Why did the British army fight so poorly in the second world

>>2471908

>implying

Other way around. I can't think of a single British victory from WWI that compares with the North African or Burma campaigns.

>>2471908
>what is North Africa

>>2471908

They didn't exactly cover themselves in glory in the First World War either, OP.

But as for their sub-par performance in WW2, it's hard to distill it down to a single factor. Some of it, is of course that they did not and never really had a long tradition of land warfare and leadership for such, so that officers and enlisted alike were often people recruited during the war and having little, if any military training beforehand. But you also had enormously bad doctrinal decisions, especially where anything tank related occurred (For example, the Matilda 2 tank, a heavy tank of the early war renowned for near invulnerability in the early parts of the desert campaign, was an infantry tank; designed to support infantry advances in heavily fortified areas. It should have been carrying munitions to help deal with pillboxes and machine gun emplacements and the like. However, those sorts of ammunition was considered the province of the artillery, so those rounds often went to anti-tank batteries, while the Matildas themselves were ususally issued AP stuff in case they ran into a tank or something despite their mission profiles not being designed for it and they being too slow for such a role anyway).

Also, in large part because of the horror of trench warfare in WW1, interwar era Britain bet hard on a strategy of war by airpower alone, a use of strategic bombing to force the enemy to surrender. Bomber Command was just about the only department of the UK military not to have to tighten its belt in the lean budgets of the 30s, and until war's end they'd get an enormous share of military spending. It turned out to be a terrible idea in practice, and would go on to suck up huge resources.

>>2471949
>>2471939

Not OP, but North Africa was hardly the British covering themselves in glory. Time and again they'd engage German forces that were far inferior on paper, and then lose dramatically. Sure, they eventually won, but it was mostly because of Rommel's strategic blinders, of insisting on engaging offensives he couldn't support logistically, which is how you get to things like Crusader. (And even that was preceded by the debacle of Battleaxe).

Put simply, the Brits won in North Africa the hard way, in spite of their doctrine and training, not because of it.

>>2471939
>Singapore
>Dunkirk
>Norway

>>2471908
Are you trying to imply they fought greatly in the first one?
They didnt do shit until late 1916, and even after that, Germans were clearly superior

>>2471966
You forgot Dieppe
Fucking Brits

>>2471976
>Germans were clearly superior
Then how come they lost?

>>2471908
Not sure what your point is.
In WW1 the British took at least 800,000 casualties. In WW1 they took a measly 300,000-400,000 and won.

They did a lot better than the Germans who took at least 5 million military dead and had their country cucked to pieces by Bomber Harris & co

>>2472000
Because they also had to fight the French, the Russians, the Americans...etc

Had it only been Germany vs Britain, the German police would've arrested the British army

>>2472014
>In WW1 the British took at least 800,000 casualties. In WW1 they took a measly 300,000-400,000 and won.

That would've been relevant if Britain had been the only country in its faction
But since that's not the case, all it shows is that Britain contributed even less in WW2 than they did in WW1

>>2471991

Dieppe was a Canadian operation

>>2472015
They didn't lose to offensives lead by the French the Germans lost the war when brave and clever Tommy Atkins invented the tank and rolled over them. Plus Brits didn't mutiny like the French rofl

>>2472015

>wahhh germany had to fight all these countries

shouldn't have fucking declared war on them all then

>>2472026
Tbh relying on others to do the fighting and then taking the credit for it is a time-honored british tradition.

File: 10.png (201KB, 323x1161px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 323x1161px

>>2472034
>They didn't lose to offensives lead by the French

Ackshually....

File: 1479877885639.png (19KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 499x499px

>>2472034
>tanks in WW1
>relevant

>>2471908
They sent all their best people into machine gun fire first time around because of incompetent leadership.

>>2472058
How do you think people actually got across no man's land?

>>2472053
Planned by Britain

>>2472063

By running, often aided by artillery fire, whether either suppressive or simply for direct slaughter.

