War. .. >Carthage in flames art of war
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#24 - Tazdingo (02/14/2014) [-]
>Carthage in flames
User avatar #140 to #24 - xxhadesflamesxx (02/14/2014) [-]
don't forget to salt the ground
#43 to #24 - botherandbefuddle (02/14/2014) [-]
All of rome was amazed at such a victory.
#168 to #43 - anon (02/14/2014) [-]
I like greek states more than Rome... Epeiron is my favourite.
#197 to #168 - anon (02/14/2014) [-]
Γιαννενάρα γαμώτο μας τελειώνει το χόρτο , όμως δεν μας πειράζει είμαστε καμικάζι.
#14 - bithcwits (02/14/2014) [-]
Manoeuvre warfare and no Alexander the Great or any Mongols?
Manoeuvre warfare and no Alexander the Great or any Mongols?
#35 to #14 - electrictroll (02/14/2014) [-]
Well, showing off mongols fights are pretty pointless as they are pretty much the Mc hammer of warfare.
User avatar #57 to #35 - angelwithashotgun (02/14/2014) [-]
as in, "HAMMERTIME! we win!"?
#67 to #57 - electrictroll (02/14/2014) [-]
As in "Can't touch this!".
#68 to #67 - angelwithashotgun (02/14/2014) [-]
That's actually pretty accurate
User avatar #220 to #35 - bithcwits (02/15/2014) [-]
Read that as "Mc hammer" as in "Mcdonalds", rather than "em cee hammer", and thought you were referencing either an obscure Scottish hero, or a dwarf.

I should get some sleep.
#119 - holmesc (02/14/2014) [-]
#160 to #119 - testaburger has deleted their comment [-]
#163 to #160 - holmesc (02/14/2014) [-]
Yesh rome 2?

God help your soul.
User avatar #200 to #119 - gatorade (02/14/2014) [-]
Don't bring that up..... Rome 2 is just... NO! I can't let it bring me to tears again!

#217 to #200 - holmesc (02/14/2014) [-]
that's why you don't play that **** and go back to others
User avatar #219 to #217 - gatorade (02/14/2014) [-]
Rome Total war with Europa Barbarorum.... IT'S GLORIOUS!!!!!!!!
#100 - anneliesebrown (02/14/2014) [-]
Let's not forget this Austrian masterpiece of tactics
#189 to #100 - buldu (02/14/2014) [-]
It makes me happy that this has become a thing. Pic relevant, Ottomans' FW
#11 - angelwithashotgun (02/14/2014) [-]
you include Hannibal, but not the battle of Cannae?   
You're a disgrace
you include Hannibal, but not the battle of Cannae?

You're a disgrace
#12 to #11 - anaklusmos (02/14/2014) [-]
Thought the same thing, it's a damn shame.
#13 to #12 - angelwithashotgun (02/14/2014) [-]
Hannibal had enough great victories to fill this entire list, instead he includes a battle that he lost and a victory by the US over insurgents   
Hannibal had enough great victories to fill this entire list, instead he includes a battle that he lost and a victory by the US over insurgents

#15 to #13 - anaklusmos (02/14/2014) [-]
It was kind of a landmark victory for the Romans. Their last defeat to Hannibal was so thorough that it forced them to fight in a much smarter way (which they hadn't previously done before or so I heard). Also the insurgency is more for relevance than anything, it showcases modern warfare tactics and how we fight shadow organizations like Al-Queda.
It was kind of a landmark victory for the Romans. Their last defeat to Hannibal was so thorough that it forced them to fight in a much smarter way (which they hadn't previously done before or so I heard). Also the insurgency is more for relevance than anything, it showcases modern warfare tactics and how we fight shadow organizations like Al-Queda.
#16 to #15 - angelwithashotgun (02/14/2014) [-]
a victory by a force three times as large, with superiority in every single way

I am not impressed
User avatar #39 to #16 - joeyliquid ONLINE (02/14/2014) [-]
Admittedly the force is obscenely larger and superior in every way. But they're trying not to massacre every single person and destroy every building in the damn way, insurgents are simply extremists. They will kill themselves and destroy everything around them in the name of their ****** god, if you tried to match them equally you would simply end up with more causalities then you want and civilian casualties. It's impressive because the idea of war is to win and to lose the minimum amount of men and resources. It's just that superior force had to abide certain rules and had certain goals to reach while **** tard insurgents had to praise allah and kill everyone. See my point? It's impressive.
#54 to #39 - angelwithashotgun (02/14/2014) [-]
There is nothing impressive about carpet bombing the city before rolling in the tanks covered by snipers against what is basically a militia.

