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
Herald12345       1/7/2008 12:30:51 PM








Back on topic. If you can't project power into your enemy's vital terrain, [the Ohio River Valley in 1820] and your enemy can do the converse [The Saint Lawrence River Valley in 1820] then you are finished.





 





the usa tried to project power into the st lawrence valley from 1812-15 with results ranging from poor to dismal against a britain that was largely ignoring the fighting.  what on earth would make you think the results would be any much better 5 short years later against the focussed attention of the british empire?





Andrew Jackson; nimrod. Leadership matters. He hated the British enough to get it done.

Herald



hatred isn't enough to make for a successful campaign against a professional army.  jackson only ever faced the british once and then under near perfect set piece conditions at new orleans.  the rest of his career was essentially skirmish level scraps with various indian tribes and that's a far far cry from a standup campaign against the british army.  factor in the british actually committing resources to the fight and the american situation starts to look dire indeed.

If you actually knew what the hell you were talking about I'd point out that Packenham's and Lambert's operations weren't half bad considering the terrain and resources they had available. I'd also point out that you know next to nothing about Andrew Jackson the general and why he chose to fight the way he did.

But since you don't even know the ground or what was going on in the campaign like how Lambert landed spies to get in among the local Indians and pirates to obtain vital military intelligence on the lay of the land, or how the British ran a clever disinformation campaign designed to set the French Creole population against the American interlopers, or why the British thought that Congreve naval rockets might have to substitute for the 24 pounders they would have loved to bring up to destroy the Jackson Line, or how the successful attack on the west bank actually threatened to turn that line but some incompetent British colonel  sounded the recall when Packenham met his deserved death, if you knew these details I'd bother to show you the error of your ways. But since you don't Ehran, I suggest you crack open a book and LEARN.

Til then-get stuffed.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

SA!"£$    Herald..   1/7/2008 4:36:47 PM
You silly fool wat are you mumbling on about I have never heard anyone try to scramble some googled facts together to come up with such a pathetic response. The more you speak the more you dig. I never knew war was such a simple mathematical equation. And I am not manipulating any numbers or trying to say Britain would be able to conquer and hold onto the US or re-write history in any other way ( that was you remember) I am merely stating your assersions are ludricous even when you ammend them. And I suggest you read again my original comment and re-read some of the statistics to see the true comparison. Then you will see why Britain and its Empire were Americas worst Enemy in History.
 
You are a fool. When you have read your OWN stats and have taken off your stars and stripes tinted sunglasses you may wake up enlightened and realise that the US wasnt always the worlds only superpower.
 
Quote    Reply

00_Chem_AJB    SA   1/7/2008 5:04:12 PM
I have seen nostalgic Russians wishing the Soviet Union and all the land it had under it's heel still existed. But this is the first time I have seen some one, may I make the assumption that you; like me are English? You seem to be nostalgic about the British Empire? Or are you unhappy with the current balance of power? Boasting that so and so was so and so's worst enemy in History is just wrong, I mean who in the right mind would be proud of that?
 
Although I did originally list the USSR as the USA's worst enemy, I would have to change my opinion and say: You are your own worst enemy, this came into effect during the American Civil War, and they say 'no war is bitterer than that of brother fighting brother.' But one must also remember enemies exist outside the contexts of combat and warfare. The two party system can cause the political process to become stagnant, or the blunder of individual politicians? or parties and that too can be potentially as equally damaging to the country as an aggressor?s bomb.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       1/7/2008 5:55:25 PM

You silly fool wat are you mumbling on about I have never heard anyone try to scramble some googled facts together to come up with such a pathetic response. The more you speak the more you dig. I never knew war was such a simple mathematical equation. And I am not manipulating any numbers or trying to say Britain would be able to conquer and hold onto the US or re-write history in any other way ( that was you remember) I am merely stating your assersions are ludricous even when you ammend them. And I suggest you read again my original comment and re-read some of the statistics to see the true comparison. Then you will see why Britain and its Empire were Americas worst Enemy in History.

 

You are a fool. When you have read your OWN stats and have taken off your stars and stripes tinted sunglasses you may wake up enlightened and realise that the US wasnt always the worlds only superpower.

Why actually braindead, thank you for your idiotic commentary and pathetic response.

If you bothered to LOOK at the numbers you'd claimed I'd not examined  you'd see that Britain wasn't much of a superpower herself at the time. Try looking at three nations, France, China, and Russia, stupid, and compare relative economic ratios with Britain.

Now get off your high horse and learn something. And while you are at it, understand  this. YOU are NOT my equal here.