This notion that people slowly walked across a muddy ditch to be mown down by machine gun fire is simply wrong. Offense quite often worked, at least temporarily. The bigger problem was holding your gains in the face of the inevitable counterattack than it was actually seizing a portion of trench.

>>2472015
>1v1 me bro no channelnoobing
why are /int/posters so autistic?

>>2472075
Wrong you utter spacker people would use tanks and cover from machine fire

>>2472070
Lead (and manned for the most part) by France
Even America had as many troops as Britain

>>2471976
>Germans were clearly superior
Incredibly dumb statement, the Germans got smashed in 1918 and a good proportion of that was done by the British

>>2472077
>British poster asks why Germany lost if they were suprior to Britain, thus making it look like it was a 1vs1 stuff
>Other poster replies that it wasn't 1vs1
>"Waaah, why are u so autistic, war aint 1v1 dude"

File: maj-gen-carl-spaatz-chief-of-the-us-army-air-corps-in-european-theatre-of-operations.jpg (29KB, 366x488px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 366x488px

>>2472078
>a faggot that couldn't even bomb krauts properly

>>2472089

Yes, that's why there were no offensives or casualties sustained by the defenders against offensives before the tank made its debut in Flers-Courcelette.

Tell me, oh wise Anon, why the French and German casualties at Verdun were nearly matched despite the Germans contintually attacking French trenches, and there not being tanks involved in the fighting.

>>2472130
Germany only lost Verdun because they never had any cover. If they had Tanks they would have rolled into Paris.

>>2472114
>a good proportion of that was done by the British

This is what anglos actually believe.

>>2472130
>despite the Germans contintually attacking French trenches

Not the guy you replied too, but it was actually the contrary
The Germans took a part of the French lines by surprize and the French spent most of the battle trying to take it back (until the moment they finally succeeded and thus won the battle)
Your point still stands though

>>2472114
Nice delusion
Here are, from the most to the least relevant, the countries that contributed to beating Germany in 1918

1. America
2. France
3. Belgium
4. Portugal
5. Siam
6. Britain

>>2472158
>america
>relevant in either ww

wew

>>2472171
Not him but Germany would've won WW1 if not for American involvement. I'm saying this as a non-American.

>>2472171
Yeah, I'm sure England could have liberated western Europe by itself. We just got in the damn way with our endless supplies if everything and millions of soldiers.

>>2472183
>granpapa jose wore a pretty pink apron while making weapons for the men to fight with so basically we won

>>2472179
"""as a non american""" ok jamal

>>2471952
You know, this post makes me sad. Because someone is actually trying to give a serious answer on what is obviously an /int/ tier retard thread.

>>2472196
You're welcome, btw :^)

>>2472196
>"""as a non american""" ok jamal
If you think I'm happy that Germany lost that war then you cannot be more wrong, the result ended up in dissolution of my country. But America was the factor that turned the tide in 1917.

>>2472206
>on what is obviously an /int/ tier retard board.

ftfy

>>2472217
I'm sure the fact their civilians were starving to death in the streets due to Britain's blockade had nothing to do with it. Nope. It was that powerful and scary American army of 1917

>>2472219
This, sadly. /his/ is a flagless playground for roleplayers.

>>2472227
Britain is the one country Europeans pointed and laughed at in both wars.

>>2471963
> Time and again they'd engage German forces that were far inferior on paper

Is this a joke? Germany and their Italian allies held the numerical superiority in men and tanks in the beginning of the German campaign, and still the British managed to push back Rommel and hold Tobruk for months. The main thing screwing the British army over was the fact that the North African theater was neglected by the British preventing them from making any major successes until they got the men to attack at El Alamein. Not to mention the terrain and logistics disadvantage they had to face as well.

>>2472230
So why were the Germans starving in the streets?

>>2472236
There weren't.