The only reason this battle is on the list is that the author is american, and, I am guessing, so are you.

p.s. as long as you are using predator drones, you don't occupy the moral highground, so stop pretending
#94 to #54 - dorberg ONLINE (02/14/2014) [-]
lmao yes because people who use ied s and suicide bombing have the moral high ground your letting your emotions cloud your judgement and i am betting they control your life. I can smell the muslim on you, you piece of sub human thrash
#156 to #94 - angelwithashotgun (02/14/2014) [-]
I have white skin, blue eyes and i'm not muslim, i'm a deist. But nice to see that there still are people who think they are better simply because of their race, because history has shown how that works out great for everybody

I simply hate the hypocrisy
You bomb countries without their consent, trying to kill terrorists, and often killing civilians in the process
If someone did that to the US, we could pretty much expect a nuclear war.
And this is why you cannot occupy the moral highground in any military debate, even against terrorists (who, i will agree, are sub-human trash)

BTW, good to see how much you learned from the vietnam war, where bombing villages to kill snipers worked out great in the long run
#206 to #156 - dorberg ONLINE (02/14/2014) [-]
You re hate towards the usa is blinding from the obvious what do you think the muslims would do if they had the same power the usa has? They would probably enslave us all murder and torture us, these people are corrupt, violent, murderers its ingraned in their culture they are 500 years behind the usa their society is comparable to the dark ages they think everybody on this planet is wrong and they are right because they are emotional most of them uneducated, sexualy repressed, jealous, xenophobic if they had any power the world would be horrible but god forbid the usa bombs the worst of these mother ******* and try their best to make this **** hole of a country a better place. Ignorant ****
#208 to #206 - angelwithashotgun (02/14/2014) [-]
I don't think the muslims are better, I simply don't think the US is as great as you yourself seem to think. You are under the illusion that your country is a paradise on earth, and that every other country want's to be you. This is not the case, I assure you.

But you actually underline my viewpoint quite clearly. You see yourself as better, simply because you are American. It is acceptable to kill muslim civilians, because it might save American lives (which, if I might add, makes recruiting a lot easier for the terrorists. I mean really, how little you must understand these people) Also, you are clearly racist, which i also despise.

I don't actually hate the US. I just hate the arrogant way you consider yourself above the rest of the world, ignoring your many flaws, and raging at everyone who points them out.
User avatar #196 to #156 - jacksipian (02/14/2014) [-]
You do realize that civilian casualties are a part of EVERY war right? you can probably count the number of wars with 0 civilian casualties on one hand, and we do our best to limit them as much as we can while terrorists blow themselves up and blow up crowded marketplaces as a part of their jihad, they have far more civilian blood on their hands than we do.
User avatar #198 to #196 - angelwithashotgun (02/14/2014) [-]
Except you are not at war with these countries, so killing their civilians in the name a war that doesn't exist is completely unjustified, and will only earn you more enemies. A lesson you should have learned in vietnam, but i guess that is asking too much
User avatar #60 to #54 - joeyliquid ONLINE (02/14/2014) [-]
im english. **** you.
User avatar #61 to #60 - angelwithashotgun (02/14/2014) [-]
Still doesn't make it an impressive battle, just a very one sided one
#18 to #16 - anaklusmos (02/14/2014) [-]
I'd like to direct you to the American Revolutionary War. War is never certain, especially when one side is over confident. It quite possibly could have gone the other way who am I kidding, there's no way in hell they'd beat us but the point remains If you didn't notice all the other examples were of forces who were outnumbered but used tactics and misdirection in order to defeat a superior force. The last one just happened to be a superior force throwing its weight around effectively.
#19 to #18 - angelwithashotgun (02/14/2014) [-]
The other victories are impressive because they were outnumbered. A superior force destroying a weaker force is not a feat on the same scale.   
The story of David and Goliath would not have been as impressive if Goliath had dodged the rock and stabbed David, would it?
The other victories are impressive because they were outnumbered. A superior force destroying a weaker force is not a feat on the same scale.

