Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 45
Thanks Tree26Thanks

Thread: 2017 Military Strength Ranking

  1. #31
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    36,899
    Thanks
    38893

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Dude its the 12th one listed, don't you even read before you post your dribble?

    Napoleon was great in terms of the French because they set the bar so low but on the world stage he got his ass kicked all over the place.

    He got beat by the weather in Russia, a bunch of slaves threw out his "elite" forces in Haiti, twice, and the British stomped on him.

    Sure he beat up a bunch of Italians....whoo hoo, and some Egyptians....big yeah!

    lol
    He also defeated, the Austrians, the Prussians, the Russians, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Germanic States, and the Spanish. See Austerlitz, Wagram, and dozens of other victories. Logistics and weather defeated him in Russia, not the Russian Army under Kutuzov, whose army got bitch slapped at Borodino and lost Moscow. Number 4 on the all time list, Washington is 13th and Patton is 17th. Just because you think the French are too "liberal" does not make them poor fighters. No unit in history was more feared on the battlefield than Napoleons Imperial Guard.

    https://www.thetoptens.com/top-military-generals/
    Thanks from Dangermouse

  2. #32
    Sally Sitter Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,604
    Thanks
    2681

    From
    EU
    Quote Originally Posted by Dangermouse View Post
    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt! Only slightly less so if we exclude Britain. well, half?
    Quality and quantity both seem to be factors. I know Britain's right up there as an arms exporter, but our armed forces are numerically a shadow of themselves. The Falklands war was touch and go, with a lot of civilian shipping commandeered to get us there. It simply couldn't be done today. I'm surprised we're so high in the charts.
    I think it boils down to having an air force capable of conducting a chase in the sky, and I hear only four countries today (the US, Russia, the UK and France) have such a technological advantage over others.

  3. #33
    The Un-Holy One The Man's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    33,879
    Thanks
    19398

    From
    Toronto
    @OldGaffer

    Why disrespect one nation to defend another?

    Kutuzov wasn't "bitch slapped". Borodino was a bloody battle with high casualties on both sides. Afterwards, yes, a tactical retreat was decided. They deliberately burned most of Moscow, rather than let the enemy have it. And, yes, exploited the horrible conditions of the Russian winter as aweapon against the enemy. This is seen as a brilliant tactical moce on Kutuzov's part, by most modern Russians.

    Later, he drove the French all the way back across Europe, until my dad's Cossack ancestors rode through fucking Paris (though Kutuzov, sadly, didn't live to see that). France took Moscow, sorta; but Russia then took Paris, my friend


    Britain beat Napoleon on the sea. Russia defeated him on land. And both Nelson and Kutuzov had one good eye each, having lost the other in combat or whatnot lol Interesting coincidence.

    Kutuzov is a great hero to Russians


    And that conflict also (especially the occupation of Paris) affected both Russian and French culture in some ways: the "Bistro" cafes, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bistro

    The returning officers brought the Bistro to Russia as well, to this day, Bistros are everywhere in Moscow, St. Petersburg, etc


    A plague in Paris denoting some event from the Russian occupation of 1814, I have no idea what, my French ain't that good; but it relates to the aforementioned Cossacks and the Bistros lol


    Oh, and as for burning capitals, the Canadians burned your White House around that time too, eh? Remember that?
    Last edited by The Man; 14th July 2017 at 01:30 PM.

  4. #34
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    59,463
    Thanks
    10872

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGaffer View Post
    He also defeated, the Austrians, the Prussians, the Russians, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Germanic States, and the Spanish. See Austerlitz, Wagram, and dozens of other victories. Logistics and weather defeated him in Russia, not the Russian Army under Kutuzov, whose army got bitch slapped at Borodino and lost Moscow. Number 4 on the all time list, Washington is 13th and Patton is 17th. Just because you think the French are too "liberal" does not make them poor fighters. No unit in history was more feared on the battlefield than Napoleons Imperial Guard.

    https://www.thetoptens.com/top-military-generals/
    So you found one out of that whole list?

    I think that proves my point.

    The French suck at military engagements and you're just going to have to admit it.

  5. #35
    Veteran Member Eve1's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    14,223
    Thanks
    9410

    From
    My own world
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    So you found one out of that whole list?

    I think that proves my point.

    The French suck at military engagements and you're just going to have to admit it.

    g6hlr.jpg
    Thanks from OldGaffer

  6. #36
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    20,634
    Thanks
    5593

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
    Apparently our troops can't defeat Afghanistan after 15 years.
    Correct.

    Neither could the Russkies.

    Our military wasn't "allowed" to win in Vietnam, either.