Like the usual feeble debater when you think you know a subject, you supply an opinion and then when somebody supplies data and ANALYSIS that blows your lunacy out of the water: you try to claim something else or try to twist the data to fit your own stupidity.

Sorry McGee, you don't get to play  by those rules.  Assertions don't cut it. When the numbers call you a liar, you are a liar. When they indicate you are an idiot, you are an idiot. And all your declamations otherwise do not alter the fact that  to me, you are an unqualified buffoon.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       1/8/2008 6:30:19 AM










































































Now now, we both know it was the French that really won that war ;)

B.L.






















Ugh...





















Outdone by the French ?  Surely you jest! 





















 

















it isn't a fact americans bring up when they teach history but without french aid the revolutionary war was a foregone conclusion pretty much ending with a bunch of founding fathers getting hung for treason. 










One simple answer. Cowflop.

I suggest you do an economic analysis of the Earth at the time. The proto-US was at 1/4 of France's economic output and CLIMBING. If not 1783 then by 1820. Britain in NA was FINISHED.

Herald















you mean the USA rather than North America?













and what do you mean by "FINISHED"?











I mean finished in North America. Why the Great White North put up with it, is your internal political business, but if you really wanted to kick Britain out, they were out, through, period.

Herald









 








Canada was part of the British Empire back.








So what? 








the US had just failed it attempting to take it by force so I don't see why you say the British were finished?

Did you actually bother to read the campaign histories? T'was American bungling and logistics incompetence that saved the British. They were on the ropes  and escaped by the skin
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       1/8/2008 7:06:03 AM
Look idiot. the typical Ironside, it least the horse-mounted version. had the wheel lock pistol an early version of the saber or a longsword and he had a reinforced buffcoat and a helmet. The New Model Army cavalry was being trained in the Swedish fashion and was so equipped. For your benefit moron, that means SHOCK action.

As for Mahan, He recognozed that the US lost the Atlantic then and there was NOTHING the US could do about that.He did note something though that you rule Britainia chestr thumper idiots ignore which we in the United States have pounded into our antiu-colonialist skulls  We  in 1812 could do something about the Great Lakes [Battle of Lake Erie] and  we did do something we on our internal waterways. There we could face you cretins on EVEN terms, and there we taught you what it means to lose command of the sea. You lost the Great Lakes and NEVER got it back. It was your first DEFINITE PERMANENT defeat in an [inland] sea, and it presaged your eventual global downfall a century later.

You better stick to what you do best, buffoon, which  is  make stupid assertions with no evidence and leave the factual stuff alone. You don't handle facts well, either the number crunching or the history.

One last thing. CREF my comments on rivers. Jackson was ready to descend on Lambert when Lambert received the order to withdraw. Riverine warfare and amphibious warfare in general is something of an American art form. You British were never very good at it. Jackson was.

If you look at the history of American warfare from the Seven Years War onward you would know why.

Fort Ticonderoga, Lake Erie, Dearborn, Trenton, Saratoga, New Orleans just to mention British defeats at our hands because you guys are just no good on the rivers and the lakes in this North America.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       1/8/2008 1:46:28 PM
hatred isn't enough to make for a successful campaign against a professional army.  jackson only ever faced the british once and then under near perfect set piece conditions at new orleans.  the rest of his career was essentially skirmish level scraps with various indian tribes and that's a far far cry from a standup campaign against the british army.  factor in the british actually committing resources to the fight and the american situation starts to look dire indeed.



If you actually knew what the hell you were talking about I'd point out that Packenham's and Lambert's operations weren't half bad considering the terrain and resources they had available. I'd also point out that you know next to nothing about Andrew Jackson the general and why he chose to fight the way he did.

But since you don't even know the ground or what was going on in the campaign like how Lambert landed spies to get in among the local Indians and pirates to obtain vital military intelligence on the lay of the land, or how the British ran a clever disinformation campaign designed to set the French Creole population against the American interlopers, or why the British thought that Congreve naval rockets might have to substitute for the 24 pounders they would have loved to bring up to destroy the Jackson Line, or how the successful attack on the west bank actually threatened to turn that line but some incompetent British colonel  sounded the recall when Packenham met his deserved death, if you knew these details I'd bother to show you the error of your ways. But since you don't Ehran, I suggest you crack open a book and LEARN.

Til then-get stuffed.