The story of David and Goliath would not have been as impressive if Goliath had dodged the rock and stabbed David, would it?
#22 to #19 - anaklusmos (02/14/2014) [-]
Well war isn't always David vs Goliath. Its more about playing the hand you're dealt as effectively as possible. There are lessons to learn from every campaign  how to successfully squash a weaker force for instance and this one is no exception.
Well war isn't always David vs Goliath. Its more about playing the hand you're dealt as effectively as possible. There are lessons to learn from every campaign how to successfully squash a weaker force for instance and this one is no exception.
#23 to #22 - angelwithashotgun (02/14/2014) [-]
Except this is the only one in the comp where Goliath wins, which is why it simply doesn't belong here.
#229 to #23 - anon (03/03/2014) [-]
I'm showing up a bit late but **** it, I like this argument. Goliath may have won, but the difference in the amount of casualties is staggering. Even though it was 4000 vs around 13000, the larger force suffered casualties equating to less then 1% of their original force. The insurgents losses were around 67%

That said, of course they lost, I'm only saying it was a perfect execution of this.
Not an American btw, Canada Fag reporting. Sorry
User avatar #193 to #15 - jacksipian (02/14/2014) [-]
it isn't that they hadn't previously fought smart, the romans were extremely smart when it came to warfare and fighting, but Hannibal was something new, something no one had ever heard of experienced before, they tried fighting him like they fought every other battle but because of some key differences namely: ELEPHANTS!!!! they were defeated again and again and again completely shattering the morale of the roman army until Scipio came around and figured out how to beat them. One of the things he did was he literally took columns of Roman troops and put them way to the side or somewhere away from the main force to bait the elephants in and let the elephants rampage on them while they try to kill it and the rest of the forces try to fight using the methods they had already perfected and if they killed the elephants, they were to reform and do it again. He literally made suicide squads of troops so that the main force could crush Hannibal's army. It was a huge ******* deal for the Romans because of what Hannibal had previously done to them in his campaign.

sorry for the wall of text, but i ******* love the Romans.
#37 to #15 - wheredahoodat (02/14/2014) [-]
True but still: Cannae brought Rome to the brink of collapse, it took over 500 years until their were threatened like that again.
#191 to #15 - thorsballs (02/14/2014) [-]
Yea, becuase Iraqi insurgents fighting against american invasion were/ARE part of the Al-qaida.

