Who does not know what D day was?

They were fighting 90% of the MANPOWER of the Wehrmacht, we never got to Berlin fighting the other 10%.
90% Manpower over 1000s of Kilometres of Front

Meanwhile that pissy 10% the Western Allies struggled to face - had just as many armoured formations and was concentrated in a much smaller Front.

And of course the West committed far more resources to the Naval War

Funny how no one ever suggests that the Western Allies faced 90% the Kriegsmarines power and the Russians couldn't even cler the Baltic.
 
I would like to ask B_B why he disagrees / dislikes this post....but he's on ignore.
Q E D
He and I have a running dispute over his annual Pegasus Bridge thread, where he states that 'the liberation of Europe had begun'. I believe this is factually incorrect, as Allied troops had landed on the mainland of Europe in Sep 43 and Rome was liberated on 4 Jun 44. By not caveating his statement as 'NW Europe', he deliberately ignores the sacrifices made by the Allies in Italy in the 9 months prior to D-Day, thereby perpetuating the myth of the 'D-Day Dodgers'.

As to that post itself, who wants to be proven wrong by the BBC.
 
No. It would be 100/% fatality rate if every British soldier died in the battle. One section is not everyone in the battle. You don't understand percentages, sections and the order of battle now?
I said if that section were the only people in the battle the fatality rate would be 100%. I assume you are aware that a section can have a battle by themselves against a larger force?

So 100% fatality, like I said.

Its an example of how the number appears higher than it really is. A bit like your example with the English civil war

Only if you think one section means everyone. You are struggling with comprehension.
Thats right, if only a section is in a battle, that is everyone.

Great. You are getting it!

Next to you, everyone would appear smart.

You are mixing up sections, battles, wars and the population. You don't seem to understand any of it.
Im not mixing any of them up, I pointing out your original statement was false.

Do you need a dictionary? I could buy one for you.
From the man who explained incorrectly what the word "arguably" meant.

First off, Marston Moor was one battle.

Second it wasn't fought by the British Army so you can't compare it. The British army didn't exist then.

It was two English sides fighting each other before the British army even formed.

The British army formed in 1660. Marston Moor was 1644.

First of so was the first day of the Somme, secondly don’t be a smart arse with the date that the modern British Army existed, its obvious we had some form of military before then

Ive just googled the Norman invasion of England including the harrying of the north and the Roman Conquest of Britain, both seem to have had had a higher proportion of the population killed than the civil war

Why do I get the feeling you watched one episode of QI and decided that will be your little nugget of information you will bring out anytime you want to appear clever.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
He and I have a running dispute over his annual Pegasus Bridge thread, where he states that 'the liberation of Europe had begun'. I believe this is factually incorrect, as Allied troops had landed on the mainland of Europe in Sep 43 and Rome was liberated on 4 Jun 44. By not caveating his statement as 'NW Europe', he deliberately ignores the sacrifices made by the Allies in Italy in the 9 months prior to D-Day, thereby perpetuating the myth of the 'D-Day Dodgers'.

As to that post itself, who wants to be proven wrong by the BBC.
Cheers, makes sense.
Have been refuting arguments from a few overseas about no Vlad.
Reason: no Soviets went ashore in Normandy = no reason for the wealthy crook to be invited
 
I said if that section were the only people in the battle the fatality rate would be 100%. I assume you are aware that a section can have a battle by themselves against a larger force?
I am. You don't seem to understand anything.
From the man who explained incorrectly what the word "arguably" meant.
I quoted your own link as you didn't understand it. Like everything else.
First of so was the first day of the Somme, secondly don’t be a smart arse with the date that the modern British Army existed, its obvious we had some form of military before then
Again your ignorance. The more you post, the more it's obvious you know nothing.

We had no professional army. That's the point.

1. The battle of Marston Moor was 1644.
2. The formation of a professional standing army was from 1645 to 1660.
3. The British army formed in 1660 though Scotland and England kept separate military establishments until the act of the Union in 1707.

Marston Moor was fought by Englishmen against Englishmen raised as an ad hoc basis. Nothing like the British Army.

A bunch of peasants leaving their farm and going to war for their local lord with a pike doesn't make them part of a British army.

This is an army website. At least learn a little history.

Ive just googled the Norman invasion of England including the harrying of the north and the Roman Conquest of Britain, both seem to have had had a higher proportion of the population killed than the civil war
Link....
Why do I get the feeling you watched one episode of QI and decided that will be your little nugget of information you will bring out anytime you want to appear clever.
Why do I get the feeling you know nothing but won't admit it? This might come as a shock to you but people know a lot more than you. A lot of people. And with a lot of knowledge. Don't conclude that because you are ignorant everyone else is. Wild shot in the dark, you did poorly at school and have done ever since.,
 
Cheers, makes sense.
Have been refuting arguments from a few overseas about no Vlad.
Reason: no Soviets went ashore in Normandy = no reason for the wealthy crook to be invited
Also, despite their doubtless enormous contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany, I suspect a lot of those 'liberated' by the Red Army felt they'd just swapped totalitarian regimes, symbols and language without any gain of freedom.
 
