I just realized..

Wtf are you talking about?
Britain had an advanced and well trained military with highly capable seasoned leaders.
We had what ever whoever we could throw together to fight against OUR OWN MILITARY.
In all of our modern wars we have had ridiculously high kill ratios but usually wind up holding back and pulling out due to politics.

Don't worry m8 we can't all be France

besides, it's a new age and your dank tech will more than cover your ass

>>66137968
>Britain had an advanced and well trained military with highly capable seasoned leaders.
Not in America, it was considered a punishment detail at the time.

>>66137968
ah yes the old "band of farmers gimmick"

why do yanks never acknowledge the major frog military input in the revolution

>>66138514

because then they'd have to admit they got their asses bailed out by the cunts they spent the better part of a century lambasting as cowardly surrender monkeys

>>66138514
they came when we were winning

File: 1469266800001.jpg (34KB, 330x549px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 330x549px

>>66138604
and the revolution was about freedom and liberty

>>66138670
it was unprecedented break from european power
only later it misconstrued into some power grab

>>66137165
i mean we don't have an impressive military history because we are a relatively young country

also nukes happened and now conventional warfare is pretty much non existent anymore

Look, we're sorry about entering the war too late.

It's hard to convince a continent that we need to enter a war against our own people. [germans] We gave you hundreds of billions of aid, and a lot of it was sank. And merchant sailors died.

But honestly - would you have preferred us to enter the war earlier? Would you have your Battle of Britain?

>>66139017
>Would you have your Battle of Britain?
BoB was wone before lend/lease started and before the USA officially entered the war, thanks for selling us that equipment and making us pay back every penny, merchant you are my greatest ally.

>>66138782
I'm more confused why you guys even bothered to revolt against the British Empire.
You could have just negotiated things through and then you would have still have a mutual defense treaty with England and the Nazi army would have been defeated much sooner.

>>66137165
I hate to break it to you, but brit/commonwealth forces never thought particularly highly of your marshall skills. even now the friendly fire meme is alive and well here.

nb. I appreciate your contributions towards ww2 unlike others on 4chan, recognise your tech game is strong, and generally our alliance is pretty fucking bad ass. british intelligence and american steel ain't nutin to be phucked with 2bh

>>66138599
the cognitive dissonance is strong
it's like they don't realise the french are straight badmanz

>Significantly greater numbers
Have you ever fucking read a book in your life nigger?

The Continental Army never exceed numbers in the 25K. Britain sent around 50K soldiers plus 30K mercenaries and adding to that the loyalist scum in the US.

File: Flag_of_Vietnam.svg.png (27KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 2000x1333px

>>66137968
>high kill ratios but usually wind up holding back

stay forever mad

>>66141295
Because the US saw no benefit from being in the empire.

Everytime Britain went to war, the US had to help. We fought France, and the Spanish in numerous occassion thanks to the brits.

The way in which the brits set up the system it made it so that money would flow towards England instead of benefiting the colonies.

And the brits were assholes with taxes. At one point the average brit was paying 26 chillins while they expect colonists to pay 89 chillins a year. Fucking retarded and they got what they deserved.

>>66139017
>We're sorry about entering the war too late
No, "we" aren't.
The US came just in time to fight its war. In no moment did the US have any duty to save britain from a war they got themselves into.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-15 at 2.04.33 AM.png (131KB, 668x720px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 668x720px

>>66142827

File: Flag_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg.png (22KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 2000x1000px

>>66142885
Oh, is the Hun n' slum still mad that his country got raped by a bunch of Slavs then split between a paranoid drunk and a fat boy?

>>66142895
>US had to help. We fought France, and the Spanish in numerous occassion thanks to the brits.
at that time you were the Brits, you are pushing your current status back in history to strengthen your argument. There is "no thanks to the Brits" because you (USA)weren't involved, British people were all the ones involved and they were obeying their leaders just like you do now, no different. Its just they turned traitor afterwards.

>>66137165
>citations needed the post

I guess the American Revolution happened at the moment when Brits were suspending Salutary Neglect right when Enlightenment ideals took hold among the American elite.

File: 1476231027340.jpg (158KB, 400x493px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 400x493px

>>66142885
t. tried to take over the world multiple times (still trying today) and keeps fucking it up
>WW1 is your best shot
>you mess it up
>WW2 is like a 50/50, just don't fight the US and USSR at the same time like lmao
>fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck
>create EU and succeed in soft power over huge portion of Europe
>invite in a trillion refugees nobody wants and invigorate anti-EU sentiment

>>66143010
Yeah, but that was one of the arguments during the revolution for breaking up with england.

