>>18490732
I once heard americans are actually completely garbage fighters, every succes they had came from collaborating with allies, when left completely to heir devices they are fucking retards and it makes sense, the usa has never had a history of actually having to fight correctly because they are protected by 2 oceans, every single european nation has better fighters

>>18490743
Americans performed well in the War of 1812. They had a few setbacks but so did the Brits. Mexican-American War, too.
It's as hard to find wars where European countries successfully fought alone against a roughly equal opponent from the 19th century onward as it is for America. The only one I can think of is the Serbo-Bulgarian War. The Napoleonic Wars were all coalition warfare, the Sardinian War saw Sardinia back up France, the Austro-Prussian War was Italy back up Prussia, and the Franco-Prussian War saw Bavaria and Württemberg fight alongside Prussia.

>>18490732
Its honestly amazing that their leaders basically did the same thing that europoors did for 3 years unsuccessfully

>>18490759
>It's as hard to find wars where European countries successfully fought alone against a roughly equal opponent from the 19th century onward as it is for America. The only one I can think of is the Serbo-Bulgarian War.
Franco-Prussian War?

>>18490761
Nah germany had better logistics and guns

>>18490763
Addressed the sentence after.

>>18490743
They had to make a new army from essentially scratch.
Fucktons of raw recruits and very few vets.

The small core of professionals they retained more or less perpetually were known as the "regular army", whereas in times of expanded operations additional units were called "volunteers".
The "national army" was created in 1917.

People don't realize the US hasn't always had a massive standing army.
So they not only had to train essentially everyone from scratch, they had to set up the logistics too.
In the end they didn't have enough equipment to supply their infantry, and had to borrow a lot from allies.

>>18490764
Germany lost because of logistic (and lack of ressources)
The logistic award actually goes to France : just look how they supplied Verdun from one shitty road. They motorized a lot too and put the accent on flexible mobility.

>>18490743
>seething germ
Seargent York was a hero

>>18490762
>>18490732
Americans have litteraly never had an impressive battle. They win off sheer mass, and usually arrive to the war after the Belligerents have depleted themselves.

Look at Iran. Russia and Ukraine have been embroiled in drone warfare for years, the US being an active supporter and observant of the conflict, and still had no answer for the xheap drones of Iran. The regional power of Iran successfully fended of the "Pre-eminent Global power".

The Americanid really is just that 333lb creature or obesity saying "But i got big arms Tho"

>>18491061
He was a pacifist, yankikes

>>18490764
True
>>18490965
False

>>18490965
I was talking about the franco Prussia war

>>18491119
As are all men who return home from Hell. Still he killed 25 men and captured 132 more.

File: Impressive American battles.png (1.18 MB, 2251x1372)

1.18 MB PNG

>>18491093
>Americans have litteraly never had an impressive battle
Why generalize about something so obviously untrue?
I'd be interested for you to make the argument how the Americans won off sheer mass for these battles, or how their opponents were already depleted.

>>18491192
Shouldn't have included Santiago de Cuba but the rest stand. The French lost to Joseon by comparison, too.

>>18490732
>>It's still the largest offensive in American military history to this day
Largest so far. Iran will be bigger

>>18491192
Airstrikes are not mentioned in any of those battles.
Americans love spamming airstrikes, the most expensive way to win and have no answer for a war that has to be fought with infantry. But it's expected, when you're rich you do the rich thing. It doesn't work against targets that can't be airstriked though.

>>18491236
>Airstrikes are not mentioned in any of those battles.
There were no airstrikes at New Orleans, Monterrey, Shimonoseki or Ganghwa, and Midway was entirely airstrikes because it was a fucking carrier battle you big old dummy. How the fuck do you expect to win a carrier battle without airstrikes.

>>18491119
>>18491192
I'll give you midway. All the rest are a fucking joke, youre a caricature, bryson lmfao

>>18490759
>performed well
>completely routed out of Canada
>unable to prevent invasion
>only notable victory was brought about by an overwhelming defensive and numerical advantage.

