Geezzzzz…sounds like someone is still butthurt from losing their armada back in the late 1500s’.
Hm no. Spain lost a fleet trying to invade GB (the name "armada invencible" was coined by the british), but that was just a battle and it didn't have the objective of annexing England. After that battle, Spain won most of the naval and land battles against England, even some spanish troops landed on the island in 1595 (400 tercios landed in Cornwall and the english militia with thousands soldiers that should have defended the zone fled with terror... and then you laugh at the french ¬¬). Battles such as the one against the "english armada" that tried to invade the peninsula one year later or one of the worst defeats of the history of England, the attempt of invasion of Spanish america in 1595, so Spain continued to be the greatest naval power of its time only to be replaced by the dutch (not the english) late in the XVII century. In fact, even if we lost a fleet in reality it was England the one which was more hurt, as the crown was under a pile of debt and had to abandon its plans to create colonies in America, while Spain learned from its mistake and introduced a much more agile system similar to the english, a system that allowed Spain to protect shipments from America in a much more efficient way, shipping three times more gold and silver from America.
Originally posted by Dinivan Geezzzzz sounds like someone is still butthurt from losing their armada back in the late 1500s.Hm no. Spain lost a fleet trying to invade GB (the name "armada invencible" was coined by the british), but that was just a battle and it didn't have the objective of annexing England. After that battle, Spain won most of the naval and land battles against England, even some spanish troops landed on the island in 1595 (400 tercios landed in Cornwall and the english militia with thousands soldiers that should have defended the zone fled with terror... and then you laugh at the french ¬¬). Battles such as the one against the "english armada" that tried to invade the peninsula one year later or one of the worst defeats of the history of England, the attempt of invasion of Spanish america in 1595, so Spain continued to be the greatest naval power of its time only to be replaced by the dutch (not the english) late in the XVII century. In fact, even if we lost a fleet in reality it was England the one which was more hurt, as the crown was under a pile of debt and had to abandon its plans to create colonies in America, while Spain learned from its mistake and introduced a much more agile system similar to the english, a system that allowed Spain to protect shipments from America in a much more efficient way, shipping three times more gold and silver from America.
It was actually the late 16th century when spanish naval power was broken...
Well, that's not correct. Not only Spain remained as the mot powerful naval country, but it remained as the most powerful country in every sense, only to start to decline after some land defeats against the french in the 30 years war (remarkably the battles of Rocroi and the Dunes).
Ah, I should add that I don't want to be misunderstood, I don't have anything against the english, on the contrary, I admire England, specially its XIX century history
German Tigers? You mean the German Tiger introduced in 1943.
British/American Grants? You mean the Grants introduced in 1941?
T-51s are a Cold War Tank.
It was Panzer I, II, III vs Char Bs, Crusaders, Matilda Mk1 and Mk2 and some Renault tank I can't remember.
Open a book before you try and look like you no what your talking about.
I misunderstood his reference to tanks here. I did not realise he meant in 1939, I thought it was just a general observation about the tanks. I'll be reporting the direct insult though, it was completely unnecessary. Also the T-51, AS STATED IN THE POST was just a guess at the name, I've never studied the Russians in the kind of detail enough to pull up the names of their tanks off the top of my head.
Originally posted by Dinivan Well, that's not correct. Not only Spain remained as the mot powerful naval country, but it remained as the most powerful country in every sense, only to start to decline after some land defeats against the french in the 30 years war (remarkably the battles of Rocroi and the Dunes)
It was roughly the time when the Duke of Alva came to the netherlands. Spanish debts got so big because of the 80 years war that they can't really be called a superpower after that anymore...
Originally posted by Xanrn Khurazz you are an idiot.
German Tigers? You mean the German Tiger introduced in 1943.
British/American Grants? You mean the Grants introduced in 1941?
T-51s are a Cold War Tank.
It was Panzer I, II, III vs Char Bs, Crusaders, Matilda Mk1 and Mk2 and some Renault tank I can't remember.
Open a book before you try and look like you no what your talking about.
Got to agree with that, I don't know what the hell he's talking about. Since you already pointed those out I'll go with another.
The Germans offensive strategy was nothing special, EXCEPT for the fact that the French left themselves open to it.
The German offensive strategy was a giant leap forward from the last war. Close air support, followed by divisions of tanks to break lines, then infantry followed. The last war (which is what everyone else was used to and worked with) was slap the occasional tank in with the infantry for support and have planes slowing bobbing around taking pictures, drop an occasional bomb, and machine gun one another. Of course everyone who faced Germany at the beginning of the war got totally worked. That doesn't have anything to do with the countries it faced, they were all ridiculously outmatched in tactics.
Originally posted by tetsul Originally posted by Xanrn Khurazz you are an idiot.
German Tigers? You mean the German Tiger introduced in 1943.
British/American Grants? You mean the Grants introduced in 1941?
T-51s are a Cold War Tank.
It was Panzer I, II, III vs Char Bs, Crusaders, Matilda Mk1 and Mk2 and some Renault tank I can't remember.
Open a book before you try and look like you no what your talking about.
Got to agree with that, I don't know what the hell he's talking about. Since you already pointed those out I'll go with another.
Explained above ^^
The Germans offensive strategy was nothing special, EXCEPT for the fact that the French left themselves open to it.
The German offensive strategy was a giant leap forward from the last war. Close air support, followed by divisions of tanks to break lines, then infantry followed. The last war (which is what everyone else was used to and worked with) was slap the occasional tank in with the infantry for support and have planes slowing bobbing around taking pictures, drop an occasional bomb, and machine gun one another. Of course everyone who faced Germany at the beginning of the war got totally worked. That doesn't have anything to do with the countries it faced, they were all ridiculously outmatched in tactics.
