PDA

View Full Version : Why did Great Britain do so well in WW2, WW1, Falklands etc etc?



XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 11:53 AM
Why are we so damn good at fighting especially as we are only a small country. Even going back more in time to Spanish Armada etc we were still kicking ***!

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 11:53 AM
Why are we so damn good at fighting especially as we are only a small country. Even going back more in time to Spanish Armada etc we were still kicking ***!

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 11:56 AM
Because the sight of your bad teeth makes the enemy flee? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Just kidding, nice trolling. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

michapma
08-26-2003, 11:59 AM
Because the soldiers are afraid that if they do not fight well enough they will be sent back home, a most horrifying and boring prospect.

On a more serious note, Britain is a sea animal: she has always been good at naval dominance. Not without land victories, of course, as in Africa.

Probably it has something to do with personality. Yes, we must get that in there; I'd say it has to do with your calm and collectedness in the face of danger. Spot of tea on the battlefield and all that. Plus you've got James Bond.

Cheerio,
Mike

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10"><tr valign="middle" bgcolor="#3e463b"><td height="40" colspan="3" align="center">The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide project (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/)</a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#515e2f"><td width="40%">FB engine management:
Manifold Pressure sucks (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182081-1.html)
Those Marvelous Props (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182082-1.html)
Mixture Magic (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html)
Putting It All Together (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182085-1.html)
Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 1 of 6) (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182102-1.html)</td><td align="center">

‚ =69.GIAP=Chap‚

69.GIAP (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/)</p></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top">Hardware:
Flight Simulation Performance Analyzed (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_062a.html)
Building a home-made throttle quadrant step by step (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zkavv)
Sound Can Be Hazardous for Games (http://www6.tomshardware.com/game/20030405/index.html)</td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 11:59 AM
One word mate "Marmite", our secret weapon !. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Cheers

Aces

------------------------------------
Aces High JG123 (123_Aces_JG123 on Hyperlobby)
IL2-MAT and Artwork Downloads
E-mail aces@acesartwork.co.uk
http://www.acesartwork.co.uk
------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:09 PM
all we need now to win a war is to get some sober gordies and scourers and tell them the enemery stole all the booze

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:10 PM
It's because of us hard bastard northerners. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

=======================================

(H).

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:16 PM
Tinky_Winky wrote:
- Why are we so damn good at fighting especially as we
- are only a small country. Even going back more in
- time to Spanish Armada etc we were still kicking
- ***!

Eh, the battle against the Spanish Armade was not only a british operation.
The Dutch Navy assisted and without them the outcome could have been different.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>


Message Edited on 08/26/0312:24PM by Cappadocian_317

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:16 PM
As for Spanish Armada, it was an English Army success, but weather and Spanish mis-coordination played a bigger role.

I must refresh your memory: there was an counter-attack English Armada just a few years later. It was Drake's expedition to La Coruna. And he got his *** kicked: a disaster as pitiful as Spanish Armada.

Nelson got an awesome victory in Trafalgar: that's true. But, do you remember when he lost his arm, some years before? He was defeated, then.

Lord Wellington was losing in Waterloo, when the Prussians saved the day. Napoleon thought they were reinforcements he was waiting for. What if the reinforcements had arrived?

In the Malvinas (Falklands), you lost the Sheffield. It was a scandal in U.K. Not so easy as you think.

You wouldn't have won the WW2 without US help. (First with "lend and lease" project, then with military assistance. Your big time was during BoB, but that was avoiding a defeat, not gaining a victory. In the Pacific the Japs almost swept you. Your best soldiers there, were mainly natives. They won the war in Asia.

Of course, UK has been an awesome military power for centuries. The same that the US now, and Spain and France just before, or the Huns, or Macedonian, or the Romans.

But don't you think it's a privilege of blood or nationality. It's just technology and the outcome of History. Don't be a nationalist nerd. Subjective nationalism just generates hate and stupidity.

The war that Il-2 recreates is just an example. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Be proud of your nation, but don't you try to crush us all. We all have reasons to be as proud as you.



- Dux Corvan -

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:17 PM
The right political alliances!
Britain had an Empire as well even though it fell apart through rebellion in the Americas and global Wars.

The American Empire is the current World ruler however, we dont think of it in those terms, but the American Battle groups that roam the seas of today enforce poilicy as effectivly as any Roman border fort 2000 years ago, only they can move.
Awesome eh!

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:20 PM
Yes, and, even so, the Roman Empire disappeared. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- Dux Corvan -

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:21 PM
Actualy it's because we have a selective memory and forget the ones we lost,

Now what about the 100 years war - that must have been a real bore,

Umm - what happened at Hastings - or are you telling me that William the B*rstard was a geordie...

Oh - didn't the Romans, Vikings and assorted square headed chaps do a bit of invading

http://perso.club-internet.fr/ptthome/vulogo3.JPG

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:24 PM
Because in the most wars Brittain fought there was a clear point, that even a lowly soldier could understand and support.

