Originally Posted by Doppleganger

One side had an utterly overwhelming technological superiority and air supremacy over the other. The outcome of Desert Storm was a foregone conclusion. So whilst the figures look great it cannot be considered the most impressive military achievement when the outcome is more or less secured before the battle has even begun.

At first, all I heard was how Iraq had the 3rd largest and battle hardened forces in the Middle East. The overwhelming statistics were because of a coalition that worked. I don't believe a defeat this one sided was a foregone conclusion before the war. If you have some information I missed, please post.

Originally Posted by Missileer

At first, all I heard was how Iraq had the 3rd largest and battle hardened forces in the Middle East. The overwhelming statistics were because of a coalition that worked. I don't believe a defeat this one sided was a foregone conclusion before the war. If you have some information I missed, please post.

No. The coalition was simply a political mechanism that amongst other things allowed the use of Saudi territory for an invasion of Iraq and also helped to keep the conflict from escalating region-wide to encompass Israel. The US could have won this conflict on their own had they chosen so. Closer examination of the Iraq military forces revealed them to be no match for the US led coalition, once enough heavy equipment was in place to repulse an Iraqi thrust into Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi Army, included the much vaunted Republican Guard, were inferior in every way to the coalition forces. But the biggest advantage the Coalition had was technological. With AWAC aircraft monitoring all air movement and J-Stars aircraft doing the same for ground forces the Iraqi's couldn't even fart without Allied military planners knowing about it. Information is everything in warfare and coupled with the air supremacy that the coalition enjoyed this war really was over before it started.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

With AWAC aircraft monitoring all air movement and J-Stars aircraft doing the same for ground forces the Iraqi's couldn't even fart without Allied military planners knowing about it. Information is everything in warfare and coupled with the air supremacy that the coalition enjoyed this war really was over before it started.

And that, my friend is what I call impressive defeat in any stretch.

Originally Posted by Missileer

And that, my friend is what I call impressive defeat in any stretch.

That depends on whether there was ever going to be a challenge to coalition forces, the reality is that Iraq was never competitive therefore apart from the impressive array of weaponry and the nifty new explosions on TV there really wasn't that much to rank it in the best military achievements of the century basically any one of the "first" worlds militaries could have managed it.

I will stick with the 1940 Finnish war myself followed closely by the Israeli efforts of 1948 and the Axis victories of 1939-42.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

No. The coalition was simply a political mechanism that amongst other things allowed the use of Saudi territory for an invasion of Iraq and also helped to keep the conflict from escalating region-wide to encompass Israel. The US could have won this conflict on their own had they chosen so. Closer examination of the Iraq military forces revealed them to be no match for the US led coalition, once enough heavy equipment was in place to repulse an Iraqi thrust into Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi Army, included the much vaunted Republican Guard, were inferior in every way to the coalition forces. But the biggest advantage the Coalition had was technological. With AWAC aircraft monitoring all air movement and J-Stars aircraft doing the same for ground forces the Iraqi's couldn't even fart without Allied military planners knowing about it. Information is everything in warfare and coupled with the air supremacy that the coalition enjoyed this war really was over before it started.

To be fair, the press was utterly and completely convinced that we, the United States & company, were going to get our butts kicked into next week or that we would see staggering numbers of casualties if we managed to pull off a victory. The press hadn't a clue, but even the most optimistic military strategist would not have likely been able to predict how well it all turned out for the USA and Coalition.

Most of all, I'd say that it was one of the best demonstrations of the triumph of superior technology on the modern battlefield. The old idea that inferior technology can be conpensated for by overwhelming numbers (like Korea) ... well the overwhelming numbers better be a lot more overwhelming. Technology proves itself to be the king of the battlefield. Mind you, I'm not as impressed with the first Gulf War victory as I am with Finland over the USSR in 1939, but it certainly was impressive.

Originally Posted by Missileer

And that, my friend is what I call impressive defeat in any stretch.

Yes but my opinion is that a conflict where victory is assured before the fight has joined on the ground cannot be described in the same manner as the Finnish victory in the Winter War of 1940, or the German Blitzkrieg from 1939 to 1942. Both those latter victories were heavily against the odds. That's the difference here.

My opinion of a successful campaign is to use wits as a strength. Sort of a "get there fustest with the mostest." Winning quickly and with the least casualties is much more important than winning against overwhelming odds, IMO, and not losing most of the people who trust you with their very lives. Being forced into a defensive position and fighting with bravery will always be a more patriotic and popular part of history but I do not want to see even one of my uniforms among the dead.

Here in Texas, the battle at the Alamo eventually rallied enough outrage to defeat General Santa Anna and become a legend. Among all the battles that were required to defeat Mexico, that one defeat became more famous than the successful ones. Go figure.

I pick Desert Storm.

I picked the allied victory in World War 2.

Which one do you think was the most impressive achievement by military forces in the 20th Century?

Impressive military achievements are usually due to an unexpected superiority in one or more of the following areas: planning, training/experience, tenacity/bravery, technology/equipment, intelligence, leadership, surprise, tactics, and strategy. However, this is usually accompanied by serious deficiencies on the other side as well. Luck also plays a major factor but is usually forgotten in place of one or more of the other positive factors.

I think you have an impressive list of candidates, but it is difficult to consider entire stretches of WW2 since these were effectively separate campaigns sometimes under the influence of different people and forces. So I suggest this list in order of achievement, for the following reasons:

German attack against the Western allies May 1940
Planning, Training/experience, tactics, strategy, leadership, so this has many of the elements. Scarred by the failure to cut of the British though.
The Israeli victory in the Six Days War, 1967
Training, technology, surprise, intelligence.
Communist forces against US and their allies in the second Indo china war (Vietnam)
Tenacity
The Finnish stand against the USSR, 1940.
Training, tactics, tenacity
Defence of Stalingrad & Uranus offensive
Planning, Strategy, Tenacity, Surprise
Rommel’s Desert offensives 1941/42
Surprise, tactics
Royal Navy Battle of the Atlantic 1940-43
Tactics, technology
Polish Warsaw uprising
Tenacity/bravery.
RAF Battle of Britain
Strategy, technology