Nobody can find any battle where artillery or cavalry lost. See archive for jidf trying to use pharsalus.

Nobody can find any battle where artillery or cavalry lost. See archive for jidf trying to use pharsalus. Beersheba had Isan are all.
War is just numbers. The only reason it appears otherwise is that massed infantry, even Roman style gladius equipped heavy infantry, are actually useless. Archers will kill any infantry easily, and it is very difficult for modern infantry to survive artillery.
In Vietnam French fought a fake battle where their Indonesian allies surrendered. In Korea the ROK forces had no artillery.

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Battle of Balaclava?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Artillery won.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ok but the cavalry lost

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes. But artillery won.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok but the cavalry lost

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wel thank you for conceding that your stupid conjecture was btfo in seconds by Ceasar, now please take rocroi on for size. Shalom from Haifa goy.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can find a directory of Spanish artillery here
      https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/68555/BDD-Guerre-savoirs-techniques-Etat-BCOSSART.xlsx?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
      They are bronze pieces. French artillery was superior and iron
      http://home.mysoul.com.au/graemecook/Renaissance/04_Artillery.htm
      >By the 1540s cast iron guns were successfully produced in Sussex, and later were made in Sweden and Holland as well: they were only one-quarter the price of bronze guns,
      https://www.silverhawkauthor.com/post/artillery-in-canada-cannon-of-new-france
      >Up to 1370 guns were essentially small, in the weight range of 10 to 20 kg (20 to 40 lbs), and made of bronze or copper. After 1370 larger guns made of wrought or cast iron began to appear. Guns weighing more than one ton and firing 50 kg stone balls were used by the French to breech the walls of the fortress at Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte in 1375

      Battle of Mang Yang Pass. jidf will cope and seethe.

      France won and abandoned its artillery which had no ammo.

      Battle of islwandr
      Zero cavalry present
      Artillery lost

      That's the only one.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >France won and abandoned its artillery which had no ammo.
        France lost 1,900 soldiers, lost 100% of its artillery in combat and the Viet Minh only recovered 18 105mm cannons. France lost An Khê and Route Coloniale 19. G.M 100 was completely destroyed. jidf will deny this.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If they lost the artillery why didn't Vietnam use them?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can spike artillery

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The recovered artillery was most likely used by the units who captured them, (Việt Minh 96th Infantry Regiment) tracking individual artillery pieces is next to impossible.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >units who captured them, (Việt Minh 96th Infantry Regiment)
              I challenge you to find any Vietnamese unit using French artillery.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                During the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, the Viet Minh employed several previously captured French Artillery, these were American provided M101 Howitzers. picrel

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And they won, the side with artillery always wins.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not at Mang Yang Pass. At Mang Yang Pass G.M 100 had the advantage in Artillery and lost to Viet Minh infantry. They suffered 100% casualties.

                Also the m101 were actually KMT weapons from China.

                4 were previously captured from the French.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                France has its own artillery, there wouldn't be any real French unit with American equipment.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Americans supplied France with loads of weapons to fight against the Viet Minh, including artillery like the M101. picrel is American supplies M 24 Chaffee that would fight at Dien Bien Phu.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So basically meaningless evidence, you can't find any French artillery captured.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Here

                Not at Mang Yang Pass. At Mang Yang Pass G.M 100 had the advantage in Artillery and lost to Viet Minh infantry. They suffered 100% casualties.
                [...]
                4 were previously captured from the French.

                During the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, the Viet Minh employed several previously captured French Artillery, these were American provided M101 Howitzers. picrel

                These were American M101 Howitzers captured by the Viet Minh. France were using them.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If there were they were given to arvn who were disloyal.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They were captured from the French. the ARVN did not exist during the First Indochina War. the Viet Minh captured several American M101 howitzers and M24 Chaffee at Dien Bien Phu.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Test

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Also the m101 were actually KMT weapons from China.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They are bronze pieces. French artillery was superior and iron
        you are fucking retarded. bronze artillery was generally superior to iron artillery until the late 19th century. and your original assertion only speaks about quantity of artillery, not some nebulous quality aspect.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How was it superior? Iron is stronger, it's the better material in every way.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Iron is stronger,
            It's not
            >it's the better material in every way.
            Wrought iron and early cast iron is less "strong" (ductile) than cast bronze, it has a lower tensile strength and will fail in brittle mode (explode rather than deform plastically). It's only when people figured out how to cast steel barrels that bronze was finally phased out.

