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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

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.

So did the russians but they kept fighting.


originally posted by: paraphi
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.

Actually it is a bit of a myth that Germany was this unstoppable machine.

Most there troops where foot solders with horses being used to transport supply’s and artillery due to the massive shortage of trucks. Even there tanks during the invasion of France where sub par being mainly panzer II's and a few Panzer III which where inferior to French and British tanks.
All there mobile infantry and tanks where mostly concentrated in a specific area.

British and especially the French where a lot better equipped.

The Germans won because the French where retards and didn’t guard to Belgium border and the Ardennes.....Which is stupid as that how Germany attacked THE FIRST TIME.
The Blitzkrieg only worked because the dumb French didn’t deploy there army correctly and got caught AGAIN with Belgium. With the shortage of tanks and Trucks of Germany if France had proper defences and stalled the Germans even slightly then it would likely have been game over for Germany.

Germany basically got lucky the French where idiots.



originally posted by: paraphi
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.


Exatcly.

We tend to lose battles.....then win the war....with a few rare exceptions.




posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: paraphi

The French fought bravely in 1940 against the Germans

No they fought like imbeciles.




originally posted by: Asktheanimals
but had very limited numbers of tanks and planes of inferior quality

Not true.

Germany had a bigger shortage and there bests tanks had only JUST started production.




originally posted by: Asktheanimals
due to the enormous resources used constructing the Maginot line which the Germans simply flanked by going through Belgium.

Hence the French fighting like idiots seeing as Germany did the EXACT same thing in world war 1.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Belgium refused to allow the French and British troops to deploy in their territory so that wasn't even a possibility.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: crazyewok

Belgium refused to allow the French and British troops to deploy in their territory so that wasn't even a possibility.


But they could of set themselfs up on the belgium border.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Whatever08152

originally posted by: caf1550
My apologies, it is considered one of the 5 worst British military defeats.

Link


This is not related to the Zulu and I don´t want to derail the thread... but I was reading through your source and after reading the part about the bismark I am really confused.

I was always under the impression that the only ship that got sunk by the Bismark was the HMS Hood yet the article states

that the two ships that intercepted them on May 24 were the battleship Prince of Wales and the battlecruiser Repulse... it was the Repulse that made it a dark day for the Royal Navy. After a few German salvoes, the battlecruiser exploded with the loss of more than 1,300 sailors.


Now wikipedia says that

The sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse was a naval engagement in the Second World War, part of the war in the Pacific, that took place north of Singapore, off the east coast of Malaya, near Kuantan, Pahang, where the British Royal Navy battleship HMS Prince of Wales and battlecruiser HMS Repulse were sunk by land-based bombers and torpedo bombers of the Imperial Japanese Navy on 10 December 1941


Sooo ...what am I missing here? Did the author in the source article just mix this up, where there two Repulse named battlecruisers or am I just too stupid to read this all correctly? Can someone explain this to me?


the Bismarck sank the Hood and damaged the Prince of Wales.
the same Prince of Wales and the Repulse were sank by the Japanese in the Pacific.

the National Interest article is incorrect, confusing Repulse and Hood. good catch on your part

edit on 26-6-2017 by ElGoobero because: add relevant info



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
The worst defeat of the British Imperial Military was having to retire the extremely fancy pre-Crimean Victorian era Officer uniforms. The pomp and panache alone must have been terrifying to the enemy.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElGoobero
the Bismarck sank the Hood and damaged the Prince of Wales.


That's right. And the Royal Navy then sank the Bismarck. The Royal Navy went on to totally defeat the German and Italian navies, and in the later stages of the war was involved with the Japanese in detail. Of course the British actions against the Japanese is scrubbed from US history books, but we were there are Okinawa too, you know.

The Battle of the Atlantic against the German U-Boats was of course a joint effort with Canada and the US, with the US arriving a couple of years late, as is their style.

While Singapore was a debacle, the British and Commonwealth (India and African) went on to defeat the Japanese in Burma, with a bit of assistance from the US and Chinese, of course. The Burma campaign was a lesson in adaptive tactics and fluid warfare leading to the defeat of the Japanese. The unsung hero was William Slim, probably the best commander in history.

Anyway, the the loss of Singapore was a footnote because the Japanese were defeated.
edit on 26/6/2017 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

And the USA suffered a Identical humiliating defeat to Singapore with the surrender of the Philippines. Same reasons behind the defeat, similar numbers surrendered and at the same time.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Not to mention Wake Island which was devastating to morale.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: crazyewok

Not to mention Wake Island which was devastating to morale.



I mention the philpines as both the US surrender at corregidor was nearly identical to the Surrender at Singapore. Ad the occured at the same times. It eery how similiar they both where.
edit on 26-6-2017 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Bataan was actually worse. Largest single surrender in American and Filipino military history, though Corregidor was bad, too.

Oddly enough, a month or so later, the tide in the Pacific turned dramatically with US victories in the Coral Sea, and at Midway.

Before the war, Yamamoto, at the time the IJN commander said he'd run roughshod for six months, after that he guaranteed nothing.

Six months, almost to the day, Midway happened. I've always wondered what he thought about that prognostication?

Then in August of '42, the tide turned once and for all, at Guadalcanal. I've always considered that campaign to be the true turning point in the Pacific. It was, nearly, a dead even struggle for much of it. An exercise in mutual slaughter in the air, on land and sea.
edit on 6/26/2017 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

It's nothing of the sort. Scrubbed, I mean.

It's well known that the Royal Navy, the RAN, and other nations, all had a presence in the latter part of the Pacific War, and that without their help, it would have been a lot more difficult. Especially in the South west Pacific. The Aussies and Kiwis carried a huge portion of the load while the US was still getting its collective acts together.