Heres Al-qaida for u (I was gonna link a BBC article named "The Al Qaida doesn't exist" but apparently it was banned in the US and removed from youtube, how very ironic You need to login to view this link )
#221 to #191 - anaklusmos (02/15/2014) [-]
Notice I used the word like.
#6 - tkfourtwoone (02/14/2014) [-]
No Battle of Agincourt...
User avatar #9 to #6 - theism (02/14/2014) [-]
It wasn't exactly tactical genius, it was superior weaponry and fortunate conditions.
User avatar #20 to #9 - garin (02/14/2014) [-]
But using the conditions against them, on there own turf, playing dirty and unfair was a very smart move. Going head to head would have been assured destruction for the English.
#147 to #20 - shoryuken (02/14/2014) [-]
one of the best bottlenecks in history! the stupid ******* just fell all over the place and got massacred not there fault but whatever!
#38 to #9 - wheredahoodat (02/14/2014) [-]
Superior weaponry? The British weapons were only superior because of the conditions; the French knights were way better equipped then the British.
User avatar #101 to #38 - theism (02/14/2014) [-]
What are longbows?
User avatar #143 to #101 - xxhadesflamesxx (02/14/2014) [-]
the only reason the longbows were superior was because the positioning of the troops
User avatar #146 to #143 - theism (02/14/2014) [-]
Longbows punch through armor and destroy cavalry. A charge of knights is useless if they're all laying flat on their backs unable to move. The stakes in the ground did help very much though.
User avatar #148 to #146 - xxhadesflamesxx (02/14/2014) [-]
exactly if the troops hadn't have been positioned there then it wouldn't have worked out as well as it did for Henry
User avatar #149 to #148 - theism (02/14/2014) [-]
I guess, but I think this graphic focused more on maneuvering than just positioning.
#2 - mankey (02/14/2014) [-]
Nukes: The one stop shop for all things tactical.
#7 to #2 - anon (02/14/2014) [-]
Nuclear weapons are tools that are extremely useful, but never usable. (Meaning they're only good for deterrence purposes).
#107 to #2 - keyoke (02/14/2014) [-]
If you already got **** in orbit, why not just use Kinetic Energy weapons, and just dispense with the radiation altogether?
User avatar #109 to #107 - mankey (02/14/2014) [-]
I just like Einstein more than Newton.
#3 to #2 - anon (02/14/2014) [-]
Actually, I think nuke is a really bad decision that don't solve anything. You may have create an dead land which is not the purpose of war, and you'll have to deal with consequences from others countries. I'll be the nuked land, I'll make deportations et strike after the nuke on politics. Or... attack him with chemicals bombs that only affect humans, If I do not need recruits.
#4 to #3 - mankey (02/14/2014) [-]
Way to kill all the fun. Put the fun in camps why don't you?
#8 to #4 - anon (02/14/2014) [-]
Yeah, you fun Nazi.
Yeah, you fun Nazi.
User avatar #5 to #4 - FrenzyMan (02/14/2014) [-]
i got that reference
User avatar #26 to #3 - ompalomper (02/14/2014) [-]
nukes in all honor but there is something special about personally burning the land bit by bit and salting the ground afterwards.
#141 - europe (02/14/2014) [-]
Feel like posting this
Feel like posting this
#166 to #141 - labaoman (02/14/2014) [-]
#181 to #166 - europe (02/14/2014) [-]
Ain't got nothing else
#33 - GEARBOY (02/14/2014) [-]
Fun fact: it was actually the Nazis which first brought this 'dirty tactic' as it was commonly seen as around.

It was first used in France back on the 10th May 1940 Battle of France and after and essentially you just:
-mortar a town/village
-send in the tanks
-followed by the infantry.

Granted - it worked really well - but I find it funny how the Americans adopted this tactic.
#194 to #33 - sanpellegrinoo (02/14/2014) [-]
This is bull. Taking technology aside, nazis were not the first to use this. Various other people used it. The one standing out for me are the "Boers" or farmers in english that used these tactics in the Boer Wars, which started in the 1880's.

TLR Nazis just had better tech, but tactics existed long before that.
User avatar #95 to #33 - rbpwn (02/14/2014) [-]
Not a mistake if you learn from it
#224 to #33 - pinkfloyd ONLINE (02/15/2014) [-]
Most of America's military today is structured off the German Army, From Command down to the helmets. They where at the time the best organized and disciplined army. I mean the British and American armies where great but in the beginning they scrambled around. Don't get me started on Russian military organization
#44 to #33 - terminalinfinity (02/14/2014) [-]
Just because it was employed by horrible people doesnt make it a bad or evil tactic. Also, almost everything we know today about surgery came from the experiments done by the Nazis on Jews without anesthesia. So pretty much the entire world is benefiting off the discoveries of the Nazis.
User avatar #50 to #44 - ishalltroll (02/14/2014) [-]
"Horrible people"
Implying every german soldier was a Nazi.
#51 to #50 - terminalinfinity (02/14/2014) [-]
Learn some deductive reasoning there, my friend. If you actually could, you would have deduced from the term "employed by" to mean those who came up with the plan and the orders, the Generals, as in people Hitler hand-selected to lead his military. The soldiers did not EMPLOY the plan, as they didn't have discretion in it. They only executed the orders.

