Matrix Games Forums

United Kingdom, or England, or Great Britain, have had many proud military moments.

Which one would you say was their finest hour? Their proudest victory? Their best fought Campaign?

Here are a few contenders.

1) The Spanish Armada
2) The Peninsular War
3) The Trafalgar Campaign
4) The Waterloo Campaign
5) The (Air) Battle of Britain
6) The Battle of the Atlantic
7) Other

5) The (Air) Battle of Britain

ORIGINAL: Orm

United Kingdom, or England, or Great Britain, have had many proud military moments.

Which one would you say was their finest hour? Their proudest victory? Their best fought Campaign?

Here are a few contenders.

1) The Spanish Armada
2) The Peninsular War
3) The Trafalgar Campaign
4) The Waterloo Campaign
5) The (Air) Battle of Britain
6) The Battle of the Atlantic
7) Other

1) The Spanish and weather did more to lose this than the English did to win it so no, this one is out.

2) The Peninsular War ended not because of what happened there but because Napoleon was defeated by the Sixth Coalition elsewhere.

3) Trafalgar was a strategic victory for the English. Not only did a smaller English fleet (27 ship of the line vs 33 for the French/Spanish) defeat a larger foe, not only did the ENglish not lose a ship but it also ended the French threat to sea dominance and an invasion of England by France for the remaining 9 years of the Napoleonic Wars.

4) Defeating a greatly diminished French army and a shadow Napoleon?

5) The Battle of Britain was won by a hairs breadth. The English were on the verge of exhausting aircraft reserves and were turning out only half as many pilots trained as lost. If the August 24 to September 6 offensive pace against the RAF had been continued the RAF would have been forced to pull back from Southern England. However, the Germans were also losing aircraft and crew. So they discontinued this phase of their air offensive. While Churchill called this their finest hour I disagree.

6) The Battle of the Atlantic was not an English victory.

I would have to say Trafalgar not only because of the severity of the beating given the French/Spanish fleet but because it guaranteed that no French boot would touch English soil. An overwhelming tactical and strategic victory with not a loss of a ship. If the English had lost this battle then the necessary sea dominance England depended on would have been questionable and England itself would have faced the likely threat of a French invasion. The Battle of Britain would be second.

I'll go for the Battle Of Britain. The consequences of losing could have been so devastating.

The Battle of Britain was won by a hairs breadth ?

The RAF went on from strength to strength. This was the high water mark for the Luftwaffe. Its bomber force never recovered.
But, even if the BoB had been lost, still doubtful that the German navy could have got troops ashore.

But I would agree with Trafalgar as the most significant. RN dominance wasn't challenged for a century. That's pretty decisive. Along with Waterloo It created the British Empire.

7) Other: American Revolutionary War. By Great Britain losing, a new nation was created that later saved their butts in two world wars.

1) The Spanish and weather did more to lose this than the English did to win it so no, this one is out.

English still get primary credit due to their tactics, and of course the fire ships that caused the Spanish to cut their anchors.

ORIGINAL: Orm

United Kingdom, or England, or Great Britain, have had many proud military moments.

Which one would you say was their finest hour? Their proudest victory? Their best fought Campaign?

Here are a few contenders.

1) The Spanish Armada
2) The Peninsular War
3) The Trafalgar Campaign
4) The Waterloo Campaign
5) The (Air) Battle of Britain
6) The Battle of the Atlantic
7) Other

warspite1

Interesting question. It’s a difficult one for a number of reasons (in no particular order):

- Political sensitivities – great victories in the past may have been won for causes that, by today’s standards, it is not PC to celebrate.
- Quality of Opposition – one can only beat the adversary they are presented with.
- You mention England, Great Britain, UK but the later in time we go, the more likely that any military adventure will not be possible ‘alone’ – be it coalitions, Commonwealth or other formal alliances. In those situations to what extent does one treat a campaign as being eligible? I think where a country provides leadership/money/material resources it is valid to include – but this is not an exact science.
- I think one can also debate whether such ‘finest hours’ should be judged on purely fighting quality – or whether technical genius, if resulting in – or being a large contributory factor – to victory should have equal billing.

1. Spanish Armada
I must confess this is a little early in my sphere of military interest and so I cannot really comment.

2. Peninsular War
The comment has been made that

The Peninsular War ended not because of what happened there but because Napoleon was defeated by the Sixth Coalition elsewhere.

I don't think this is entirely fair. The Peninsular War ended with the British and her Iberian Allies in France. The French Army in Russia relied heavily on non-French forces, and French forces were being deployed in Spain and being tied down by Wellington and his Iberian allies – along with some of France’s best generals. That said, the British were not fighting alone, but alongside Spanish and Portuguese allies, and as Esdaile states "Victory in the Peninsular was political and diplomatic as much as it was military".