Because it was the first country in the world to industrialise and to develop a modern banking system, thus it could equip and supply huge armies.

Because it has always rellied on professional soldiers, who were treated like tools for war rather than cannon fodder.

Because of the national character, which allows them to pragmatically choose the best way of achieveing something, which results from living in a cold and wet place, where the very existence depended on hard work and cooperation.

Because for the last thousand of years British cities avoided being conquered and plundered and depopulated, while in other countries the middle class had to be re-created from scratch every other century.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:25 PM
S!

We practiced so much with the French we had to be good.

Dont forget, these islands are one of the most invaded and fought over clumps of earth on this planet, practice in fighting over them from all comers is what made us so good at defending them. Whatever the means or method, defended them we have, and defended them we will.

I dont see a problem with national pride, the problem comes from those that respond to it poorly. I certainly dont mind if an American goes running about waving his flag in everyones face. Hes proud of his country, thats all.

Nice to see someone proud of our nation.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:31 PM
English breakfast make all other run... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:34 PM
LOL,
That was a classic Buzz!

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:38 PM
When I was younger I worked overseas amongst many Brits. I am convinced they are the world's greatest natural-born trouble-makers /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif But they have a lot of experience and are very good at it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:39 PM
HansKnappstick wrote:
- Because in the most wars Brittain fought there was a
- clear point, that even a lowly soldier could
- understand and support.

Like the 100 year war? Or War of the Roses? Or the civil war? All very, very clear ... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


- Because it was the first country in the world to
- industrialise and to develop a modern banking
- system, thus it could equip and supply huge armies.

Britain has always had comparably small armies. And the modern banking system was developed in Italy/The Netherlands.


- Because it has always rellied on professional
- soldiers, who were treated like tools for war rather
- than cannon fodder.

Britain has depended as much on drafted servicemen as other countries. "Kitchener's New Army" would be a good search on google.


- Because of the national character, which allows them
- to pragmatically choose the best way of achieveing
- something, which results from living in a cold and
- wet place, where the very existence depended on hard
- work and cooperation.

Right. Just as the Icelanders and Inuits are the fiercest warriors today. The weather explains it all. Even the numbers in the national lottery. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


- Because for the last thousand of years British
- cities avoided being conquered and plundered and
- depopulated, while in other countries the middle
- class had to be re-created from scratch every other
- century.

Eh? Seen Braveheart? Heard of William the Conquorer? The Romans? The Pictons? The Saxons? The Wikings?

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:42 PM
On a sidenote: In my army days I trained with British troops (our brigade was part of British 6th Armoured as a NATO quick response force). And I trained with other NATO troops as well. I can honestly say that back then I would have much prefered to have a British brigade alongside me than any other nation's.

Just to cut down on my Brit slashing here. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:59 PM
It doesn't matter that we did well in WW1 (debatable), WW2 (lost without US equipment and eventually, manpower) and the Falklands War (OK)- we Brits have always fought well, often against each other.

What is important is could these wars have been avoided? WW1; probably, although the roots of the conflict went back 30 or more years before it actually started. Such complex politics involved. WW2; maybe not, although our head in the sand attitude led us to believe it could. Perhaps less punitive sanctions against Germany after WW1 may have avoided it, i.e not led to the rise of National Socialism?
Falklands War; definitely. The politicians that called loudest for war against Argentina were the same ones that began removing the military and scientific prescence in the South Atlantic, thus leading to the Argentine military junta believing that they could win their people's support by conquering/reclaiming the Falkland Isles/Islas Malvinas and we wouldn't care.

The British fighting man is often second to none, and our elite forces almost certainly are, but they have been let down by our politicians and generals again and again. We blundered our way into acquiring an Empire, and are still blundering our way out of it.
Still, there are plenty of worse places to be, and I'm glad I'm British. If only these islands weren't so damn crowded!

<CENTER>


<IMG SRC="http://www.apqa16.dsl.pipex.com/sig5.jpg"


The world is your lobster, Terence.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 01:12 PM
Even though our Armed Force's isn't the biggest in the world - There the best i.e S.A.S, R.A.F etc.

Hot Space

An Antelope is not just for Christmas - It's for putting in Sandwich's as well!!!

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 01:28 PM
Out of countless battles and wars since Hastings 1066, have the French or Spanish ever beaten us ?

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 01:35 PM
Artic_Wulf wrote:


- The American Empire is the current World ruler
- however, we dont think of it in those terms, ....

And that explains Bush's world policy in Iraq how? Of course we Americans think of ourselves as the current world ruler. Since the fall of hardline Communism this country has pursued a policy of stepping in to other countries politics as a general excuse to test our current weapons systems and try to install democracy. (read friendly/beneficial trade). Since World War 2, the United States has failed to win (soundly and convincinly defeat the 'enemy') a military incursion into another country. Right or wrong, this country's leaders have failed to aggressively carry out a war policy. You can't win if the leadership does not allow it's generals to carry out the conflict in the most effective manner. This policy most recently started with Truman and General McArthur. None the less, Amercia feels it should rule the world.

