Most Neglected Chapters in Military History?? - Page 2




 
--
 
December 6th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
Another lobsided result:
Korea under Lee Sun-shin: 12 ships.
Japan under... who cares: about 10 times the number.

There's a series of channels between the islands in the southern part of Korea that draws strong currents during tide changes. The times work like clockwork.
General Lee has chains tied from one side to the other. High tide, the chains are covered and the water is quite stable. It is here that General Lee shows his weakness and draws in the Japanese ships that come rushing in to finish off what's left of the Korean Navy.
General Lee and his ships get across.. the Japanese don't quite make it and the tide goes down. The current becomes a strong backdraft and the ships (the Japanese ships are made from light, delicate wood for superior speed) get their hulls ripped open by the chains. The bulk of Japan's navy is bye-byed.

This took place sometime early 1600s... maybe roughly 1610. Can't remember.
Japan starts to really lose the war on land after this battle where not a single shot was fired.
December 6th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger

This isn't really true. The Red Army were humiliatingly defeated by the Finns. They were also humiliatingly defeated by the Wehrmacht in 1941/42. They didn't learn anything until they began to reform out of necessity, i.e. most of the army no longer existed so they had to start from scratch.
That is why they learned how to fight. By losing. This is a key reason why the Soviets changed their main weapon from the rifle to the submachine gun, something that was a speicality of the Finns. In city fighting that would happen at places like Stalingrad the Germans would get bitten hard because of it.
I don't know if you can really credit the Finns with that though. All armies were going through the phase of beginning to use submachine guns over rifles during that period. All armies too still used rifles fairly extensively in WW2.
December 6th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
It was more important to the Soviets than to ANY other army though... and this was largely due to what they learned from the Finns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger

This isn't really true. The Red Army were humiliatingly defeated by the Finns. They were also humiliatingly defeated by the Wehrmacht in 1941/42. They didn't learn anything until they began to reform out of necessity, i.e. most of the army no longer existed so they had to start from scratch.
That is why they learned how to fight. By losing. This is a key reason why the Soviets changed their main weapon from the rifle to the submachine gun, something that was a speicality of the Finns. In city fighting that would happen at places like Stalingrad the Germans would get bitten hard because of it.
I don't know if you can really credit the Finns with that though. All armies were going through the phase of beginning to use submachine guns over rifles during that period. All armies too still used rifles fairly extensively in WW2.
--
December 7th, 2004  
leandros
 
The war in Norway april-june 1940. Usually this is only described as a German occupation happening on April 9th (as was the case with Denmark). As a matter of fact the fighting went on for 2 months (1 month in Southern Norway) under very harsh conditions. The Germans lost 1/3 of their navy (to the British navy and Norwegian coastal defense) and had their first real setback at Narvik. Elite German units were beaten decisively in man-to-man combat. On several occasions well-positioned German para units were over-run in frontal attacks by regular Norwegian infantry. As the Allied support (British, French and Polish) forces arrived in numbers there developed a work-sharing where the Allies followed the roads and valleys while the Norwegian units took the high ridges.
December 7th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by leandros
The war in Norway april-june 1940. Usually this is only described as a German occupation happening on April 9th (as was the case with Denmark). As a matter of fact the fighting went on for 2 months (1 month in Southern Norway) under very harsh conditions. The Germans lost 1/3 of their navy (to the British navy and Norwegian coastal defense) and had their first real setback at Narvik. Elite German units were beaten decisively in man-to-man combat. On several occasions well-positioned German para units were over-run in frontal attacks by regular Norwegian infantry. As the Allied support (British, French and Polish) forces arrived in numbers there developed a work-sharing where the Allies followed the roads and valleys while the Norwegian units took the high ridges.
Beaten decisively? I understand that there was some determined resistance but you cannot use the word 'decisive' when the outcome went against them. And it cannot be termed as a setback for the Germans because in the end they secured their objectives, without all that much trouble in the greater scheme of things.
December 8th, 2004  
AussieNick
 
The 1950's and 1960's conflict with the communists in Malaya and Borneo. Australian soldiers fighting and defeating communist guerillas using the same tactics as the VC.

Also I'd have to say the Boer war and the Burma front in WW2 (often called the forgotten front)
December 8th, 2004  
Trevor
 
I'd say the War of 1812, the U.S. vs. the Canadian British Colony.
December 8th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor
I'd say the War of 1812, the U.S. vs. the Canadian British Colony.
Of course the lack of attention on that is somewhat understandable. Both the UK and USA were happy to wash their hands of the whole affair and pretend it never happened.

From the Canadian point of view, its obvious why its pretty big stuff.
December 9th, 2004  
MadeInChina
 
the war involved no more than 10,000 troops, tops.

which isnt really significant in terms of warefare, but is very important cuz the americans almost took our beloveed canada
December 9th, 2004  
Damien435
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flak88
the war involved no more than 10,000 troops, tops.

which isnt really significant in terms of warefare, but is very important cuz the americans almost took our beloveed canada
But the results are what matter. The British and American's agreed to demilitarize the Great Lakes, the British stopped arming Indians (which was a major reason for the war.), the British finally agreed to abandon their forts east of the Mississippi, and Britain and America become "friends" and eventually allies, which is why today it is the UK and US in Iraq and the United States of America and Dominion of Canada share the longest unfortified border in the world. The war itself practically never happened, but like most other wars it was the results of the war that make it important.