Most impressive military achievement in the 20th Century? - Page 12




View Poll Results :Most impressive military achievement in the 20th Century?
The Japanese victory over Russia, 1905. 6 2.47%
The Allied victory in WWI, 1914-1918. 3 1.23%
The Finnish stand against the USSR, 1940. 46 18.93%
The Axis victories in the first half of WWII, 1939-1942. 29 11.93%
The Allied victory in WWII, 1939-1945. 39 16.05%
The Israeli victory in the Israeli Independence War, 1948. 11 4.53%
The UN/USA victory in the Korean War 1950-1953. 2 0.82%
The Israeli victory in the Six Days War, 1967. 30 12.35%
The Arab relative succes in the Yom Kippur War, 1973. 3 1.23%
The Israeli Victory in the Yom Kippur War, 1973. 10 4.12%
The North-Vietnamese Victory in the Vietnam conflicts, 1945-1975. 20 8.23%
The Mujahidin victory in the Afghan War, 1979-1989. 7 2.88%
The Hizballa succses in the Invasion of Lebanon,1982-2000. 4 1.65%
The UN/USA victory in the Gulf War, 1991. 11 4.53%
Other. 22 9.05%
Voters: 243. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
March 24th, 2009  
Del Boy
 
Ha-Ha! Luv the Nazi and Jews references.
March 24th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Boy
Ha-Ha! Luv the Nazi and Jews references.
Your point?
March 24th, 2009  
AB_Shorts_Momma
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Your point?

Although I can't speak for DelBoy... This thread is based on opinion, therefore no one is wrong. (Although they can be misinformed and can learn a thing or two.)

On a personal note, I fall into the "horrible lack of basic historical knowledge" and therefore, have not voted for any of them. If I did, it would be for the Allied victories based on patriotic pride...
--
March 24th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Actually both Western allies and Soviet Union generally sucked and humiliated themselves at every turn, Allies could not for the hell of it break out of Normandy and Germany put up a heck of a fight despite being horribly outclassed in everything but quality of personnel and Russia was just a horrible mess that won through trowing enough stuff at Germans to drown them in it.

Whats not said today is that Western Allies typically needed 3-1 odds to take on their Germans counterparts, there were battles and operations for the Allies that were impressive but ultimately there's nothing impressive about Allied victory in WW2.
March 24th, 2009  
AB_Shorts_Momma
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Actually both Western allies and Soviet Union generally sucked and humiliated themselves at every turn, Allies could not for the hell of it break out of Normandy and Germany put up a heck of a fight despite being horribly outclassed in everything but quality of personnel and Russia was just a horrible mess that won through trowing enough stuff at Germans to drown them in it.

Whats not said today is that Western Allies typically needed 3-1 odds to take on their Germans counterparts, there were battles and operations for the Allies that were impressive but ultimately there's nothing impressive about Allied victory in WW2.
My family fought in both wars, I have never heard that type of opinion from an American (you show a US flag for your country).

Please explain your views.
March 24th, 2009  
Del Boy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Your point?

i will leave you to respond to AB Shorts Momma's question, but meanwhile, for my part, in reponse to the above, I have said what I have said.
March 24th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AB_Shorts_Momma
My family fought in both wars, I have never heard that type of opinion from an American (you show a US flag for your country).

Please explain your views.
Did not bother with the flag, i'm Polish-Ukrainian, as for explanation in regards to the allies, just look at every major engagement from Monte Cassino, battles in France up to Calais, German defence of the harbors or even Siegfrieds line.

In every of these engagements Germans were outgunned, outnumbered and yet they've put extremely strong defence to a point where to overtake German positions significantly greater numbers were required, that hardly makes allied effort impressive.

As for Russia? It was a tactical mess, squandering lives and equipment at horrible rates throught the war, so its not a particulary impressive victory either.

Personally i view victory as impressive if you won against the odds, not when you stomped down an enemy who despite being outgunned gave you a run for your money.
March 24th, 2009  
Partisan
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Actually both Western allies and Soviet Union generally sucked and humiliated themselves at every turn, Allies could not for the hell of it break out of Normandy and Germany put up a heck of a fight despite being horribly outclassed in everything but quality of personnel and Russia was just a horrible mess that won through trowing enough stuff at Germans to drown them in it.

Whats not said today is that Western Allies typically needed 3-1 odds to take on their Germans counterparts, there were battles and operations for the Allies that were impressive but ultimately there's nothing impressive about Allied victory in WW2.
Just to clarify, most doctrines reckon on a 3:1 ratio on attacker v defender, this goes up depending on the environment, more built up or covered, more troops.

For sheer strategic genius let's not forget opening a war on 2 fronts, switching targets in the Battle of Britain or fight to the last man for the Sixth Army.

Warfare is confusion & chaos, inevitably no one really gets covered in glory, just a thinner film of pooh, especially when viewed in hindsight by us armchair generals.
March 24th, 2009  
LeEnfield
 
 
The Battle at Normandy, it was a meat grinder of a battle where the Germans were worn down and destroyed, once the break out occurred they had little or nothing left to stop it rolling right across France and Belgium. Yes the German troops fought well and gave away little ground until they were almost destroyed
March 24th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partisan
Just to clarify, most doctrines reckon on a 3:1 ratio on attacker v defender, this goes up depending on the environment, more built up or covered, more troops.
On both fronts Germans could consider themselves lucky if it was 5:1, typically it was more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partisan
For sheer strategic genius let's not forget opening a war on 2 fronts, switching targets in the Battle of Britain or fight to the last man for the Sixth Army.
Warfare is confusion & chaos, inevitably no one really gets covered in glory, just a thinner film of pooh, especially when viewed in hindsight by us armchair generals.
True but compare allied victories to Napoleon for example and you get the idea, smaller forces at disadvantage attack and win over a much larger enemy, and that is impressive, winning a hard contested battle against someone you seriously outgun just isnt.