It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Worst British military defeat in History

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: caf1550

What about Dunkirk? I understand the impressiveness of evacuating the troops on such short notice but that has to be considered a rather large tactical defeat as the Allies would not get back into northern Europe for some time after that setback.




posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




What about Dunkirk?


Dunkirk was classed as a " Strategic Withdrawal "






posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong
Dunkirk was classed as a " Strategic Withdrawal "





Yeah, kind of like Washington's retreat from New York City and across New Jersey. I am curious to see the film though, looked pretty good in the trailers.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: caf1550

What about Dunkirk? I understand the impressiveness of evacuating the troops on such short notice but that has to be considered a rather large tactical defeat as the Allies would not get back into northern Europe for some time after that setback.


A defeat but hardly humiliating.

The French being pussies left us Brits in a very very dangerous situation.

200,000 Brits against 2 million Germans? What choice did the UK have? Fighting to death may be noble but the UK needed those troops.

Nothing wrong with retreating when faced with very very bad odds.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: alldaylong
Dunkirk was classed as a " Strategic Withdrawal "





Yeah, kind of like Washington's retreat from New York City and across New Jersey. I am curious to see the film though, looked pretty good in the trailers.

Exactly

I would not call Washington a coward for doing that.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
The French being pussies left us Brits in a very very dangerous situation.


Surprised?



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: caf1550

What about Dunkirk? I understand the impressiveness of evacuating the troops on such short notice but that has to be considered a rather large tactical defeat as the Allies would not get back into northern Europe for some time after that setback.



Dunkirk was a mess.

For the Germans.
something like 300,000 combat troops were evacuated to the UK right under their noses, including a lot of French troops who played a big part in the guerrilla war that went on in the occupied territory of France.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Dunkirk was classed as an ass whopping.. And no I not cheering for them Nazi sommamabitches ..



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: alldaylong

Dunkirk was classed as an ass whopping.. And no I not cheering for them Nazi sommamabitches ..


The French campaign in it's entirety was a whipping, Dunkirk was us getting our nuts out of the fire.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: caf1550

OK. Eighteen-hundred men with rifles, that are bolt-action at the best, against 12,000 to 20,000 warriors that can run and fight like the wind with spears that don't need a belt box full of limited bullets with which to kill the vastly outnumbered enemy. Other than a failure on the truly intelligence part of the British command structure, what is the point of this history lesson?




1.Don't get cocky.
2. know your opponent.


Don't split your forces in the face of an unknown number of enemy.
Keep your skirmish line within supporting distance of the main line ( the skirmish line was overrun before they could retreat to the main British force.

The British got their asses handed to them in the First Boer War as well.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: alldaylong

Dunkirk was classed as an ass whopping.. And no I not cheering for them Nazi sommamabitches ..


What choice did the UK have but retreat?

The UK expeditionary force was not designed to fight the German army alone.

When the French pissed there pants and ran us Brits only choice was to retreat.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: caf1550

OK. Eighteen-hundred men with rifles, that are bolt-action at the best, against 12,000 to 20,000 warriors that can run and fight like the wind with spears that don't need a belt box full of limited bullets with which to kill the vastly outnumbered enemy. Other than a failure on the truly intelligence part of the British command structure, what is the point of this history lesson?




The Commander was an idiot, and the battle was conducted extremely poorly. Men weren't given bullets despite an abundance of them, orders were confused and often contradictory leading to confusion among the ranks.

Look up Rorke's Drift. Immediately after Isandlwana. Arguably one of the greatest moments in British military history following from one of the worst.

The Zulus had guns that time around.


Perhaps the man who saved the Brits from being driven into the sea.
True but idiocy and over confidence cuts both ways..