Try again to find something to be butthurt abouit.
User avatar #63 to #51 - ishalltroll (02/14/2014) [-]
We're talking about military strategies and tactics here. And those were thought out, planned and executed by officers of the Wehrmacht, who also weren't necessarily Nazis.
Way to try and wind yourself out of the situation though.
#71 to #63 - terminalinfinity (02/14/2014) [-]
Way to be ignorant of facts. In order to be a general in Hitler's Germany, you had to be an official member of the nazi party, as Hitler only appointed people from within his party. So yes, all Nazi Generals were, in fact, Nazis.

The highest any non-party member could rise to was a field-commander. After that you had to take the party oath.
#76 to #71 - xxmemosxx (02/14/2014) [-]
There were plenty of Nazi Officers (Rommel for one) that didn't agree with the Nazi Party but they aren't going to turn down all that power, fame and money, especially when it was detrimental to your career and/or life in most cases (again, see Rommel)
#88 to #76 - terminalinfinity (02/14/2014) [-]
Don't confuse disagreeing with Hitler and wanting to killing him with defection from the party. There were plenty in the party during Hitler's rise and after he gained power that did not like him. They disagreed with Hitler, but remained loyal to the party.

The party founding had nothing to do with Hitler and already had Anti-Semite, Nationalistic views before Hitler entered the picture.
User avatar #72 to #63 - sanguinesolitude (02/14/2014) [-]
normal everyday usage of the term "Nazi" refer to members of the German army under nazi rule, not simply the political officers. While this may technically not be correct, it is nonetheless how war works.

Just like not every member of the red army was a firm believer in communism, it is irrelevant and their force is generally referred to having been communist.

arguing minutia to try to prove a point makes you look like a nitpicking douche.
#78 to #33 - breathor (02/14/2014) [-]
probably because it worked so well. The nazis may have been an evil, organized mass of hatemongers. but they were pretty smart. except for starting the whole 2 front war with Russia on one end and the US on the other... kekeke....
User avatar #120 to #78 - ilovetocuddle (02/14/2014) [-]
hurdur attack russia right b4 winter!
#171 to #120 - mattesweita (02/14/2014) [-]
They didnt attack Russia right before winter. They attacked Russia in June, their original plan were to attack Russia even earlier, but they were delayed by Italian struggle in Greece. June is pretty far of from winter as they thought it would be a quick and swift victory (from their earlier experience), which it would of been if it wouldnt be that the USSR managed against all the odds to stubbornly hold out.
User avatar #190 to #171 - jacksipian (02/14/2014) [-]
If Russia has one good thing going for it, it's that it has completely and fully mastered the "bury them with bodies" tactic as that is what they always do when invaded.
User avatar #45 to #33 - dsrtpnk (02/14/2014) [-]
Because Nazi Germany used the tactic, it means whoever uses it is like them? Or If Nazis used that tactic, no one else should use it?

If it works, it works.
#174 to #45 - anon (02/14/2014) [-]
i like hamburgers, which are from germany

