Why was the tiny nation of England able to gain mastery of the

>>34201559
Because Anglos are the master race.

>>34201559
Because they were white. They were English.
Every other country were savages. And the one's who were also white, gave the English a run for their money, i.e the French, and eventually Americans.

File: b0054850_1572937.jpg (499KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 1500x1000px

Its an island. After being settled by Saxons, Romans, and French by boat, they learned boats could be offensive too.

>>34201559
>be white
/thread.


The alternative longer answer is is, Roman Empire settled England. Needed boats to get there. White people love boats.

File: Royal Navy’s Grand Fleet at anchor in the Firth of Forth in 1916. Photographed from Royal Navy Airship R9..jpg (332KB, 1280x1074px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 1280x1074px

>>34201575
>>34201579
>>34201682
You assholes seem lost, /pol is that way ----->

Britain had the best reason to invest heavily in naval defence/power. They secured regional dominance in such field, and then global dominance. Best way to ensure the peace and stability of a sovereign Britain was through maintaining dominance through such policy.

English Channel provides a similar defense-in-depth to that of the U.S. having the Pacific/Atlantic scenario. By no means the same, but same principle of national defense.

>Royal Navy’s Grand Fleet at anchor in the Firth of Forth in 1916. Photographed from Royal Navy Airship R9.

>>34201559
Every other nation needed to invest in an army and navy, and later in air force. So they had to distribute resources according to this, with priority being 1:army (to defend from land invasion, which is every invasion) 2:Air Force (to support army) 3:navy

Britain, on the other hand, was an island nation, and therefore had a) lower population b)less resources, and c) a fucking lot of water. This meant that land invasions were impossible, and only naval invasions were possible. So to best defend itself, Britain prioritized 1)navy (to prevent naval invasion) 2)Air Force (to support navy and protect shipyards etc from air raids) 3)army (which was a last effort to defend and would almost always be defeated

So Britain used its geographical advantage to stay safe

>>34201559
Mastery of the sea grants mastery of trade, which brings wealth, which buys power.

How the Portuguese got the same expansion into South America and the far east like Macau seems like a less talked about yet interesting history as well.

>>34201763
You think England starting 100 years ago? Don't tell me what to do and ignore the importance of the Roman Empire. I doubt people inhabited England unless it was Vikings or romans or Phoenicians.

huge deposits of coal and iron.

File: Trafalgar.jpg (101KB, 944x655px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 944x655px

>>34201559
They had it for about 150ish years, not even. Sit down son, it's time for a lesson.

>Spain had a larger more powerful navy for many centuries
>Aztecgold.jpeg
>England was paying dudes to be pirates, and calling them a different name "Privateers", the queen would give handys to the ones who got really big Spanish Galleons.
>France and Spain decide to team up and push England's shit in.
>Get together a bigass armada, set course for up the fuckin' Thames
>Londongburning.webm
>Admiral Nelson gets the idea to set part of his shitbird Navy on fire and send it straight at the fuckers
>Chaos ensues (pic related)
>No more armada

blah blah blah, expanding empire
blah blah blah, sun never sets on it
blah blah, fuckton of natural resources
blah blah, build a fuckton of ships to stay top dog in the age of sail/steam/empires

...to be continued

>>34201559

Because while most other nations had to balance their military budget between an Army and a Navy, the British could afford to go all out on their Navy and have a shoe-string Army thanks to their natural defense as an Island

File: German_U-boat_UB_14_with_its_crew.jpg (514KB, 1000x695px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 1000x695px

>>34202055
...and back

>WWI kicks off
>Kaiser Willy sends out Unterseebooten
>Fucks Englands shit up
>Not enough that they're not top dog, but it's contested.
>Meanwhile America is building it's navy after a very successful first run of steel hulled ships vs. Spain's wooden ones.
>Meanwhile the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere is building it's navy in honor of the nip Emperor and because they pushed Russia's shit in at Tsushima
>Both are profiting from Eurotrash being eurotrash

At this point, it's hard to say that the tea drinkers had the best navy... but it's only 110ish years after Trafalgar (burning armada) so whatever
>interwar period, nobody cares except America and Japan
>later interwar period, Germany starts building boats and more Uboats
>ohshittheyreserious.jpg
>WWII breaks out, America kicks it's ship production into overdrive while the only other country set up for massive production is too busy drinking vodka and making tanks and beating Hitlers ass
>America kicks the shit out of Japan's navy, sinks the fuck outta Nazi subs.

By this point America is pretty much widely acknowledged as the big daddy of the seas. Yeah, England sends a ship here or there with the big American fleets. Yeah, they showed up in the Falklands and shot the shit out of some Argentines. But who ya gonna call?

File: 1483369446995.jpg (67KB, 420x275px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 420x275px

>>34202055
wha...?

File: the general.jpg (138KB, 488x734px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 488x734px

>>34202119
this history intensifies my freedom.

>>34201559
Spain was winning the naval race...when suddenly Dutch and Turks and French and 30 Years War and time for a 4 century nap.

Dutch were holding there own...when suddenly the Sun King and his fuck huge army.

French were catching up....when suddenly revolution and Austrians and Russians everywhere.

Iran 81,699,000 June 6, 2017 1.10% Official population clock
Turkey 76,667,864 December 31, 2013 1.00% Official estimate
Thailand 69,519,000 July 1, 2011 0.94% UN estimate
Democratic Republic of the Congo 67,758,000 July 1, 2011 0.91% UN estimate
France[1] 65,821,885 January 1, 2011 0.89% Official estimate
United Kingdom 64,596,800 July 1, 2014 0.87% Annual official estimate
Italy 60,705,991 May 31, 2011 0.82% Monthly official estimate
South Africa 50,586,757 July 1, 2011 0.68% Official estimate


Pops and who gets shit done internationally it's not how big you are it's how you use it and what your country thinks is important

England buckled down after WWII and was then worse off than Turkey looks who's whining for handouts now for example

England is a world player... they are boxing above their weight class

File: 1496601714004.jpg (56KB, 490x746px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 490x746px

>>34201575
>Because Anglos are the master race.

this, they knew as a race they needed to export civilization to the savages

>>34201559

Because it had the coal and steel mines when coal powered steel ships became a thing.