>In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.

>Alas! we have been long led away by ancient prejudices and made large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the protection of Great Britain, without considering, that her motive was INTEREST not ATTACHMENT; and that she did not protect us from OUR ENEMIES on OUR ACCOUNT; but from HER ENEMIES on HER OWN ACCOUNT, from those who had no quarrel with us on any OTHER ACCOUNT, and who will always be our enemies on the SAME ACCOUNT. Let Britain waive her pretensions to the Continent, or the Continent throw off the dependence, and we should be at peace with France and Spain, were they at war with Britain. The miseries of Hanover last war ought to warn us against connections.

File: image.jpg (32KB, 300x360px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 300x360px

>>66143057
Why does Germany keep trying to destroy Europe? First they go too far to the right and now too far to the left

>>66137165
>USA has a very unimpressive military history

>Revolutionary War
Won
>Barbary Wars
Won
>War of 1812
Win or draw, you decide
>Indian Wars
Won
>Mexican War
Won
>Civil War
Won
>Spanish-American War
Won
>WWI
Won
>WWII
Won
>Korean War
Win or draw, you decide
>Vietnam War
Lose
>Gulf War
Won
>Afghanistan
Won
>Iraq
Won

>>66143191
According to Wikipedia, excluding the Civil War, we have a 97-4-4 Win-Loss-Draw record in warfare.

File: Winning.jpg (920KB, 2023x1886px) Image search: [Google]

920KB, 2023x1886px

>>66143191
I got you bro.

>>66143234
>>66143213
I don't count at least half those as real wars.

>>66143247
Fair enough, though we have been technically at war for 97% of our existence.

>>66143234
i've always wondered why is the afghan war still going? is there anything you guys haven't achieved? that guy Osama was dead already what are you seeking for now.

>>66143247
I didn't make the pic.
I agree but it gives a short summary of US military history.

>>66143266
>Technically
No we haven't. Skirmishes with Indians have been most of those "wars."

The US has only been technically at war during the revolution, 1812, Mexican war, Civil war, Spanish war, WWI, and WII.

>>66143280
I believe it concluded last year, but IDK what we were trying to do for the area after we got bin Laden (maybe stabilize the area, which while hilarious to us is a decent goal). In any case, our collective ignorance of it shows how unimportant it was to us.

>>66143280
The pic is old. The pic is from around 2011. In reality, US operations in Afghanistan have been reduced quite a bit.

After taking the taliban and Osama out, the only mission left is strengthening Afghanistan to a point that we can leave without worries of ISIS or other insurgents emerging in the region.

File: 1280px-Taliban_insurgency_in_Afghanistan_%282015%E2%80%93present%29.svg.png (405KB, 1280x943px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 1280x943px

>>66143327
Shit nevermind.
The pic is from 2015.
What I meant to say is that the US war in afghanistan was over by 2015. The US is helping the transition to Afghan control. Which has been a rocky transition but they are getting better at dealing with the taliban.

>>66143191
>civil war
>won
Both sides were american tho, how could you have lost.
Winning wars when you have a nasssive coalition on your side isn't impressive. Neither are your wars against Indians, Mexicans and decaying countries like Spain.
And in the end thats what counts. If you were to ask Frenchman about their most glorious military victories they might say the revolutionary/napoleonic wars, where they won wars on their own against every major power at the same time. The German might say the franco-prussian war. But what can the American say? When has America fought a war on its own against a worthy rival and won?

File: brock2.jpg (141KB, 646x524px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 646x524px

>>66138514
>>66138599

Rally 'round, lads!

>>66143581
The US was fighting the confederacy. A country that had declared independence. The US could have lost if the confederacy had gained its independence and the US would have seem more than half its territory lost.

It wasn't a civil war in the sense that southerners fought for their right to own slaves but in that they wanted to break up the country.

>Massive coalitions
The US has for most wars at least acquired huge coalitions for legality and public support. It has very little to do with actual military dependence on allies. The US has always sends more than 3/4 of the entire force to any conflict that it finds itself in with a few exceptions.