i must be a nazi
#205 to #174 - flogme (02/14/2014) [-]
seem to remember it being of mongolian origins, something to do with packing meat between the sadle of their horses or something which would flatten it. There was some reason why it was named after hamburg but for the life of me i dont remember it. could be wrong, but im way to tired to find sauce
User avatar #40 to #33 - camslayer ONLINE (02/14/2014) [-]
Probably because it works really well.
#98 - chargrilledawesome (02/14/2014) [-]
Tfw degree in Military history
#144 to #98 - letrollzor ONLINE (02/14/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #82 - asmodeu (02/14/2014) [-]
Regarding the last one - I'm pretty sure it's against funnyjunk's rules to post rape.
User avatar #34 - kombee (02/14/2014) [-]
If anyone wants a great but comprehensible history lesson aboutthe war beween Carthage, as in Hanibal troops, and Rome check the linked video including the other parts. It's about the Punic wars, and is well worth the watch. Although not too thourough for constraint reasons, it does show the strategy behind some of the battles extremely well. Extra Credits, Extra History, Episode 01 - The Punic Wars Begin
#48 to #34 - xxt (02/14/2014) [-]
We watched this in my Ancient History class at university.
User avatar #192 to #34 - gespony (02/14/2014) [-]
goddamn that hannibal was a genius
#164 - aabbccddeeffgghhii ONLINE (02/14/2014) [-]
User avatar #173 to #164 - tiredofthis (02/14/2014) [-]
And according to the casualty figures, none of you died.... a mite suspicious, but whatever, you helped.
User avatar #176 to #173 - aabbccddeeffgghhii ONLINE (02/14/2014) [-]
So, your clasification of being a good solider is if you die or not? Ok...
User avatar #178 to #176 - tiredofthis (02/14/2014) [-]
Take it easy, I was joking.
User avatar #52 - pwnagraphy (02/14/2014) [-]
The last one is like pitting an exterminatus fleet against a brown recluse and being surprised the fleet won through some miracle of "Tactics"
User avatar #137 to #52 - leonhardt (02/14/2014) [-]
Because unit formations, movement, and enemy suppression aren't tactics.
#56 to #52 - xwillx (02/14/2014) [-]
dumb ass the point of the last one was showing the different types of warfare....both sides were utilizing both types of warfare
User avatar #58 to #56 - pwnagraphy (02/14/2014) [-]
************ it says absolutely nothing about what the insurgents did. All it says is that they got the **** bombed out of them for several weeks then got wiped out by snipers, tanks, more planes and guys with better gear going house to house while the insurgents had **** all to defend against that
#59 to #58 - xwillx (02/14/2014) [-]
you're totally right cause it never mentioned fluidity of movement through the use of tunnels reinforcing weak positions but yeah you're right it didn't
User avatar #62 to #59 - pwnagraphy (02/14/2014) [-]
So a way that they retreated to escape being slaughtered is, in your book, strategic military planning? Your right, escaping through tunnels so they wouldn't be inevitably killed by the vast array of superior technology that they have no possible way of combating is a sound use of military genius, and the only reason the American forces won is because they only carpet bombed the entire ******* city for weeks on end and then rolled in with tanks and 10,000 infantrymen
#65 to #62 - xwillx (02/14/2014) [-]
why don't you go read it again where it said "to reinforce weak positions" in the military we use that **** very often its called the main body and the reserve force...but go figure a civilian who thinks they know what they're talking about. how about you go read up on the actual battle instead of taking your info from a post on funnyjunk.
#66 to #62 - xwillx (02/14/2014) [-]
Also employed by the Vietnamese army and communist loyalists in the Vietnam war. Do you not understand how well insurgency in the middle east blends into a society? The U.S.'s enemy literally wears the same clothes as civilians. It's like trying to look at a crowd of people and guess which one is waiting for you to turn your back so they can kill you insurgents don't wear uniforms.
User avatar #97 to #62 - clannadqs (02/14/2014) [-]
It was tactics. Do you even understand how hard it is to operate in a land that isn't your own, the enemy hides among the population, and they are taking up defensive measures such as IEDs? I promise you if Russia or China led the coalition (hypothetically) there would have been twenty times more casualties. This isn't from hating on them, but from actually observing how stupid they are when it comes to clearing buildings. Go look at the school incident with the Spetnaz, their top of the line troops. The US used the best tactics available for the situation and the kill/death ratio shows it. I hope you understand that a majority of the fighting was door to door and compound to compound. This isn't the past where someone with a sword could do next to no damage due to the range and the style of fighting requiring people to band together. This is modern times where a single individual dressed in the clothing of the populace can take out dozens of people without even being noticed. I'm even willing to put money down that if any other nation led the coalition (other than israel or the UK) it would have been a disaster.
User avatar #136 to #58 - LtMcG ONLINE (02/14/2014) [-]
Well if you want to know what they did, I can give you some personal experience. Most insurgents had little of a plan to defend the city. They holed inside the houses, aimed their rifles at the door, and waited for the soldiers to burst in the door. Others were more bold and tried to plant roadside bombs. However, these bombs were wasted on heavily armored vehicles and rarely any troop carrying vehicles.

