Most impressive military achievement in the 20th Century? - Page 17




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

 
--
 
February 9th, 2010  
Moloch
 
Most impressive LISTED here I'd say it's Finland vs Soviet Union, although my personal favorite would have been the victory of the Viet Minh over the 'French Far East Expeditionary Corps' in the 1st Indochina War (not the North-Vietnamese victory as a whole).

Allied victory in WWII doesn't seem very impressive to me no matter how glad I am about this outcome of the war (of course, the Allies could have done a worse job than they did, but anyway...the defeat of the Nazis was inevitable).
And about '39-'42...the most impressive about these first years of the war is how the French managed to get smashed so badly. No offense meant, but France could have spared the whole world a lot of grief by simply listening to de Gaulle before the war...
April 11th, 2010  
Korean Seaboy
 
 
I think the Finnish victory, Israel's victory in 1948, and the Vietnamese victory. All is even as I think...
April 12th, 2010  
usinfantryMOS11c10
 
 
I would have gone for "Any battle involving Israel winning" (Which is almost every one), but I didn't see that as an option so I had to settle for the 6 Days War....lol.
--
May 12th, 2010  
Shmack
 
 
I'd vote for Finland's success against Russia, but i believe it was more due to Stalin's slackitude and generals' time-serving, other than Finland's military genius. What i mean is that it's more Russia's fail (both political and military), than Finalnd's victory. Anyways, my vote for allied victory over ze germans.
May 18th, 2010  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary of CA
Finland's Winter War. They should have collapsed quickly but instead inflicted serious casualties on a numerically superior enemy. A lot of the Soviet failure must be placed on Stalin's sacking of his officers prior to the war as well as the dogged determination of the common Finnish soldier.
I'm curious, Finnland had the weather, the climate, fixed fortifications and geography on their side, why should they collapse quickly?

While impressive it was not nearly as awesome as described, Russia had numbers, Finnland, every other advantage.
May 18th, 2010  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
I'm curious, Finnland had the weather, the climate, fixed fortifications and geography on their side, why should they collapse quickly?

While impressive it was not nearly as awesome as described, Russia had numbers, Finnland, every other advantage.
I think you are doing a "Glass half full" comparisson here as I believe it is more accurate to say that Finland had geography on their side but Russia had every other advantage from manpower to equipment.

I voted for the Finnish war in this poll and would do so again because I believe that most would not have picked the initial Finnish defenses to have held up the Russians for much more than a day or two at the most given the disparity in the forces available to both sides.
May 21st, 2010  
fuser
 
 
Quote:
At winter war
Its quite surprising that so many people argues and voted for this option which clearly suggest that most people in here haven't studied winter war from militaristic view but only political....

They had highly sophisticated defense line with steel fortification called mannerheim line which helped them a lot alongside with poor utilization of resources by russian generals... Marshall voroshilov who was in charge of the operation was one of the worst commander of war, there was a better plan from a general who later became one of the famous generals of war Marshall Alexander Vadilevsky but his plan for breeching mannerheim line was ignored completely... We have already seen what a good defense line could do to superior enemy forces in case of battle of monte casino or even germans didn't opt to go through maginot line but instead bypassed it to achieve better results in france...

Any ways when the peace terms were signed the mannerheim line was breached and believe it if war would have continued it wouldn't have been a battle but slaughter.........Any ways kiddos to bravery of finnish soilder

And on a final note finnish authorities at that time acted stupidly just like the poles
May 21st, 2010  
fuser
 
 
I think in this poll WW2 and WW1 should have been divided into some famous battles like stalingrad, kursk, overlord, al almein, marne, midway,somme and etc......

I would choose "Battle of Moscow" although its not in the list......

Then USA/UN were never victorious in korean war... Their objective was not just to drive north korean forces from sout but also to control whole korea in which they failed... The battle was a stale mate....

One could easily choose north korean forces given the massive help south recieved from NATO/USA including direct involvement of troops, superiority at air, superiority in armour and equipment they still held on.....

Of course they recieved aid from soviet union and china but material aid was nothing compared to NATO/USA....
Then china's man power was a big factor........

Then, there is also no mention of Iran Iraq war
May 21st, 2010  
LeEnfield
 
 
Fuser......When talking about North Korea you failed to mention the millions of Chinese soldiers that fought on the north Korean side. It is reckoned that they lost a million men in this campaign.
May 21st, 2010  
fuser
 
 
Quote:
Fuser......When talking about North Korea you failed to mention the millions of Chinese soldiers that fought on the north Korean side.
Yes chinease help was mainly in the form of men and not in form of material and equipment.. And that was never millions anyway........

Now let's have a look the countries who provided aid in form of men and material to south korea USA, UK, Australia, Newzealand, Canada, Phillipins, Turkey, Netherlands, France, Greece, Thailand, Ethiopia, Belgium, South Africa and List is still not complete......Then, having air superiority and superiority in men and equipment but still now coming to my main point which you chosed to completely ignore "People here are presenting as if korean was a great militaristic achievement for NATO/USA/S.Korea even when they failed to complete their objective given all the favorable conditions they had...

The fact is: it was not a victory for any side, both side failed to reach their objective but if one have to chose one army it would be obviously of N.Korea/Chinease they fought till end even though of all the odds against them....

Its just foolish and naive to put that war in the list claiming a great victory for USA/NATO/S.Korea...

That is the gist, now do you really have to say something on the main point or still searching for something missing.........