- War of the Spanish Succession: The British and Dutch infantry were the best in Europe, hands down. The British were well-equipped, had many skilled officers, solid artillery and their cavalry was also very capable (see Palmes' defeat of the elite French Gendarmes at Blenheim with either comparable or inferior numbers of standard Horse). It would be disingenuous to grant all of the credit in the very numerous Allied victories to non-British parts of the armies or to Marlborough's genius. The British army was recognized by contemporaries, with the infantry in particular noted for maintaining perfect discipline under fire, and being able to dish out as well due to a perfected platoon drill and high-calibre muskets.
I haven't studied the Quadruple Alliance much yet, so if you can fill me in on any humiliations for Britain in it, please do.
- War of the Austrian Succession: Though not Britain's best war, once again the British infantry prove themselves on the field. The worst defeat of the war, Fontenoy, sees the British (unfortunately led by a young rash dude) pretty much alone attacking a line of French entrenchments after the half-hearted Dutch assault fails. The British alone come very close to winning the battle, cutting deep into the French lines and defeating the French Guards, until, like at Cannae, they could no longer redeploy/manoeuvre, were outflanked by enemy reserves and heavily defeated.
- Seven Years War: In fact, I think I'm going to claim that the British army was generally awesome in this war, despite some embarrassments in North America. The burden of proof is on you to show me up.
- American Revolutionary War: So this must be the first case of 'farmers' you're talking about. A laughably ignorant claim. Trying to consistently occupy enormous tracts of hostile territory in a land thousands of miles away from your home and with a relatively small army severely lacking in cavalry and supplies, whilst being engaged by a rebel professional army aided by guerrilla-style-terrorists/patriots, plus a coalition of France, Spain and the Dutch internationally? Then don't forget the strong movement of opposition to war against the Americans within Britain. Sure, I guess you can call all that 'farmers'. Sounds like a walk in the park.
In all seriousness, the British army was definitely not at a high point between the 7YW and the Duke of York's reforms after the 90's, which I admit. That being said, despite its glaring weaknesses at this time, the British army still won most of the battles it fought against the rebels. To be expected, I guess.
- French Revolutionary Wars: Kind of meh, but not any worse than the performance of the other Coalition forces.
- Napoleonic Wars: Again, I'm going to sit back and place the burden of proof on you to disprove me when I claim that the British army overall accounted for itself very well in the field. I'm not saying the French had it easy in Spain, but please show me how bad the British troops were.
I'd like you to explain to me how the British were worse than other contemporary armies in WW1 and WW2 -admitting that Singapore was an utter disgrace and France in 1940 is really nothing to be proud of at all. As for the Boer Wars, I really have not studied them in depth, but again I don't think anyone would claim that the boers weren't an extremely potent and indomitable force who knew exactly how to fight in their homeland.
Sure, we can't really compare with the Americans in both Gulf wars and Afghanistan, and there have been some notable cases where the disparity in capabilities was apparent, but the British army is currently pretty experienced and professional. Its reputation is mostly undermined by the effect of budget cuts and silly
like what that Daily Mail article points out.
As for the Falklands, I'm kind of wtf'ing here. Please explain to me how the Argentinians kicked British ass. I am well aware that there was a lot of luck involved in the British victory (which was needed, because they were
only attacking a superior, entrenched force half the world away from home, but I guess you wouldn't count that) but there was also a lot of audacity, resolve, and sheer operational mettle too.
Re: The Chat Thread (Read OP)
Originally Posted by Sir Adrian