3. Trafalgar
See below

4. Waterloo
A comment has been made

Defeating a greatly diminished French army and a shadow Napoleon?

Well possibly. But how many people dismiss the achievements of the German Army and Case Yellow as being nothing special on the basis that the French Army was in a mess and had a Commander in Chief that was about 30 years past his sell-by date? Not many. It also ignores the fact that Wellington’s army was not homogenous; being made up of British, ‘Germans’ and Dutch-Belgians and the quality of units within varied enormously. There is also the old chestnut about the Prussian contribution.

5. Battle of Britain
See below

6. The Battle of the Atlantic
A comment has been made

The Battle of the Atlantic was not an English victory.

I think that is a valid point – albeit we are talking 20th Century so should not be referring to England.

7. Other
The Falklands springs to mind. Not least because this was an operation that the British were told could not be successfully mounted with the equipment available to them.

World War I perhaps also worthy of mention. For reasons outside the scope of this answer, the British have never had a large standing army. This was no different in 1914, but the British contributed greatly to holding, and then defeating the Germans thanks to the large field army she built pretty much from scratch - along with the hardware to go with it.

I agree that this probably comes down to Trafalgar – and naval warfare in the late 18th Century to the end of the Napoleonic wars, and the Battle of Britain – and perhaps also widened to the defence of the UK May 1940 – October 1940.

Taking the Battle of Britain first, there is a lot of hyperbole spoken about the battle. The Battle of Britain is one of the best war films ever made, but some of it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

The Battle of Britain was won by a hairs breadth. The English were on the verge of exhausting aircraft reserves and were turning out only half as many pilots trained as lost.

Sorry but as ezz pointed out, this is simply untrue.

Here is stat for the 6th September 1940 - shortly before the proposed invasion date.

Fighter Command had over 750 serviceable fighters and 1,381 pilots - 950 of which flew the Spitfire or Hurricane.

This was 200 more pilots and 150 more aircraft than they had in July. At the end of the battle Fighter Command had 40% more pilots than it began July with - 1,796 vs 1,259.

The Luftwaffe? I cannot see aircrew details but between July and December 1940 their fighter strength fell by 30% and bomber strength by 25%. As an example, Bf109 pilots - losses as a % of those operational for the three months:

July - 11%
August - 15%
September - 23%

As can be seen, as the battle wore on so the German losses were mounting. The British put in place a proper system for getting damaged aircraft back in the skies, the Germans did no such thing for the damaged aircraft that got back to France.

So yes, the British were suffering losses - but for the Germans, the losses were proving critical. There was not the rotation of pilots that the British were able to employ. By September the Luftwaffe was heading toward crisis.

As for defeat in the BoB: the following comments have been made

I'll go for the Battle Of Britain. The consequences of losing could have been so devastating.

But, even if the BoB had been lost, still doubtful that the German navy could have got troops ashore.

I think with air supremacy Sea Lion was just about possible – albeit the Germans would still require an awful lot of luck. The point is, defeat during the BoB would have given Hitler the opportunity to launch Sea Lion – and if he had, and with the vagaries of war, who knows?

But they didn’t win. The British – and their Commonwealth Allies (plus others – notably the Poles and Czechs) put up a brilliant defence, bringing together cutting edge technology (RDF), excellent command and control, putting in place the right people to cut through red-tape and get factories and repair shops working, in addition to the actual men in the cockpits.

Given the disparity of forces in favour of the Germans at the start of the battle, this ranks as a fine military moment, and one can add in Dunkirk and the supreme effort made to get the army back from France/Belgium and the work undertaken to re-build the army to face any potential invasion. A very fine hour if not quite the finest.

And so to Trafalgar

Trafalgar was a strategic victory for the English. Not only did a smaller English fleet (27 ship of the line vs 33 for the French/Spanish) defeat a larger foe, not only did the ENglish not lose a ship but it also ended the French threat to sea dominance and an invasion of England by France for the remaining 9 years of the Napoleonic Wars.

But I would agree with Trafalgar as the most significant. RN dominance wasn't challenged for a century. That's pretty decisive. Along with Waterloo It created the British Empire.

I wouldn’t say it created the British Empire, but it sure as hell allowed the continuation and later expansion of it.
The thing is, it’s not just Trafalgar. Before 1805 there was The Glorious 1st of June (1794), Camperdown and Cape St Vincent (1797), The Nile (1798), Copenhagen (1801) – all major defeats for France and her Allies.

Ship losses for the first 10-years of the Revolutionary Wars (up to the Treaty of Amiens in 1802) makes interesting reading. In that period the British lost 5 ships in action – the French 99. The British suffered 51 ships taken – the French 279.

At Trafalgar, Nelson was out-numbered (27 ships to 33) and out-gunned.