    They been fighting in Afghanistan long before we got there, and will be fighting long after we leave.

    That's true whether we leave tomorrow, or stay another hundred years.
    Last edited by Miller47; 14th July 2017 at 05:50 PM.

  7. #37
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    20,634
    Thanks
    5593

    From
    midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Think for myself View Post
    Should have learned from the Russians, through their Afghanistan adventure, and Vietnam on that one. Hard to win a war when the enemy is among the people, not wearing uniforms, easily going to and from their civilian lives without our knowing it.
    Correct.

    And when your military is being micromanaged from half a world away.

  8. #38
    Vexatious Correspondent Leo2's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,358
    Thanks
    2936

    From
    UK/Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    Why disrespect one nation to defend another?
    Quite.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    Oh, and as for burning capitals, the Canadians burned your White House around that time too, eh? Remember that?
    With respect, my friend, it was the British armed forces which burned Washington in 1814. The British North America Act, the enabling instrument of the nation which became Canada, did not come into being until 1867. It was heavily outnumbered British troops recently returned from the Napoleonic wars, who routed the American militiamen at Bladensburg, and marched on Washington, DC.

    With about 6,000 troops, the Americans at Bladensburg heavily outnumbered the British, and they also had a distinct advantage in terms of cavalry and artillery. Moreover, the British had just marched 15 miles through heat so stifling that several men fell victim to sunstroke. Yet when they charged over a bridge at the Americans, militiamen started fleeing almost immediately. Additional militiamen were sent up to restore the breach, but they too were scared off, due largely to the intimidating but notoriously inaccurate Congreve rockets being fired their way.
    The British Burn Washington, D.C., 200 Years Ago - History in the Headlines
    Thanks from The Man

  9. #39
    Vexatious Correspondent Leo2's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,358
    Thanks
    2936

    From
    UK/Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    So you found one out of that whole list?

    I think that proves my point.

    The French suck at military engagements and you're just going to have to admit it.
    Au contraire, mon ami! The French and the British have been traditional enemies for over a thousand years, yet our forces have respected them as worthy and honourable adversaries for all that time. And the French acquitted themselves well against what was the most powerful empire the world had seen, and the most feared naval forces of the time.

    The French fighting man has never been the coward some Americans are so keen to paint him. Trafalgar was a British victory, not because the French sailors were cowardly, or because Villeneuve was inept. Nelson had kept the French fleet bottled up for so long that they had lost condition, whilst the British were constantly engaged in broadside to broadside battle. The net result of which was the British gunners could load and fire up to ten salvoes to the enemy's one, and Nelson was prepared to take the deadly risk of crossing the enemy's tee. And Waterloo was a damned close run thing, which could have gone either way. The French cavalry was a superior force, and it was only the British flexibility, and the eventual Prussian reinforcements which won the day. None of these outcomes were the result of French cowardice, and it it is an ill-informed, and ill-mannered, view which states any such thing.

  10. #40
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    59,463
    Thanks
    10872

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo2 View Post
    Au contraire, mon ami! The French and the British have been traditional enemies for over a thousand years, yet our forces have respected them as worthy and honourable adversaries for all that time. And the French acquitted themselves well against what was the most powerful empire the world had seen, and the most feared naval forces of the time.

    The French fighting man has never been the coward some Americans are so keen to paint him. Trafalgar was a British victory, not because the French sailors were cowardly, or because Villeneuve was inept. Nelson had kept the French fleet bottled up for so long that they had lost condition, whilst the British were constantly engaged in broadside to broadside battle. The net result of which was the British gunners could load and fire up to ten salvoes to the enemy's one, and Nelson was prepared to take the deadly risk of crossing the enemy's tee. And Waterloo was a damned close run thing, which could have gone either way. The French cavalry was a superior force, and it was only the British flexibility, and the eventual Prussian reinforcements which won the day. None of these outcomes were the result of French cowardice, and it it is an ill-informed, and ill-mannered, view which states any such thing.
    I never said they were cowards, I said they sucked at military engagements which is shown by their loss record.

    It doesn't matter why they lost, it only matters that they did.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Apollo - The Strength of Humanity
    By godlessheathen in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 8th December 2014, 07:30 AM
  2. How About Attacking AQ Where They are Located In Strength?
    By Hollywood in forum Current Events
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 16th January 2013, 10:22 AM
  3. Top-ranking officer warns U.S. military to stay out of politics
    By Robodoon in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 27th May 2008, 01:23 PM
  4. Al Sadr gains strength through US aid.
    By Raoul Duke in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1st February 2007, 08:32 PM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed