Americans Losing Wars

>>2676226
No. While there are wars the American's don't really "win" (Vietnam), the US has always been good at killing their enemies.

No, but you must remember what the US hasn't been invaded in the last 200 years and is geographically removed from all theaters of war, so it can bid its time and choose which battles to fight. Most countries don't have this privilege.

>>2676226
Brits outkilled us during the revolution of 1776.

>>2676279
But they outdied more

>>2676269
This. We can smack someone across the world while we can sit back and be totally unaffected. I love geography.

>>2676295
Yes, we heroically did outdie the British.

>>2676302
We can carpet bomb anyone on the planet from Kansas. MOABs are in play in the desert, and atomics are once again at play in Asia.

Feels good man.

File: 1480099816030.png (315KB, 600x597px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 600x597px

>>2676302
>>2676321
The US basically outangloed the Anglo.

Fucking RIP, and here I thought that I could just pull off some war and annoy my cunt American friend with it. I wonder when will America finally get a war where they'll get chewed out... Not that I hate America, I just want their low-casuality spree to be broken at the most unexpected moment.

>>2676226
The American Civil War.

File: Dakota war.jpg (65KB, 330x696px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 330x696px

USA didn't lose this war, but to my knowledge it is the most lopsided in terms of casualties against the USA. This owing to the fact that the massacres continued for some time before the union could divert soldiers from the civil war to take care of it.

>>2676356
What about the American Civil War?

>>2676356
Just wait, nuclear war is inevitable in some form of the other, and it's unlikely the US won't the first on the target list of whoever starts it.

>>2676375
Honestly they probably won't be, look at it this way, if you nuke the US they will nuke you, if you instead nuke the US proxies they will most likely nuke your proxies, no one wants to escalate a war to the point of them being nuked. At least not the nations that have a means to nuke a target like the US.

>>2676372
American Civil War doesn't pack the punch, since it's just Americans killing Americans. It has to be something like, I don't know, some third-world country doing that or something!

>>2676226
The closest I can think of a war where we got our asses handed to us was Korea. We were winning the war perfectly until China came right the fuck out of no where and kicked us all the way back to where we started. At least we were able to draw a stalemate.

>>2676412
China also threw a lot more bodies into that then the United states did.

>>2676412
We could have won if we listened to MacArthur.

>>2676391
> if you instead nuke the US proxies they will most likely nuke your proxies
Why would they? There is no such thing as limited nuclear war.

>>2676412
Casualties were still lopsided though

>>2676424
Yes there is.
For instance the plan in Korea that involved nukes was a limited nuclear exchange.
The plan for nato to fight the Warsaw pact involved a limited nuclear exchange.
Are you daft? Most people including world leaders fear a full MAD nuclear exchange.

>>2676369
>nates kill a bunch of civvies

Omg it's like a modern cannae

>>2676412

It ain't over yet.

>>2676375
>nuclear war is inevitable in some form of the other
I have my doubts other than us dealing with N. Korea, which would be pretty one-sided.

1812?

>>2676476
For now - yes, but eventually, in 300, 1000 or 3000 years, it's inevitable.

>>2676484
1812 was not really a loss or a win really, hell it was a sideshow at best, it was smaller in scale then the American Revolution.

>>2676232
>don't really "win"
you lost and you got you butt destroyed
face it
>muh death counts
you had an objective and you didn't accomplish it while looking like third world warmongers to the eyes of the world

>>2676766
The US did accomplish their goal though, but they overestimated the north Vietnamese desire to follow treaties.

>>2676424
>There is no such thing as limited nuclear war.
>I never read up on nuclear warfare but I'm going to shitpost theories from the 1950's anyways
MAD hasn't been a thing for decades now. Every nuclear country except Pakistan, India, and Israel subscribe to some form of NUTS.

>>2676779
Not him, but please. When the Paris Peace Accords were signed, the NVA occupied close to 20% of South Vietnam and weren't expected to retreat. And everyone knew that this was a ace saving gesture, and that they'd be overrunning the rest soon.

>>2676779
The NVA occupied one fourth of South Vietnam when the treaty was signed. Literally everyone in the white house knew it was bullshit

>>2677630

The NVA did not.

Was a pretty serious treaty, then Watergate happened, Nixon was removed from office, and they basically just went "lol last president got kicked due to a scandal, this one wont do anything."

Then they started testing the waters and moving in at a slight pace in areas along the borders, and when nothing was done (as Ford talked to congress saying this was happening and asking for funding), they just gleefully overran the sva

>>2676412
>We were winning the war perfectly until China came right the fuck out of no where and kicked us all the way back to where we started
You're missing the part where we pushed them backed.