>>2472158
>>2472138

>The state of /his/

Amiens, the Second Battle of the Somme, the Second Battle of Cambrai? Never mind the fact that the weight of the German attack landed on the British. Also, during the Hundred Days Offensive the British took more casualties than the French and captured more prisoners than the Americans and French combined. If you're going fling shit at least do it on a topic that you aren't completely ignorant of

>>2472243
Yes they were, due to the blockade not because the Americans ate all the food rofl

>>2472123
>Implying the British weren't fighting other nations as well
>Implying making alliances isn't a sign of superiority

>>2472249
Daily episode of Anglo delusions

>>2472246
>and captured more prisoners than the Americans and French combined.

Only because the French were more prone to massacre the Germans than Brits
If you look at the total number of casualties (and not just prisoners) inflicted on the Germans, France is well above Britain in that offensive

File: 1488771846962.jpg (11KB, 240x238px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 240x238px

>>2472259
>The Blockade of Germany, or the Blockade of Europe, occurred from 1914 to 1919. It was a prolonged naval operation conducted by the Allied Powers during and after World War I[1] in an effort to restrict the maritime supply of goods to the Central Powers, which included Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey. It is considered one of the key elements in the eventual Allied victory in the war. The German Board of Public Health in December 1918 claimed that 763,000 German civilians died from starvation and disease caused by the blockade up until the end of December 1918.[2][3] An academic study done in 1928 put the death toll at 424,000.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany

>>2472274
t. Lindybeige

>it's a little Britain pretending it's relevant episode
Yawn

File: He actually believes this.jpg (15KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 413x395px

>>2472259
>Denying the Blockade of Germany happened
>This level of delusion

>>2472272
I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if you source me

>>2472235

The Mid-East command never held less than 340,000 men, which is a hell of a lot more than the Axis were committing to the theater. Tobruk held, not because of any particular virtue of British defenses, but because he was at the extreme end of a logistical tether that could barely supply DAK (and the Italians). Battles like Gazala were lost with a heavy numerical and material superiority in favor of the Brits.

>The main thing screwing the British army over was the fact that the North African theater was neglected by the British preventing them from making any major successes until they got the men to attack at El Alamein

No, and in fact El Alamein (the second one, I assume) still only committed about half of the force available in theater. The main thing screwing the British army over at least in Libya was the same thing screwing Rommel over; the local supply infrastructure was bad to nonexistent, and you couldn't actually manage to commit the forces you had in any kind of coherent fashion, limiting each army to relatively tiny trickles of force and preventing decisive confrontation. But the British always committed more than the Axis did.

>Not to mention the terrain and logistics disadvantage they had to face as well.

The British had the overwhelming logistical advantage, not a disadvantage. Egypt had a functioning railroad network, Libya did not. It meant that men and supplies could be assembled and moved in a way that the Axis simply could not replicate and doomed any offensive before it started. Granted, that didn't help them do much when pushing into Libya itself, which was where most of their defeats were, but the long term strategic/logistical advantages were definitely in Britain's favor.

>>2472179
who do you think gets to decide who wins wars, you impious tard?

>>2472315
Not island niggers.

>>2472306
>The Mid-East command never held less than 340,000 men
Of which 36,000 were fighting in North Africa in 1940. And in case you forgot, they defeated a force four times their size and took all of Cyrenacia in three months before being chased back by a German-Italian force twice their size when they were at the end of their logistical tether. You can´t get much more glorious than that.

>Egypt had a functioning railroad network, Libya did not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Coastal_Highway#World_War_II
Not to mention the Axis could just ship in the supplies from Tunisia, while British supplies had to suffer constant harassment being shipped through the Mediterranean and on Malta.

>>2472217
>But America was the factor that turned the tide in 1917.
Their combat troops were largely irrelevant until 1918, and even without any Americans the Spring Offensive would still have petered out. There would still be manpower for a counterattack (just not so much as with all of the fresh blood that the Americans provided), and most importantly the blockade would still be in plac. Time was on the side of the Allies.