            In the 14th-19th centuries, the tradeoff was always
            >cheap iron guns made from forged bands or dubious castings
            vs
            >expensive monolithic cast bronze guns

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You're only talking about pure iron that nobody used. Cast iron is obviously stronger than bronze and is the only one worth discussing.
              Find any battle where bronze weapons won.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Real life isn't a video game and materials cannot be sorted into universal tiers for all applications

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              So then op wins and nobody can find a exception.
              You'll follow up with some idiot reply.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Battle of Mang Yang Pass. jidf will cope and seethe.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Battle of islwandr
    Zero cavalry present
    Artillery lost

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Battle of Isandlwana

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's the only one.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So your OP statement is false?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Jameson raid

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Boers had artillery.
          >The Boers tracked the move overnight and on 2 January, as the light improved, a substantial Boer force with some artillery was waiting for Jameson at Doornkop.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Fall of Singapore

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Japan had goddamn Yamato. The fear of naval bombardment destroyed any hope of British victory.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tariq_al-Qods

                human wave tactics>artillery & cavalry

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Iran probably had more artillery. Iraq had only one under strength division while iran had 4.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Iran had no artillery

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If you say so.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

                Good example but america had no artillery so it was a pure infantry battle decided by numbers.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Black hawks and little birds count as cavalry, no? If not them the pakistanis and malaysians?

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hemmingstedt

    Also any battle from the Swiss-Habsburg wars

    For modern battles Somme, Passchendaele.

    Take your meds you stupid fucking schizo.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That is a blatantly fake battle and your other battles were won by the side with more artillery.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        False. Entente concentrated almost double the amount of artillery as the Germans for the two offensives.

        Brusilov offensive is yet another example.

        Did you even look up any battles from the Swiss wars. Here’s just one
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Morgarten

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's a joke to suggest German has more overall shell tonnage than England.
          Your battle is pikes.
          Russia was numerically superior and had more artillery.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Who do you think won the battle of the Somme? It definitely wasn’t England.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It was you utter retard just not Wikipedia.
              Also mods are deleting stuff.

              How were those fake?

              Also you can just look at the OOB and see that it wasn’t penal units.

              Go read your Wikipedia bullshit. I will reply more when mods stop deleting.

              Battle of Antioch

              Archers.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Archers
                Turks had more

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Somme I can see being construed as a “victory” but how can you claim the English won at passchendaele literally what did they accomplish. Plus there are so many other WWI battles that count like the Nivelle Offensive and the first two battles of the Aisne

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Like I said "advancing less than expected" is a victory. You need to find a offensive that won with inferior artillery.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How is it a victory? By that logic the German invasion of Soviet Union was a victory. Advancing does not mean you automatically win the battle

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                By definition, if the enemy forces were forced to cede ground and retreat you won the battle.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Simply put, no

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              "Advancing less than expected" is not a defeat. England obviously won.

              How were those fake?

              Also you can just look at the OOB and see that it wasn’t penal units.

              https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rbth.com/history/334753-how-ussr-almost-lost-war/amp

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

  8. 2 weeks ago
    sage

    Who are these newfag fucks who sincerely respond to this DAILY BAIT?
    Does LULZ really have such a high turnover?

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    hey uh op I heard from your tranny cop gf, she (male) wants to visit your crack home again, so open the door

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Rzhev battle of 1942. Literally any battle of the winter war

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rzhev was a fake battle with penal units, much like winter war.

      Black hawks and little birds count as cavalry, no? If not them the pakistanis and malaysians?

      All aircraft are useless, always.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How were those fake?

        Also you can just look at the OOB and see that it wasn’t penal units.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          this entire thread is an exercise in no-true-scotsmanning by OP. objectively it should be deleted for immeasurable homosexualry but jannies don't care because chinkmoot only cares about traffic

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Of course not. Aircraft are worthless and have never decided any battle.
    If Somalia had primitive cavalry they would be more useful than Blackhawks that die immediately.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Battle of Antioch

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Operation Michael

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That seems won by numbers and artillery.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Germans had more artillery and aircraft in the area of operations during the battle. They concentrated 60% of all their artillery on the western front for that offensive

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Correct and they won.

