Biggest BTFOs of history

The worst part about the whole thing is that our navy went from that to shit in less than a decade. How the fuck do you go from having a navy so fearsome that the British demand a 3:1 advantage before engagement to complete shit in less than a decade? Seriously, what the fuck?

Thanks Obama

Don't know too much about American naval history, care to give the TL;DR as to why the US navy was "shit" after 1812?

...

a defeat so bad that it destroyed an entire empire.

if Italy is beating you it's time to dissolve your empire

The short and sweet of it is that the U.S. completely neglected their navy after the War of 1812 until the 1840's. Then they maintained until the Civil War, built up during the Civil War then completely neglected the Navy again until the 1880's (1890 really). Once you get to the Spanish-American War you see the build up of the modern American Navy.

Not him, but I was under the impression that the U.S. let its navy slide in the early 19th century because of rapprochement with Britain and essentially sheltering under British naval dominance to secure trade, which was pretty much the only thing they needed a navy for.

Why is its decline such a disaster?

Crassus was a fucking idiot and I am glad his son dies the way he did. What a fucking buffoon. God I hate Crassus so much.

It's not that surprising. The US had a tendency to throw out their military after every war until surprisingly recently.

Ehh, we didn't really need it, except when we were fucking around in South America and the Pacific

t. spartacus

>and essentially sheltering under British naval dominance to secure trade
Didn't really help in the early years. Caribbean piracy was still a major thing and the U.S. lost 3000 ships to pirates in the Caribbean in the 1820's alone.

Not the Navy, though. The Navy was intended as permanent fixture of the U.S. and was continued between the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Also it's not really that the U.S. tossed out their Navy between 1812 and the 1840's, but most of the ships being built were halted for decades.

>except when we were fucking around in South America and the Pacific
That's pretty much all we were doing in this period, outside of the continental expansion, and we still declined to maintain our Navy.

Austria-Hungary was disbanding by the time that battle took place and the Hungarian and Slavic soldiers where either going home or didn't follow orders anymore.

It's pretty pitiable that Dagos have to celebrate a victory so much even when their opponent was in the final stages of dissolution.

I always see these battles where russians get BTFO posted, yet there doesn't seem to be a stereotype that russians suck at battles. Did they have a bigger disregard for human life and run human wave tactics, or significantly worse gear? What was their style of fighting?

Watling street.

Navies are fucking expensive. The eastern Romans did the same shit, despite LITERALLY being saved from total conquest and mass rape/enslavement/the death of their faith by their navy a few times. When you don't NEED the navy, it looks a like like a massive money sink. And to be fair, it is and always has been/will be.

Land forces are much cheaper, and it wasn't really seen as likely that a European force would-or even could-invade America anyway.

There's also ideological elements to consider. Jefferson had some REALLY bad ideas about the navy that came from his own moral and ideological views.

some girl fucks up entire years of conquering and gets backstabbed later

our greatest naval victory

Wait, a schooner sunk a fucking ironclad? Get your shit together Peru.

Just read the article, that shits hilarious. Peru blew themselves the fuck out with that one. Why the fuck would the captain of the ironclad be so determined to chase a damn schooner around near a fucking reef?

But that stereotype does exist though...

Regardless, most serious Russian defeats (heavily generalizing here) were caused by organizational or logistical problems that emerged from their enormous and inhospitable territory.

>I always see these battles where russians get BTFO posted, yet there doesn't seem to be a stereotype that russians suck at battles

Because they won about as often as they lost. Even in this very war you could also easily post examples of them BTFOing the Austro-Hungarians (e.g. Battle of Galicia) or Ottomans (e.g. Sarikamish).

el chileANO jkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjk

To add to this, look at the Battle of Tannenberg in context. While it was happening, the Russians annihilated the 1st and 4th Austrian armies in Galicia, inflicting casualties (over 400,000 men and most of the skilled officers) from which the Austro-Hungarian Empire never recovered, while trapping 100,000 of their best troops at Prezmyl. It was only due to the dual German encirclements at Tannenberg and Masurian Lakes that the Russians weren't able to press those victories and knock Austria out of the war in a few months. And while "lol Austria" is basically a meme by now, the fact is that a large well-armed army is still dangerous, especially in that time period where the gap in capabilities between armies was nowhere near what it was in e.g. WW2.

Overall the Russian Army's performance in WW1 was decent. They just couldn't measure up to the Germans man for man and general for general. But then few could really until 1918.

/r/'ing that french/italy battle on pont saint louis

shit was 11/10

>Contemporary estimate

[spoiler]Never knew if it was fake or not since it got deleted from Wikipedia.[/spoiler]

>Panzer corps
>7 working tanks

Must have been mauled something fierce.

>70-80 assault guns

It wasn't the whole corps.

>only military victories

Have some imagination

...

>tfw 3000 votes away from an almost monochromic map
damn....

This picture does not give enough justice.
The Russian fleet was the Baltic fleet, for reference. When the war began with the Japs, they were called upon to sail from the Baltic Sea to Japan. Unfortunately, though the Suez was recently built, they were not allowed to pass because Suez was under control of the British. So they sailed around the southern tip of Africa, then through the Indian Ocean and Indonesia to arrive in the Sea of Japan. Basically, the fleet was fucking exhausted and had also lost other ships due to difficulties.
Not only that, but the war had already ended.

So once they arrived, the Japs, well prepared, fucked them up with superior firepower and well-rested crews.

There was a snowballs chance in hell that the Russians would win that one.

It's not fake
A buttdevasted Italian deleted the specific page but you can still find it here

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_France#First_Army

Lmao

What idead did jefferson Have about the navy

>when even dems are sick of taxes

>Spanish tactics

Also I believed they were further delayed in Madagascar for a funeral because a crewman died in the way

A few minor battles is hardly much to be proud of, considering the royal navy had complete naval control for the entire war.

Every time the spanish army is supported by the french one it ends in a fucking big disaster.

...

...

>7 tanks
>6 tanks lost
metal

Germans were so butthurt of original battle of Tannerberg, that they tried to overwrite old one?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald

...

...

...

>what if we make the navy be nothing but harbor defense gunboats that are
>too small to put out to sea
>unable ot move and shoot at the same time
>too small to even reliably move from harbor to harbor
He figured that the navy had no business being able to do anything but literally defend America. And since it's a navy, that means they defend harbors. And nothing else, apparently.

it's not fake, but most of the other WW2 battle-entries regarding Italy are fake as fuck, like the one about an immaginary "battle of the sirte" with 100.000 italians deaths to freezing
t. wop