>>2472316
Britain decided who won the Napoleonic wars and both world wars.How can continentals even compete : ^ )

>>2472179
>Have no tank production
>Allies in Constantinople and Sofia on the brink of collapse
>Blockade still intact
>Lack of cavalry to sustain large offensives

Yeah, they could've totally won the war

>>2472338
Are you seriously suggesting that the Germans had an easier time getting supplies to Africa than the British? How fucking stupid are you?

>>2472338
>f which 36,000 were fighting in North Africa in 1940

And over a hundred thousand were sitting on their asses in Egypt for want of being able to actually fight in Libya.

>they defeated a force four times their size and took all of Cyrenacia in three months

Fighting Italians. Nobody is going to pretend that this is some kind of achievement.

> German-Italian force twice their size when they were at the end of their logistical tether.

And yet, it took them about 3 weeks to do that. Meanwhile, when it was reversed at the end of 1941, and the Germans and Italians were at the end of their logistical tether, it took months of buildup and a failed attempt or two to roll them back.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Coastal_Highway#World_War_II

So, you mean something that is explicitly NOT a railroad. The Libyan Coastal road or sometimes "Rommelbahn" was shit for transporting supplies, because trucks are way less fuel efficient for large scale transport than trains are; an enormous amount of Axis motor transport capacity was merely servicing the motor transport itself.

>Not to mention the Axis could just ship in the supplies from Tunisia, while British supplies had to suffer constant harassment being shipped through the Mediterranean and on Malta.

The overwhelming majority of British supplies were shipped in through Suez and the Red Sea, from places like India or South Africa, well out of the Italian reach.

Why was Britain, compared to other powers, so much comparatively weaker in 1939 than it was in 1914?

>>2472341
Nice meme

>>2474238
Because they got cucked by the United States at Versailles.

>>2471908
Why are those girls looking at me?

>>2472347
The Germans had a fucking ally literally on the doorstep of the continent. There is no way they had a harder time getting their shit to Africa.

>>2471966
>Dunkirk
You mean when french soldiers litterally sacrificed their lives so english soldiers could flee ?

>>2474671

No he means the the time Britain lost 70,000 men trying to defend France and then evacuated 140,000 French soldiers.

>>2474722
No he means when one of the Germans greatest military blunders happened, and not a British strategic victory happened. Those forces could have been crushed if they had adequate leadership

>>2471908
Which allied country fought the best in WWI?

>>2474757

How does any of that disagree with what I said?

>>2472077

>t. Bong

So what if it was the Russians and and Germans togetter against France and Brittain?

Ps: when was the last time you won a war without begging your daddy USA for help or calling for coalitions?

>>2474828

1982, you?

>>2474841

>1982

Topkek, was that the war against Argentinians?

>We won against other europeans 1vs1 too, yeah Argentinians are white therefore europeans!

>you

1939-1945

>>2474850

>getting occupied for four years
>fighting on the nazi side in all your colonies
>"""""""""""winning the war"""""""""""""

jesus christ, we divided the wrong fucking country in 1945

File: 1456714972542.jpg (193KB, 600x739px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 600x739px

>>2472078
what is this? amateur hour? real bomber coming through

>>2472015
>le witty bismarck reference

fuck off

>>2474238

It wasn't, really. Far less so than say, Germany or France.

>>2474501

No, he's right. The Germans had to ferry everything through the Med, which was contested waters, and then haul them, by inefficient trucks in the desert, across a highway that was hundreds of kilometers long.

The British, meanwhile, could route supplies and reinforcement through the Indian Ocean, Red Sea, and then along railroads, in a completely secure fashion. Hell, it was so bad that Rommel's 1942 offensive was literally predicated on stealing supplies from the British as he advanced.

>>2474861
Wut
I'm Russian, you know, the country that really won WW2 while you were hiding

>inb4 "you lost ww1 lol"
Yeah, but we were alone on our front while you were hiding behind French and Americans

>>2475013

>Russian

Sorry, I assumed you were a Frog by the butthurt. I have no problem with Russia nor was I going to say anything about WWI

>>2472274
>the memeblockade
>relevant

>>2475013
You lost WW1 despite fighting in the winning side. How pathetic you can be?

>>2472053
>Siam
what the heck?

>>2472045
Right, because that's what happened.

>>2474761
Canada
Not even joking

>>2475327

Not him, but Siam fought a token amount in WW1, and they had attempted to intervene in other European or "western" conflicts for some time; they also, for instance, offered aid to Lincoln in the ACW. It was a small force (IIRC, the Siamese expeditionary force in WW1 was like 1,200 men), and mostly done to raise visibility and buy some goodwill among the colonial powers of Europe to try to help forestall any efforts they might make against Siam itself down the line.

>>2472341
>piggyback Prussia and Russia
>WE DID IT ALL
British historiography in a nutshell.

>>2475386
>Anglos
>best fighters
This is a history board not a wewuzian board

>>2475386
>muh per capita

>>2474761
On the whole probably France.
Per capita probably Bongland.

File: british military history.jpg (480KB, 1294x3932px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 1294x3932px

>>2475397
British history is hilarous

File: ppll.jpg (174KB, 700x1192px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 700x1192px

>>2475445
Britain had a bigger population than France, so if France fought better than Britain overall, they did so per capita as well
The real answer is Canada (Australia is a strong contender but their huge failure at Gallipoli disqualifies them)

>>2475445
Bongs pretty much just used their colonies as Pokemon, a huge bulk of the troops in Europe were Pakis and niggers.

File: 1476868244746gd.png (60KB, 709x502px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 709x502px

>>2475497
This
Basically half of Britain's total numbers were from colonies (compared to 10% for France)

>>2475511
>Brits
>4 000 000 troops
>887 000 casualties

>Indians
>1 780 000 troops
>64 000 casualties

Streetshitters confirmed for better fighters than Nigels

>>2475497

>Bongs pretty much just used their colonies as Pokemon

What else are they for?

t. Bong

>>2475480
I say "per capita" for Britain because Britain's resources, planes and tanks probably did far more for the war effort than the actual soldiers.

>>2471963
>but it was mostly because of Rommel's strategic blinders
You misspelled a flood of American reinforcements that gave the ability to overwhelm Rommel

>>2475516

To be fair only 130,000 of those Indians were on the Western Front, most of which were non-frontline cavalry units

>>2475529

No, I mean Rommel's strategic blinders and his insistence of embarking on a grand offensive that he had no logistical means to support.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf

>>2475536
The strategic blinders only ended up in stalemate though, not loss.

>>2475516
>>2475531
There were an insane lot of Indians on the Western Front, but they were just medics
I learned that recently in a video game

>>2475540

No, they ended in both tactical loss (Crusader), and strategic loss, as Britain can far more freely reinforce and resupply North Africa than Germany and Italy can, especially with their commitments on other fronts. The entire justification for the push again in 1942 was that "If we don't win now, they'll simply smother us".

>>2475556
>theater ends in stalemate because of loss
>therefore the theater was a loss at this point
You are an idiot

>>2475568

>Theater ended at Crusader.

Are you ignorant, or simply stupid? But it was a decisive battle that demonstrated that Rommel's offensive posture could not succeed, even in absence of U.S. involvement.

>>2475576
>Theater ended at Crusader
That's wrong, though. Crusader ended two years before the theater did.

>>2475591
>>2475576
Also Rommel's second offensive proved it COULD succeed and it was only hampered by Torch, you know the JOINT Allied offensive.

>>2475591

Stupid it is. You might want to go back to the third grade to re-learn reading comprehension. In the short term, let me spell it out for you.

You claimed, in this post>>2475568

That the theater ended in stalemate because of a German loss, at the battle of crusader.

I, in the next post, was being sarcastic, as your statement could only be "correct" if the theater ended with Crusader. As you seem to in fact be aware, it did not. However, Crusader demonstrated that Rommel could not win in the short term, and had no chance in the longer term, because Britain could always bring much more force to bear than he could.

Do you get it now, or do I need to use even shorter words?

>>2475605

>Also Rommel's second offensive proved it COULD succeed

You mean, the OTHER one that failed and petered out?

> only hampered by Torch, you know the JOINT Allied offensive.

Torch was in November. El Alamein and his rolling retreat back to Tripoli was before it. You might want to consult, oh, any book on North Africa. You might find this one informative, if your rather limited command of the English language allows you to understand it.

https://www.amazon.com/Path-Victory-Mediterranean-Theater-World/dp/0374529760

>>2475611
>Crusader demonstrated that Rommel could not win in the short term
>immediately proceeds to win in the short term
Wow, brilliant deduction. Wonderful inference.

File: 64985_original.jpg (25KB, 400x258px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x258px

>>2475517
Exporting cheap meat products of questionable origin.

>>2475624

Except he didn't win in the short term. He rolled back to Tripoli, had to rebuild for 5 months, and then made a second attempt which also got nowhere. Remember, to win, he needs to capture Suez. Where in that 1942 offensive was he anywhere close to doing so? How come even after the incredible victory at Gazala, and the elimination of around 50,000 troops, the British could easily reinforce and face him down with even more troops and guns and planes at El Alamein.

Why the fuck are you on here and not /int/?

>>2475644
>How come even after the incredible victory at Gazala, and the elimination of around 50,000 troops
>this is not winning in the short term
Jesus Christ, why aren't YOU on /int/ Lindy?

>>2475650

>this is not winning in the short term

Winning a battle != winning the campaign. Yes, it was a great victory, unexpected and of great personal brilliance. But it didn't change the underlying logic or strategic situation, he simply could not project meaningful force into the areas he needed to control to prevent British reinforcement.

So no, it is not "winning in the short term". Again, the next major battle the British had even more force than they did at Gazala, whereas Rommel's forces were about the same numerically but critically short on just about everything, running on captured fuel just to move around.

>>2475668
So if we're going to declare winning in the short term solely winning the campaign (Suez), it's fair to declare Tunis the "winning in the short term" condition for the Allies. Therefore, the allies were not winning the campaign either. Seriously, fuck off. You move the goalposts so much, you should work for a fucking stadium.

>>2475681
>So if we're going to declare winning in the short term solely winning the campaign

Well, no, we're defining "winning" as winning the campaign, and the short term as whatever timeframe you want.

>. Therefore, the allies were not winning the campaign either.

In the short term? No. In the long term, they were, because they can actually commit force and supply it to the theater when the Axis can't. Which is what I said all the way back here>>2475556, only your very small brain couldn't grasp this.

Now I'm going to introduce you to something called "Strategic calculation". Here's how it works. Intelligent people can look at the data on hand, look at what is likely to occur in the future, and make predictions based on it. Picture yourself sitting in Rommel's tent. You know that the British can bring far more force to bear than you can. They have more overall war production, and can get into the theater completely unmolested by going around the Indian Ocean, whereas your only source of supply and reinforcement is through contested waters. Furthermore, you have all the headaches of actually moving your troops and supplies out of port, which they don't have to deal with nearly as badly because their infrastructure is much more developed than yours.

In the LONG TERM, things are very, very bad. The British can keep bringing up men and supplies far in excess of what you can. Therefore, you need to win in the SHORT TERM, before their long term advantages become overwhelming.

Battles like Crusader demonstrated that Rommel could not win in the SHORT TERM, and thus, his insistence on doing so wasted men and supplies for what was only supposed to be a delaying action in the first place; since you will note that his bloodiest and worst defeats were always at the end of the supply tether.

Do you get it now?

>>2475712
>winning in the long term
>needs reinforcements from the United States to actually finish the campaign
Seems more like they were in an effective rubberband stalemate.