          >Archers
          Turks had more

          I doubt you can cite that. Europe had superior crossbows and longbows.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No they didn’t. They failed made a big salient in the enemy line. They captured nothing meaningful and accomplished no objective

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They gained territory.
              By your definition america lost the gulf war.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The territory America captured forced saddam Hussein to make peace. That didn’t happen in what I mentioned

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Wrong. The ceasefire to end the gulf war doesn't exist.
                Kill your self you worthless moderator piece of shit.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I doubt you can cite that.
            The majority of the Turkish army were cavalry and archers. in fact in the battle itself crossbows aren't even mentioned for the Crusaders. From 'Victory in the East' by John France page 284 'The Franks were marshalled in four divisions, each of the two squadrons in which were both horse and foot-soldiers....' There are no mentions of the use of the crossbow in this battle. Not to mention the bows used by the Turks were recurve and were capable of firing further than Western bows

            On cavalry in the Turkish armies from 'The Crusader Armies' by Steve Tibble page 255 'The majority of the Turkic cavalry were skilled light horse archers.'

            So yes, the Crusaders were outnumbered, both in total numbers, archers and cavalry.

            >longbows
            English, also that was only relevant in the 13th century and beyond. They were not used in large numbers outside of Wales in the 11th century

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Some nations, like medieval Mongols, Hungarians and Cumans fielded both light and heavy horse archers. In some armies, such as those of the Parthians, Palmyrans, and the Teutonic Order of Knights, the mounted troops consisted of both super-heavy troops (cataphracts and knights) without bows, and light horse archers
              Teutons are hospitalier which were the crusades.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Teutonic Knights didn't exist until a century later neither did the Hospitalier's exist. Nor did the Hungarians participate on this crusade.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I gave other examples in 781.

                Both battles of Bull Run

                Artillery was captured immediately before the battle. Same with chancer etc.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I gave other examples in 781.
                None of which have anything to do with the Crusaders?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So you're too dumb to read.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prestonpans

                Do you have any evidence that refutes op?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If you're mentioning Turkopoles, they weren't used in the First Crusade by the Crusaders, even your own source says that it was under the General Tatikios , whose army was not near Antioch at all, in fact his army turned back before they even reached Antioch so there was no help from them.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your argument is basically conjecture.
                If you can actually cite any clear example I will accept it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If you can actually cite any clear example I will accept it.
                From Anna Komnene page 307
                'Tatikios had other worries apart from this, there was a severe famine and he despaired of taking Antioch. He left the place, therefore boarded the Roman ships anchored in the harbour of Soudi and sailed for Cyprus'
                He had left the place before the siege was even finished in early February 1098, let alone before the Battle of Antioch

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There’s none mentioned in the article while it says the British did, although their gunners fled and abandoned their pieces. The Jacobites weren’t good with artillery, and while they had some at Culloden it was ineffective while British artillery shredded the Highlanders.

                Your arguments are incredibly bad and there is no way to test them.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Literally proof that the Byzantine army had left before the battle of Antioch from a primary source
                I think you're coping

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Historical studies suggest that by the second half of the twelfth century the turcopoles made up on average 50% of the mounted forces of the crusader armies.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >by the second half of the twelfth century
                So, not the Battle of Antioch?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The picture of the battle is literally archers vs archers

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're unironically using a medieval illumination from a book 200 years after the events that took place as proof that the Crusaders used a large archer force against the Turks? Should I believe rabbits jousted on snails now? Use a contemporary written source if your going to cite medieval manuscripts.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Might as well jidf. I see no argument from you.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So you have no source?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sure.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're unironically using a medieval illumination from a book 200 years after the events that took place as proof that the Crusaders used a large archer force against the Turks? Should I believe rabbits jousted on snails now? Use a contemporary written source if your going to cite medieval manuscripts.

                >by the second half of the twelfth century
                So, not the Battle of Antioch?

                If you're mentioning Turkopoles, they weren't used in the First Crusade by the Crusaders, even your own source says that it was under the General Tatikios , whose army was not near Antioch at all, in fact his army turned back before they even reached Antioch so there was no help from them.

                >I gave other examples in 781.
                None of which have anything to do with the Crusaders?

                Battle of Antioch

                Your entire argument about the battle of Antioch is cope. The crusaders were not outnumbered on the actual field of battle.

