Why is Britain so much better at sucessfully evacuating its soldiers

>evacuating
You mean fleeing?

>>3380719
>what is tactical retreat

>>3380719

>standing around and being slaughtered to a man for no tactical or strategic benefit is totally a good idea guys

>>3380720
>>3380721
so you admit your ancestors were french, anglo dogs?

>>3380726
Because we retreat a lot, you deduce we are French?
This meme is dumb anyway, the French don't retreat
They go full retard on the enemy until they are forced to surrender

>>3380719
you mean "not getting completley destroyed and encircled by the enemy"

>>3380726

Protip: the meme is that the French surrender immediately. It's the Italians who run away.

>>3380721
In one of those that literally happens tho

>>3380890
>It's the Italians who run away.

Looks like it's the British actually
But heh, Daddy Merica' won't meme his precious little Britbongs in a bad way, so we'll stick with the Italians I guess

>>3380898
Only because they failed their escape
That's what happen when Anglos try to LARP as a land power far away from their precious navy

File: patriottavington.jpg (14KB, 449x302px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 449x302px

>>3380902

>Daddy Merica' won't meme his precious little Britbongs in a bad way
>portrays the British as literally Naxis

What did they mean by this?

>>3380902
Does it? Or have you just taken four examples of something that happened throughout warfare down the ages and created a bit of bullshit

>perfidious Albion excels at fleeing

How surprising

>>3380711
I don;t know if I'd call the Afghanistan retreat successful

>>3381288
It is for a group that conquered the worlds largest empire

File: shaun-of-the-dead2.jpg (37KB, 393x450px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 393x450px

>>3380711
The Brits love a good queue.

>>3381495
exactly, brits don't go full retard and trample each other when they are ordered to evacuate

>>3380711
That's what happens when you e the world's greatest navy

>>3381272
The four exemples in the OP are already more major retreats/evacuations than you could find for most countries

And it misses a lot of them, like the two that happened at Corunna and Walcheren in 1809
Two fucking Dunkirks in the same year!

>>3381818

>no other nation has had military forves retreat more than 6 times in their existence

Bait or just historically illiterate?

>>3381839
These are not just small retreats for the sake of maneuver like in every wars
These are major retreats in which Brits flee and evacuate the continent out of fear while facing an advancing army

Care to find me any country that was 5 times (I'll exclude the Afghan one since it was a bit different) kicked from a continent in catastrophic naval evacuations, and I'll reconsider my opinion

File: 1310483412100.jpg (35KB, 380x395px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 380x395px

>>3381495

>Rich, fertile country without proper famine for years.
>Protected by a sea and a strong navy
>No chance for continentals to attack their homes.
>perfect place to regroup and plan an assault

Ah jeez, should have totally let all the troops stand around on foreign soil and get attacked when victory wasn't certain.

That makes total tactical sense

>>3381553
Used to not anymore

Epic /int/ thread.

OP

Because during those times they had the worlds greatest navy

>>3381862
>kicked from a continent in catastrophic naval evacuations,

Most armies simply would get encircled an annihilated instead. Mass naval evacuations were unfeasible for most countries, either due to geography or simply lack of naval capacity.

File: 2azs.jpg (10KB, 155x160px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 155x160px

>>3380711
>Flanders 1795
>While evacuating, Brits take with them the pathetic German and Dutch pussies who couldnt defend their own homeland to save them from the French

>Dunkirk 1940
>While evacuating, Brits take with them the pathetic French pussies who couldnt defend their own homeland to save them from the Germans

Can we just agree that Anglos are the best and most reliable allies one can have?

>>3384069
They're dependable when they are actually allies. The problem is getting to the point where you can actually confirm that they'll act in your aid

>>3383985
>>3384018
>>3384069
What you people seem to miss is the fact that HAD to evacuate in the first place. If they were any good at war, they wouldn't have had to.

>>3384143
>If they were any good at war, they wouldn't have had to

by your definition then almost no modern country is good at war, the only difference being that the British were able to better salvage a bad situation.

>>3384143
When you have naval supremacy you get to land and pull back your troops as you please for enormous strategic advantage. You don't ever need to fight a battle you might not win.

>>3384153
>>3384154
Keep telling yourselves that

>>3384690
>i-if you ever retreat you can't fight wars!

Good thing Hitler cleverly told all those men to stand their ground in Stalingrad. How very brave.

>>3385622
a lot of good declaring those Fortress Cities did them as well