File: 1491340177640.png (478KB, 1000x924px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 1000x924px

>>34202119
Afraid to say Yankee but you did fuck all against the German and Italian navy's.

Now please learn your place late joiner.

>>34202042
>I doubt people inhabited England unless it was the Vikings or Romans or Phoenicians
>nobody inhabited England before the Vikings
>the Vikings pillaged an empty island
Are you retarded?

>>34201559
Because it's a fucking island and
historically Brits usually gave a shit about their domestic problems while others in the continent beat each other up endlessly.

Also, they didn't have to invest massive assets on building the ground force, compared to Euro continents,
Speaking of ground force France traditionally had #1 army until Prussia

>>34201575
>>34201579
>>>/pol/

>>34201763
Pls go

>>34201559
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment

File: HMSSevernTable1.jpg (64KB, 482x654px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 482x654px

>>34202055
It was raleigh and drake at the armada.

You missed out the anglo dutch wars where dutch naval supremacy was eroded with every conflict.

Nelson was at trafalgar, and this crushed any hope that spain & frances Navies could even regain any form of naval supremacy even together, leaving britain uncontested to colonies far away lands without having to cross over & conquer other countries.

>>34202119
Only in 1944 did the USN become larger than the RN, because 5 years of war had taken their toll.
Japan & the UK were allies before WW2, the japanese emperor was even a field marshall in the british army. It was only because the UK was engaged with italy and germany did japan feel they had a chance of attacking.

U boats were largly ineffective, see info graphic

>>34202042
Are you naturally that stupid or did you have to work at it?

>>34201559
Spain did

>>34201559
That was their thing. Those in power got together and said we're going to be a sea-faring empire. They went around to uncivilized little places with noguns that couldn'tdefend themselves and took over. It's not like they really conquered other European nations that could actually fight back. The military aspects of the British empire were pretty overrated, but still a smart way to get rich.

>>34204398
Thank you for typing the correction on the invincible armada so I did not have to. USN was also larger than the RN from 1863-1867. Was about parity from 1900-1916 and again from 1918-1939. You also should have corrected the idiot that thought that the Spanish had wooden ships in 1898. Just being pedantic good post.

>>34203150
Let's see the Royal Navy try that against a real base like Rabaul or Truk instead of third rate Italian defenses.

>>34201667
Ships became offensive only after someone realized that you can sink other ships by incorporating black powder based siege equipment in 'em. Before this ships were mobile infantry fighting platforms and maritime warfare was about seizing ships from the opposing side by boarding them.

>UK founds America, Australia, New Zealand and probably some other nice countries
>No other European country succeed despite several tries

Were the British just superior beings or something? Was our tea that good?

>>34202055
Completely confuse the Spanish Armada and Trafalgar despite them being 200 years apart.

>>34204465
Most nations/geographical areas have their time in the sun, their golden period.

File: toot toot.jpg (82KB, 744x496px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 744x496px

>>34204432
They did, they infiltrated singapore far more fortified than rabaul & truk THRICE

One with 14 commandos and a fishing boat sinking 9 ships

A second time using same MO sinking 3 ships but with all commandos killed

A third time with XE craft sinking takao.

>>34204430
Depends whether you look at tonnage or numbers.

RN Battleships & Battle cruisers : 15
USN Battleships & Battle cruisers :17
RN carriers : 7
USN carriers : 7
RN : 66 (Both heavy & light)
USN Heavy cruisers : 18
USN light cruisers :19
USN AA cruisers: 4
USN total cruisers: 41
RN destroyers: 184
USN destroyers: 171
RN subs: 60
USN subs : 114 (not all serviceable or modern)
RN misc (sloops & other vessels) : 45

Rn numbers in 1939
USN numbers 1941
Its not really fair as the USN had two years to build up on tonnage USN built two battleships, three carriers and at least 38 destroyers in that time,

>>34204398
>U boats were largly ineffective, see info graphic
>post graphic that shows the opposite
Hmm.

>>34204580
> KM Loses over 700 subs (about 60%) at a rate of 19000 T (3 and a half ships) sunk per sub lost.
> RN loses 80 subs at a rate of 20000T (9 ships) a sub lost

700 subs, and they could have built surface ships or put it to other uses.

>>34201764
I agree with your point however Air Forces were not even a concept until WW1. Britain was a global super power for several hundred years before that.

>>34204571
First two were Australian special forces.

>>34204626
Ivan lyon was british, Z unit was made up birts, dutch, aussies and kiwis

>>34204571
At Truk the USN sank 47 ships in two days and effectively ended it as a major base.

>>34204610
but, the subs themselves were very effective even compared to the total loss of the uboat campaign
german surface ships were much worse for convoy raiding
if the germans had sunk 2M tons of ships for the loss of their subs than it would have been somewhat productive but 14.5M tons is outstanding

File: 1414956456198.jpg (9KB, 174x263px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 174x263px

>>34204610
Are you really this ignorant?

First of all, The RN was way too big for any challenging considering the almost non-existent time that was at hand. German focus is on Land and Air forces, no need to build big surface ships without either one of those present because Germany is not an island nation that can defend itself with its navy. Surface ships, for usage as raiders and as a fleet in being, were built. There is only so much you CAN do.

Second, what the fuck else are you going to use subs for if not for raiding the merchant shipping of the island nation you are at war with? What is this logic that you are applying? Something had to be done.

Also, Plan Z never came into being. You think the KM laid all those submarines down before the war but that is wrong, the submarine fleet was abysmal in terms of numbers in 39, there was no time/resources during and at the beginning of the war for any relevant surface ships.

Next up, your graphic is stupid. Why is it not showing the numbers of subs that were laid down? Why is it not showing a proper graph of when and how many subs, per mont/year for example, got sunk? Why is this your only indicator of how effective German subs were? What is with this cross country comparison anyways? It completely ignores the massive impact that German boats had on British merchant shipping before the US stepped in. Also, the KM had a lot more boats out when compared with the RN, of course they'll also lose more when facing half the world and including two of the Top GPs. The sentence "U boats were largly ineffective" is so fucking stupid considering the immense damage that German boats inflicted on British shipping. I don't know what you are trying to deny here man, it's not like this is an isolated opinion on a Chinese Cartoon board. No, it's something that has been extensively researched since 45.

>>34204664
Quality post!

>>34204664
>>34204670
Being this stupid to reply to yourself summerfag.

Why sink ships when they can replace them quicker than your sinking them and quicker than you can replace your own U Boats.

There was something like 1200 U boats built or in production when the war ended. Why focus on having a navy when its not necessarily required?

File: juno.png (35KB, 333x619px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 333x619px

>>34203150
Britain could only win a naval battle in the 20th century when it employed literal terrorist attack tactics. Like assaulting their former allies at Mers el Kebir. Total cuck nation with a paper tiger military.

>>34204694
time to comission a uboot VII about 100 days
time to comission a 15k ton merchant 1.5 years
your argument is obviously flawed despite continuing to assume you are correct off hand

>>34204699
Terror attacks?
they wern't the ones that attacked neutral shipping, and executing survivors.

Mers El kebir is regrettable, but understandable. They were collaborators and the loss of those ships into German hands would have been a crime.

>>34204694
>Being this stupid to reply to yourself summerfag.
Already lost all your credibility. Should have just said that you didn't want to discuss this properly.

>Why sink ships when they can replace them quicker than your sinking them and quicker than you can replace your own U Boats.
How is one supposed to understand this logic? You sink merchant shipping so the materials that are needed to replace and build ships in general is not available. Among other things of course.

>Why focus on having a navy when its not necessarily required?
It is required though? There is not ONE navy that looks the same wherever you go.

>>34204571
I did say about parity for the first bit of the 20th century. But the USN was clearly larger during the late civil war and early reconstruction periods.
I would also say that by 39 the USN fleet submarines would have been hell on anyone.

>>34204714
https://web.archive.org/web/20140923090607/http://www.desertwar.net:80/hms-torbay-n79.html
details a ship which marauds the mediterranean machinegunning hundreds of shipwrecked sailors...
the UK committed many more war crimes and began the bombardment of cities during WW2. If anyone's shit stinks it's Londons.

>>34202119
>But who ya gonna call?
https://youtu.be/HHhZF66C1Dc

>>34204713
>time to comission a 15k ton merchant 1.5 years
liberty ships took 240 days to build, which they eventually streamlined to 42 Days

42 fucking days.

For a publicity stunt they even built one in 5 days.

5 fucking days.

>>34204738
>details a ship which marauds the mediterranean machinegunning hundreds of shipwrecked sailors...
>the UK committed many more war crimes and began the bombardment of cities during WW2. If anyone's shit stinks it's Londons.
Press X for doubt, the first strategic bombardment was on poland by germany.

The first strategic bombing between the Uk & germany was a german raid in the blitz and the UK retaliated.

Do it again bomber harry! Do it again!

>>34204398
>pic
Reminder that the USN submarine branch was responsible for over 50% of all sinkings, while ony being 1-2% of the fleet by tonnage.

>>34204694
>Why sink ships when they can replace them quicker than your sinking them and quicker than you can replace your own U Boats.
Why fight a war of attrition against the US?
The answer is the same: they assumed that by violence and immediacy of action, they could force a peace deal before American producion could have an effect. An extra few hundred U boats at the outbreak of war would have greatly improved their odds of achieving that, though probably still not enough to win. Also remember that most German subs were sunk late 43 onwards, when allied ASW measures started becoming plentiful and effective, combined with good German crews dying off and being replaced by green ones.
Before 43, the Jerry subs were very cost effective as a weapon of war.

File: 1495716807230m.jpg (104KB, 1024x803px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1024x803px

>>34204753

>>34204782

I don't understand why they just didn't put rubber bumpers along the sides of the submarines to make the torpedoes bounce off.

File: b610114958331a4d1b07002f9ae13ebe.jpg (44KB, 666x658px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 666x658px

>>34201763
You really are a stupid one

>>34204611
It's like you didn't even read the post you replied to.

>>34204753
liberty ships were trash. average 15ton by all combatant nations would take about a year and half.
the torbay recorded their attacks on shipwrecked sailors in logs and was reprimanded despite being given a victorian cross
warsaw was only bombed due to polish troops actively defending within the city contrary to hague convention.
the RAF began general strategic bombardment within Germany 15MAY1940. before this the two nations only attacked each others ports. Germany only bombarded cities which were manned by resistant soldiers (lawful) and retaliated after the British Ruhr campaign in may. Germany never bombed any French cities for instance.

>>34204794
>to make the torpedoes bounce off
A. Torpedoes don't work like that
B. Waste of strategic rubber
C. Most U boats were sunk by depth charges, very few by torpedo (1 was torped while snorkeling by a Brit sub, 1 was torped by a brit destroyer after being forced to the surface by depth charges, and late in the war a few (~40) were destroyed by Mk 24 'mines', to which the best countermeasure was to go sanic and outrun it.).

All in all, pretty shitty bait, but made me reply. 3/10.

>>34204820
>liberty ships were trash
Go and stay go. The only cargo ships superior to the Liberty class in the context of ww2 was the Victory class.

>>34204820
Fuckoff wehraboo

> Liberty ships were shit
But they worked didn't they.

15 May 1940 was 2 days after the rotterdam blitz you fucking retard.

>>34204825
Quite a few german subs were sunk on the surface by british subs whilst pulling into or out of port

>>34201763
>this mad

>>34202055
you are legit retarded. How can people on this board be so stupid? Someone explain.

>>34204837
slow as shit and poorly constructed
the 42 day build time was a total sham
irrespective a much submarine with much less material could waste 50x their mass in liberty ship flotsom
why are you still trying too argue against the use of submarine warfare and german uboot campaign in particular?

>>34204837
>Quite a few german subs were sunk on the surface by british subs whilst pulling into or out of port
True, I had forgotten about that. Thanks m8.
(Still not a very large number compared to depth charging though)

>>34204854
>slow as shit and poorly constructed
>the 42 day build time was a total sham
who gives a damn when you're churning out 3 a day?