Herald


so in essence the one battle he fought against the british which happened on terms utterly favourable to him turned on a british foulup.  hardly a recommendation for his qualifications to run a field army against the british it seems.  in 1820 the british had dozens of officers qualified to conduct such operations with experience from the peninsular campaign.  the cadre of officers the us could draw on was to be charitable paper thin in comparison. 
you look at the demonstrable capacities of the british and the usa in 1820 and kiss off any european support for the usa and it's fairly clear what would happen if the british summoned up the interest to carry through a campaign against the usa.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       1/8/2008 7:32:01 PM


hatred isn't enough to make for a successful campaign against a professional army.  jackson only ever faced the british once and then under near perfect set piece conditions at new orleans.  the rest of his career was essentially skirmish level scraps with various indian tribes and that's a far far cry from a standup campaign against the british army.  factor in the british actually committing resources to the fight and the american situation starts to look dire indeed.




If you actually knew what the hell you were talking about I'd point out that Packenham's and Lambert's operations weren't half bad considering the terrain and resources they had available. I'd also point out that you know next to nothing about Andrew Jackson the general and why he chose to fight the way he did.

But since you don't even know the ground or what was going on in the campaign like how Lambert landed spies to get in among the local Indians and pirates to obtain vital military intelligence on the lay of the land, or how the British ran a clever disinformation campaign designed to set the French Creole population against the American interlopers, or why the British thought that Congreve naval rockets might have to substitute for the 24 pounders they would have loved to bring up to destroy the Jackson Line, or how the successful attack on the west bank actually threatened to turn that line but some incompetent British colonel  sounded the recall when Packenham met his deserved death, if you knew these details I'd bother to show you the error of your ways. But since you don't Ehran, I suggest you crack open a book and LEARN.

Til then-get stuffed.

Herald



so in essence the one battle he fought against the british which happened on terms utterly favourable to him turned on a british foulup.  hardly a recommendation for his qualifications to run a field army against the british it seems.  in 1820 the british had dozens of officers qualified to conduct such operations with experience from the peninsular campaign.  the cadre of officers the us could draw on was to be charitable paper thin in comparison. 

you look at the demonstrable capacities of the british and the usa in 1820 and kiss off any european support for the usa and it's fairly clear what would happen if the british summoned up the interest to carry through a campaign against the usa.

In 1814 you had that same cadre of officers and FAILED [Packenham among them]. Do you even READ the stupidity you write?

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    ECW   1/9/2008 6:48:21 AM

Look idiot. the typical Ironside, it least the horse-mounted version. had the wheel lock pistol an early version of the saber or a longsword and he had a reinforced buffcoat and a helmet. The New Model Army cavalry was being trained in the Swedish fashion and was so equipped. For your benefit moron, that means SHOCK action.
 
 
oh dear.... he reads a little but forgets to engage brain....
 
 
what use is shock against formed pikes and bills???? (this is not lord of the rings, where you seemed to have got your glamourous ideas of charging cavalry from).
 
shock is what the French used in the 100YW.. moderate advance followed by full on charge.... look how well that worked against formed longbow lines behind stakes backed with dismounted MAA. and these guys did have full armour on not the lightweight gear from 1640s
as as for Ironsides.... that was the name of Cromwell's own horse (there were no foot ironsides which you would know if you had read a little more...)... not the whole cavalry arm. how many of the NMA cavalry were actually "ironsides" ie Cromwell's old EA cavalry....? 
 
 
Edge Hill, Marston Moor and Naseby are very well documented. but look at some of the smaller actions for cavalry tactics. (the Pike and shot society have a good publication called Arquebusier that has great stuff on the period). 
 
by all means charge the opposing cavalry or hit the infantry in flank or rear if you can catch them... but the standard parliment tactic was to advance to close range, fire pistols and charge in if enemy disrupted... the royalists were more into the "shock" tactic... partially due to the natural elan of feeling superior to the other guy and partially due to not normally having the 2 pistols and ammo to carry on a caracole....
NMA may have been modelled on the Swedes but they were still a long way off being as good. it wasn't really until after the end of the 2nd civil war that you could say they were of  "good" quality. they look better than they were mainly due to the quality of the opposition.
 
anyway....no sane man charges a formed pike or bill line. I presume you did look at the makeup of the infantry??? but surely if you did then you would not have implied shock cavalry tactic to be used against pike?????? even GA himseld didn't do that...  :-)
 
 
but back to the hypothetical....
shock or not... they are going to get the living crap shot out of them as they close with longbows.... they are going to get 5-10 fairly accurate volleys into them compared with  the 1 unaccurate musket volley (not that ECW armies tended to use proper volley fire).
 
as I alluded to... think rock, paper, scissors....
 
Paul
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    What good is shock action aginst Pikes and Bills?   1/9/2008 6:57:00 AM
Ask the Swiss after Francis the First mowed them down, or "Father" Tilly after Gustavus Adolphus handed him his ASS.

How can you be so STUPID?

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