Why is Britain so good at "tactical victories"?

Why is Britain so good at "tactical victories"?

Attached: being good at war.png (641x728, 227K)

It's almost as though saving your entire army from an encirclement is a miracle and would go on to save you later on. Dunkirk was a defensive miracle.

Also, any attack which doesn't succeed is by default a victory for the defender.

Oh, no, never mind. You're not actually interested in discussing these battles and their context in the war. No, you just wanna go on about 'le cowardly anglo'.

Fuck off to

perhaps its because tactical victory means that intended goal was reached but i aint sure enough so correct me if im wrong

Attached: 1521232518430.jpg (400x400, 29K)

S E E T H I N G

Attached: 1521822866473.png (654x163, 43K)

>screenshotting such a bad post

The whole background of the Corunna battle is hilarous

>After the surrender of a French army corps at Bailén[18] and the loss of Portugal, Napoleon was convinced of the peril he faced in Spain.

>The French, all but masters of Spain in June, stood with their backs to the Pyrenees, clutching at Navarre and Catalonia. They did not know if even these two footholds could be maintained in the face of a Spanish attack. By October French strength in Spain, including garrisons, was about 75,000 soldiers. They were facing 86,000 Spanish troops[15] with Spain's 35,000 British allies en route.[20]

>Starting in October 1808 Napoleon led the French on a brilliant[27] offensive involving a massive double envelopment of the Spanish lines. The attack began in November and has been described as "an avalanche of fire and steel".[28]

>The main British army, under Moore, had advanced to Salamanca and were joined by Hope's detachment on 3 December when Moore received news that the Spanish forces had suffered several defeats. He considered that to avoid disaster he must give up and retreat back to Portugal.[31][c]

>Moore, before retreating, received intelligence[32] of Soult's 16,000 man corps' scattered and isolated position at Carrión[33] and that the French were unaware of the British army's position. On 15 December, he seized this opportunity to advance on the French near Madrid, hoping that to defeat Soult and possibly divert Napoleon’s forces.[34]

Attached: _77721623_img_1483ss.jpg (450x450, 61K)

>Once Moore made his presence known Napoleon responded with customary swiftness and decisiveness. The Spanish were defeated and no longer an organized threat. His army was generally concentrated while the enemy was dispersed. With the initiative firmly in his grasp, Napoleon seized the chance to destroy Britain's only field army.[39]

>When Moore realized he was in serious danger of having to face Napoleon he called off his advance and went into headlong retreat.[40] This epic dash and chase would cover more than 250 miles (400 km).

>The retreat of the British, closely followed by their French pursuers, took them through mountainous terrain in dreadful conditions of cold and snow and was marked by exhausting marches, privation, and suffering. Moore was joined at Astorga by General Romana leading the remnants of Spanish forces and Romana proposed they make a stand. However Moore declined and continued his retreat north.[44] On the march between Astorga and Betanzos the British army left 3,000 wounded behind.[11]

>Napoleon manoeuvred to cut Moore off from a retreat to Portugal. Moore had already planned that he would have to be ready to make a run for the coast. On 28 November Moore had ordered his Corunna contingent under Baird to embark from Vigo while the main British army was to fall back on Portugal but by 28 December he had decided to embark the whole army at Vigo.[46] Abandoning Astorga on 30 December, he would manage to keep ahead of the pursuing French and avoid a major battle. Moore ordered Crawford and two brigades as well as the troop transport ships to the port of Vigo.

>Napoleon would write to his brother Joseph[47] on 31 December:
>"My vanguard is near Astorga; the English are running away as fast as they can ... they are abhorred by everybody; they have carried off everything, and then maltreated and beaten the inhabitants. There could not have been a better sedative for Spain than to send an English army.[48]"

Attached: 0fbezxr.jpg (411x372, 81K)

>When it was clear that he could not bring Moore to battle, Napoleon left the pursuit of the British to Soult's corps with Marshal Ney in support and took the bulk of the army, some 45,000 men, back to Madrid.[49] Napoleon decided to leave Spain to attend to other pressing matters; the Austrians were about to declare war on France, and would soon invade Italy and Bavaria.[50]

>Several times the discipline of the British broke down, on 28 December British troops pillaged and looted Benavente,[51] at Bembibre on 2 January, hundreds of British soldiers got so inebriated on wine, and not for the first or last time,[52] that they had to be abandoned and were captured or cut to pieces by the pursuing French dragoons.[53] Similar incidents took place including one in which French pursuit was so close there was not time enough for Paget, commander of the British rear guard, to complete the hanging of three British soldiers, as an example, for the pillaging a Spanish town.[54]

>Rain storms and confusion caused the British main body to partially lose order and break up with thousands straggling. Some 500 British were captured by the pursuing French dragoons, with hundreds more stragglers captured by Franceschi's cavalry on the 10th and several hundred more on the 11th.[63] The loss of troops between Lugo and Betanzos was greater than all of that of the preceding retreat.[64] Eventually, on 11 January, the British main body reached the port of Corunna in northwest Spain, where they had hoped to find the fleet to take them back to England.[65]

Attached: 0fbezxrs.jpg (529x627, 86K)

What is hilarious?

