Most impressive military achievement in the 20th Century? - Page 19




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

 
--
 
July 29th, 2010  
Noah
 
Other. I wanted to vote for Chuck Vietnam sniper with over +100 confirmed kills and 200 undecided kills also the role model for the movie "Sniper"
August 5th, 2010  
Nathanromml
 
 
Entire WW2 was the greatest achievement in military history of 20th century.

What I don't get, is why there are only victories enlisted up there. The greatest military achievement doesn't have to be a victory.

And, I believe, that Finland defense is way overrated. All credit should go to the soldier's heroism, climate, and Soviet fault's, not to the brilliant defenses strategy,extraordinary fighting doctrine or anything that may be considered "most impressive military achievement" .
August 5th, 2010  
Chukpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathanromml
Entire WW2 was the greatest achievement in military history of 20th century.

What I don't get, is why there are only victories enlisted up there. The greatest military achievement doesn't have to be a victory.

And, I believe, that Finland defense is way overrated. All credit should go to the soldier's heroism, climate, and Soviet fault's, not to the brilliant defenses strategy,extraordinary fighting doctrine or anything that may be considered "most impressive military achievement" .
You might look up the definition of achievement. The word indicates success or positive outcome.

Also, you are not correct that only victories are listed. There was a loss attributed to the opposing force in each victory.
--
August 6th, 2010  
Nathanromml
 
 
A brilliant military operation, innovative fighting doctrine, an epic battle, a superior training..etc,etc. These are military achievements, win or lose.
Example-Market Garden.


Quote:
Also, you are not correct that only victories are listed. There was a loss attributed to the opposing force in each victory
But only victories are listed as an military achievements.
August 8th, 2010  
CornCod
 
I am torn between Finland 1940 and the Russo-Japanese War of 1905. Apart from the Ethopians victory against the Italians at Adowa in 1888, Japan's victory against the Russians was the first time in modern history that the non-white races beat Europeans. The only thing mitigating against the R-J War is the fact that the Russian Navy was so pathetically crappy in its equipment and training that the intelligent and resourceful Admiral Rozhestvensky knew he was going to have his head handed to him by Admiral Togo months before the actual Battle of Tushshima. Finland in 1940 is perhaps the greatest example of a small country nearly defeating a major power. Like the Greeks defeating the Persians! I will stick with Finland 1940.
August 8th, 2010  
LeEnfield
 
 
The Russian/Japanese War.......If I remember rightly didn't they do what they did to the Americans at Pearl Harbour and that was to attack first and declare war afterwards.
August 9th, 2010  
Nathanromml
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CornCod
Finland in 1940 is perhaps the greatest example of a small country nearly defeating a major power. Like the Greeks defeating the Persians! I will stick with Finland 1940.
You have no idea how the war actually looked like, yet you voted on that only because small country beaten the big one. Smart.
August 28th, 2010  
adam7
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathanromml
What I don't get, is why there are only victories enlisted up there. The greatest military achievement doesn't have to be a victory.
The Finnish stand against the Soviet union was at the time seen as a defeat and the Moscow Peace of 1940 as a "Häpeärauha" (=shameful peace) and "Sanelurauha" (=dictated peace), due to the fact that large areas had to be ceded to an agressor. All population of the ceded areas relocated itself. Finland had to find housing for 15 % of the population which extracted itself from the ceded areas.

However bad the Moscow peace of 1940 felt at the time, later it has been understood how great the achievment was.

Quote:
And, I believe, that Finland defense is way overrated. All credit should go to the soldier's heroism, climate, and Soviet fault's, not to the brilliant defenses strategy,extraordinary fighting doctrine or anything that may be considered "most impressive military achievement" .
Usually the result is the most important thing adjudged, more often not the means.

As I wrote in an earlier post, the war had two faces, a trench war on the Carelian Isthmus and a mobile war north of it.

Please look into the battles of lake Tolvajärvi, Suomussalmi and the Raattee road, amongst others, before you underrate defensive strategy and fighting doctrine.

On the Carelian Isthmus the Materialschlacht didn't give much space for movements.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathanromml
You have no idea how the war actually looked like, yet you voted on that only because small country beaten the big one. Smart.
As noted, the Finns did note beat the large country, but inflicted enough losses to retain independence.

------------------

A less known fact is that when Finland had to choose between starving and retaining the lost area in conjunction with the Germans, and a few years later, when the Germans were not winning any more, in 1944, 3 days after D-day Russia attacked on the Carelian Isthmus with 450 000 troops, 10 500 artillery pieces, 800 tanks and 1 600 airplanes against 75 000 troops,1 900 artillery pieces, 110 tanks and 248 airplanes of Finns at the Isthmus, the Finns after loosing some ground and moving reinforcements in, stopped the russian advance in the largest battle to date in the Nordics, the battle of Tali - Ihantala. This was the only stategic offensive of the ten stategic offensives that the Soviet Union undertook, that was stopped. This was not against the bumbling and fumbling Red Army of 1939, but the battle tried and coordinated military machine of 1944, which the Finns had not understood to prepare against, since they were preparing to fight the last war again. They did, however, recover relatively fast.

In the Winter War the Finns had 200 000 troops at the Isthmus. However, in 1944 the firepower of the both sides were at a different level.

When the Soviet Stavka realised that the offensive was ground to a halt, they shipped of a large part of the troops to operation Bagration.


Due to stopping this strategic offensive of the USSR the only three capitals in the warring countries, that were not occupied at one time or another during the war, were London, Moscow and Helsinki. Keeping the aggressor out of most of the country also mean that civilian casualties were extraordinary low compared to the countries swept by fronts.

This extraordinary defensive victory was not touted after the war, due to understandable political reasons.
September 2nd, 2010  
Korean Seaboy
 
 
I go for between Finland and the Northern Vietnamese victory against the South.
Finland: The Red Army was the biggest army in the world, and they survived that monster. Of course, the Finnish were no featherweights. They traveled on skis, they were well prepared against winter, and they maintained a decent military. The Finnish stalemate was not only due to the Finns, but also to the Soviets. They invaded during winter, they were equipped with mittens with no trigger fingers, and only when the great Marshal Timoshenko took over the situation that the Soviet began really invading.
Vietnamese victory: The US was one of the greatest powers of that time, and yet a ragtag army of only a few thousand defeated and humiliated it. The US did everything to defeat it, with bombs, newest weapons, and everything they had. Yet they survived amazingly. Of course, the north Vietnamese had support from China and the Soviet Union, but most of the work should be attributed to the amazing North Vietnamese guerrilas
September 11th, 2010  
Mark Conley
 
 
Interesting choice for your opinion: i would like to offer what i would believe would be my take is on a rag tag army of a few thousand.

I believe that your stated number of the opposing force, either as a North Vietmanese Army (NVA) regular soldier, or as what the US Forces reffered o the local partisan group, called a NVA irregular or "Viet Cong" force is very much under the actual numbers involved. maybe you made a mistake with the actual number, due to non-sufficent information?

what i find a little puzzling is this statement found on this site concerning myths for the viet nam war:

" ...the Communists declared, in an official press release to Agence France, that we had actually killed 1.1 million NVA soldiers".

http://www.rjsmith.com/war_myth.html#bodies

i have not been able to find the actual statement or to verify the source. Can anyone else assist in this?

BTW, im sorry i was gone so long. the satillite internet idea wasnt productive, and its back to slash and grab internet ambushing of friends with computers.

no smiley on this one by the way. the statement made in the opinion just kinda sounds...weird.