Now I know I'm going to get flamed big time on this. Someone will point out real or imagined factual errors, or state that I'm ignorant.....whatever. This is just my opinion. You are entitled to yours.

In no way should anyone construe this as a slam on the men and women who serve our country. IMHO they are the bravest and most dedicated soldiers in the world. It's not their fault that their leaders make mistakes. It's their misfortune to have to put their lives on the line for the wrong reasons.

<center>***BRING OUR PILOTS HOME!***
<center>***Support the 'Escape' patch***

<center>http://www.ghosts.com/images/05.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 01:40 PM
The-Tyke wrote:
- Out of countless battles and wars since Hastings
- 1066, have the French or Spanish ever beaten us ?
-

Of course they haven't. That's why you're still in possession of most of northern France, and that's why the revolt in the Netherlands went so darn quick ...

cheers/slush



http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 01:42 PM
It's a shame - The U.S is a good country with good Armed Force's.

Hot Space

An Antelope is not just for Christmas - It's for putting in Sandwich's as well!!!

Zayets
08-26-2003, 01:44 PM
Britannia rullllllez!
BTW , cute trolling post Lala or Po , or Dipsy whatever your name is.

Zayets out

http://www.arr.go.ro/iar81c.JPG

michapma
08-26-2003, 01:47 PM
Dunkelgrun wrote:
- WW2; maybe not, although our head in the sand
- attitude led us to believe it could


Churchill wrote that he considered WW2 as having been extremely avoidable:

<blockquote>One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once "The Unnecessary War." There never was a war more easy to stop than that which has just wrecked what was left of the world from the previous struggle.</blockquote>


I'm surprised nobody has made reference yet to the American war for independence.

Mike

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10"><tr valign="middle" bgcolor="#3e463b"><td height="40" colspan="3" align="center">The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide project (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/)</a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#515e2f"><td width="40%">FB engine management:
Manifold Pressure sucks (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182081-1.html)
Those Marvelous Props (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182082-1.html)
Mixture Magic (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html)
Putting It All Together (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182085-1.html)
Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 1 of 6) (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182102-1.html)</td><td align="center">

‚ =69.GIAP=Chap‚

69.GIAP (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/)</p></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top">Hardware:
Flight Simulation Performance Analyzed (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_062a.html)
Building a home-made throttle quadrant step by step (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zkavv)
Sound Can Be Hazardous for Games (http://www6.tomshardware.com/game/20030405/index.html)</td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 01:50 PM
Commuter: 'Why are you speaking French?'
Captain Mainwaring: 'Because we're British, that's why!'


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif There you have it, in a nutshell.

<CENTER>


<IMG SRC="http://www.apqa16.dsl.pipex.com/sig5.jpg"


The world is your lobster, Terence.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 01:52 PM
michapma wrote:
-
- Dunkelgrun wrote:
-- WW2; maybe not, although our head in the sand
-- attitude led us to believe it could
-
-
- Churchill wrote that he considered WW2 as having
- been extremely avoidable:
-


The problem was that nobody would listen to Churchill until it was almost too late.

<CENTER>


<IMG SRC="http://www.apqa16.dsl.pipex.com/sig5.jpg"


The world is your lobster, Terence.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 01:53 PM
Slush69 wrote:
- HansKnappstick wrote:
-- Because in the most wars Brittain fought there was a
-- clear point, that even a lowly soldier could
-- understand and support.
-
- Like the 100 year war? Or War of the Roses? Or the
- civil war? All very, very clear ...
In the conflicts they didn't see the point they were perfoming badly. The American Independence War, or the Boer Wars, for example. Nevertheless in the conflicts mentioned originally (Warld Wars) the point was clear thus the troops fought well.


-
-- Because it was the first country in the world to
-- industrialise and to develop a modern banking
-- system, thus it could equip and supply huge armies.
-
- Britain has always had comparably small armies. And
- the modern banking system was developed in Italy/The
- Netherlands.
Britain was the first country to rely on bond emissions for their wars. Which meant a big trouble after the wars, however...
-
-- Because it has always rellied on professional
-- soldiers, who were treated like tools for war rather
-- than cannon fodder.
-
- Britain has depended as much on drafted servicemen
- as other countries. "Kitchener's New Army" would be
- a good search on google.
Good point. Fighting to the last drop of blood of the allies is a wonderful strategy.

But let's look at the Wellington's Army on the Iberian Peninsula. Among many Spanish troops it were the regular British regiments that made the fight, eh, regular.

