Why did Britain lose the American War of Independence/Revolutionary War?
The British were not yet an unstoppable empireSome ice, some desert, and a small slice of India In 1776, the British were one of several Great Powers in Europe who were all roughly equal in power. These were them, France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia. Below them were a few middle powers including Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal. Out of these strong nations, the British were known for their naval prowess but had one of the weaker and smaller ground armies - France was the expert here. As a result, when the 13 Colonies declared independence, the British were forced to ship soldiers 3,000 miles away and feed and supply them - no mean feat back then - to fight in an environment they were not experts in, ground wars. So this explains why they had difficulty against just the colonists alone. Now let's look at the international situation. 13 years before the Revolution, Britain and Prussia defeated France, Russia and Austria (there were also smaller allies on both sides) in the 7 Years' War. In the aftermath, French colonies from North America to India were seized by the British, which upset the balance between the Great Powers, frightening much of Europe. The British also spent a huge pile of money, which started them on the path of taxing the colonies which started the war in the first place. As a result, when the 13 Colonies declared independence, France was eager for an opportunity to even the score with their rival. Soon after the war began, France was bankrolling the American bid for independence. In the first year, France supplied enough muskets and uniforms for 30,000 soldiers (Larger than the initial size of the Continental Army) and 10 pounds of gunpowder per soldier. Then, France joined in the war openly with a navy that was at the time, roughly equal to the British one. They were eventually joined by the Spanish and Netherlands who brought even more money and soldiers to the table.tl;dr The British Army was never that strongIt was half of Europe and the USA vs Britain
What happens if you loose a limb in the military?
The standard practice in all of the services is to have a medical board evaluate the person's fitness for continued service. As a general rule, a missing limb will get you enough disability (30% or more) that you'd be eligible for permanent disability retirement under Title 10 US Code, Chapter 61. The way disability retirement works is that you get a percentage of your retired pay base. You'd get either the percentage of your disability (capped at 75%) or 2.5% times the number of your years of service. Some military members love what they do and ask for retraining or retention. If they don't do so, however, a disability retirement is the most likely outcome. MSgt, USAF (Retired) P.S. I was my wife's counsel for her disability retirement, so I ended up learning way too much about the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, etc. P.P.S. Sometimes people are idiots in dealing with disability retirees. They'll see that the person is a retired E-3 and assume he's a loser who got busted, when in reality he was retired at age 22 for horrific injuries and has now gotten old enough that he looks like a "regular" retiree. There is no difference on the ID card.
Is there such thing as British "Military Passport?"?
Military personnel rarely require passports unless traveling in their civilian capacity, personal travel, for which they use personal passports. On very rare occasions they use official passports that show them to be on government business, or diplomatic passports if they are working at a mission as a military attache for example. If going to Russia to visit Russian military for example they would use an official passport. If stationed at the embassy they would use diplomatic passports. If traveling to another EU country their military ID card and orders are all they need. The same is true if going to any NATO country. These rules are due to agreements signed by the NATO countries, or EU rules. In any country where there are British or US Military Bases where they might serve there is a Status of Forces agreement that specifies who may come in and how long they can stay (for example, can dependents come too, do they need passports or visas, etc.). These agreements normally say active duty military personnel on orders do not need passports or visas. If traveling on a mission against a nation (such as invading Iraq) obviously you aren't going to get a visa nor go through passport control...
Does it cost a US army soldier anything to take leave while deployed?
Let me guess: You, or someone close to you, is romantically engaged with someone who contacted you/your friend online. This person is claiming to be serving with the US Army somewhere, and wants to go on leave to visit you/your friend, but need you to cover costs associated with getting leave, possibly also travel costs back to the “normal world”. You’ve never actually met this guy face to face, but you may have spoken on the phone. Did he perhaps already ask you to cover phone/Internet costs from where he is deployed?Sorry to have break this to you, but it’s a scam.Leave processing is free. Paperwork associated with military travel is free. Travel to and from deployment areas is also free.This is sadly a scam that is becoming all to common.
What are the opportunity costs of joining the military for college?
Your completion of a four year military term of service with an honorable discharge is what you have to do in return for getting the GI Bill. You are letting the government have you for a minimum period of four years. During that four years, you will belong to the military and be subject to military rules and regulations. That means you will sometimes do things you either do not want to do or do things that do not make sense - you will still have to do them.
What does it mean to be relieved of duty (Military) and does that affect your pay?
That means you are being taken out of a position of command. It means your career is over and you will not be promoted and may not be able to retire. So it does affect your pay, just not at the moment.
Does tricare cover any procedure for hair loss?
My husband is in the Army and he is losing his hair and it is starting to affect his self-esteem. I was wondering if Tricare (Prime) covers any procedures or medication for hair loss. I know it covers gastric bypass, tummy tucks, etc. after you go through the process of the meetings and all that. Please help, and please dont be mean. Thanks!!
Can a retired military member still receive his retirement pay if he is convicted of a serious crime?
A friend of my aunts is a retired AF member. He is currently facing some serious charges against him. From what I have heard he is guilty and going to jail. I was wondering if the military would stop his retirement pay if he is in fact found guilty and sent to jail?
Why did France and Britain let Germany violate the Treaty of Versailles after WWI?
There was very, very little appetite for war in France and Great Britain following the First World War. Although the First World War has generally been overshadowed by the Second World War in the public imagination, WWI was a massive conflict. The British lost roughly 890,000 soldiers, the French lost about 1.4 million soldiers - by contrast, the French saw 218,000 soldiers killed in WWII and the British lost 384,000. The fight also tore up massive sections of northern France, doing considerable damage to France's industrial capacity, to the point where at the end of WWI, the victory memorabilia sold in Paris had been made in Germany.Additionally, by the 1930's, the terms of the Versailles Treaty were increasingly coming under scrutiny. The hyperinflation of the Papiermark in the Weimar Republic had led to restructuring of the reparations payments, which opened the door to renegotiating other sections of Versailles.Having said that, in general, France did oppose the German violations of the treaty, albeit in pretty toothless ways. The remilitarization of the Rhineland caused a firestorm of protest from France and the French had initially not been of a mind to allow the German annexation of the Sudetenland. However, the French were not willing to engage in military operations without the backing of the British. In the case of the former incident, the British mostly thought it was perfectly acceptable for the German army to go anywhere in Germany it liked, in the case of the latter, the ethnic German majority in the Sudetenland made it seem like a matter of ethnic self-determination.It's also worth keeping in mind that France and the UK were still very much in the grips of the Great Depression at the time, and were more concerned with getting out of it than in what happened in central Europe. Voters in the two countries wanted jobs, not foreign policy exercises.Last, Nazi Germany was viewed as a potential bulwark against the expansion of communism from the Soviet Union. The West had backed the Whites in the Russian Civil War, and that was something of a high point for relations between the West and the Bolsheviks until Operation Barbarossa. The Soviet Union had proven to have expansionist goals - the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921 had done that - and the French and British wanted an ally for when the crap hit the fan. Germany was potentially a credible (edit) bulwark, so some leeway was given.