www.ditl.org

The Russians would have taken a lot longer to defeat Germany without allied help, but the support supplied was mainly in mundane items - trucks, boots, etc, plus opening up oild pipelines through the Caucuses. The Germans lost the war on the Eastern Front because they were outmanned, but also because the Russians had better kit and better operational-level doctrine.

Deepcrush wrote:

Monroe wrote:Hate to tell you guys but.. British weren't the strongest army. The Prussians were.

Sorry but no, the Prussians were good sure enough but they weren't the best. The French and English were by an far the best "Rank and File" troops the world had ever seen.

P.S.
Does anyone even know what the last war the French won was?

Okay great Empires aside we're talking man for man the Prussians could beat the British during the 1700s. In a war the English would win but that's cause they had more men and more money. There's a reason that both British and French used Prussian mercenaries as their elite troops

Monroe wrote:Okay great Empires aside we're talking man for man the Prussians could beat the British during the 1700s. In a war the English would win but that's cause they had more men and more money. There's a reason that both British and French used Prussian mercenaries as their elite troops

I'm not sure about the French, but the British Army used German mercenaries (mainly Hanovarians and Hessians) simply to bulk out its numbers most of the time - it's shock troops were the Scottish regiments and the Guards. The Prussians wre good, not because of any inherent national superiority, but because of the rigid discipline and excellent training of Frederick-William's army.

The term "Hessian" when used in the context of the American Revolution has become almost synonymous with "elite troops," but any accurate representation has shown that Seafort is right - the Hessian mercenaries could be treated simply as extensions of the redcoat army.

And I wasn't familiar with the use of Hanoverian troops, but fits well with George III's loyalty to his homeland.

Mikey wrote:And I wasn't familiar with the use of Hanoverian troops, but fits well with George III's loyalty to his homeland.

George III's "homeland" was Britain - he was born here, never visited Hanover, and didn't have a German accent, unlike his two precedessors.

As for the Hanovarians, the King's German Legion (their official title) formed the bulk of the army's non-British troops. Most wars involved Britain providing subsidies to various European states to support their national contingents fighting the French, rather than hiring mercenaries. The Hessians, IIRC, were hired rather hastilly as a stop-gap to counter the colonists skirmishing tactics.

The Hessians, IIRC, were hired rather hastilly as a stop-gap to counter the colonists skirmishing tactics.

Damn you again seafort!

True, the Hessians were used in picketing actions against the colonies. They had a far greater aggression and were also more prone to fighting hand to hand. Hessians saw their greatest use along the coast as there were very few colonists there who had any skill with personal combat. Unlike those that lived on the Proclamation Line and fought a constant war against natives. Those living on the coast lived a life based off of England's culture. This left them just as unable to face off against the Hessians as the British Regs were against the frontier troops. They seemed to be the perfect choice for fighting the vast mobility of some of the American raider units.

Captain Seafort wrote:George III's "homeland" was Britain - he was born here, never visited Hanover, and didn't have a German accent, unlike his two precedessors.

I know he wasn't the first Hanoverian king; however, his germano-philic tendencies (did I just invent a new word?) were well known... at least, while he was still able to dress and feed himself.

Deepcrush wrote:True, the Hessians were used in picketing actions against the colonies. They had a far greater aggression and were also more prone to fighting hand to hand.

They were also very experienced in irregular tactics, since German wars tended to involve widescale raiding and pillaging. This was far closer to the colonists' fighting style than the typical "thin red line", and so was far better suited to combatting it - fighting fire with fire.

Mikey wrote:I know he wasn't the first Hanoverian king; however, his germano-philic tendencies (did I just invent a new word?) were well known... at least, while he was still able to dress and feed himself.

Well known? I've never heard anything along those lines - George I or II maybe, but everything I've read about George III indicates that he wasn't that interested in Hanovarian affairs, and very much interested in British politics (and quite adept at them as well).

I'll have to see if I can find references... we're talking about info gleaned during my high school education, which was shortly after the inception of movable type.

update - Sorry, Seafort. I accurately represented the information I had, but said information was based on an inaccurate source - namely, a moron of a high school history teacher (the very same who, when questioned about the Tet Offensive, told me that Tet was a region of Viet Nam. At least I knew enough to call her on that one.) George III was, for all intents and purposes, sufficiently divorced form his German heritage... and later, of course, divorced from all mental capability...

Mikey wrote:update - Sorry, Seafort. I accurately represented the information I had, but said information was based on an inaccurate source - namely, a moron of a high school history teacher

No problem - she probably got the Georges mixed up. George I spoke virtually no English, and spent the absolute minimum time required of him in the country. George II wasn't much better. Their prolonged absences played an important role in the development of parliament's political strength.

(the very same who, when questioned about the Tet Offensive, told me that Tet was a region of Viet Nam. At least I knew enough to call her on that one.)

Whisky. Tango. Foxtrot.

How the hell did this idiot ever get to be a history teacher? I'm assuming that Vietnam is an important part of the US curriculum, but that's basic knowledge of the subject.

I always tried to be a respectful student, but that one was a bit of a fight. When she told me that, I was pretty adamant that I thought it was so named because it was launched on (I later found out that it actually began the day before) the holiday of Tet.

I was told I was wrong, and came back the next day with research on the Vietnamese lunar New Year, known as Tet Nguyen Dan, and how the offensive was intended to foment unrest and uprising among the South Vietnamese. I was then told that the particulars of the name weren't important, and why don't I get back to work.

I trust you are far from a typical example of the effects of a British education, but you know what it was and one would think a bit closer attention would be paid in the US.

And in retropsect, I guess George III would have been pretty preoccupied with the American Revolution, and then ending the threat of (Western) domination beginning on the continent, to travel to Germany too much. BTW, I have been trying to remember what disease he contracted to make him lose his mental capacity - do you recall?

Mikey wrote:I trust you are far from a typical example of the effects of a British education, but you know what it was and one would think a bit closer attention would be paid in the US.

Most people over here who know about Tet (which isn't that many) know where the name comes from. Mainly because people either aren't sufficiently interested in the war to learn more than "the Yanks lost", or they're interested enough to get their facts straight.

And in retropsect, I guess George III would have been pretty preoccupied with the American Revolution, and then ending the threat of (Western) domination beginning on the continent, to travel to Germany too much.

He'd been King for over a decade when the Revolution came along - until them he'd been concerned with internal British politics, mainly in trying to restore to the crown powers that had lapsed through lack of use during his predecessors' reigns.

BTW, I have been trying to remember what disease he contracted to make him lose his mental capacity - do you recall?

Porphyria - it's caused by an excess of red pigment in the blood, that effectively poisons the brain and nervous system.

I can always count on Seafort. However, now that you mention it, I seem to recall some claims - partly substantiated by recent physical analysis - that arsenic poisoning might have been to blame. Not intentional posioning, of course, just environmental effects. I'm no biochemist, but I imagine the effects would be similar to the more common mercury poisoning: psychotic episodes, palsy, loss of motor control, etc. Before the more severe physical effects set in, it would have rendered him quite literally "mad as a hatter" - that phrase coming from the use of mercury in making felt, and the subsequent high incidence of mercury poisoning in haberdashers.