-
-- Because of the national character, which allows them
-- to pragmatically choose the best way of achieveing
-- something, which results from living in a cold and
-- wet place, where the very existence depended on hard
-- work and cooperation.
-
- Right. Just as the Icelanders and Inuits are the
- fiercest warriors today. The weather explains it
- all. Even the numbers in the national lottery.
Yes it does explain much. Living in a climate that provides fresh bananas everyday does not lead to creation of a work ethos.
-
-
-- Because for the last thousand of years British
-- cities avoided being conquered and plundered and
-- depopulated, while in other countries the middle
-- class had to be re-created from scratch every other
-- century.
-
- Eh? Seen Braveheart? Heard of William the Conquorer?
- The Romans? The Pictons? The Saxons? The Wikings?
I wrote last thousand years.
Anyway, all you mention is nothing compared to destruction of all Russian cities (but Novgorod) by Mongols in XIV century. Destruction => all inhabitants were just executed. Or with destruction of Warsaw in 1831 by the hands of Russians. Or the northern German cities during the 30 year war (Meclemburg: cities lost 90% of their inhabitants). The A country without townsfolk has a hard time organising a moder administration, industry etc.

michapma
08-26-2003, 02:19 PM
Dunkelgrun,

My only point was that WW2 was very avoidable. I'm aware of the problem. /i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif

Mike

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10"><tr valign="middle" bgcolor="#3e463b"><td height="40" colspan="3" align="center">The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide project (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/)</a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#515e2f"><td width="40%">FB engine management:
Manifold Pressure sucks (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182081-1.html)
Those Marvelous Props (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182082-1.html)
Mixture Magic (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html)
Putting It All Together (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182085-1.html)
Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 1 of 6) (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182102-1.html)</td><td align="center">

‚ =69.GIAP=Chap‚

69.GIAP (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/)</p></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top">Hardware:
Flight Simulation Performance Analyzed (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_062a.html)
Building a home-made throttle quadrant step by step (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zkavv)
Sound Can Be Hazardous for Games (http://www6.tomshardware.com/game/20030405/index.html)</td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 02:20 PM
HansKnappstick wrote:
-
- In the conflicts they didn't see the point they were
- perfoming badly. The American Independence War, or
- the Boer Wars, for example. Nevertheless in the
- conflicts mentioned originally (Warld Wars) the
- point was clear thus the troops fought well.

The American Independence War and the Boer War were pretty clearcut cases of rebellions - something the Brits were used to and could see the point in squashing. I fail to see how these two wars are supposed to stand out as shining examples of something completely different.


-
- Britain was the first country to rely on bond
- emissions for their wars. Which meant a big trouble
- after the wars, however...

If you are trying to argue that Britains way of financing wars made all the difference, I will have to disagree. Neither Napoleon or even Hitler had troubles with the financing itself.


-
- But let's look at the Wellington's Army on the
- Iberian Peninsula. Among many Spanish troops it were
- the regular British regiments that made the fight,
- eh, regular.

Point being? You stated that Britain always has relied on professional soldiers. I pointed out that their troops in WW1 and WW2 were drafted.

But since you're using the Napoleonic Wars as an example, I will also have to point out that most historians agree that the reason for the initial French success of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic army were due to the draft and the arming of the regular citizen.


-
- Yes it does explain much. Living in a climate that
- provides fresh bananas everyday does not lead to
- creation of a work ethos.

Eh? If you're serious about the development of the North European work ethos I guess you're familiar with Weber. It's a somewhat other point he's taking, right?


-
- Anyway, all you mention is nothing compared to
- destruction of all Russian cities (but Novgorod) by
- Mongols in XIV century. Destruction => all
- inhabitants were just executed. Or with destruction
- of Warsaw in 1831 by the hands of Russians. Or the
- northern German cities during the 30 year war
- (Meclemburg: cities lost 90% of their inhabitants).
- The A country without townsfolk has a hard time
- organising a moder administration, industry etc.

So because of that neither Russia nor Germany were able to field effective, and war-winning, fighting forces? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

michapma
08-26-2003, 02:24 PM
Are you guys actual historians? I'm curious, because the posts are soon going to be complete with a reference section. I love it! /i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10"><tr valign="middle" bgcolor="#3e463b"><td height="40" colspan="3" align="center">The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide project (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/)</a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#515e2f"><td width="40%">FB engine management:
Manifold Pressure sucks (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182081-1.html)
Those Marvelous Props (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182082-1.html)
Mixture Magic (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html)
Putting It All Together (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182085-1.html)
Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 1 of 6) (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182102-1.html)</td><td align="center">

‚ =69.GIAP=Chap‚

69.GIAP (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/)</p></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top">Hardware:
Flight Simulation Performance Analyzed (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_062a.html)
Building a home-made throttle quadrant step by step (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zkavv)
Sound Can Be Hazardous for Games (http://www6.tomshardware.com/game/20030405/index.html)</td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:01 PM
About an avoidable war, we must remember Mr. Chamberlain with that paper on his hand, claiming satisfied: "Peace in our time". That crap of paper had just betrayed a whole country, giving the Czechs to Hitler, "a perfect gentleman" for Chamberlain. Some months later, Hitler occupied Czech-Slovakia before the indiference of UK and France.