While the Undi Corps had been led by inkhosi kaMapitha at the Isandlwana battle, the command of the Undi Corps passed to Prince Dabulamanzi kaMpande (half-brother of Cetshwayo kaMpande, the Zulu king) when kaMapitha was wounded mopping up British fugitives from Isandlwana. Prince Dabulamanzi was considered rash and aggressive and this characterization was borne out by his violation of King Cetshwayo's order to act only in defence of Zululand against the invading British soldiers and not carry the war over the border into enemy territory. The Rorke's Drift attack was an unplanned raid rather than any organized counter-invasion, with many of the Undi Corps Zulus breaking off to raid other African kraals and homesteads while the main body advanced on Rorke's Drift.
en.wikipedia.org...'s_Drift



It was Zulu king Cetshwayo who ordered his impis to not cross the border in to Natal hoping still to make peace with the British. Many Zulu wanted to pursue the retreating British in to Natal and there was nothing to prevent them from taking it all had Cetshwayo been bolder and more aggressive. His brother Prince Dabulamanzi KaMpande was simply following the King's orders.
edit on 26-6-2017 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals




The British got their asses handed to them in the First Boer War as well.


And then in the re-match Britain whipped The Boers.

Odds even i think.




posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Asktheanimals




The British got their asses handed to them in the First Boer War as well.


And then in the re-match Britain whipped The Boers.

Odds even i think.



A quarter million troops against 50,000 and they still couldn't beat them until they took the women and children hostage and kept them in concentration camps, allowing thousands to die. These were the first modern concentration camps as we know them today, invented by the British.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
When the French pissed there pants and ran us Brits only choice was to retreat.


To be fair on the French they suffered a large number of casualties. No nation on earth would have been able to withstand the German military at the time. The French armies were sold out by their generals and politicians.

Britain has not lost a significant war for several hundred years. Lost battles and made poor decisions, but these are often footnotes in the war. Last one was the Irish War of Independence that had low loss of life and was a rapid political solution.

The Brits fight when they have to. Why bother with the Irish? Why bother with America?



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

The French fought bravely in 1940 against the Germans but had very limited numbers of tanks and planes of inferior quality due to the enormous resources used constructing the Maginot line which the Germans simply flanked by going through Belgium. To be fair the German blitzkrieg tactics were overwhelming and only a few allied officers had the foresight to even know how the German Luftwaffe and Panzers could work in close co-operation. Having radios in their tanks allowed the Germans to call in bombers to eliminate hardened targets which were usually just bypassed and surrounded to be mopped up later.

I gotta admit this is my kind of thread.
I could talk military history all day.
edit on 26-6-2017 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals




These were the first modern concentration camps as we know them today, invented by the British.


For someone who thinks he knows military history, your knowledge is lacking somewhat.

The Spanish where first to use Concentration Camps in Cuba.

www.latinamericanstudies.org...



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Wow! Those are horrendous pictures.
I was not aware of this episode of history.
But was it part of warfare or just genocide?

Eta: Insurgency is war imo so you're right.
It makes the Spanish-American war at least in Cuba somewhat more palatable.
The Philippines was another story however.

Several sources I've read claimed the Boer camps were the first but the Spanish camps were 2 years earlier.
Thanks for the tip!
I'm always happy to learn new things and after 50 years of reading history you still find much you don't know.
I never claimed to know history just that I have a deep interest in it.
Cheers,



edit on 26-6-2017 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: alldaylong

Wow! Those are horrendous pictures.
I was not aware of this episode of history.
But was it part of warfare or just genocide?

Eta: Insurgency is war imo so you're right.
It makes the Spanish-American war at least in Cuba somewhat more palatable.
The Philippines was another story however.

Several sources I've read claimed the Boer camps were the first but the Spanish camps were 2 years earlier.
Thanks for the tip!
I'm always happy to learn new things and after 50 years of reading history you still find much you don't know.
I never claimed to know history just that I have a deep interest in it.
Cheers,





As the saying goes " You learn something new every day "

We British have been responsible for many dark deeds in our past history.

However the " inventing " of Concentration Camps is not one of them.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Perhaps controversially I might suggest Afghanistan as the worst British military defeat in history.

454 military casualties. 7400 wounded. 13 years of conflict. Approximately £37bn cost.

And the Taliban were back in charge of Helmand within 6 months of our leaving. Heck, the Taliban were in charge of Helmand while we were still there too, outside of viewing range of the bases.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join