Any offensive maneuvers made by the insurgents were mostly done through the alleyways in an encircled way. They would surround US and Iraqi troops in a U type ambush with rocket propelled grenades and small arms fire. They used rooftops to gain some advantages in cover and concealment. The buildings in the city though were pretty....."soft". They could be torn apart with a the 249 or 240 which are the MGs issued to each squad and platoon.

The tunnels became important because areas that were said to be cleared became hot zones within an hour. Their ability to move about the city while avoiding the coalition forces show effective these tunnels were. In this sort of fight, they did not have to blend in as civilians in order to maneuver on their enemy.
User avatar #49 - fgtometer (02/14/2014) [-]
Outnumbering the enemy by 10,000 and possessing air support, tanks and massively superior weaponry and supply lines.

Wow, such heroics. Very tactical.
#55 to #49 - angelwithashotgun (02/14/2014) [-]
my point exactly
my point exactly
User avatar #99 to #49 - clannadqs (02/14/2014) [-]
How was it not tactical?
#106 to #49 - anon (02/14/2014) [-]
Someone doesn't seem to know two ***** about warfare it seems.
User avatar #103 to #49 - ranzoray (02/14/2014) [-]
Funny how civilians feel like they can make snidely judgments of the modern military and the tactical value of their engagements, assuming you're not some genius tactician
User avatar #112 to #103 - learnthisline (02/14/2014) [-]
What's tactical about possessing more firepower than the opposition?
User avatar #127 to #112 - clannadqs (02/14/2014) [-]
"Using advantages isn't tactical" - learnthisline
User avatar #117 to #112 - ranzoray (02/14/2014) [-]
You've got plain clothed, potentially drugged up religious maniacs with automatic rifles in an urban setting; no matter how much firepower you got, I could only imagine how much of a bitch it must have been to weed them out without your guys needlessly dying. It's not like the Coalition met up with the insurgents in an open field, hell, it was their own turf they were fighting on. At least that's my opinion, I mean I'm civilian too, so the same thing applies to me.
User avatar #125 to #117 - learnthisline (02/14/2014) [-]
That's because willpower to survive is much stronger than greed.
And public opinion on war has changed due to the media Revolution that began in Vietnam.
Obviously not back in the day when it was full conquest, as in State A would take over State B at all costs.
But in the modern warfare: e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.
America's recent conquest all failed because they were invading States for profit, not for total conquest and colonization. They could have easily ****** the **** out of Vietnam, but the Vietnamese wouldn't stand by whilst an Empire tried to impose a puppet Government on them - they fought back, and they fought hard, as they were defending their home land.
- America could have dropped way more bombs, and continued to send more troops, but because of the reports in the media back in their home territory the politicians wanted to save face, and get re-elected, so they had to limit the atrocities to a minimum (as in to a minimum of what could be reported).
Same with Afghan.
The difference with Korea was they ****** with China, so China ****** with them - harder, especially because they invaded Chinese territory.

I'm not sure if I put that in as clear terms as I could have, but I think the general point was put across.
User avatar #139 to #125 - clannadqs (02/14/2014) [-]
>"China ****** with them - harder"
>lost over 600,000 soldiers

User avatar #131 to #125 - clannadqs (02/14/2014) [-]
" American soldiers are greedy even though most didn't even want to fight" - learnthisline
User avatar #133 to #131 - learnthisline (02/14/2014) [-]
What were they fighting for?
Protection of their homeland?
Were the Vietnamese involved in a genocide plot?
Or did they just have a different ideology from the Americans?