As Machiavelli says in "The Prince", when your enemy's determined, you must be ready for war, for there's no way to avoid it: any attempt will just delay it as he grows stronger.

If UK and France had reacted with determination after HItler's claim for Sudets, he would had thought twice European expansion politics. Germany was still rather weak by then. But they simply let Hitler intimidate them, and let him break the Versailles Treaty weapon development limitations. After Spanish Civil War fascism, supported by Italy and Germany, conquered power in another European country, and the democratic powers didn't anything to avoid it.

WW2 only could be avoided with action. But they were still too innocent then.


- Dux Corvan -

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:07 PM
Why?

Okay:
WW1 - Plain luck and the superioty of the British navy. It's blockades were the factor in succes. Not a victory won in the field. It was this victory that led to the bitter feeling of betrayl and coupled with the Treaty of Versaille and the world recession put Europe on a direct path for WW2.

There was no clear cut advantage bewteen the combatants on the Western front, hence the brutal years of deadlocked stalemate trench warfare.

WW2 - The BEF was smashed to bits in France. A direct result of inferior tactics. Were it not for Hitlers fatal hesitation at Dunkirk it was game over. As for the Pacific - underequipped and poorly prepared troops were no match for a modern Japanese army. The common opinion was that the Japanese were backward.

Miscalculations, US help and the bitter war in the east saved the UK.

In both wars the UK's main advantage was its NAVY. By luck - good fortune, good alliences and a bit of determination the UK managed to come out on the winning side both times.

Falkland Islands.
SIMPLE.

Well trained PROFESIONAL soldiers vs On the whole conscripts (many of whom thought they were off to do boarder security on the Chilean boarder.) No contest.

Aircraft Carriers V Having to fly from mainland airbases.

Quid pr Quo deal for cutting edge Air to Air missles with the US. (Maggie and Ronnie sitting in a tree -)

The habit of Argentine air riggers setting the wrong fusing on their Mirage bombs - lots of dud hits.

The Agrentines NOT going for the supplly ships.

Fear of the Royal Navy sinking ANYTHING in the exclsusion zone. (I have a feeling the Belgrano was a WW2 vintage Battleship)

A bit of luck. The Argintines SHOULD have won.

The British soldier today is one of the best in the world. This has a lot to do with them all being regular proffesional soldiers with a very rich and proud tradition.

Also the fact that the Army can send troops to Northern Ireland makes them hands down the best urban/peacekeeping troops in the world.

Cheers
D




I was to take responsability for the newcomer Erich Hartmann. I looked at him and thought: Oh my God, what are they sending us now? What a baby!

ZG77_Nagual
08-26-2003, 03:10 PM
One word: Tellytubbies

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:12 PM
√Ňí√ √?√¬®√¬*√ ? √¬Ě√¬≤Ó √¬≤Ż √∑√¬≤Ó-Ž√¬®?

michapma
08-26-2003, 03:15 PM
SA22,

"Sea-scape? This is you that- whether?" /i/smilies/16x16_robot-very-happy.gif

Makes sense to me. /i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10"><tr valign="middle" bgcolor="#3e463b"><td height="40" colspan="3" align="center">The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide project (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/)</a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#515e2f"><td width="40%">FB engine management:
Manifold Pressure sucks (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182081-1.html)
Those Marvelous Props (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182082-1.html)
Mixture Magic (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html)
Putting It All Together (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182085-1.html)
Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 1 of 6) (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182102-1.html)</td><td align="center">

‚ =69.GIAP=Chap‚

69.GIAP (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/)</p></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top">Hardware:
Flight Simulation Performance Analyzed (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_062a.html)
Building a home-made throttle quadrant step by step (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zkavv)
Sound Can Be Hazardous for Games (http://www6.tomshardware.com/game/20030405/index.html)</td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:31 PM
The_Upsetter wrote:
- WW2 - The BEF was smashed to bits in France. A
- direct result of inferior tactics. Were it not for
- Hitlers fatal hesitation at Dunkirk it was game
- over. As for the Pacific - underequipped and poorly
- prepared troops were no match for a modern Japanese
- army. The common opinion was that the Japanese were
- backward.

True enough as far as it goes, but it's worth adding that the inadequate performance of the UK's military in the opening year of the war was recognised and then corrected very successfully. The quality and performance of the UK's armed forces was vastly better at the end of the war than at its start. A similar transformation took place in the USA.

In contrast, one of the reasons the Axis powers lost was a steady erosion of the capabilities of their armed forces from an early-war peak.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:39 PM
DuxCorvan wrote:
- Nelson got an awesome victory in Trafalgar: that's
- true. But, do you remember when he lost his arm,
- some years before? He was defeated, then.

It was a bad planned land expedition on Tenerife and not a sea battle. Earlier, at the Battle of St-Vincent, Nelson and its crew had singlehandly captured two first-rate Spanish ships.