>>66143234

But was the Somalian one really a war? I thought it was more of a failed intervention, and at the bequest of the UN? Also, holy shit, a lot of Pakistani soldiers got REKT.

>>66143669
Yeah. Like I said. I didn't make the pic.
I don't consider it a war by any means. Just something I guess the maker thought it was important but it really isn't.

>>66143646
The massive coalitions i meant were ww1 and ww2, because neither a win on your own nor in a massive coalition is impressive when you're fighting Vietnamese rice farmers or Afgahni goat herders

>>66143581
Also, Read up on the napoleonic war and take a look at France's coalition.

File: Zoot.jpg (6KB, 194x259px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 194x259px

>>66143690

yeah, my bad. I meant to ask this IN GENERAL, not specifically at you. Shame about the Blackhawk incident though, for real.

File: 1464452922122.png (89KB, 1272x1152px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1272x1152px

>>66143234
>iraq war
>won

>>66143709

Yeah, was about to say the same thing, lol.
Man, there were so many alliances being formed and broken during those centuries.

>>66143697
WWI was victory for the US as it was on the winning side. But no one is under the impression that the US won the war single handedly. The US didn't have the capabilities nor the intention to fight a war in europe with 100% of US involvement.

>WWII
The US, can be said, single handedly defeated the japanese.

WWII wasn't only the european theater.

The US didn't make the ally coalition, it simply landed on it thanks to the Japanese and Nazis declaring war.

Nonetheless, The US did substantial effort in North Africa, Atlantic and was indispensable for Italy and France. Without the US no such invasions or victories would have taken place.

>>66143191

I still say the UN should have fucking manned up and let us take out the North Koreans. They still haven't let up after all these years - they need a good ass whoppin!

>>66143736
Yep.

Baathist Iraq feel in less than a month. (Blitzkrieg)
and was made into a Pro-US puppet for years to come.

The US casualties were relatively low for a decade long occupation.

The Current ISIS problem is a totally different conflict and not one that the US has lost either.

>>66143811
you are retarded

File: CivilWar.jpg (57KB, 448x298px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 448x298px

>>66143811
>>66143844

RUH-ROH!

>>66143581
>And in the end thats what counts. If you were to ask Frenchman about their most glorious military victories they might say the revolutionary/napoleonic wars, where they won wars on their own against every major power at the same time. The German might say the franco-prussian war

France lost the Napoleonic Wars in the end and the F-P War lasted only six months. Also...

>implications that France did not have allies/satellites in the Napoleonic Wars

>>66143766
>The US, can be said, single handedly defeated the japanese
>china did nothing
>the british did nothing
>only usa

I think you're missing my point. Despite all the wars America has won, none of them have been fought by America alone against a equally matched rival. That is why Americas history is unimpressive

>>66143844
Why do you think the US lost the war?

>>66143889
gee i sure love that 7 trillion dollar war that's fucking our assholes right now

>>66143875
Yes. The Chinese got their shit beat for year.
They kept losing to the very end with Japanese winning battles well into 45.

The British fought a defensive war in Burma. The Japanese were extended to their breaking point and the destruction of their navy only accelerated the Japanese collapse in Burma. The Brits barely won that battle.

The Key strategic battles were won by the US for US victories.

No substantial and important battles or contribution were made by any other ally.

The Best China did was distract Japan.
Even if Japan had had the Soldiers from the chinese front available, it couldn't have done anything. The pacific islands could only sustain so many men, and their navy could have never managed to transport that many men to begin with.

>>66143928
OK. So, it was expensive.
Just like any other war ever.

You think it wasn't worth the money, sure.

But it was still not a defeat. The US won the war from every military aspect, and strategic.

Iraq went to shit post US withdrawal that is another conflict.

>>66143866
>France lost the Napoleonic Wars in the end
Three wins to two defeats ain't too bad at all
>F-P War lasted only six months
Makes the total victory even more impressive
>implications that France did not have allies/satellites in the Napoleonic Wars
Allies and satellites forced into toeing the line after a previous defeat at the hands of the French empire. But even so it doesn't disprove my point, take the Revolutionary Wars as an example or any of Louis XIVs wars
>>66143973
None of that changes anything. Even if the chinese 14 million soldiers only served to distract the japanese (which is a dubious assumption), then once again america didn't win the war on its own.

>>66144103
OK. Whatever you say.
Tell me then one war where a great power has fought against another without allies or any distractions from either side.

Switzerland really isn't the best country to be talking shit about war since they've been cowards and refused to do it since 1515.

>>66143057
good post actually

File: 1471467039750.jpg (899KB, 1237x3696px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 1237x3696px

>>66137165
Yeh is hilarious

>>66144103
Yes, it disproves your point entirely.
There wasn't a single war in the napoleonic conflict where france fought by itself.

They were conquered vassals but they were still allies that aided france in the war.

>>66143766
>The US, can be said, single handedly defeated the japanese.
macarthur went to massive lengths to make it look that way, sure

>>66144173
That pic is highly historically inaccurate.
>Brits outnumbered the Americans in the revolutionary war.
>America declared war on britain due to the Brits undermining US trade and violating US sovereignty in many occasions. The US was defending itself from undeclared british hostility
>Canada had nothing to do with the burning of washington, it was strictly red coats.
>Alamo "easy".
>Only loyalist escaped to Canada. They were butthurt for the US having left the empire
And many more inaccuracies that I wont even bother.

>>66144218
Prove me wrong.

>>66144281
don't mind him, he's a butthurt arab that complains about white people all day on the internet and refuses to go home.

funny isn't it, despise a certain bunch of people but parasitize them anyway

>>66144374
Really fires up my neural axions

>>66144185
Bullshit. I suppose if France had straight annexed them, then it it wouldn't count as allied aid?
>>66144140
>USA has never won a war on its own therefore no country has
Russo-Japanese War, war of devolution?
>>66144159
I can talk shit about american war history, just like i can criticise a pro football players performance and compare it to others. Why are you taking it personal?

>>66144447
>Bullshit
You like it or not. France got helped from its vassals. It's as clear as day.

>Russo-Japanese War
OK. Good example. But to be fair the entire Japanese navy had been built in England and the Baltic fleet was exhausted after having gone through Africa and the indian sea just to get to the battlefield.

Japan was handed the victory by england. England built its ships and blocked the Suez to the Russians.

>>66144447
>war of devolution
OK. Best example so far.

But the US didn't even exist when this battle took place.

You can't compare American 19th and 20th century conflicts with 17th century ones.

Also, wars like the devolution war and the Japanese-Russian war are quite rare. Most other war (modern) wars 19th and 20th century wars all involve alliance netwroks.

>>66144447
>USA has never won a war on its own
Mexican-American war?

>>66144697
That's Euros for you.

The US beat Mexico fair and Square but because Mexico wasn't strong enough, it doesn't count for them.

well at least you didn't lose 25% of population in every "victorious war"

>>66144838
>>66144697
>The US beat Mexico fair and Square but because Mexico wasn't strong enough, it doesn't count for them.
>Chad beat Dylan fair and square but because Dylan wasn't an able-bodied man it doesn't count for them

>>66144915
Mexico was actually capable of defending itself 170 years ago. You're talking about it as if the war occurred between the US and Mexico in 2016

>>66143875
>none of them have been fought by America alone against a equally matched rival
That's incredibly stupid. The US pursued a policy of isolationism through most of it's history and once it became more involved in world affairs there was no other country that could match it's strength.

Why shouldn't the Civil War count?

>>66144915
And the Spanish defeat in the netherlands was fair?
The Spanish armada was destroyed and Spain was for a decaying power. Spain was also under a regency and France had become the dominant power in Europe.

Spain had also suffered a major blow to their population.

>The Great Plague of Seville (1647–1652) killed up to 25% of Seville's population[citation needed]. Sevilla, and indeed the economy of Andalucía, would never recover from so complete a devastation. Altogether Spain was thought to have lost 500,000 people, out of a population of slightly fewer than 10,000,000, or nearly 5% of its entire population. Historians reckon the total cost in human lives due to these plagues throughout Spain, throughout the entire 17th century, to be a minimum of nearly 1.25 million.

>Traditionally, historians mark the Battle of Rocroi (1643) as the end of Spanish dominance in Europe
The Thirty Years war saw the End of Spanish Domiance.

The Spanish also lost control of Portugal and suffered tremendous economic repercussions for all this.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-15 at 4.39.01 AM.png (718KB, 690x1332px) Image search: [Google]

718KB, 690x1332px

>>66145325
Oh, and lets also ignore the bigger conflict that Spain had lost in the low contries.

A conflict fought and won by a major coalition.