Your point is childlike.
User avatar #172 to #133 - fgtometer (02/14/2014) [-]
They were fighting for muh freedoms
User avatar #135 to #133 - clannadqs (02/14/2014) [-]
Having to resort to ad hominems now?
"What were they fighting for?"
Their government. That's it.
User avatar #170 to #103 - fgtometer (02/14/2014) [-]
gb2 walmart, amerifag
User avatar #77 to #49 - windson (02/14/2014) [-]
That's the point of the post. Also the kill/death ratio
User avatar #47 - screamingdemon (02/14/2014) [-]
The last one didn't really seem like a fair fight to begin with.... All the others seemed to be about overcoming being outnumbered through superior tactics.
User avatar #69 to #47 - sanguinesolitude (02/14/2014) [-]
yeah would be fairer to let them continue blowing up civillians for fun.
User avatar #80 to #69 - screamingdemon (02/14/2014) [-]
That's not even close to what I was saying. I meant that all the others were quite impressive. The last one wasn't .
User avatar #83 to #80 - sanguinesolitude (02/14/2014) [-]
i think this is more a discussion of effective tactics rather than who won the most impressive battle. Besides, the enemy was in hiding and disguised as normal civillians. They also used every opportunity to put themselves in places that make it difficult to attack them. Such as hiding in mosques and shooting from their windows, then bemoaning the US for being so horrible as to fire at a mosque. This is just a discussion of effective means of exterminating a rodent infestation.

And you use whatever forces you have at your disposal. If the greeks had had and extra 5000 soldiers, they would have used them.
User avatar #89 to #83 - screamingdemon (02/14/2014) [-]
But as another commented said before me. This tactic was used before this operation, by the Germans for example. Plus, they likely at some point used it to win a battle where the odds were not stacked in their favor, like it is in this one.

I'm not questioning the morality of the coalition or how effective it was. It just wasn't very interesting, and could easily been replaced by some battle with, for example, the Mongols.
User avatar #90 to #89 - sanguinesolitude (02/14/2014) [-]
that certainly is true. I feel like they were just using a modern example to explain how these tactics are still relevant.
User avatar #92 to #90 - screamingdemon (02/14/2014) [-]
Good point.
#111 to #89 - keyoke (02/14/2014) [-]
Not to mention that had they not used proper tactics the operation could have blown up in their faces. Nothing stacks the advantage to the defender like urban combat. Not taking insane casualties is actually a major achievement, and US troops are very good at urban combat.
#110 to #47 - keyoke (02/14/2014) [-]
The wise commander never engages in a war he hasn't already won.
User avatar #108 to #47 - Tormound (02/14/2014) [-]
In war, you never want a fair fight. You always want your battles to be a curbstomp battle.
User avatar #180 to #118 - kommandantvideo (02/14/2014) [-]
Lol wtf
#202 to #118 - gatorade (02/14/2014) [-]
*cough* *cough*
#211 to #202 - itsbendingtime (02/14/2014) [-]
proxy war for the French.

User avatar #204 to #202 - gatorade (02/14/2014) [-]
Before people start hating me, I'd just like to say I love you Brit bastards. I'd fight alongside you guys as if you were my own countrymen!

#159 to #118 - anon (02/14/2014) [-]
#28 - doddythechef (02/14/2014) [-]
excluding battle of waterloo   
also excluding any french indian war battles, or even bunker hill
excluding battle of waterloo
also excluding any french indian war battles, or even bunker hill
User avatar #73 to #28 - theshadowed (02/14/2014) [-]
Bunker Hill wasn't exactly a good battle. They just beat the **** out of each other until the Americans ran out of ammunition and ran away
#215 to #73 - doddythechef (02/14/2014) [-]
if only we beat the **** out of them and crushed the revolution but alas the battle created the american revolution therefore it should be a battle of importance for it sparked a revolution
User avatar #216 to #215 - theshadowed (02/14/2014) [-]
Both Howe and Washington were **** generals anyway. Washington was incompetent, and Howe was an idiot who never followed up on his victories. It was an absolutely pathetic excuse of a war. It was the French who won it
User avatar #218 to #216 - doddythechef (02/14/2014) [-]
washington was great for the british during the french indian war but he turned more political

very true the french blockaded the british fleets allowing the americans to gain the upper hand and resulted in victory however france was bankrupt and the king beheaded due to them helping the americans

and the whole napoleonic wars where the coalition kicked napoleons butt

also the battle of Rorke's Drift isn't involved and im very annoyed at that we killed 2000 zulu's with 139 men
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)