- In the Malvinas (Falklands), you lost the Sheffield.
- It was a scandal in U.K. Not so easy as you think.

Yes but the Argentine pilots were really good and if the Sheffield has been fatally damaged by Exocet missiles, the HMS Glamorgan, a older and larger destroyer, has survived from similar damages.

<center>Qui vainc sans risque triomphe sans gloire.</center>
<center>http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/images/tempestv_t.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:39 PM
We Brits tend to do things by the book. Good practice you might think, but it's terribly predictable.

Richard Holmes, a military strategy historian, who did TV series like Rebels and Redcoats said that the British are good at winning battles but not so good at winning wars. I think I would go along with that.

This is probably to do with the fact that our people pool isn't too big (58 million.) For a long time the British have been helped in war by other nations, as has the enemy, with a few exceptions.

Another theory is that Britain has many natural resources so, as a result, has been invaded many times. The ancient Britons existed in fierce warlike tribes since before the Romans arrived, It took them 30 years to successfully invade. Then the Saxons came, then the Vikings and lastly the Normans. The Britons spoused many ofthese invaders, some of high military standing, and added their warlike features and attributes to the gene pool. So you could say we have all the toughnuts of what later became to be known as Europe on this island.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:55 PM
HansKnappstick wrote:

- Because for the last thousand of years British
- cities avoided being conquered and plundered and
- depopulated, while in other countries the middle
- class had to be re-created from scratch every other
- century.

Now we just have an influx of thousands upon thousands of Asylum seekers, who get free benefits and houses paid for by local councils and steal our swans from our beautiful rivers for food.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 04:09 PM
I have read that a big reason for the appeasement that England and France were not ready for war. Thus Munich happened to buy much needed time.

Someone mentioned the American War for Independence.
Yes, England lost. But they we not just fighting us.
The French had a *major* role in the war.

Or was there no French Army in the colonies? Or no French navy that isolated Yorktown from the sea?

Something that French bashers forget. Yes I am aware of the World Wars, but without French involvement, there may of been no USA.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 04:39 PM
- The American Independence War and the Boer War were
- pretty clearcut cases of rebellions - something the
- Brits were used to and could see the point in
- squashing. I fail to see how these two wars are
- supposed to stand out as shining examples of
- something completely different.

My point was that all other things (equipment, training, numbers) being equal, troops seeing the necessity to fight the war have a higher morale (obvious), an effect which is probably more pronounced among the British than among Germans or Russians, let's say (this is not that obvious). Now, in the WW1 and 2 the British people really did see the point and they won. In the Boer and American wars they didn't; in general, I don't believe that colonial troops can be highly motivated... and in that case they were fighting aggressive wars, a clear difference from defending their home. Yes, the troops perceived the difference and the accounts of their poor performance are many. The morale of Americans was, on the field, at least equally bad, yes, but they put up the fight over and over again.


- If you are trying to argue that Britains way of
- financing wars made all the difference, I will have
- to disagree. Neither Napoleon or even Hitler had
- troubles with the financing itself.
All the difference? I think my original post had 4 points or so. And yes, Napoleon had extreme troubles in running his economy and couldn't even dream of amounts of money Pitt was sending to Vienna as bribes on regular basis.

.
-
- Point being? You stated that Britain always has
- relied on professional soldiers.
Yes this is the point.
- But since you're using the Napoleonic Wars as an
- example, I will also have to point out that most
- historians agree that the reason for the initial
- French success of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic
- army were due to the draft and the arming of the
- regular citizen.
Great, that's why by the end of the Napoleonic period and by the end of WW1 the French population was on the verge of biological destruction.
And most historians agree that these are highly trained troops and not armed mobs that make the difference. Yes, at Valmy it was a fairly fresh conscript mob that composed the main body of the french army, but these were the old royal regiments that fired the volley that caused the Prussians to retreat. At Waterloo Napoleon was not more outnumbered than at Jena/Auerst√¬§dt, but in 1815 all he had was a crowd of scared teenagers, while in 1807 it was the army of men who did nothing but fight for 10 years. IMHO, the ability to keep a core of highly experienced troops intact is something that distinguishes a strategic genius. This is the difference between Napoleon in 1800's and himself in 1810's; between Friedrich the Great and Ludendorf, Ulisses Grant and Santa Anna... The British commanders, although few of them can be called genius, were good at that.

-
- Eh? If you're serious about the development of the
- North European work ethos I guess you're familiar
- with Weber. It's a somewhat other point he's taking,
- right?
Correct.
-
- So because of that neither Russia nor Germany were
- able to field effective, and war-winning, fighting
- forces?
Russia has never been able to create an effective fighting force - as effective I mean big result from small input...
Germany - we are always exceptional, you know. Anyway, British warfare was always way more effective than the German - winning a war does not require only "fielding effective forces" - in many cases industry producing large number of longbows/musquets/cannon boats/Mark VII tanks/Spitfires is more crucial.
Just take a look at Europe in the early 1800's: British use steam engine on daily basis to clear their wool and brew their beer while the rest of the continent is just a smoking battlefield. The same story in the earlier centuries - they could always sit back and concentrate on how to organise their country and its (armed and industrial) forces best.