In the Central/Northern Pacific it was primarily a US show. In the SW Pacific, just about everyone. In the Indian Ocean/Burma theatre it was the British, Aussies, and New Zealand with the US.

There's quite a lot of history that extolls the very real help that the European allies gave in the Pacific. You just need to look a bit more carefully.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nwtrucker


One would think the French had something to do with the British never fully mobilizing for those 'loons'.


We mobilesed because of the French getting involed.
And 90% of those forces went to other more important colonys as well as the UK.


originally posted by: nwtrucker

Spin as you will, that WAS the beginning of the end of 'colonies' and, at least, blatant imperialism.

No spins, Your the one putting spin.

After the US fiasco the UK went a subjected all of India and a good portion of Africa. Hardly the end of blatant imperialism. You piss ant revolution and you insignificant colonys at the time did ZERO to halt British Ambitions.
[


Methinks he doth protest too much....



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
I mention the philpines as both the US surrender at corregidor was nearly identical to the Surrender at Singapore. Ad the occured at the same times. It eery how similiar they both where.


I agree. The entire Southeast Asian campaign was an ess show that made Europe look tame. It also helped further cement the value of naval air power.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: paraphi

The French fought bravely in 1940 against the Germans

No they fought like imbeciles.




originally posted by: Asktheanimals
but had very limited numbers of tanks and planes of inferior quality

Not true.

Germany had a bigger shortage and there bests tanks had only JUST started production.




originally posted by: Asktheanimals
due to the enormous resources used constructing the Maginot line which the Germans simply flanked by going through Belgium.

Hence the French fighting like idiots seeing as Germany did the EXACT same thing in world war 1.




I'd say one big difference between the German move in WW1 and WW11. The armored divisions, two specifically, known as the 'Ghost Divisions'. One Commanded by Guderian and the other by Rommel.

The speed difference between the two is huge as well.

P.S. Frankly, there wasn't much the French could have done to alter the result. Between fast moving armored divisions and Stuka dive bombers, that battle was lost based on WW1 tactic vs. Blitzkrieg. Fortunately for the British. the lesson was learn via the French.....then again, their tail was between their legs all the way back to Dunkirk...

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



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




The entire Southeast Asian campaign was an ess show that made Europe look tame.



Ease up there.

I wouldn't call European cities being bombed day and night with huge civilian casualties as being " Tame "

The U.S. mainland i would say had it " Tame " as not a single town or city had to endure that nightmare.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Well lets throw in "The Great Mistake" during operation Market Garden... pretty big failure there lol


No, it was a gamble that did not accomplish its aims. Yet, the war was won. In a complex and fluid war some things work and some things don't. That is the case for all sides in any conflict, including the Americans who made some serious cock-ups in WW2, as did the Japanese, Soviets, Italians and Germans etc...


Well when we talk about the worst Japanese, Soviets, Italians and Germans military defeats or cock-ups then we can do that, but right now it is Worst British military defeat....

I guess the OPs story is not correct either because the Brits won the war against the Zulus too..



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nwtrucker


One would think the French had something to do with the British never fully mobilizing for those 'loons'.


We mobilesed because of the French getting involed.
And 90% of those forces went to other more important colonys as well as the UK.


originally posted by: nwtrucker

Spin as you will, that WAS the beginning of the end of 'colonies' and, at least, blatant imperialism.

No spins, Your the one putting spin.

After the US fiasco the UK went a subjected all of India and a good portion of Africa. Hardly the end of blatant imperialism. You piss ant revolution and you insignificant colonys at the time did ZERO to halt British Ambitions.
[


Methinks he doth protest too much....


Methinks your out of bull#.


Fact: 1776 the USA was a insignificant colony.

Fact: After the American war of revolution the UK doubled the size of its empire.

Fact: india brought in more wealth than the American colonies ever did.

The USA did not start out a super power or even important.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: paraphi

The French fought bravely in 1940 against the Germans

No they fought like imbeciles.




originally posted by: Asktheanimals
but had very limited numbers of tanks and planes of inferior quality

Not true.

Germany had a bigger shortage and there bests tanks had only JUST started production.




originally posted by: Asktheanimals
due to the enormous resources used constructing the Maginot line which the Germans simply flanked by going through Belgium.

Hence the French fighting like idiots seeing as Germany did the EXACT same thing in world war 1.




I'd say one big difference between the German move in WW1 and WW11. The armored divisions, two specifically, known as the 'Ghost Divisions'. One Commanded by Guderian and the other by Rommel.

The speed difference between the two is huge as well.


Thing is those divisions where the exception not the rule. Even at the height of NAZI Germany power they always had a shortage of tanks and trucks.

Only a few elite divisions got turned into Mobile infantry or of lucky Mechanzed infantry and panzer divisions where always under strength.

Plus it was not until 1941 Germany got production up on its decent tank models.

Germany won France via mixture of good tactics and French incompetence.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Well lets throw in "The Great Mistake" during operation Market Garden... pretty big failure there lol


No, it was a gamble that did not accomplish its aims. Yet, the war was won. In a complex and fluid war some things work and some things don't. That is the case for all sides in any conflict, including the Americans who made some serious cock-ups in WW2, as did the Japanese, Soviets, Italians and Germans etc...


Well when we talk about the worst Japanese, Soviets, Italians and Germans military defeats or cock-ups then we can do that, but right now it is Worst British military defeat....

I guess the OPs story is not correct either because the Brits won the war against the Zulus too..


As I said earlier the UK has a habbit of losing battles then winning the war



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join