>>2475719
>needs reinforcements from the United States to actually finish the campaign

Prove this. We all know that you did eventually have U.S. involvement, but especially if you're defining the necessary U.S. aid in terms of reinforcements and not more indirect forms of support, please demonstrate how the "rubber band stalemate" would have held indefinitely with the British continually reinforcing to far greater extent than the forces in North Africa for the Axis.

Especially since an enormous amount of DAK's force was eliminated at El Alamein and the subsequent retreat from it, as well as the fact that it was the immediate reaction to Torch that led to the liquidation of the Vichy regime and subsequent occupation of French colonies, like Tunisia, which had functioning railroad systems and could actually field larger forces. So please, show me in your ineluctable wisdom, why the Germans would take such a step in absence of a second front being opened up directly in Vichy colonies.

>>2475774
Kasserine Pass showed they still had fight in them and the British alone couldn't handle it, but you're going to handwave this away, aren't you Nigel?

>>2475785

>Kasserine Pass showed they still had fight in them

So? And if we're being all country chest-thumping, how does a victory against raw American troops demonstrate that a victory would have been possible in other theaters?

>and the British alone couldn't handle it

Again, how are you demonstrating that? Upthread, there's this >>2472053 Your argument, applied to WW1, is that since there were Siamese troops in the Hundred Days offensive, and that since the Germans could and did put up a fight, The Hundred Days offensive only succeeded because of a few battalions of Siamese.

It's wrong there, and absurdly so. It is less absurdly obvious in the case of North Africa, but you have not provided anything to demonstrate why your position is correct that Americans were "necessary" to evict the Axis from North Africa.

>>2475818
>how does a victory against raw American troops
There were more than American troops at Kasserine Pass.

>rest of the bullshit
Purposeful false equivalence.

>>2475877
>There were more than American troops at Kasserine Pass.

>Which is bigger, a corps or a division?
Hey, there were Siamese troops at the Hundred Days offensive! I guess it was a Siamese operation despite their relative tininess in the overall scheme of things!


>Someone brings something up to illustrate how it is abrsurd!
>It's absurd!

No shit sherlock. This is the second time you've evaded the question. What framework are you using to demonstrate that absent American involvement, a "Rubber band stalemate" would have held in the long term? You did realize I was bringing that up to demonstrate how just because a given contingent of troops was present says nothing about them being necessary, right? I mean, I even said that the reasoning was "wrong, and absurdly so". Do you have a reading problem or a thinking problem?

>>2472015
awful silly of them to end up on a war on two fronts, a mistake no one would ever make twice.. surely

>>2471908
2>5>3>1>4

>>2475403
Explain why the Canadians had their own unique reputation of effectiveness even among other Anglos.
Go on, I'll wait.

>>2472158
the RN naval blockade alone did moore to win the war than the american troops, never mind that the british fought as hard and as well or better than the french for 4 fucing years, yans show up at the end and claim a sideshow in a secondary campaign was a great achievement while at the same time the british were kicking in the hindenburg line and capturing huge chunks of the german army

>>2472230
the germans laughed, then they met the british line at mons, they didnt laugh any more, by first ypres they had nothing but tears and bitter frustrated rage.

>>2471908
I think the better question is why the Americans always have to save Europe from itself

I can't wait until Russia invades eastern Europe and you little shits are too cucked to do anything about it without us, proving global American superiority yet again.

>>2477086
>never mind that the british fought as hard and as well or better than the french for 4 fucing years

The French fought for 4 years
Brits really fought only from late 1916 to 1918 (so roughly two years)

I just get sad thinking of all the millions of young European men that died ultimately to fracture the continent even further and leave it to its cucked state decades later.

>>2477696
We're European. We are, literally, Europeans. 60% of us are, anyway, and way more of our influential figures are.
I hate this attitude towards Europe, and this European attitude of mocking any American who notes his heritage.

>>2477896
We're better than Europeans. That's why we left that shithole the first place and created America.

File: 1446945377333.jpg (181KB, 742x434px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 742x434px

>>2472361
Nice work pushing back the British!