>>34204650
of which 32 were merchant vessels...

>>34204837
wowee sure are made aren't you britfag?
rotterdam was being defended by dutch soldiers therefore rotterdam got smashed
such action is lawful according to the hague convention. bombing german cities wholesale, attacking civil shipping in skaggerak, and claiming a mutual protection pact with poland in the first place (privosi only one nation, germany) are all obvious and technical war crimes.

but as churchill said the victor writes history

>>34204731
Having more ships is irrelevant when one side has wooden sail ships and the other steel steam ships.

File: these machines kill fascists.jpg (40KB, 985x554px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 985x554px

>>34204901
> TFW bomber harris is a hero of Antifa because these machines kill fascists.

Bombing german cities wholesale is acceptable because there may be at least 1 soldier amongst thousands of civilians, but thats OK because germans are scum who deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Do it again bomber harris! Do it again!

>>34204926
lawfully cannot attack a civil population without adjacent ground forces and the refusal of armed personnel to surrender within the civil area
your antifa sentiment is meh, i was going for logical debate not jimmy russling
sure are alot of fags on /k/ these days

>>34201559
capitalism and the protestant work ethic. also, being white.

>>34204966
>lawfully cannot attack a civil population without adjacent ground forces and the refusal of armed personnel to surrender within the civil area
of course you can german was being defended by german soldiers so bomb germany. Doesn't have to be in the same area does it?

>>34204980
yes, obviously the city must be in contended space of ground forces. the hague convention was very specific and comprehensive allowing for logical situations where a nation would be overrun but it's civilians unharmed. britain clearly violated this during the ruhr air campaign and then cried about the poles whom they backstabbed again and again

>>34205007
retard, the retarded germans flattened 3 cities, including coventry. you really think they wouldn't retaliate out of revenge?

These are the people who executed an entire ethnicity in their own country, and sent out half their fleet in an act of vengeance.

>>34205021
syntax error
try again

>>34205081
if you can't read that you clant spleak angleshis

>>34201559
>No land enemies = don't need a large army
>No land enemies = can expand colonization efforts far more quickly
>No land enemies = need sea based defense

England started on Newbie Island.

>>34205229
> Hundreds of years of conflict with neighbours before conquering or assimilating:
>Scots
>Welsh
> Irish

Also Invading:
Romans
Anglii
Saxons
Jutes
Normans
The damnable french

Its like sitting on top of the only spawn of gold

>>34204854
>slow as shit and poorly constructed
The wheraboo is gonna tell us how to supply armed forces XDDDD

>>34204854
>slow as shit
Like the horses you were dependant upon before you started eating them?

>>34201559
As an island nation, England needed a navy to project any power. Hence why the large navy.

Another reason, that is completely ignored:
>The UK had a habit of going to war against anybody who started to build a notable sized navy
This was such a factor in the 19th century that people were wondering what excuse the UK was going to use to wage war against the US when they started to build their empire in the Pacific after the Spanish-American war.

>>34204806
No he has a point. I know you could just subtract "air force" from the equation and still get the same answer relative to the time period, but why even mention it at all when it wasnt even a concept at the time Britain had dominated the seas?By the time an air force was even an attainable goal, Britain was already falling from grace as the definitive world naval superpower.

>>34202055
>>34202119
8/10 for actually putting some effort into trolling beyond posting a reddshit image macro maymay. But you were too obvious.

File: v9Jm1.png (431KB, 4500x2234px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 4500x2234px

>>34201559

>Tiny nation of England

>larger European nations

What color is the sky in your reality?

>>34201559
Because England gets an additional movement point per turn for naval vessels.

>>34204837
USS O'Bannon DD-450 sank an IJN sub by using potatoes.

Holy fuck yankees are retarded.

Britain had a big navy because britain had a lot of colonies that also produced or otherwise fielded ships. Canada, Australia, India, etc. all had ships of their own, ranging from armed yachts to actual full size warships, that contributed to british naval operations.

Britain was not "tiny", it owned like a third of the world.

>>34201559
Because after centuries of threat from Spain, and getting royally slapped by the Dutch, the English finally realised how important a professional Navy was.

>>34206261
Yeah basically. I feel like nobody in this thread has really done much in the way of historical research on stuff like the navigation acts, it's just /pol/tards shitting out racial theories and everyone else's circlejerking about "it's an island, boats durr"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_Acts

File: Cattura.png (208KB, 413x789px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 413x789px

>>34203150
>only 1 ship lost
>some other quickly repaired
>the japs decide to copy that attack
>pearl harbor happen
>america lose 7 fucking battleship

>>34204664

> It completely ignores the massive impact that German boats had on British merchant shipping

Except there never was any "massive impact".

99% of ships got through. Britain was already winning the Battle of the Atlantic, their anti-sub tech went to fucking lunatic degrees to do it. The US joining it later on only sped up the process.

>>34204820

And Germany had already bombed Poland long before that, so fuck off with your crocodile tears.

>>34202894
post the one that shows the ones that sunk in red

File: A_Castro%2C_Lorenzo_-_A_Dutch_East-Indiaman_off_Hoorn_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (2MB, 2501x2098px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2501x2098px

>>34201559
Why was the tiny nation of the Seven Provinces able to gain mastery of the seas?

Why weren't any of the other larger European nations with their greater natural resources able to create a Navy to challenge the Seven Provinces'?

>>34201667
england is not an island

>>34201559
Ive been to that pub (white building, left of the bow) . great food

File: Skeletor.jpg (95KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 900x900px

>>34208260
Is that in Portsmouth? Now you mention it I remember sitting at a pub with that layout and surroundings and watching the ships when I was about 8.

>>34204611
same answer though, in the age of sail and steam naval power determined how well your beachhead action went on the landing, with a naval supremacy any landing on the isles would go horribly for Britain's would-be invader and typically meant that while the inferior invasion fleet was tied up, british contingents were also able to detach their heavy elements for a riposite invasion, combine this with the fact that most powers didn't have the shipping to move their armies and liked to keep them in large clusters for easier logistics and you have the english retaining massive dominance on the high seas until the north american continent made massed land warfare and ground-based logistics important enough that the rebellion had the Queen's forces sufficiently tied up that the weaker european powers became legitimate threats of invasion again

>>34204882
Those are more important than warships especially when Japan can't take that kind of loss.

350 years ago yesterday the raid on the Medway happened. Like how the fuck did the Brits manage to fuck up so badly.
>>34208430

>>34201579
>Because they were white. They were English.

>Anglos
>White
Choose one. It was the Saxon blood that did all the work.

>>34201559
>the tiny nation of England
Because it's actually a pretty normal sized European nation, especially once it occupied Ireland, Scotland, and Wales

>>34201829
>How the Portuguese got the same expansion into South America... seems like a less talked about yet interesting history as well.
They just shitposted the pope until he agreed they had totally landed in Brazil and told Spain to share.

>>34208260

Also been to that very pub - food was okay.

Spain and France both had formidable navies at one time.

But luck, and skill helped the brits gain mastery of the waves.

>>34201559
It didn't. They're just very good at claiming they did. It dates from back in the fucking XVII century, when they conveniently forgot to mention in their history books that their own counter-invasion in answer to the Spanish Armada was sunk as ignominiously as the Spanish one had been. And similar stuff happened in the XVIII, XIX and XX centuries. They just kept mentioning the times they won and "forgetting" the times they lost.

>>34209069
Don't forget getting manhandled by the dutch.

>>34204902
The RN was actually freaking out about the size and strength of the USN as the civil war ended as it had roughly twice as many of both types. I wish I had my great grandfathers diaries to quote on the subject but my sister has them now. He spent two years afraid that a squadron would sortie to California making his position in Victoria untenable. But RN archives have plenty of similar accounts public.

>>34208787
Fuck off. Go to your containment board.

File: Vasco_da_Gama's_ship.jpg (1016KB, 666x1299px) Image search: [Google]

1016KB, 666x1299px

>>34201829
The Portuguese were in the unique position of being the first European navy to ply the Indian Ocean since the Islamic conquest of Byzantine Egypt. When they arrived it had become common practice for most trading ships to go lightly armed because of multiparty agreements. In the Mediterranean such an idea was laughable, the Barbary corsairs regularly terrorized Christian shipping lanes. So the Portuguese considered Muslim ships to be fair game.

>>34202231
Contray to popular belief, Spain has never been a great naval power. Most of the fleet at Lepanto was Italian, a full quarter being the Venetian Navy. Before Lepanto the Spanish realied on the Genovese admiral Andrea Doria to coordiante Spanish landings in North Africa.

because they didnt need to pay for a standing army (whichs costs a shitload more than a fleet, ships can always be mothballed, you cant mothball a regiment of fighting men)

File: 1478686595177.jpg (39KB, 500x474px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x474px

>>34202042
You're factually incorrect.

>>34204297
>>34204799
>>34204838
>>34208787
I miss the days when /pol/ was a shitty containment board like /mlp/ or /b/.

Now they think they run this site and that everyone must agree with their simple ideas, or leave.

File: The Influence of Sea Power upon History.jpg (32KB, 318x424px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 318x424px

>>34201559
That's a great question OP. Luckily it was answered back in 1890 by the naval historian Alfred Thayer Mahan. I haven't read it myself yet so I can't tell you anything too specific about it.

What I can say is that it covers the period from 1660 to 1783. So it covers from the 2nd Anglo Dutch War to the American Revolution.

>>34201575
>>34201579
>>34201682
It's hilarious just how little you morons actually know about history. For instance, during the later half of the 18th century, as British naval power was becoming dominant after periods of Spanish, Dutch and French naval supremacy, the British navy (and even the all-important merchant marine, especially John Company's ships) was FULL of Arabs, Turks, Greeks, Africans, Lascars, Indian and even Chinese sailors. The same can be said for Wellington's forces in Spain up to 1814. In fact, you could tell where in the world a British ship was commissioned just by looking at the racial mix of her crew, be it in India, England or the Caribbean.

British naval power was dominant over the entire 19th century partially because they were able, through their extensive alliances and colonies worldwide, to draw on the manpower and material resources of the entire world.

Read a fucking book.

>>34213995
>Read a fucking book.
>Read
>book

Keep your liberal ideas for yourself, shillary.

File: HMS Dreadnought's cat Scatters inspects the 12 Inch gun.jpg (1003KB, 1920x2493px) Image search: [Google]

1003KB, 1920x2493px

>>34204430
>about parity from 1900-1916
no

>>34213995
yes and it was lead by white englishman thats why it was so good you shitskin paki

>>34214760
Tactical and strategic command race aside, there is no way the British empire achieves its dominance without heavy utilization of all the resources, manpower and knowledge of all her far flung allies and colonies.

You can scream about white people being in charge all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the British Empire was built upon and succeeded through cooperation of tens of different races and cultures. Only idiots who sift through history with blinders of confirmation bias to support only their narrow perspective on race could possibly miss this basic point.

If, as you suggest, the "whites" of the British Isles were the sole pillar of strength in the British Empire's naval dominance, then the post-WWII/post colonization decline of the empire would not have been so rapid and significant. Remove the resources, manpower and support of the world-wide colony structure and England once again becomes a small, technologically advanced, culturally strong and well-educated regional power, not a superpower. This is not even to mention the fact of the "white" Irish insurgency of the 20th century being one of the larger drains on England's resources over time.

In contrast, one of the reasons the Spanish (especially by the 1700s) were so much less successful in extracting power from their colonies was their inability to work with and integrate local powers, peoples and customs. They instead chose to focus almost exclusively on extracting precious metals and minerals rather than building strong, cooperative, self-sufficient colonies. As a long term strategy it was completely defunct.

>>34201559
>Why was the tiny nation of England able to gain mastery of the seas?Why weren't any of the other larger European nations with their greater natural resources able to create a Navy to challenge Britain's?

You mean like the Dutch or Portuguese?

>>34214829
Shhhh. Don't disturb the historically ignorant. It might explode his tiny little mind to learn that the Dutch were once considered to be an insurmountably incredible naval power rivaling all other navies combined.

>>34214816
>If, as you suggest, the "whites" of the British Isles were the sole pillar of strength in the British Empire's naval dominance, then the post-WWII/post colonization decline of the empire would not have been so rapid and significant.

Most of the British imperial 'white' army was Irish. Minus Ireland the empire collapsed

>>34214837
You cannot seriously be this retarded. Army or Navy, just read a fucking primary source. Look at Wellington's order of battle circa 1814, for instance. Shit, even just looking at white combatants, the Irish were a minority. In the Wellington 1814 example, for instance, Irish ethnicities were outnumbered by the other British home isles peoples (even excluding Scots), AND outnumbered by Spanish troops alone OR combined European mercenary forces like Poles, Swiss, Baltic and Scandinavian forces.

You really need to read a book, son.

>>34213995
Wow. Folks, we have here the very model of a modern major general!

File: SECOND.png (393KB, 610x457px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 610x457px

>>34214852
>You really need to read a book, son.
Pic related.

It doesn't even need to be a dry history book. Just reading Sharpe's series or the Aubrey-Maturin books would make this obvious.

File: 1470890499715.jpg (33KB, 564x528px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 564x528px

>>34214859
>waaaaaa
>actual history doesn't support my bias
>waaaaaaaaaaaa

american understanding of history: the thread.

Honestly, this is such a clusterfuck I'm not sure I even know where to begin to correct the utter idiocy, anal /pol/yips, or plain fucking retarded shit being spouted.

>>34201559
Being an island, it's pretty logical to have a good navy to secure supply. Also, having many colonies around the globe pretty much requires a powerful navy to protect trade roads.

File: submarine-presentation-pwrpt-12-728.jpg (125KB, 728x546px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 728x546px

>>34204398
It is considered they were the most effective thing that kept Germany in the War. And the resources to put them at sea was less than the upkeep/costs on the Luftwaffe for 8 months.

Defending against Uboats kept a lot of Allied naval assets away from direct confrontation.

So US, Britain and Germany did well with them.

File: shipsbuiltsunk.gif (4KB, 428x246px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 428x246px

>>34204398
The Uboats almost starved the Brits out in 42 and early 43, then the ship construction in US got better, Escort techniques and technology improved.

UBoats were sinking them faster than replacement. If the US had not entered the War UK probably would of folded.

>>34214921
>allied
>ignoring the massive war going on elsewhere

At no point was Britain at risk of the war ending because of U-Boats.

>>34204762
You can't into math very good

1. They didn't waste massive amounts of resources, time and men fighting over a castle in Central Europe or who had the correct interpretation of the Bible.
2. They were excellent engineers, both in the mechanical and civil sense.
3. Being an island gives you a naval tradition, especially when your island is geographically isolated and covered in excellent quality wood
4. When they went places they didn't just start raping the locals and setting fire to everything. Resources were well managed and looked after.
5. Capital was invested back in the framework of the Empire, as opposed to building giant temples or on pointless land wars.
6. In addition to the territory they controlled they had de facto control of many other countries entire economies, like Argentina

Compare the places that were under British control to literally any Spanish, French, Belgian, German or Portuguese colony.

File: japaneseshiploss-v.jpg (71KB, 800x631px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x631px

>>34204398

And it was going to be ...folded in late 43 or early 44

The US Submarine force was effective not just in sinking merchants and warships. US submarines allowed the Allies to maintain intelligence on most of the Pacific throughout the war. So not just war fighting, recon, killing enemy recon, rescue and infiltration.

The presence of any submarine forces with combat capabilities changes the way the war was fought.

If Japan had not provoked the US with attacks on Pearl Harbor and U.S.-held Philippines, Guam and Wake Island the war would of been completely different. The US would of probably gotten into it but it probably would of been too late for Britain.

>>34214816
God damn why did I decide not to be a teacher.

>>34214921
>UBoats were sinking them faster than replacement. If the US had not entered the War UK probably would of folded.
This is only true before the US entered the war, and only in very limited time spans. In fact, in November 1942, the worst month of the war for shipping losses to U-Boats (5% of all shipping sunk), the US STILL out produced tonnage lost with merchant tonnage brought on line. There was never a point after Jan. 1942 when the U-Boats sunk more shipping in a single month than the Allies (read: US) produced.

>>34214936
Until Pearl Harbor The US was merely a interested bystander and the UK was going it pretty much alone until Germany screwed the pooch with Operation Barbarossa. Even then it looked bad for the UK because all they could see was successful Axis. They were cornered and seriously about to run out of war fighting materials. Look at the steps they were taking in case of invasion. Few of them relied on major resources. That is the indicator of how pressed they felt.

File: 1410465441030.png (121KB, 250x418px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 250x418px

>>34214968
>If the US had not entered the War
>This is only true before the US entered the war

>Why was the tiny nation of England able to gain mastery of the seas?

By not asking to be spoonfed and by learning how to use search engines, unlike OP.

>>34214852
Not him But >>34214837 is correct.
as in 1813 about 1/3rd of all soldiers in the british army were from ireland, But only some served in actual irish raised regiments, as many went tooling for work, found non in the rapid urbanization and mechanization of GB.

So looking at the figures you would be correct in the ORBAT for wellington in 1814 would be correct if you look purely at Regimental raising.

The independence of an independent Ireland owes exactly to the Irish regiments being decimated, creating disenfranchised civilian populace, and a lack of loyal home populace.

Even during the 2nd world war 5000 irish troops (about an eighth of their total mobilisation) deserted to join the british forces.

Its not something the irish government openly admits to, as at the end of WW2 the de Valera, (who signed a book of condolences for adolf) blocked them from working and wiped any chance of benefits, most of whom were had to seek asylum in the UK after the war.

>>34215201

>Never discuss anything
>Ever
>Just have the same AR vs AK thread every day
>Forevr

>>34215191
Dumbass. Read the post. Before he makes his qualifying "IF" statement at the end, he makes the assertion that Germany was sinking ships faster than the Allies could build them in '42 and '43. See:
>>34214921
>The Uboats almost starved the Brits out in 42 and early 43, then the ship construction in US got better,
>UBoats were sinking them faster than replacement
So. either he's too fucking ignorant to know when the US entered the war, or he made assertions that were just flat wrong.