Thank you for a nice discussion.

Switching off, going home

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 04:50 PM
Tinky_Winky wrote:
- Why are we so damn good at fighting especially as we
- are only a small country. Even going back more in
- time to Spanish Armada etc we were still kicking
- ***!
-
-

Yeah right, British did sooo well in WWII! Read the history of WWII by Liddel Hart. In 1940 only Hitler's "feelings" for British saved British Army from complete defeat by advancing German tank brigades. Hitler ordered to stop the advance for 3 days, which let the British to flee Dunkirk. This event now is known as "Dunkirk Miracle". So this miracle let British to hide behind the Channel and avoid defeat up to June 6th 1944 when Americans launched assault. Sounds pretty lame to me.

On example of bravery on the Eastern Front: Brest Fortress, USSR (now Byelorussia). Germans attack on July 22 1941 with a force so strong Red Army has to pull back fighting for every inch of their land. A handful of soldiers and their families hold the fortress for long 40 days. Germans had to wait till they all die from starvation and dehydration to enter the fortress. No, that's fighting!

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 04:54 PM
The Gen. Belgrano was a American light cruiser (CL44 USS Phoenix) of the Brooklyn Class completed in Oct. 1938 and sold to Argentina in 1951.


The_Upsetter wrote:
-
- Fear of the Royal Navy sinking ANYTHING in the
- exclsusion zone. (I have a feeling the Belgrano was
- a WW2 vintage Battleship)
-
-

edit" fix spelling mistake

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg


Message Edited on 08/26/03 12:03PM by MiloMorai

Message Edited on 08/26/0312:31PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 05:07 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- The Gen. Belgrano was a American light cruiser (CL44
- USS Phoenix) of the Brooklyn Class completed in Oct.
- 1938 and sold to Argentina in 1951.

Ironically, she was sunked by HMS Conqueror's Mod 38 WW2-vintage torpedoes.

<center>Qui vainc sans risque triomphe sans gloire.</center>
<center>http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/images/tempestv_t.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 08/26/0312:21PM by eiffel68

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 05:10 PM
You must be kidding, you can't feel proud of the Falklands War...
I'm Argentinean, and I don't think those islands are worth a single life (from either side), but the Brithish had a modern navy and airforce. They were considered to be the third world power after the US and the soviets.
We had a corrupt and decadent military regime that sent 18 yeard old conscripts with no training to fight in below freezing temperatures without even giving them adequate boots! Our military leaders were better trained for using force to suppres domestic opposition instead to fight a modern war. In addition, we had a collection of WWII ships and obsolete aircraft. There was no way we could have won this war. In fact, the military government was beting on the british not bothering to fight. It was a serious miscalculation for them.
The Falklands war was a shame for everyone. It is true that they were amazing tales of heroism, and I respect the soldiers and pilots who fulfill their duty. But I don't see any reason to feel proud of it.

GATO_LOCO

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 05:17 PM
Tinky_Winky wrote:
- Why are we so damn good at fighting especially as we
- are only a small country. Even going back more in
- time to Spanish Armada etc we were still kicking
- ***!
-
-

Well because you once were ruled by wikings and they were damn good at fighting...

VH

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 05:21 PM
The-Tyke wrote:
- Out of countless battles and wars since Hastings
- 1066, have the French or Spanish ever beaten us ?
-
-

Ever heard of Jeanne D'Arc? The brits got owned by a girl /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif A french girl.

Also remember the french helped the yanks throw the brits out of america. Im sure there are more examples but these are the ones that comes to mind right now.



Message Edited on 08/26/0304:29PM by Olli_72

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 05:30 PM
There R airforces that fared a lot better in the WWII than Brits did. E.g. Finnish Air Forces. And the population is a lot smaller but the size of the country almost equal to the GB. FAF had a kill ratio that no other air force can't challenge even close.

In land combat GB obviously was a hard opponent cause one has to cross the Channel to get there. So it is easier to defend. E.g. Finnish soldiers fought in larger battles than Brits ever did (alone) in the WWII. The Russian major attack on Karelian Isthmus (June-July 1944) was much larger than the Battle of El Alamein in the Northern Africa. And the battle ended finally for the Finnish Victory after Tali-Ihantala heavy fighting by the end of July.

So don't get too proud Brits http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Still remember Dunqerque, loosing to Americans at the 18th century and falling from the worlds super power (at the end of th e19th century) to brown nosing USA today http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Glory and might are vanishing species http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 05:35 PM
Porta_ wrote:
- There R airforces that fared a lot better in the
- WWII than Brits did. E.g. Finnish Air Forces. And
- the population is a lot smaller but the size of the
- country almost equal to the GB. FAF had a kill ratio
- that no other air force can't challenge even close.
-

What was the calibre of the opposition? Granted the Finns were outnumbered in the air.