My Mother's Birthday.
Her father who was with MI7 told her it was chosen as it was her 10th Birthday.
 
I am. You don't seem to understand anything.
I quoted your own link as you didn't understand it. Like everything else.
Again your ignorance. The more you post, the more it's obvious you know nothing.
To clarify if a section get into a battle and all die its a 100% casualty rate. The highest rate possible. Therefore in the history of battles, that one was the bloodiest. Unless of cousr you want to admit that perhaps percentages dont always tell the full story.


We had no professional army. That's the point.
Armies were raised all the time smartarse, we just rarely had a standing army

1. The battle of Marston Moor was 1644.
2. The formation of a professional standing army was from 1645 to 1660.
3. The British army formed in 1660 though Scotland and England kept separate military establishments until the act of the Union in 1707.

Marston Moor was fought by Englishmen against Englishmen raised as an ad hoc basis. Nothing like the British Army.

A bunch of peasants leaving their farm and going to war for their local lord with a pike doesn't make them part of a British army.

This is an army website. At least learn a little history.


Why do I get the feeling you know nothing but won't admit it? This might come as a shock to you but people know a lot more than you. A lot of people. And with a lot of knowledge. Don't conclude that because you are ignorant everyone else is. Wild shot in the dark, you did poorly at school and have done ever since.,
Well done for completely ignoring the Roman conquest of Britain and the Norman invasion. Is the googling of either beyond you?
Although I bet you were straight on google wondering how the snippet of information you picked up from a TV show might not be correct.
 
To clarify if a section get into a battle and all die its a 100% casualty rate. The highest rate possible. Therefore in the history of battles, that one was the bloodiest. Unless of cousr you want to admit that perhaps percentages dont always tell the full story.
To clarify, there is no recorded instance of one section all being wiped out and it being regarded as a recognised battle, while at the same time also having an incredibly low population of England so it can be regarded as "our bloodiest war."

Armies were raised all the time smartarse, we just rarely had a standing army
Wrong again.

1. You asked

And for the British Army. Simple question what is the bloodiest battle the British army has been involved in?
Not "what was the bloodiest battle some kind of army was in."

2. And we didn't have a standing army until the New Model Army.

That's the point.

It was decided people should learn soldiering and do nothing else like any other profession. For that. it means taxation. Paying people to learn soldiering when there is no war happening was regarded as a waste. There is also issues in that a standing army might overthrow government. Hence why the UK Parliament approves the continued existence of the British Army by passing an Armed Forces Act at least once every five years, as required by the Bill of Rights 1689. It also was the start of people being promoted on merit rather than wealth being used to buy ranks or ranks being given as you happened to be a Lord or Prince.
Well done for completely ignoring the Roman conquest of Britain and the Norman invasion. Is the googling of either beyond you?
I did it. It returned nothing, so you made it up. I'm not ignoring it. It isn't a fact.
Although I bet you were straight on google wondering how the snippet of information you picked up from a TV show might not be correct.
No. This might be difficult for you, but some people have an education. Why do you think I didn't even post the link to QI at first?

Also at what point will you realise absolutely everything including QI says you are wrong and you are still yet to come out with anything.
 

chrisg46

LE
Book Reviewer
You know, reading the spat between Sonic & Stacker, i am wondering if this is how the animosity between protestants and catholics, shia vs sunni started. Two blokes arguing over a semantic point and then it just escalates.
 
You know, reading the spat between Sonic & Stacker, i am wondering if this is how the animosity between protestants and catholics, shia vs sunni started. Two blokes arguing over a semantic point and then it just escalates.


Good point, well made, a small microcosm of the worlds ills, starts off as a reasonable conversation, and slowly deteriorates into a slanging match, that becomes more convoluted , eventually degenerating towards all out war. In the real world, troops would be mobilised, The TA put on standby, silo doors opened, and he hot lines between the protagonists opened up, we await further events with baited breath, ...now back to the studio...and Quentin Reynolds....." The shelters are filling up, and the searchlights are on,....london can take it...."
 
You know, reading the spat between Sonic & Stacker, i am wondering if this is how the animosity between protestants and catholics, shia vs sunni started. Two blokes arguing over a semantic point and then it just escalates.
It probably also explains where the Doctrine of Infallibility comes from.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top