Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: America's Worst Enemy in History
mongyu    1/2/2008 8:16:10 AM
The title says it all: Who do you think has been the greatest enemy ever to threaten America? My vote goes to the British hands down. No other country ever came as close as the British to physically ending the United States in our history. The Germans and the Japanese were formidable in their own right, but neither [or even both] could reasonably invade the United States. The Soviet Union had the theoretical potential to destroy the United States, but I think everyone agrees that this was not a practical capability in the way the British Empire's ability to take Washington DC was. The Soviets were a dangerous enemy ideologically in the way it could convert adherents in America, but they never out-did the British who successfully supported a rebellion in the United States by funding, arming, and giving moral support to the Confederacy. So what country would you choose?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT
dirtykraut       1/10/2008 2:40:53 PM




I also wouldn't make too much of British anti slavery. They only outlawed the slave trade in 1807, but the slave trade act said nothing about slavery itself, which wasn't abolished until 1833, long after most slaves in the North had been freed.




you might want to read up on the antislavery patrols the RN maintained for about 70 years in the waters off central and western africa.  lot of gold and lives spent to suppress the slave trade and done for moral reasons.



Slavery was rampant in the British Empire until 1833. Though the Portugese and the Dutch began the slave trade (it was African chiefs who sold their own people to the Dutch and Portugese), the British capitalized on it and made it global. And you want me to believe that out of the clear blue one day they decided it was amoral? No doubt, many in Britain were anti slavery based on moral grounds, but that doesn't tell the whole story.
 
Europe and the commonwealth often get on their moral high horses about their treatment of blacks in general. I have heard plenty of stories of black Vietnam veterans who went on R&R to Europe and Australia. The Brits and the Aussies asked the US government to not send black soldiers to their countries for R&R. The US government told them to go f&@* themselves. Again, there are several horror stories from black soldiers posted in Europe during the Cold War, all the way up to the 80's.
 
Quote    Reply

dirtykraut       1/10/2008 2:50:45 PM

Herald wat the hell are you on!! please put us out of our misery and admit that you are wrong at this point and stop trollling on this discussion. UK not listed on top 25 countries when comparing GDP LOL wat a larrf obviously missed out you plonk!!  If you click on the map version of the "Interesting Data" you YORSELF quote you will see the UK is marked with "no data" you moron. UK may not be top on its own but even without the Empire is considerably higher than the US in 1820 ( US GDP at 1.8% and GB GDP at 5.2) and only by 1880 odd does the US surpass Great Britain (Excluding Empire). Just for arguments sake and to make you look like the pleb that you are; from 1820-1920 the British Empire was generating from between 20-25% of the worlds wealth, while the US in 1820 was generating less than 2%.

 

Those numbers speak for themselves. 



Niel Ferguson, author of "Colossus, the Rise and Fall of the American Empire" has Britains share of world GDP at 10% at it's peak. Much of the wealth generated in the British Empire was not under British control.  
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       1/11/2008 6:19:58 AM







Heorot questioned my arrow strike energy calculations. Not you. I looked at them. Found the error and corrected.

Nothiong you said specifically proves a thing as Heorot did or wqas specific to the discussion.

What massed firepower?  Arrow vollies?  Answer me this? Why did the longbowmen fail after the Rheims campaign in the HYW? What did the French do differently after the Maid that consistently defeated the English?

HMMMMMMMM?

There's a REASON why the longbow failed against the French and why the Tercio [maneuver] subsequently tore the same French to ribbons.

Now quit assuming facts not in  evidence  and learn that I know this stuff a lot deeper than you think.

And stop making assertions. Try some facts.

Herald
 








again you manage to completely miss the point... are you doing it deliberately or are you really this dumb!



 



striking power is irrelevent as the ECW armies are not as well armoured as the armies that the English beat with longbow.... so pointless bringing it up.



 



feel free to bring up the failings of the longbow if you wish but neither that or the manouver of the Tercio have no relevence to the ECW.... why do you keep bringing them up when we are talking about the ECW??????



As long as men have used distance weapons, SMASH and defense against it has always been relevent.

The NMA didn't adopt the French or the Spanish model for its base. It adopted the TYW model-basically the Protestant [Swedish] version from where some of the ECW veterans originally learned their trade.

NOW stop being stupid and marshal some FACTS. Your assertions like your jibes to me are meaningless noise.

Herald


and the point being that longbows fire more rounds, more accurately and at a greater effective distance than muskets...
 
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT
the only negative that effects longbow is that it doesn't penetrate later full plate armour reliably.... but since the ECW armies did not have full plate then they are extremely vulnerable to longbow weapons....
 
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT
 
 
have you looked at descriptions of the battles yet to see what tactic WAS ACTUALLY USED rather than what the drill might say? please cite when parliment horse charged at the gallop into formed pike/musket formations with success. I am suprised that you have not gone with the royalists using charge at the gallop as this was actually their favoured tactic at they generally were the better cavalry between the two sides.
 
did you say you have fired bows in a recent reply?
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       1/11/2008 6:33:40 AM







Heorot questioned my arrow strike energy calculations. Not you. I looked at them. Found the error and corrected.

Nothiong you said specifically proves a thing as Heorot did or wqas specific to the discussion.

What massed firepower?  Arrow vollies?  Answer me this? Why did the longbowmen fail after the Rheims campaign in the HYW? What did the French do differently after the Maid that consistently defeated the English?

HMMMMMMMM?

There's a REASON why the longbow failed against the French and why the Tercio [maneuver] subsequently tore the same French to ribbons.

Now quit assuming facts not in  evidence  and learn that I know this stuff a lot deeper than you think.

And stop making assertions. Try some facts.

Herald
 








again you manage to completely miss the point... are you doing it deliberately or are you really this dumb!



 



striking power is irrelevent as the ECW armies are not as well armoured as the armies that the English beat with longbow.... so pointless bringing it up.



 



feel free to bring up the failings of the longbow if you wish but neither that or the manouver of the Tercio have no relevence to the ECW.... why do you keep bringing them up when we are talking about the ECW??????



As long as men have used distance weapons, SMASH and defense against it has always been relevent.

The NMA didn't adopt the French or the Spanish model for its base. It adopted the TYW model-basically the Protestant [Swedish] version from where some of the ECW veterans originally learned their trade.

NOW stop being stupid and marshal some FACTS. Your assertions like your jibes to me are meaningless noise.

Herald


the French in the 30YW did use Swedish model???? (Rocroi)
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    France was Sweden's ally.   1/11/2008 6:43:54 AM
Whose model did you think they were going to use when they modernized their army in 1630? Spain's?

Sheesh.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       1/11/2008 8:38:47 AM

Whose model did you think they were going to use when they modernized their army in 1630? Spain's?

Sheesh.

Herald




I was wondering why you mentioned the NMA not adopting the French or Spanish model when the French model (being late entrants as it were) for the 30YW was modelled on the Swedes from a decade prior to the ECW anyway....   is  it came across as though you were putting a case that the French had a fundamentally different model than the Swedes...
 
if you look into Wedgewood you might get the impression that the parliment modernisers actually responded to the royalist tactics. after all Rupert brought back his Bohemian experience and was using it from the start and their tactics normally won the fight.
 
what credance do you put to longbows being used by Graham's lot up north during the ECW?
 
Quote    Reply

Tercio    Arquebus vs Longbow   1/11/2008 8:51:13 AM
I've found by chance this brief analysis comparing longbow, crossbow and arquebus, it might be interesting, and probably gives some clues about why early firearms had an edge over other missile weapons, even being inferior in range, accuracy and rate of fire. That might explain also why armies equipped with early firearms defeated armies equipped with other kind of missile weapons, as Spanish conquistadores against Aztecs or Western infantry against Turk ottomans.
 
>>
 
Tercio
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       1/11/2008 8:56:59 AM







Heorot questioned my arrow strike energy calculations. Not you. I looked at them. Found the error and corrected.

Nothiong you said specifically proves a thing as Heorot did or wqas specific to the discussion.

What massed firepower?  Arrow vollies?  Answer me this? Why did the longbowmen fail after the Rheims campaign in the HYW? What did the French do differently after the Maid that consistently defeated the English?

HMMMMMMMM?

There's a REASON why the longbow failed against the French and why the Tercio [maneuver] subsequently tore the same French to ribbons.

Now quit assuming facts not in  evidence  and learn that I know this stuff a lot deeper than you think.

And stop making assertions. Try some facts.

Herald
 








again you manage to completely miss the point... are you doing it deliberately or are you really this dumb!



 



striking power is irrelevent as the ECW armies are not as well armoured as the armies that the English beat with longbow.... so pointless bringing it up.



 



feel free to bring up the failings of the longbow if you wish but neither that or the manouver of the Tercio have no relevence to the ECW.... why do you keep bringing them up when we are talking about the ECW??????



As long as men have used distance weapons, SMASH and defense against it has always been relevent.

The NMA didn't adopt the French or the Spanish model for its base. It adopted the TYW model-basically the Protestant [Swedish] version from where some of the ECW veterans originally learned their trade.

NOW stop being stupid and marshal some FACTS. Your assertions like your jibes to me are meaningless noise.

Herald



I am still waiting for you to explain to me why killing someone or wounding them with the greater potential KE of a musket round is any better than killing then with an arrow.... they are just as dead our out of it.....
 
I have pointed you to specific battle descriptions which "show" the tactics and ranges used.
I also gave you pointers to a good longbow book (which has all your armour penetration in there for you)
I gave you a TV show fronted by a very well respected weapons expert.
I even gave you a you tube video demo of arrow into plate.
hat other facts do you want?
 
the only thing you have given me is a pointless energy calculation which is idealistic and doesn't take real life factors into account. descriptions of Cromwells troops that are basically wrong (ironside foot post). and irrelevent references to French versus Swiss and Swede versus Imperial that don't have longbows to reply with.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       1/11/2008 8:59:05 AM
Two points.

1. The French never quite got it about Swedish artillery+Swedish cavalry charge=dead Tercios or Landknechts.
2. A few of those old Roundhead reformers served with Gustavus, so it was first hand from the great Swede himself and not from the French, that Cromwell's bunch picked up on the cavalry charge.

James Graham is it?

Since the heart of his army during the Covenanter troubles was Irish Catholic infantry and Highlanders, would this be a trick question?
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Reply to the cretin's last post.   1/11/2008 9:08:32 AM
Why don't you refer to the reply I gave to Ehran or the data Tercio just supplied?.

That kinetic energy calculation is important if you understand that plate that STOPPED a bodkin head arrow was unable to stop a musket ball, and know why.

You just sort of flounder around there, don't you?

Like shooting a flounder in a barrel. {I love puns!]

Herald

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics