British """""army"""""

The Anglo is not a land based creature, instead it seeks to prey on the ocean waves, its homeland of the British isles little more than a glorified naval base on which it launches its acts of piracy and perfidy, preferring to drown its victims rather than overwhelm them with a storm of swords and shot. The Anglo owns the sea in the same way the Frenchman owns Paris.

>The Anglo owns the sea in the same way the Frenchman owns Paris.

So, not anymore?

>"""""""""""""""""" """""army""""" """"""""""""""""""

You can make Wikipedia battle charts like this about literally any country.

It's a special type of butthurt that makes an user pretend the Brits weren't the victors in the overwhelming majority of their encounters and that more than that, they were typically outnumbered.
Pick a few bad cherries in the Great British orchard all you please; theirs is the greatest nation history knows of.

Make one about Australia, go

Bohemia/Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic please

>messed around in North Africa til the yanks arrived
>messed around in Asia til the yanks arrived
>messed around in Europe til the yanks arrived

Yeah you beat up some Italians and manage to not get conquered in time to get saved by larger, greater nations.

Too many great victories to choose from

Literally the oldest one in the book

well you did slaughter those emus real good. real proud of you.

finland strönk.

If Major Meredith was in the fight, how was the strength only 2MACHINEGUNS? CHECK M8 Mateists

>It's a special type of butthurt that makes an user pretend the Brits weren't the victors in the overwhelming majority of their encounters
Actually I'd say it's 50/50 between win and losse in battles overall

>and that more than that, they were typically outnumbered.
Wrong, it really varies too
What doesnt however is the fact that they were on the most numerous side in 90% of wars they fought in Europe

In one of my youtube videos I said that the U.S. were the most important allied force in the Pacific and I got this steaming mad anglo in the comments calling me a moron for forgetting Burma.

*about literally any relevant country that actually fought wars

*about literally any relevant country that actually fought wars in which it wasn't constantly outnumbered

>Actually I'd say it's 50/50 between win and losse in battles overall
demonstrably untrue.

>Wrong, it really varies too
Again, it's not wrong and you can go and do an analysis if you don't believe me
>What doesnt however is the fact that they were on the most numerous side in 90% of wars they fought in Europe
>in Europe
You move the goal posts and you're still wrong.
This is a stupid thing to say, even in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, enormous nations such as Prussia and Russia came in and out of the war, even on different sides. The only relevant constant was the UK, a nation with less than half the land and numbers that France had.
>Britain wins the vast the majority of her wars.
>At the culmination of the war, Britain has a numeric advantage (as is the case with almost all victors in almost all wars)
>Faggots on Veeky Forums who only read the Belligerents section of the Wikipedia page thinks that means Britain had the advantage.
90%?
What bullshit.
Wellington had 31,000 British soldiers and a rag-tag assortment of allies, most of whom had never seen battle. Like it or not, Napoleon, commanding considerably more men, supposedly elite veterans, was already losing before the Prussians showed up.
The Imperial guard fled in terror when fighting a defensive war against a nation that barely invest in their army.