' Americans. You know, the ones who will go to ridiculously great lengths not to give the British credit for ANYTHING. Why the bitterness? Secret inferiority complex?

What are you on about? We're talking Wellington. The Russian winter and the Russian army beat Napoleon. What came later was not the 500,000 man Grande Armee but a thrown together force. The common British soldier stalled them long enough for the Prussians to arrive, then it was over. It wasn't Wellington's brilliant tactics, it was the British soldier who, pardon a US Civil War phrase "stood like a stone wall." against the French, long enough for the Prussians to arrive.

**Albatross**

Frazzled wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Frazzled wrote:What the Brits conveniently forget is that Napoleon ran amok for years. it wasn't the Brits that stopped him at all. It was the Russian winter. They also forget in only 100 days from his escape Napoleon wielded together an army sufficient to fight both the British and the Prussians. Had Wellington actually faced a younger (not sick) Napoleon, and not "Hey I know lets charge again" Ney he would have had his ass handed to him Austerlitz style.

If, if, if.... totally pointless, because we aren't talking about a parallel universe. The British won. In THIS universe.

You might as well argue that if it wasn't for the French, the USA would still be the Thirteen Colonies and you'd be speaking Spanish. Or you could say that if The British Empire had allied with The Third Reich, that the Nazis would have won WWII!

It just seems that you're one of 'those' Americans. You know, the ones who will go to ridiculously great lengths not to give the British credit for ANYTHING. Why the bitterness? Secret inferiority complex?

What are you on about? We're talking Wellington. The Russian winter and the Russian army beat Napoleon. What came later was not the 500,000 man Grande Armee but a thrown together force. The common British soldier stalled them long enough for the Prussians to arrive, then it was over. It wasn't Wellington's brilliant tactics, it was the British soldier who, pardon a US Civil War phrase "stood like a stone wall." against the French, long enough for the Prussians to arrive.

Because most of our best troops were tied up fighting you lot! Also, you're simplifying a bit.

And what about the Peninsular War?

**Frazzled**

Um, no, most of you guys weren't being killed by my ancestors until 1814.

(ok except for the Napoleonic ones who left France after they lost...)

**Albatross**

Frazzled wrote:Um, no, most of you guys weren't being killed by my ancestors until 1814.

(ok except for the Napoleonic ones who left France after they lost...)

You are aware that The War of 1812 had literally only just ended at the time of the battle of Waterloo, aren't you?

And that more Americans died in that war than Brits? And that it was a draw, largely because we decided not to crush you? Seriously, read up on it.

EDITED FOR GREATER ACCURACY

**WarOne**

Albatross wrote:You are aware that The War of 1812 had literally only just ended at the time of the battle of Waterloo, aren't you?

And that more Americans died in that war than Brits? And that it was a draw, largely because we decided not to crush you? Seriously, read up on it.

EDITED FOR GREATER ACCURACY

A generally accurate statement. Americans were woefully ill-equipped for a war with another major power at the time, especially when it reduced the navy to little row boats in essence and the regular army to a few thousand troops at most.

**sebster**

Soladrin wrote:What does mean good times for Germans? XD

A plan to invade France.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Can't believe that people are peddling the old cliche about the failure of Operation Barbarossa as a result of the Russian winter. German failure was a result of strategic failure at the highest level. By August, Army Group Centre was ready for the push against Moscow, but failed to capitalise on the opportunity.
Now, don't get me wrong, i'm not downplaying the effects of weather on the campaign from October to december. Bad roads, people frezing to death, tanks not starting etc. But it was lost before this.
I expect better from dakka members. I expect them to be erudite,eloquent, and articulate. I'm sorely disappointed

I'd touched on it, personally I think the primary failure was allowing so much of the Russian force to escape encirclement and be available for the Winter war. It was really another example of German tactical excellence that wasn't fully capitalised on at the operational and strategic levels.

**loki old fart**

sebster wrote:
Soladrin wrote:What does mean good times for Germans? XD

A plan to invade France.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Can't believe that people are peddling the old cliche about the failure of Operation Barbarossa as a result of the Russian winter. German failure was a result of strategic failure at the highest level. By August, Army Group Centre was ready for the push against Moscow, but failed to capitalise on the opportunity.
Now, don't get me wrong, i'm not downplaying the effects of weather on the campaign from October to december. Bad roads, people frezing to death, tanks not starting etc. But it was lost before this.
I expect better from dakka members. I expect them to be erudite,eloquent, and articulate. I'm sorely disappointed

I'd touched on it, personally I think the primary failure was allowing so much of the Russian force to escape encirclement and be available for the Winter war. It was really another example of German tactical excellence that wasn't fully capitalised on at the operational and strategic levels.

When the russians realised the japanese weren't going to attack from the east.
They had enough troops available in reserve for the winter war

**Frazzled**

Albatross wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Um, no, most of you guys weren't being killed by my ancestors until 1814.

(ok except for the Napoleonic ones who left France after they lost...)

You are aware that The War of 1812 had literally only just ended at the time of the battle of Waterloo, aren't you?

And that more Americans died in that war than Brits? And that it was a draw, largely because we decided not to crush you? Seriously, read up on it.

EDITED FOR GREATER ACCURACY

Incorrect. A war is over when Amurica says its over! besides my relatives didn't start killing your relatives (in America) until 1814. As Yoda would say, your ass was handed, newbs to how Southerners fight you were.

We fired our guns and the British kept a commin, was not as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began a runnin, down the Mississippii to the Gulf of Mexico.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans

**ShivanAngel**

Frazzled wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans

Thats what happens when you use low BS soldiers shooting into hard cover.....

No wonder they lost...

Learn to tactics!

**Frazzled**

Don't forget, when the other side has guys with muskets AND PIRATES, you don't attack, unless you have your own band of Ninjas (or Chuck Norris).

Any city that has pirates defending it, is my kind of city!

**Albatross**

Frazzled wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Um, no, most of you guys weren't being killed by my ancestors until 1814.

(ok except for the Napoleonic ones who left France after they lost...)

You are aware that The War of 1812 had literally only just ended at the time of the battle of Waterloo, aren't you?

And that more Americans died in that war than Brits? And that it was a draw, largely because we decided not to crush you? Seriously, read up on it.

EDITED FOR GREATER ACCURACY

Incorrect. A war is over when Amurica says its over! besides my relatives didn't start killing your relatives (in America) until 1814. As Yoda would say, your ass was handed, newbs to how Southerners fight you were.

Ah, yes. This being the war during which we burnt your capital.

I love how much of a big deal this seems to be to you - it's a minor footnote in Britain's long and glorious military history.

**Frazzled**

Albatross wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Um, no, most of you guys weren't being killed by my ancestors until 1814.

(ok except for the Napoleonic ones who left France after they lost...)

You are aware that The War of 1812 had literally only just ended at the time of the battle of Waterloo, aren't you?

And that more Americans died in that war than Brits? And that it was a draw, largely because we decided not to crush you? Seriously, read up on it.

EDITED FOR GREATER ACCURACY

Incorrect. A war is over when Amurica says its over! besides my relatives didn't start killing your relatives (in America) until 1814. As Yoda would say, your ass was handed, newbs to how Southerners fight you were.

Ah, yes. This being the war during which we burnt your capital.
I love how much of a big deal this seems to be to you - it's a minor footnote in Britain's long and glorious military history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans

**Albatross**

@Frazzled - Bugger! You quoted my post before I edited it to make myself look less slowed!

You had this planned all along didn't you? DIDN'T YOU!?!

IMO, The British should have thrown their lot in with the Southerners during the Civil War. It definitely would have made things interesting! Well, the whole slavery thing's a bit of a problem, actually. I'm sure we could have talked you lot out of it, though. You seem like reasonable chaps...

More tea?

**Frazzled**

Albatross wrote:@Frazzled - Bugger! You quoted my post before I edited it to make myself look less slowed!

You had this planned all along didn't you? DIDN'T YOU!?!

IMO, The British should have thrown their lot in with the Southerners during the Civil War. It definitely would have made things interesting! Well, the whole slavery thing's a bit of a problem, actually. I'm sure we could have talked you lot out of it, though. You seem like reasonable chaps...

More tea?

Tea, a civilized drink, in uncivilized times.

**Marshal2Crusaders**

Everyone needs to read Imperial Grunts by Robert Kaplan and take a long hard look at American Foreign Policy. Holy gak.

**hlaine.larkin**

Zhuge Liang, i know he was mainly an advisor- but he was pretty much in charge. that guy owned.

anyone else ever defend a city against an entire enemy army with 0 men?

i think not..
the man was a psychology of war understanding machine!

**Ketara**