                Kerbogha the turkish commander split up his forces. Then his allies after some light skirmishing decided to abandon him and leave him to rot, so that he would not gain control of Syria.

                Obviously if half your army decides to leave for political reasons, you no longer outnumber your enemy

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The crusaders were not outnumbered on the actual field of battle.
                Moving the goalposts are you?
                >Nobody can find any battle where artillery or cavalry lost.
                They had more archers and cavalry, they lost.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The crusaders had more archers because the enemy alliance collapsed.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The crusaders had more archers because the enemy alliance collapsed.
                proof? The Crusaders already had minimal amounts of archers and Turkic armies were formed of mostly light horse archers as said

                >I doubt you can cite that.
                The majority of the Turkish army were cavalry and archers. in fact in the battle itself crossbows aren't even mentioned for the Crusaders. From 'Victory in the East' by John France page 284 'The Franks were marshalled in four divisions, each of the two squadrons in which were both horse and foot-soldiers....' There are no mentions of the use of the crossbow in this battle. Not to mention the bows used by the Turks were recurve and were capable of firing further than Western bows

                On cavalry in the Turkish armies from 'The Crusader Armies' by Steve Tibble page 255 'The majority of the Turkic cavalry were skilled light horse archers.'

                So yes, the Crusaders were outnumbered, both in total numbers, archers and cavalry.

                >longbows
                English, also that was only relevant in the 13th century and beyond. They were not used in large numbers outside of Wales in the 11th century

                . The desertion of non Turkic allies would not have decreased this.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Proof?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The desertion of non Turkic allies would have decreased the Turkic component of the army
                Is this what you are implying?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Jidf you've done well.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What do you want proof for? What I already proved?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Jidf, you're Unjiddable.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not an argument, try again

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Turkish part wasn't the archers, the archers are (in every army) attachments.
                This is obvious, the core force is the welfare babies that sends archers to fight.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The Turkish part wasn't the archers
                Read
                >'The Crusader Armies' by Steve Tibble page 255 'The majority of the Turkic cavalry were skilled light horse archers.'
                A force of horse archers is used for ranged attacks against the Crusader force. According to Albert of Aachen, 'A force of 2000 mounted bowmen rode up to the Bridge Gate as it opened' in readying to attack the Crusaders.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But whatever the core force of every army is will be the welfare babies and the attachments will have the real weapons/archers.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Clearly not, considering the majority of a Turkish force was cavalry archers. Neither does this general statement have anything to do with my argument. I've proved all my statements, why don't you try proving yours?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah but Turks are 56% white. Just because they were Turkish doesn't prove they weren't a attachment.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Im not the op.

                But to be honest his thesis sounds somewhat reasonable, in modern warfare statistics prove that the majority of causality's come from artillery..

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Jacobites at Prestonpans had no artillery and a small number of horsemen, while the British had dragoons and many artillery pieces.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But can you actually cite this? British artillery was not large and only a few guns would decide the battle.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Warned by his pickets of the Jacobite movement, Cope had enough time to wheel his army to face east (see map) and reposition his cannon. As the Highlanders began their charge, his artillerymen fled, leaving the guns to be fired by their officers

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So in other words they didn't have artillery. Your entire argument shows there was no artillery there.
                This is how stupid your argument is jidf.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > Artillery was captured immediately before the battle. Same with chancer etc

                Maybe in schizo-world

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Test

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mods, are you done deleting? I clear the cookies every few seconds.
    Did you just waste all that effort to ban me for a few seconds?

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why are you fags still trying to unironically argue with this schizo, he will just pull out more asspulls and then remake this thread when the mods gets off his ass and deletes them, you are better off ignoring them or just talk about him being a schizo

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I see you keep enabling cookies to delete my posts. You're better off deleting the thread you worthless retarded infant.
    America lost the gulf war. This is obvious. Kuwait was irrelevant.
    Tf 1-41 retreated at 73 easting. America failed to reach highway 8. America failed to take safwan.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Battle_of_Castlebar
    The French and Irish forces had no artillery and a handful of cavalry.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The crusaders first encountered turcopoles in the Byzantine army during the First Crusade. These auxiliaries were from diverse Turkic origins; including Pechenegs, Oghuz Turks, Uzes, Cumans, and Bulgars.[3] Some Byzantine turcopole units under the command of General Tatikios accompanied the First Crusade and may have provided a model for the subsequent employment of indigenous auxiliary light horse in the crusader states.