Furthermore, the final statement about the UK folding here: >>34214921
>If the US had not entered the War UK probably would of folded.
is ridiculous, considering how much the UK was being supplied by US hulls even in 1941. As long as Britain was buying US goods, there is no way Germany could have either starved out the UK or avoided sinking US flagged shipping in job lots, thus drawing the US into the war, Pearl Harbor or not.

>>34215223
>as in 1813 about 1/3rd of all soldiers in the british army were from ireland, But only some served in actual irish raised regiments, as many went tooling for work, found non in the rapid urbanization and mechanization of GB.
>So looking at the figures you would be correct in the ORBAT for wellington in 1814 would be correct if you look purely at Regimental raising.
I'm going to need to see a source for all this. 1/3 of all ground combat forces in Spain seems ridiculously high when considering Irish demographics at that time. Just looking at Vitoria, a single battle in the entire theater, we would have to conclude that there were 19,000 Irish soldiers present. That would be 3,000 more than the Portuguese present (almost all of them engaged in active battle on the front) and twice as many compared to the Spaniards.

>>34214921
>The Uboats almost starved the Brits out in 42 and early 43
That may be because the population of the UK rapidly increased by over two million as a troop buildup for the invasion.

>>34214973
>Few of them relied on major resources.
They had so much oil they considered using it to flood the sea.


>>34215255
Not in spain but across the army all across the empire. the army in 1813 is stated to be 250,000 so thats about 83,000 across all campaigns.

The Redcoat and Religion: The Forgotten History of the British Soldier from the Age of Marlborough to the Eve of the First World War.

>>34215223
>>34215255
Just a little context here:
I know 19,000 doesn't seem like a ton in terms of modern troop numbers, but this would have been enough to entirely man all 27 of Nelson's ships of the line at Trafalgar (16 74-gun 3rd rates (plus 1 80-gun and 3 64-gun third rates), 4 98-gun second rates and 3 100-gun first rates). And he still would have had enough sailors left over to crew two fifth rate frigates. 19,000 is a ton of trained manpower in early 19th-century terms.

File: IMG_1290.png (169KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 499x499px

>>34201559
>asks why a white nation was dominant on 4chan

>>34215284
>anglos
>white
AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHA

shoo shoo slimey limey

>>34215301
> If the UK wasn't white back then, Every country now is currently full of niggers & arabs.

This is a test to see if 4chan still thinks I am a robot and prevents me from posting.

>>34215275
>so thats about 83,000 across all campaigns.
According to the 1813 Irish census, Ireland's population at the time was roughly 6.12 million. So we can say that Ireland was producing soldiers at roughly 14 per 1000 people. However, when you consider the heavy Irish presence in the RN, merchant marine, and other combat and support roles in the empire not directly enlisted as soldiers, that number would be much, much higher.

For reference, during 1813, France was only producing active native French soldiers, sailors and military personnel at 17.65 per 1000 people. So you can see how the demographics of that 1/3 number raised my eyebrows.

>>34215318
when you take into account, when you consider the large numbers of unemployed in GB (from the industrial revolution) at the time, and then you consider irelands dependency on agriculture you can understand the numbers too.

>>34215338
>when you consider the large numbers of unemployed in GB (from the industrial revolution) at the time, and then you consider irelands dependency on agriculture
The Industrial Revolution caused more demand for manpower at home during wartime production, not less, and the Irish Famines only began in 1813, which would explain an Irish influx by 1815, but not 1813.

As a driver for explaining exceedingly high military manpower per capita for a population, neither of those are particularly convincing.

>>34215372
Not really the increased automation left thousands of men to drove the country in search of work. When a lot of wellingtons army was demobbed between 1813 - 1814 it worsened the situation.

There's a reason "luddite" is a word in the dictionary.

>>34215418
>Not really the increased automation left thousands of men to drove the country in search of work
You are not factoring for wartime production. Full wartime production means increased production means increased labor requirements across all sectors even with the increase in production per capita. If it were as you were thinking, people from necessary industries wouldn't have had blanked impressment protections, especially considering how hungry the RN was for manpower.

Also, you're thinking of production techniques and labor dynamics which came into the fore from about 1820 onward. Production in the early 1800s was nowhere near as sophisticated as you seem to be thinking.

>>34215338
Either way, the same should apply for the French at the same time, especially since they're facing an existential and immediate threat in 1813. Yet you're suggesting the Irish manpower fraction was somehow higher? Something doesn't smell right.

>>34215448
>wartime production.
in 1813? What kind of things do you think they're producing? The Napoleonic wars didn't require "wartime production" like the 1st or second world war.

Regardless there was a severe lack of work in the early 1800s, and the army was seen as better than the workhouse.

>>34215469
They were still the minority, with a solid half being English (source may include welsh soldiers) and a fitfh being scots.

>>34215554
>in 1813? What kind of things do you think they're producing? The Napoleonic wars didn't require "wartime production" like the 1st or second world war.
Wow. Just wow. I don't even know what to say about this. If you actually care about this subject, anon, it's time to stop shitposting and go digging. If you're actually curious, just go to RN historical websites to look at primary documents like the ship's purser book for a 3rd rate to get a picture of just one ship of the line for the RN required for consumables. Then add the sailmaker's supplies, carpenter's supplies, outfitting, wardroom and captain's consumables, and finally all the weapons from hand to hand to 36-pounder guns. And that's just one ship.

Shipping and production of just masts, spars and cordage was running at red-hot rates through all colonies of the empire from about 1780 all the way to 1815. I really don't think you have a firm grasp on any of the actual warfighting needs beyond surface accounts of personnel and battles for this era.

>Regardless there was a severe lack of work in the early 1800s, and the army was seen as better than the workhouse.
You keep repeating this, even in the face of ubiquitous historical evidence to the contrary. For instance, if manpower was that available, why was the RN and Admiralty forced to not only persist but extend the process of impressment, even though it was so unpopular it regularly provoked riots on land and at least two mass mutinies aboard ships?