I didn't mean to say it wasn't a good strategy. I'm saying that it only worked against the french because they left themselves open for it. Using the excuse 'they were allies with belgium' does not really hold much water - no sane country leaves border space open because there is a tiny nation there who you're allied with. The standing Belgian military was far less than 50000 people at the time (it's still only 40000). The real reason was the lack of belief that Germany could launch an attack through the Ardennes. In war though, one should be prepared for all eventualities - just because your military can't move through a region doesn't mean someone elses can't. Also, it is irrelevant in military tactics what the last war was. The military should be up to date. Noone expected German planes to "take pictures, drop the occassional bomb and machine gun one and other" - or noone with sense at least. Guernica proved exactly what the Germans were going to do with their airforce - only the British prepared though. The French had had a long period of observation of the German military and their tactics to adapt their own also.
I'm not saying the British are the best, the french are cowards, the germans were lucky or anything at all like that. All of those points are subject to opinion. I'm just saying that each side could have done more in their particular situations - of course, hind-sight is always 20/20.
Originally posted by Dinivan Yep outfctrl, this is an example of bullshit written by stupid people. I recommend you and anyone who cares about knowing the truth to go here and look for those wars mentioned (thirty years' war "tied"? war of devolution "tied"? dutch war "tied"?... etc) and for all the wars not mentioned because they were won by France And before you say anything about wikipedia, I think it's far better to trust in it than trusting in webpages like the one you quoted, don't you think? And if you don't trust the article, look for the books used as references, they are there for that.
But would we get as much of a laugh by going to your recommended site? I think not, therefore I surf not.
Originally posted by baff Partypooper that I am I find no amusement in this. In fact I find it pretty disgraceful, French soldiers have been and are currently risking their lives for your country for no gain and very possible terrorist reprisals in their homelands, and you insist on mocking them for cowardice.
Comments
I would like to add that the French have one of the best "armies" in the world, namely the French Foreign Legion.
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
It was actually the late 16th century when spanish naval power was broken...
Originally posted by Dinivan
Late 16th century is ~1590, not 1690
Exactly, that is what i mean.
edit: i meant to say it was around 1590.
Well, that's not correct. Not only Spain remained as the mot powerful naval country, but it remained as the most powerful country in every sense, only to start to decline after some land defeats against the french in the 30 years war (remarkably the battles of Rocroi and the Dunes).
Ah, I should add that I don't want to be misunderstood, I don't have anything against the english, on the contrary, I admire England, specially its XIX century history
Khurazz you are an idiot.
German Tigers? You mean the German Tiger introduced in 1943.
British/American Grants? You mean the Grants introduced in 1941?
T-51s are a Cold War Tank.
It was Panzer I, II, III vs Char Bs, Crusaders, Matilda Mk1 and Mk2 and some Renault tank I can't remember.
Open a book before you try and look like you no what your talking about.
I misunderstood his reference to tanks here. I did not realise he meant in 1939, I thought it was just a general observation about the tanks. I'll be reporting the direct insult though, it was completely unnecessary. Also the T-51, AS STATED IN THE POST was just a guess at the name, I've never studied the Russians in the kind of detail enough to pull up the names of their tanks off the top of my head.
EDIT:Added quote - clicked reply instead of quote
It was roughly the time when the Duke of Alva came to the netherlands. Spanish debts got so big because of the 80 years war that they can't really be called a superpower after that anymore...
Got to agree with that, I don't know what the hell he's talking about. Since you already pointed those out I'll go with another.
The Germans offensive strategy was nothing special, EXCEPT for the fact that the French left themselves open to it.
The German offensive strategy was a giant leap forward from the last war. Close air support, followed by divisions of tanks to break lines, then infantry followed. The last war (which is what everyone else was used to and worked with) was slap the occasional tank in with the infantry for support and have planes slowing bobbing around taking pictures, drop an occasional bomb, and machine gun one another. Of course everyone who faced Germany at the beginning of the war got totally worked. That doesn't have anything to do with the countries it faced, they were all ridiculously outmatched in tactics.
Got to agree with that, I don't know what the hell he's talking about. Since you already pointed those out I'll go with another.
Explained above ^^
The Germans offensive strategy was nothing special, EXCEPT for the fact that the French left themselves open to it.
The German offensive strategy was a giant leap forward from the last war. Close air support, followed by divisions of tanks to break lines, then infantry followed. The last war (which is what everyone else was used to and worked with) was slap the occasional tank in with the infantry for support and have planes slowing bobbing around taking pictures, drop an occasional bomb, and machine gun one another. Of course everyone who faced Germany at the beginning of the war got totally worked. That doesn't have anything to do with the countries it faced, they were all ridiculously outmatched in tactics.
I didn't mean to say it wasn't a good strategy. I'm saying that it only worked against the french because they left themselves open for it. Using the excuse 'they were allies with belgium' does not really hold much water - no sane country leaves border space open because there is a tiny nation there who you're allied with. The standing Belgian military was far less than 50000 people at the time (it's still only 40000). The real reason was the lack of belief that Germany could launch an attack through the Ardennes. In war though, one should be prepared for all eventualities - just because your military can't move through a region doesn't mean someone elses can't. Also, it is irrelevant in military tactics what the last war was. The military should be up to date. Noone expected German planes to "take pictures, drop the occassional bomb and machine gun one and other" - or noone with sense at least. Guernica proved exactly what the Germans were going to do with their airforce - only the British prepared though. The French had had a long period of observation of the German military and their tactics to adapt their own also.
I'm not saying the British are the best, the french are cowards, the germans were lucky or anything at all like that. All of those points are subject to opinion. I'm just saying that each side could have done more in their particular situations - of course, hind-sight is always 20/20.