File: G_jZqCiXUAEMTle.png (326 KB, 720x1080)

326 KB PNG

>>18490743
Caring about "muh individual skill" is the peak of midwittery desu. If the Yanks can blast you to dust with overwhelming artillery power then they're still gonna be the winners and therefore "superior" army. Germans and Wehraboos have spent 70+ years seething about how they shoulda woulda coulda defeated the USSR in a "fair fight" but none of that will ever alter the fact that the Russians were the ones conquering Berlin.
>t. Neutral Australian

>>18491093
>Americans have litteraly never had an impressive battle.
The Americans decisively beat Japan at sea in an era where Japan also embarrassed the vaunted Royal Navy (and ironically Japanese naval aviation was kick-started by a Scottish aviator advisor).
American submarines also did to Japan what Germany failed to do to Britain.

>>18491361
What you are failing to account for is that when society collapses, wars won't be country A vs country B, they will be anon A vs anon B and americans will simply be killed by Canadians (great fighters historically) and Mexicans (extreme in group preference leading to big organized groups)

>>18491366
>Canadians
By Canadians do you mean the endangered species of Anglo-Canadians, or the new soon to be majority of immigrants from Asia who all arrived after the 1960s?
>Mexicans
The ones who got demolished in the 1840s and lost half their country to the American invaders?

>>18490743
The carried the Western (Soviets too in many ways) allies in WW2

>>18491093
Midway you seething eurotroon

>>18491119
Alvin York was a Christian pacifist who found the Lord after being a hillbilly hellraiser. He couldn’t get conscientious objector status so he was drafted, where they discovered he was deadly with a rifle from years of subsistence hunting. When the shit hit the fan he morphed into a one man army to save his bros, gunning down krauts like a flock of turkeys until the rest surrendered. Most of my fellow Americans are fat retards but beware that big quiet fella who really really doesn’t want to fight.

>>18490743
I think bad is innacurate for the WW2/Korean war period but they did sort of become accustomed to America's material superiority in a way that would that could sometimes leave them lacking. They generally expect to be able to wait for artillery or airpower to solve a problem for them, and will hold up waiting for it in a way that wouldn't be tolerated in other armies.

More crucially, when they're on the defence, if the airpower and artillery can't do its accustomed role, if due to the circumstances the battle is really coming down to the infantry compensating for the failure or limitations of the other branches, they are sometimes very quick to think that they should be allowed to retreat, or that their position is untenable and they have to retreat, when what they're experiencing might be unremarkable for other armies where there would be absolutely no expectation of retreating. They don't think pushes other armies can do with given resources are possible, they don't think holding positions other armies would consider solid is possible, because they're accustomed to operating with certain huge advantages and they mainly know how to operate efficiently with them.

To some extent you see this to this day. When their material superiority works for them, the infantry and armour do their job very well, very aggressive, very high pace, very mobile,

But when they're put in genuinely tight spots its at best a mixed bag. Unit tactics are well drilled but the average American soldier doesn't really expect to have to stand and die in Pavlov's house.

>>18490743
It's convoluted because all this happens on multiple levels.

In WW1 and WW2 Americans couldn't count on having better trained grunts. There was an actual brain drain from the army and marines into the airforce and navy, especially the infantrymen were really not much. You could see it anytime small unit tactics became crucial, even into the end of the fighting for I believe Iwo Jima where the Japanese were still able to launch effective counterattacks at night because there they could creep in and Americans couldn't use artillery support once the Japanese were really close. The fact that an American platoon had more firepower than a Japanese one didn't change the fact that they infantrymen were just for whatever reason very ineffective.
Similarly at Hurtgen forest. Well prepared defensive lines won't care about your airforce, mines will stop your tanks and artillery is too slow to break them. What you need to break them is consistent application of assault tactics until and Americans just weren't able to do that. In fact I've read American conclusion on the Albanian bunker scheme and it seems they haven't really learned their lesson there and in Korea. Ah right, Korea. Aside from early experience showing the collapse of training in the army(the soldiers out there weren't trained how to properly fieldstrip their rifles) can be dismissed but, you can also see that American infantrymen are worthless, PLA had miniscule fraction of the firepower and yet was far more capable in smaller scale engagements.
However there are other levels. If the conditions allowed for efficient use of more than just infantry, which is most of the time, the Americans were very dangerous because of the sheer fire support they were able to bring seemingly everywhere and out of nowhere.

So yes, if it's just infantrymen fighting wars American military structure happens to drain any competency out of their ranks, making them less than stellar, but they make it work.