>They were still the minority
If this is the case, then the statement you agreed with and supported here >>34215223, which was >>34214837
>Most of the British imperial 'white' army was Irish.
was, in fact, incorrect just as I noted.

>>34201559
Thats what happens when you steal pretty much all of india and Africa. Then you can afford stuff.

>>34215624
>. If you actually care about this subject, anon, it's time to stop shitposting and go digging. If you're actually curious, just go to RN historical websites to look at primary documents like the ship's purser book for a 3rd rate to get a picture of just one ship of the line for the RN required for consumables. Then add the sailmaker's supplies, carpenter's supplies, outfitting, wardroom and captain's consumables, and finally all the weapons from hand to hand to 36-pounder guns. And that's just one ship.

Most of that stuff could be obtained from existing civilian stocks and would rarely come from a dedicated manufacturing line. Most guns were batch made to order.

>You keep repeating this, even in the face of ubiquitous historical evidence to the contrary. For instance, if manpower was that available, why was the RN and Admiralty forced to not only persist but extend the process of impressment, even though it was so unpopular it regularly provoked riots on land and at least two mass mutinies aboard ships?

Whilst they did have powers to impress anyone aged 18-45 the navy only impressed boys of apprentice age & existing merchant sailors, mainly because training anyone was a long process. And even with these they only had the powers to impress former criminals, Homeless & poverty stricken people.

>>34215770
>Most of that stuff could be obtained from existing civilian stocks and would rarely come from a dedicated manufacturing line. Most guns were batch made to order.
Neither of these things are correct. Again, you really need to start reading and stop typing.

>Whilst they did have powers to impress anyone aged 18-45 the navy only impressed boys of apprentice age & existing merchant sailors, mainly because training anyone was a long process. And even with these they only had the powers to impress former criminals, Homeless & poverty stricken people.
Aaaaaaand wrong again. First of all, merchant sailors, especially Company sailors but also sailors from larger merchant houses and firms, tended to have protections. Occasionally they would press some of the more likely merchant hands while at sea during stops, but this was not ubiquitous. Every commissioned voyage on any RN ship from 1800-1815 averaged a minimum of 20% untrained landsmen pressed by gangs, rated as landsman and stationed as idle waisters to start. Within two months of journey's start, most of those hands would rate higher, as many as half even joining watches and working aloft. The only time merchantmen were freely pressed is if their Captain was a shitheel and paid them off at journey's end in a naval port under the eyes of press gangs.

Protected professions included metal workers, textile industry workers, certain agrarian trades, forestry and lumber workers, shipwrights, whalers, and many others.

Once again, stop trying to shitpost with what you consider common sense and wiki-tier knowledge and go read a book.

>>34201559
You have made this thread at least 3 times on /his/. Please stop.

>>34215861
>Neither of these things are correct. Again, you really need to start reading and stop typing.
The only items that i saw from your list are probably available from civilian suppliers. And no they didn't have "wartime production" during the Napoleonic wars.

A regiment back then would be responsible for its own equipment supply, they even had commissaries to gain supplies. So only the navy & artillery would have production, and these would be built by government arsenals at Woolwich, chatham, leeds, tower of london... and the like.

Do you really think they would ever

This is by far the most stupid thing i have ever read.

>included metal workers, textile industry workers, certain agrarian trades, forestry and lumber workers, shipwrights, whalers, and many others.

What other jobs did they have back then electrician? if they didn't have one of the above trades then it was likely that they were "former criminals, Homeless & poverty stricken people." I doubt they would impress middle class bankers, clerks & the like because they were probably members of the militia.

Stop trying to pretend you have PHD in history & author books, the fact that you fail to recognise the labour troubles in the 1800s shows that you haven't studies anything, as rowntree, Kipling & others directly came into legislation because of said about trouble.

>>34215631
>Steal
>Not conquest

>>34204714
Fuck off fag. Your entire royal family and the peerage should be lynched.

>>34216016
The only people who dislike the royal family are either Muslims or communists.

You're not a Muslim communist are you?

>>34215228
If you search first you can ask better questions in detail instead of "redpill me I r ignurant". Know the difference.

>>34201559
because they are an island and that's the best way to defend an island.
they wised up after the vikings arrived and built a navy in due time

File: rembrandt_-_de_staalmeesters-_het_college_van_staalmeesters_(waardijns)_van_het_amsterdamse_lakenbereidersgilde_-_google_art_project-1493F4EEF357DF7B167.jpg (3MB, 5918x4000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5918x4000px

OP is a faggot

>>34215973
>Stop trying to pretend you have PHD in history & author books, the fact that you fail to recognise the labour troubles in the 1800s shows that you haven't studies anything, as rowntree, Kipling & others directly came into legislation because of said about trouble.
Is this even English? Are you posting through Google translate?

As for the rest of your asspull bullshit, I'm not even going to bother.It's abundantly clear that you said some shit that seemed like common sense to you to look cool on the interwebs, but now that someone has called you on it you're incapable of just swallowing your pride and learning something.

>>34202119
>building it's navy
>building it's navy
>building it is navy

>>34202231
>there own
their own

>>34203150
>navy's
navies
>>34204694
>its not required
it's
>>34204723
>is not available
are not available
>>34204854
>too
to
>>34214921
>would of
would have
>>34214954
>countries
countries'
>>34214955
>would of
would have
>>34215418
>wellingtons
Wellington's

There seem to be a lot English language learners in this thread. Welcome!

>>34216990
did these thread get moved to /lit?/

File: 14572429_240610956357638_3488233533339814503_n.jpg (15KB, 480x610px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x610px

>>34216990

>>34216990
>There seem to be a lot English language learners in this thread. Welcome! <Sic>
But my dear fellow, you're using " 's " but, also " s' " You should take an English language & grammar learners course. You're welcome.

>>34217087
Huh?

>>34217087
I implore you to reconsider your post, lest you appear as a dumbass to all the world.

>>34201559
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5M_vn_3deE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze8Y1gokHyA&t=3s

>>34213995
My galleys had Turkish slave rowers, therefore I give all the credit to the Turks for the might of my navy.

>>34214954
Finally a quality post