Guns
British Fleet 2,026
Combined Fleet 2,636

Total Weight of Broadside
British Fleet 19.5
Combined Fleet 27.5

Proportion of 24-36-pounders
British Fleet 46%
Combined Fleet 63%

Nelson’s ships were no better than those of the Combined Fleet – indeed three of his 74-gun ships were ex-French, and one of those (the Tonnant) was reported as being the finest 2-decker in the history of the RN. The British had been copying the superior French and Spanish ship builders for years.

The British beat their stronger adversary through superior leadership and tactics. Nelson confided in his admirals, quite simply they knew their jobs. The training was superior and rate of fire and seamanship was better in the Royal Navy.

Nelson’s victory was crushing, 18 (54%) of Villeneuve’s battle line were struck/captured and one ship blew up. No British ship was lost.

As said, the battle ushered in a 100 year period of dominance for the Royal Navy that was vital for an island nation with a large overseas Empire. So this ticks just about all the boxes for me and I agree should be numero uno.

1-The victory over Spanish armada was more based in timing than in a great performance from british navy (was not a solo military victory, even without fight result could be not very diferent)... in the end even whith victory over spanish navy if they push and send troops the victory could be useless... is like in 1940, the other side decide skip the invasion and center in a new continental question.

2-Peninsular war... well, the british here are very overrated in the final result, in the end the battles that they win in Spain where based A LOT in how spanish manage to keep french forces fixed... the amount of french troops inmobilized by regular and irregular spanish units allow british-allied armies engage french armies that they can fight and if you add the problems in comunication lines and the lack of movements without be notice by locals... apart the impact in other french interest areas.

3-Trafalgar, yes, this is a pure military british victory... except that Villeneuve help a lot british... spanish commanders dont want leave port, they were clever enough to know they cant win a shit outside it relation risk-reward was not good... but saddly the main command was in the hands of Villeneuve more interested in save his ass than in center in what has on his hands (in the end Villeneuve command was over but burn his ships and risk all to an all or nothing combat [:@])... he wasted the best option to neutralize Britain and the risk was to high to the very low reward.

4-A german victory... the british presence in Waterloo was very low and without prussians i doubt result was the same apart the "late Napoleon" that was on his lower moment.

5-A little like Trafalgar and Spanish Armada... enemy do stupid things, the performance of defenders were great but is not less true that attackers do defenders life easier when change objetives and when was clear that germans didnt play cross the channel.

6-No British victory... in early period they manage bad and VS not the strongest moment of German navy... and later was USA navy the one that keep RN alive.

Thank-you for that totally unbiased look at things [;)]

So now I know. Based on your assessment I guess the British were pretty rubbish at all times - and even when you grudgingly concede the British may actually have won something - it was only because the enemy did "stupid things" or they attacked a general in a "lower moment". Okay.....

Care to name an army/navy/air force that won a battle without being able to say the enemy did stupid things?

I mean Austerlitz is supposed to showcase Napoleon's genius right? So what if the Russians refused to leave the Pratzen Heights? Stupid move by the Russians or what?

How about Midway? Like Trafalgar a crushing victory, but in order to save time, instead of looking at what Yamamoto did wrong, try listing the elements of his plan that weren't stupid?

Sometimes a general's move is only stupid because the other general happened to think of a better one. Yes, sometimes a move is plain dumb - but the opposing general still needs to be able to take advantage of the mistake.

Thank you all for your thoughts. [:)]

It has been illuminating. Although not quite in the way I had expected. [:)]

I expected someone to bring up some of the stunning victories England had during the one hundred years war. For example, The Battle of Sluys had major impact on the course of that war. Without it, the war might not have been fought on French soil but ravaged England instead.

I didn't expect that there would be so many claiming that certain campaigns or battles didn't count because they didn't fight it alone. Of course I knew about that, but in my humble opinion, didn't diminish their honour. Rather it increased it.

I had planned to ask the same question for other countries. USA would have been next but now I will not bother.

How about Alfred's defeat of the Vikings circa 880? We'd all be speaking a different language if not for Alfred.

ORIGINAL: Zorch

How about Alfred's defeat of the Vikings circa 880? We'd all be speaking a different language if not for Alfred.

I doubt it. I think the resulting language would have been almost the same. Compare with the result of the Norman invasion 1066.

Although it is interesting thinking about the importance of Alfred and his campaigns.

What an entertaining discussion. Surely there are few forums where the topic wouldn't have disintegrated into name calling and bad language by the second post.

Mentions in Despatches all round.

(Despatches - typically British.)

Washington vs Cornwallis, I know the British lost but without the USA, how would the world be different?