>>2676766
Moron, the OP specifically asked for :

>>a war or conflict where America was utterly spanked, with much bigger casualities than their enemies?
Hate to break it to you, but this just didn't happen in vietnam.

>>2676226
Various battles in the war of 1812 went poorly, but there's an equal number that are flat out boner inducing.

Britannia only rules the waves when America doesn't want them.

There's never been a case where we had greater casualties than our enemies. Even Vietnam and Korea. They were hurting more than we were.

>Was there ever a war or conflict where America was utterly spanked, with much bigger casualities than their enemies?
No. God Bless America. With pearl harbor we got hit with a cheap shot but then we firebombed them for months then finally fat man and little boy'd them to seal the coffin.

>>2678504
While I agree with you and believe this is important to realize, surely we must acknowledge that casualties are not the sole deciding factor in war.

>>2676766
Vietnam wasn't an "American" war; it was a joint US-Aussie-South Korean-Filipino-Thai-New Zealander war.

When someone wants to laugh at Russia for a military failure, they point out a war where Russia zerg rushed a bunch of farmers with little more than small arms and WW1-era artillery on their border with a 5-1 manpower advantage and thousands of tanks, and got spanked to the tune of five times their enemy's losses. They took a third of a million casualties in three months.

When someone wants to laugh at the USA for a military failure, they bring up the war where they fought a drag-out ten year brawl with a major regional major military power and its allies (equipped heavily by China and the USSR) by projecting their strength halfway across the world, inflicted over five times the losses they took, and were only finally forced to withdraw after political capital ran out (not to say the enemy didn't fight well, they very much did).

That should tell you something. People really have to stretch to find a war to mock the Americans over.

>>2678218
>Tfw we BTFO'd the Royal Navy in its napoleonic prime
Feels amazing, man

>>2678549
You could have just said SEATO

>>2676226
Pancho Villa Expedition

>>2676269
>Gooks invaded alaska in ww2
>mfw we lost more guys to friendly fire in the battle for the aluetiean islands than we did against the japs

>>2676269
Technically speaking the Confederates invaded the United States and got BTFO. They weren't a recognized state by anyone, but objectively speaking they were a hostile organized military force invading U.S. territory with the intent of conquering the capital.

>>2678598
largely because the RN was preoccupied with its primary theatre of war.

US maritime commerce collapsed and once the british started sending Razees across the USNs heavy frigates lost their local dominance of the frigates and frankly the chesapeake shannon engagement demonstrated that a RN frigate of equal size guns and crew numbers could dominate a US frigate

sure the 4 heavy frigates did well largely by running from the things that could kill them and only attacking smaller lighter vessels with less powerful guns.

as for OP
Red clouds war ended in a US defeat the peace only lasted 8 years because the US has no conception of the idea of honoring its word but it was seen as a sioux victory by both the US and the sioux

File: Rebs-v-CaseysRedoubt-Fairoaks1862.jpg (328KB, 1200x854px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1200x854px

War of 1812 where the Brits (Canadians) torched the Capital, followed by the American Civil War

>tfw the two groups of people who have come the closest to bringing America to its knees are Southerners and Canadians

>>2678520
Agreed but OP was asking a specific question.

>>2676269
The thing i never understood about America is why the spanish or any other colonial power didn't try to take over north america from the south with the usage of their mainland armed forces.

How about Afghanistan?
a war that is still ongoing and america is still the losing team since the start.

>>2678567
War isn't a fight, war is the usage of arms to achive political goals, be that territorial expansion, diplomatic relations, or whatever else, the Americans fundamentally failed the war in vietnam, because the goal was to make sure vietnam did not become communist, it did, that is the objective failure of the vietnam war, Russia's war with germany was an objective sucess because it acheived political advantage for russia, and denied the german reich their goal of ensuring russia wasn't swallowed by the ussr.

>>2676226
kek,
every time they tried to invade Canada

>>2679207

Except it was Indians, armed by British agents and attacking within America's borders, that "won" them the war of 1812. The US Army was on the frontier, it was mostly militia that invaded Canada. The only significant outcome of the war were the hundreds of treaties signed with tribes pushing them farther from the borders to prevent it from happening again, thus insuring American expansion to the west. It's why people like James W. Loewen write that "The American Indians were the only real losers in the war."

>>2676226
The US lost many battles and campaigns in the frontier west. St. Clair's Defeat may still be the worst defeat suffered by the US Army percentage-wise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cloud%27s_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Clair%27s_Defeat

>>2676226
Battle of Kasserine Pass in 1943 didn't go so well for the US, of course we won the theater and the war ultimately though