    It has been argued that, while turcopoles certainly included light cavalry and mounted archers, the term was a general one also applicable to indigenous Syrian footmen

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Both battles of Bull Run

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prestonpans

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Falkirk_Muir

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Do you have any evidence the rebels had zero artillery?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There’s none mentioned in the article while it says the British did, although their gunners fled and abandoned their pieces. The Jacobites weren’t good with artillery, and while they had some at Culloden it was ineffective while British artillery shredded the Highlanders.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What the hell is napoleonic subsidies? Feel like I’m having a stroke

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jidf can't accept the Battle of Mang Yang Pass was won without artillery.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Even if we accept your argument, it was only 1 batallion of French forces. There were 4 colonial batallion. All of the French casualties were locals.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wrong. The casualties were Frenchman. The only VNA battalion, 520th TDKQ, deserted upon contact with the Viet Minh. Only 200 were reported captured. G.M. 100 had the advantage in artillery and lost. Jidf is wrong.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Jidf now you're just categorically wrong. There is no debating with you as you are mentally retarded and can't read.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Retarded reply. G.M. 100 had the advantage in artillery, vehicles and tanks and lost to Viet Minh infantry. They suffered 100% artillery casualties. Viet Minh only captured 18 105mm cannons. G.M. 100 was made up of 4 Battalions 1 artillery group and 1 armored cavalry squad. 520th TDKQ deserted so casualties are French. Jidf is wrong and you are retarded.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Their artillery unit was local forces so it surrendered. No French took any losses. You can't find a single French casualty.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Incredibly stupid reply. French artillery were manned by soldiers of the 2nd Group of 10th Colonial Artillery Regiment. These were Frenchman stationed at An Khê. French suffered 1,800 casualties if you subtract the captured soldiers of the 520th TDKQ battalion. Jidf your so stupid.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >These were Frenchman stationed at An Khê
                The name colonial means they were not French.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Jidf you are grasping at straws. The only colonial unit present in G.M. 100 was the VNA 520th TDKQ Commando battalion which deserted during the battle. Viet Minh only captured 200 of these soldiers, so the rest of the casualties are French. Stop being retarded.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Jidf the colonial units were all colonials and not French. You are a clown. Even the French forces might have had colonials.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You have the mental capacity of a child. There was only one colonial battalion in G.M.100 which deserted. The rest were French, many veterans of the Korean War. Prove to me that G.M. 100 had another colonial battalion that wasn't 520th TDKQ. You can't jidf.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Jidf you're a moron.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I accept your concesion. OP is wrong. Viet Minh beat French artillery at the Battle of Mang Yang Pass and jidf OP can't prove it wrong. All replies are redundant.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Excellent work jidf.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well done jidf.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Jidf have you given up finding a battle?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Battle of Mang Yang Pass. You can't prove it wrong. Entertain me.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >France lost a battle with 0 casualties

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >0 casualties
                Proof?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > >0 casualties
                Proof?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well done jidf.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ah, I see. When someone provides an example disproving your hypothesis, you just decide to ignore it and claim that it never actually happened and all evidence to the contrary is some sort of conspiracy. You really are a Schizo aren't you?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                are you really just now figuring out he is a schizo despite him spawmming this board with schizo takes for years

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >years
                I honestly didn't notice this cretin until recently. Has this really been going on that long? Also, is Meso-American Anon still around? He had some good thread. Also, that guy you tried to be the Sub-Saharan Africa equivalent of Meso-American Anon, how's he doing? His stuff wasn't as good but damn if he wasn't trying. I respect that.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >has it really been going on for that long
                yes and he has a variety of schizo takes, you ever see a post claiming gdp is just tourism, thats him, a post about how staligrad never happened, also him, density = rainfall, thats him as well, peak oil, you guessed him, cops being being left and capitalist, him as well (that one if fueled by the fact the cops busted his crack house once), you probably see were this is going, as for the other two anons can't really say but I do see the occasional high effort post in meso threads so I assume he still somewhat lurks, no idea about the sub saharan one since I avoid those due to them being prone to becomes exceptionally shit

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >artillery or cavalry lost
    Define this specifically

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's just the Wikipedia counts.

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The side with more cavalry or ballistics always wins.
    The side with more reach always wins. Cavalry can reach head.

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

Your email address will not be published.