The whole

>"Oh noes, I may have to face the legendary Napoleon, better run away as fast as possible"

And then how the British army crumbled into shambles of undisciplined pillagers and drunkards during the flight

You're the same sort of people that make fun of England fpr lauding Agincourt despite losing the war yet you hypocritically spout this shit despite the fact that Britain won

>don’t want to face the world’s greatest commander so retreat as your ally twice your size got destroyed

That’s a sensible decision. You would run from Napoleon too.

Not really
I'm the kind of person who think Agincourt was hilarous (retards charging in the mud lmao) and a pathetic display from France

I can recognize a hilarously pathetic display when I see one, be it from frogs or from bongs

Oh, fair enough

Because they had a world class navy which gave them a degree of flexibility and mobility that no European power had enjoyed since the Viking Age.

>Moore was joined at Astorga by General Romana leading the remnants of Spanish forces and Romana proposed they make a stand. However Moore declined and continued his running away

>at Bembibre on 2 January, hundreds of British soldiers got so inebriated on wine, and not for the first or last time,[52] that they had to be abandoned and were captured or cut to pieces by the pursuing French dragoons.[53]

> French pursuit was so close there was not time enough for Paget, commander of the British rear guard, to complete the hanging of three British soldiers, as an example, for the pillaging a Spanish town.[54]

The absolute state of the british army

Attached: 1418845764561.jpg (303x306, 24K)

not him, but completely re-read his post
he is defending the concept of tactical victories like dunkirk you autism

*the winning army

Because when you have naval supremacy, as long as your troops aren't killed you can redeploy then in near any coastal area and start the war again. That's why, in case you forgot, Britain won both of those wars.

>That's why, in case you forgot, Britain won both of those wars.

Pretty sure Russia won these wars while Britain hid

>while Britain hid
Yeah, "hid" in fucking Toulouse and Lübeck
Stay mad Pierre

>*Ivan
FTFY

>Britain won both of those wars.

>got bombed to shits for 4 years then piggybacked on USA's back all the way to Berlin.
Britains biggest contribution to the allied victory was being a Island off the coast of mainland Europe.

Attached: 1510157779256.jpg (312x345, 21K)

Hans*

I mean, the UK lost more men total. The US was vital, but the liberation of North Africa, France, Low Counties and Western Germany was pretty much a group work.

>mfw it's this bunch of cowardly drunkards that burned the White House in the war of 1812

The absolute state of the USA

Attached: index.png (203x248, 7K)

Attached: 1512918504657.png (645x729, 62K)

t. Monty

>at Bembibre on 2 January, hundreds of British soldiers got so inebriated on wine, and not for the first or last time

Did they confuse the British for the French?

When you face an existential threat, you take long odds in the chance of victory as it's your only chance.

If it's an expeditionary force or you are playing a long game, a safe short-term setback is preferable over a potential long-term disaster.

Are you implying that Napoleon never had a humiliating retreat? Or does it not count because he had the tendancy to abandon his armies to their fate while he grabbed the fastest horse or ship and ran away back to France?

Attached: Minard.png (2003x955, 671K)

Napoleon conquered all the way to Moscow, the Russians fleeing before him, and then only withdrew (unforced by any enemy) because winter and starvation were killing his army in that shithole Russia was

Comparing this to some cowardly British general running away in terror at the very sight of Napoleon's shadow is quite dishonest

Do you know anything about the state of the Spanish army at this time? Have you ever read anything other than a wiki article on the subject, do you know they were using canon 200 years out of date?
Fuck off back to /int/ faggot.

>Brits outnumbered
>much larger Spanish force BTFO
>Can get away
>dude let's just stay and get wiped out lmao

Why are /int/ cross posters so autistic?

So if you keep making your intended goal to lose, you win every battle?

Attached: 1519515804626.jpg (1280x720, 80K)

It's sort of like if there was 1 guy, and then he was attacked by 11 stronk guys, and he managed to take down 3 while avoiding hits from all the others until the cops showed up/he managed to escape.
That's a "tactical victory"

>2 monks vs four knights
>Convert 2 knights from behind walls
A tactical victory.