1-The victory over Spanish armada was more based in timing than in a great performance from british navy (was not a solo military victory, even without fight result could be not very diferent)... in the end even whith victory over spanish navy if they push and send troops the victory could be useless... is like in 1940, the other side decide skip the invasion and center in a new continental question.

I have to disagree here. Even though the English were spoiling for a fight, they defeated their enemy without much exposure and loss to themselves. The enemy here was far superior in numbers and quality compared to the enemy at Trafalgar. Trafalgar was a done deal before the battle started, but look at the British casualties.

I'm somewhat surprised not mentioned was the battle of Abraham Plains (Seven Years War). Like Trafalgar, new tactics were employed. The battle on the river and the feat of getting up the cliffs to the plain was amazing. The result was that in the Treaty of Paris the French ceded to the British almost everything east of the Mississippi.

ORIGINAL: demjansk

Washington vs Cornwallis, I know the British lost but without the USA, how would the world be different?

warspite1

Not sure what this has to do with the OP's question, but there are many ways things could have panned out differently - maybe better, maybe worse, who knows?

The fact is, given the forces in play - demographics, land etc - even had the British won that war (or more intriguingly if that war had never happened due to a different policy pursued from London*), independence would have happened at some point. But how that independence would have come about - and for who exactly - is the great unknown. Would it be a war - over slavery perhaps? or would there have been no war and a Dominion type government been formed, leading to full independence in a totally peaceful style? Or, if slavery was a catalyst for insurrection, could the US colonies have split upon separation? Lots of possibilities - both good and bad.

* This is particularly intriguing as it may have meant the Bourbon Dynasty not being overthrown as the French didn't bankrupt themselves fighting the war - and Napoleon never coming to power....

...but of course it doesn't end there. The Napoleonic Wars largely sealed the fate of Spain's (and Portugal's) South American Empire - but what if this never happened? So much could have changed - a million different directions that could have been travelled.

Forget Manifest Destiny - the British, Spanish, Portuguese and French Empires could have been fighting Imperial wars in the New World - and specifically on what is now US soil....

ORIGINAL: warspite1

...but of course it doesn't end there. The Napoleonic Wars largely sealed the fate of Spain's (and Portugal's) South American Empire - but what if this never happened? So much could have changed - a million different directions that could have been travelled.

Forget Manifest Destiny - the British, Spanish, Portuguese and French Empires could have been fighting Imperial wars in the New World - and specifically on what is now the US....

Indeed, but remove the Portuguese (as a single power) from that equation, as we were already in decline. Look how some decades later we have reacted to the British Ultimatum... We could never have fought a war against any of the other powers, unless we were allied to one of them, and that (IMO) could only be with the British.

ORIGINAL: VPaulus

ORIGINAL: warspite1

...but of course it doesn't end there. The Napoleonic Wars largely sealed the fate of Spain's (and Portugal's) South American Empire - but what if this never happened? So much could have changed - a million different directions that could have been travelled.

Forget Manifest Destiny - the British, Spanish, Portuguese and French Empires could have been fighting Imperial wars in the New World - and specifically on what is now the US....

Indeed, but remove the Portuguese (as a single power) from that equation, as we were already in decline. Look how some decades later we have reacted to the British Ultimatum... We could never have fought a war against any of the other powers, unless we were allied to one of them, and that (IMO) could only be with the British.

warspite1

Agreed - as 'Britain's oldest ally' I'm counting on your support in our fight against those dastardly French and Spanish [;)] We must secure Florida or zut alors - Disney World may never get built!

ORIGINAL: Orm

I didn't expect that there would be so many claiming that certain campaigns or battles didn't count because they didn't fight it alone. Of course I knew about that, but in my humble opinion, didn't diminish their honour. Rather it increased it.

warspite1

As per post 8 I think that wars fought with others shouldn't necessarily be precluded from any such list - and there is no exact science here.

On reflection I think the Battle of the Atlantic is worthy of inclusion. After all, it was a battle won, it was fought by many, incredibly brave - and perhaps unsung - heroes, such as Captain Walker (see below), but also the merchant seamen of all nationalities.

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

Like the Battle of Britain, the battle could not have been won without proper planning and co-ordination of a number of areas - not just the fighting arm, but also the political/economic and technological arena. Getting the merchant vessels built/repaired, getting contracts in place to utilise neutral shipping and arrangements for shipping from the various Governments-in-Exile. Ordering the'Ocean-class' from the US in 1940. The British cancelled/delayed battleships and carriers to get the much needed escorts built too.

There was the continuous technological progress too that kept the Allies ahead of the U-boats. The US began assisting before they had officially entered the war and the Emergency Shipbuilding Program started in late 1941. And one mustn't forget the Canadian contribution; the creation of a Canadian ship building industry - and navy - almost from scratch.

It wasn't won alone, but the United Kingdom provided the commitment, the energy and the determination to get the job done.