Washington Named Britain's Greatest Foe

[CountDeMoney]

I think he managed time and again to withdraw while preserving the fighting strength of his army which is never easy and seems particularly rare in the 18th century.

Even in the 19th century with increased mobility, TEH MOST REVEREND Robert E. Lee, Lord Protector of Dumbfuckistan, couldn't even manage to do it all the way to the end.

[Ideologue]

What's so Goddamned great about the Boers?  You realize that, were they alive today, Boers would be Republicans, right?

[stjaba]

George Washington understood war.  So did Napoleon (who considered Washington the only general superior to himself).

That's interesting- do you have a cite for that? I'm not skeptical, just curious as to the sourc.e

[alfred russel]

Hey now, those were Maryland boys. 

I blame the subordinates.  Washington did have a big weakness and that was relying on people whom he felt would be alright in the long run - he didn't have that instinct to weed out the chaff.  A well dug in army in the 18th century should have been able to humble an attacker, but too many of the colonial leaders were ready to break and run too fast.

Washington also had a big problem in that his officer pool was a lot of chaff. The military tradition was all on the British side. He ended up letting a lot of senior positions go to Europeans, in some cases with sketchy backgrounds and a language barrier, because hardly anyone else over here knew what they were doing.

[CountDeMoney]

What's so Goddamned great about the Boers?  You realize that, were they alive today, Boers would be Republicans, right?

Because the Boers wrote the fucking book on asymmetrical warfare against a military fighting it with the last war's army.  Sound familiar?

[Ideologue]

If people listened to me and we fought every war like the one against Japan, that problem wouldn't really come up.

[HisMajestyBOB]

If people listened to me and we fought every war like the one against Japan, that problem wouldn't really come up.

Hard to provide logistical support to massed bomber fleets in the 1700s. Horses just can't carry that much fuel.

[Ideologue]

If people listened to me and we fought every war like the one against Japan, that problem wouldn't really come up.

Hard to provide logistical support to massed bomber fleets in the 1700s. Horses just can't carry that much fuel.

I'm pretty sure he meant Vietnam and Iraq, Mr. Smarty-Pants.

[Sophie Scholl]

I don't get why Washington's role at Yorktown is being discounted. Without Rochambeau it wouldn't have worked, but without Washington's army there wouldn't have been a siege.

I'm confused.  I thought Washington brought some regiments down from the north after Cornwallis had been bottled up by Gates.

"Granny" Gates wasn't involved after his debacle at the battle of Camden.  Greene was in charge of the Southern Army at that time.  Also, A large portion of the officers in the Continental Army received their commissions and advancements due to friends in Congress, not the actions of Washington.  He was hamstrung on numerous occasions by his favorites being passed over or neglected by political opponents.

[grumbler]

If people listened to me and we fought every war like the one against Japan, that problem wouldn't really come up.

Indeed.  Global Naval Power FTW!

[grumbler]

If people listened to me and we fought every war like the one against Japan, that problem wouldn't really come up.

Hard to provide logistical support to massed bomber fleets in the 1700s. Horses just can't carry that much fuel.

Japan's defeat was not caused by massed bomber fleets.  It was caused by massed naval fleets.  The bombing offensive against Japan was ineffective until the last eight months of the war, when it destroyed factories and workshops that weren't producing because they had no materials with which to produce.

[Viking]

If people listened to me and we fought every war like the one against Japan, that problem wouldn't really come up.

Hard to provide logistical support to massed bomber fleets in the 1700s. Horses just can't carry that much fuel.

Japan's defeat was not caused by massed bomber fleets.  It was caused by massed naval fleets.  The bombing offensive against Japan was ineffective until the last eight months of the war, when it destroyed factories and workshops that weren't producing because they had no materials with which to produce.

No, Japans defeat was caused by massed naval fleets supported by massed bomber fleets destroying japans of lesser magnitude massed naval and bomber fleets which enabled the massed land armies to concentrate to destroy certain outposts which enabled massed bomber fleets to destroy the japanese homeland while the massed fleets prepared to transport the massed armies to japan.

Had the US had a bomber capable of bombing japan from bases in alaska in August 1945 all of this would have been unecessary.

[HisMajestyBOB]

If people listened to me and we fought every war like the one against Japan, that problem wouldn't really come up.

Hard to provide logistical support to massed bomber fleets in the 1700s. Horses just can't carry that much fuel.

Japan's defeat was not caused by massed bomber fleets.  It was caused by massed naval fleets.  The bombing offensive against Japan was ineffective until the last eight months of the war, when it destroyed factories and workshops that weren't producing because they had no materials with which to produce.

It's even harder to put a flight deck on a ship-of-the-line.
Or make it water-tight and submersible. Torpedoes could probably be done, however.

[CountDeMoney]

Had the US had a bomber capable of bombing japan from bases in alaska in August 1945 all of this would have been unecessary.

All those houses and factories made of teak wood and rice paper would've burned just as quickly sooner than later.

[Razgovory]

If people listened to me and we fought every war like the one against Japan, that problem wouldn't really come up.

Hard to provide logistical support to massed bomber fleets in the 1700s. Horses just can't carry that much fuel.

Japan's defeat was not caused by massed bomber fleets.  It was caused by massed naval fleets.  The bombing offensive against Japan was ineffective until the last eight months of the war, when it destroyed factories and workshops that weren't producing because they had no materials with which to produce.

No, Japans defeat was caused by massed naval fleets supported by massed bomber fleets destroying japans of lesser magnitude massed naval and bomber fleets which enabled the massed land armies to concentrate to destroy certain outposts which enabled massed bomber fleets to destroy the japanese homeland while the massed fleets prepared to transport the massed armies to japan.

Had the US had a bomber capable of bombing japan from bases in alaska in August 1945 all of this would have been unecessary.

And if the US had nuclear tipped ICBMs the war would have been over by December 10th.  The Aluetians proved to be a poor staging area for bombers anyway.  There really wasn't a good place to bomb Japan from till late '44.  Interestingly, one of the most effective uses of US bombers in the Japan was mine laying.