Britain is always on the most numerous side tho, so shit comparison

They want to follow the French strategy of getting completely surrounded and then just surrendering your entire army instead of evacuating to safe ground before coming back to fight again.

The thinking mans victory is to actually just completely lose altogether and them claim to win because your allies let you.

Not everyone has a nice island they can hide on after their army got BTFO

Okay, but Britain did?
What do you expect? Britain's an island, its army has always been pathetic. Its navy was where it's at.

They seem to think real life is a videogame and you can throw away thousands of lives without consequences.

France had a nice north african coastline to hide on though

No need to hide when you can just surrender, though.

>keeping the fight overseas while your mainland (and thus your entire population) is held as hostage by the enemy

Retards who spout this unironically amaze me

>Britain won both of those wars.

WE

Yes, Napoleon certainly had the last laugh...

>Germany won WW2

Attached: WN1fTUU.png (442x500, 52K)

So is this actually a thread on tactical victories and Britain or is it just a thinly veiled excuse to shit on the country?

I'll atempt to actually answer OPs question before shitposting:
>Why is Britain so good at "tactical victories"?
Because of their navy, they go wherever they want and bring whatever they want. At least the used to.
Plus their home is an island fortress, having a secure home-front and the best navy made the brits pretty much invulnerable as far as supply and logistics went.
Brits also (because of their navy) controlled a vast amount of commerce and colonies worldwide.
No frogs one the mainland could ever compete with that. Leave those eurofags alone long enough and they find away to lose all by themselves. Every time.
secure homeland + control of the seas = rule the world basically
The power base has shifted but still remains the same.
>t. enteral anglo

Attached: 1517107989060.jpg (1294x3932, 480K)

UK always rely on Ally also, they're unable to do anything worth without...

It's a shame this image doesn't show the dutch conquest of england as well

That's because it wasn't a conquest, it was a glorious revolution. Not just a revolution, mind. A glorious revolution. The kind of revolution you can be proud of. It was glorious. So glorious that it was worth bending over and taking it up the bunghole gloriously from a foreign power. That's the measure of the gloriousness of this revolution. There's a similar one underway today.

it's one of the thing that pisses me off the most about this board,
edgy teens observing history like they do a warhammer fantasy game

1) Basically because de Britts have never really engaged in a fully fleged war in Europe. Napoleon or the Hitler was fighting on 7 fronts... the british one being just one or two minor fronts. Defending is quite easy when you have enough strenght and the advantageous insularity.

2) Dunkirk was not a miracle (glad many of you just recently discovered the event) but rather a lousy, generous decision by Germany. Hitler could have crushed the Allies right there, but wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war anyway.

Take Phillip II of Spain's Invincible Armada... the british basically did nothing ad were just so lucky, benefitting from a series of very fortunate coincidences, including incompetence, weather, misfortune and all...

The british always need a gang to feel brave

On the other hand, the British were incapable of setting a foot and keeping it in South America, for over 175 years... since 1650 Spain is no longer a threat in terms of security and in a very poor state.

>waaahhh waaahhh you paid people to beat me up that's not le fair!

Go cry elsewhere, Brits are better at diplomacy

You see it especially in the "why didn't X just conquer You?" threads. It's like their brains cannot perceive a situation where a country wouldn't want to mindlessly blob over another, throwing away tens of thousands of lives in the process, for no reason other than they can and to get 4 new territories for the victory conditions.

You know the Spanish armada were only scattered by the storm AFTER they had been defeated at Gravelines?

There was no serious confrontation... the Armada actually never made it to be a direct threat... then the leftovers were indeed scattered again and again as they made their way to Spain, circling GB anticlockwise... this explains the taste for orange jam both in Scotland and Ireland...

Battle of Cartagena (currently Colombia) in 1741 very much sums up Britain's overall capacity...

Please learn english

la concha de tu madre, maricon

P-please learn f-french

Attached: sacrebleu.jpg (594x396, 17K)

Why bother with a language even your former colonies are rejecting ?? Plus, you keep electing presidents who are wannaby Napoleons: Sarko, Hollande and now Makaron... all under 165cms...

Still unable to beat a regular country

Stay mad and inferior bong

I mean I could list all the examples where you're wrong but I'm sure you'd just move the goal posts, kid.

What glorious country do you come from?

>island makes allies on the continent to fight on the continent
No shit dumbass, do you think any other country fought us one-on-one?