- In land combat GB obviously was a hard opponent
- cause one has to cross the Channel to get there. So
- it is easier to defend. E.g. Finnish soldiers fought
- in larger battles than Brits ever did (alone) in the
- WWII. The Russian major attack on Karelian Isthmus
- (June-July 1944) was much larger than the Battle of
- El Alamein in the Northern Africa. And the battle
- ended finally for the Finnish Victory after
- Tali-Ihantala heavy fighting by the end of July.
-
- So don't get too proud Brits /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Still remember
- Dunqerque, loosing to Americans at the 18th century
- and falling from the worlds super power (at the end
- of th e19th century) to brown nosing USA today /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- Glory and might are vanishing species /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-

And the Finns sued for peace in 1944 to save themselves. Don't pat yourself to hard on the back.



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 05:51 PM
MiloMorai ->

By the end of the war (1944) Finnish pilots encountered Soviet aces equipped with Spitfires, Mustangs, Yak9s, LA5F, FNs and LA7s, P39s etc. Still they beat the crap outta them. Finnish were equipped with Brewsters, BF109G2s and BF109G6s (along with Fiats, Moranes, Hurricanes and other crap planes). Finns were outnumbered in some combats by 10 A/C against several hundreds and still they killed enemy in ratio of 25:1. and above depending on the fighter type http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif That is something that no other air force have ever achieved.

LOL MiloMorai, U better try to put yourself into the situation back then. Russian plans were to occupy Finland in Winter War (1939) and in the Continuation War when they attacked Finland on June 1944. They NEVER got even to the currect boarder of Finland. Finland NEVER SURRENDERED OR SUED PEACE LIKE IT IS TEACHED TO U CENTRAL AND WESTERN EUROPEANS. Finland simply stopped the Soviet major attack. Soviets were willing to negotiate peace cause they needed their forces against German.

And what would U have done? Continued fighting to the bitter end till all other countries had surrendered but Finland http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MUAHAHAAAAAAAAA. Get a perspective -> Finland had some 4 million people at the time and Russian had over 100 million. Did Great-Britain EVER face a situation like that?

PS: Finland and GB were the only European countries (in the war) NEVER occupied during the WWII. Even though that with the Molotov-Rippentrop agreement Russia and Germany had agreeed that Finland is a free hunt for Russia...Russia tried twice to occupie Finland...both times turned into a defeat.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 05:55 PM
"Time for a nice cup of tea dont you think chaps? Toodle Pip"/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://mysite.freeserve.com/fbscreenshots/images/0-picture.jpg



"LOOK MUM NO HANDS"

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 06:01 PM
Totally agree with U !

Read my other topic:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zafay

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 06:51 PM
I only have to say that falklands was pretty much even, 1 to 2 deaths, and what did the diference on the death rate was the sinking of the belgrado when it was supostly out of the war zone

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

MicroSoft Most Wanted
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/the-aztek-eagles/oleg.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 06:57 PM
Just a remainder

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9706/15/falklands/falkland.war.21.4.4.mov

Not sure if this is the right video where Argentinas airforce is bombing and hiting british ships

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

MicroSoft Most Wanted
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/the-aztek-eagles/oleg.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 08:13 PM
It was more than 200 miles offshore > out of territorial waters. If the Brits wanted to, they could have easily said Argentina was part of the 'war zone' since that is where the a/c that TO to attack Brit ships came from.


Aztek_Eagle wrote:
- I only have to say that falklands was pretty much
- even, 1 to 2 deaths, and what did the diference on
- the death rate was the sinking of the belgrado when
- it was supostly out of the war zone
-
-

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 08:33 PM
hotspace wrote:
Even though our Armed Force's isn't the biggest in
the world - There the best i.e S.A.S, R.A.F etc.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAheheheheheehehehee heehHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You crack me up Hotspace
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The RAF the best

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOOHOHOHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE lol

They bimble along from one disaster to another lol like a bunch of headless muppets ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I was one of those Bimbling Muppets for 15 years...
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEE

AH the 15 year non stop party had to end alas my Kidneys could not handle the amount of Alcohol anymore /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 09:13 PM
I agree the Brits kicked *** in Dunkirk, I mean Market Garden, sorry I meant Singapore, or was it...

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 09:30 PM
michapma wrote:
- On a more serious note, Britain is a sea animal: she
- has always been good at naval dominance. Not without
- land victories, of course, as in Africa.


Ehh, what about the vikings, duh!?!
We ruled all your lil' islands for many years.

It wasn't until 1066 that u guys managed to scrape up an army of celts and others to defeat us. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Anyway, this thread is off topic and flamatory material.

Locking!

(best thing with being a mod is that u can post your opinion and then lock so noone can reply...except commie1 who has an extrakey for some reason. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )

http://members.chello.se/ven/milton.jpg