Most Neglected Chapters in Military History??

chinese civil war, the japanese agression aginsit china, the manchurian invasion by soviet union, operation mars, battle of kursk( though some ppl pay attention to it).

and 1944 soviet offensives, though not noted as much, just as a passive success, the soviets still had alot of diffculties
 
I would have to say the Spanish-American War, it was a war that made the United States into an empire almost overnight and it proved that we could take the war to the enemy, making the US a Superpower and finally getting us the recognition we deserved. Of course we then stopped building up our military and by the time WWI came around we had the 16th largest Army in the world.
 
Flak88 said:
chinese civil war, the japanese agression aginsit china, the manchurian invasion by soviet union, operation mars, battle of kursk(though some ppl pay attention to it).

and 1944 soviet offensives, though not noted as much, just as a passive success, the soviets still had alot of diffculties
Click to expand...
The Eastern Front of WW2 is hugely under-rated.

The Sino-Japanese Wars and WW2 in China get almost no coverage at all, yet involved HUGE armies, enormous destruction and incredible loss of life.

Pre 1800 China and East Asia is very, very poorly covered. The Manchu invasion and subsequent domination of China has tremendous relevance today, but is barely understood by most.

The Arabic Empires from 600 AD - 1918 AD get lousy coverage and had an enormous impact on the world.
 
Yup, the carving up of certain parts of China is hugely underrated while it is essentially the story of a power that was the envy of the world for thousands of years that had rotted away down to almost nothing.

Eastern Front World War II is underrated. After all, it was here that the bulk of the German army was destroyed.

World War I. For the amount of crap that stirred up over nothing, it's largely underrated. You can think of World War I and World War II as being the same conflict. World War II was so directly, and shamelessly linked with World War I that it's hard to ignore.

Invasion of Finland by the USSR. Lessons learned here would determine the tactics the Soviets would use against the Germans.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Invasion of Finland by the USSR. Lessons learned here would determine the tactics the Soviets would use against the Germans.
Click to expand...

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.

And to answer the thread question:

* Eastern Front in WW2
* Mongols foray into Europe
* Later Roman battles, i.e. Chalons
* Burma Campaign WW2
* Japanese conquest of SE Asia in WW2

There are tons of battles/wars that don't get much of a mention. I could go on for ages on this subject.
 
Doppleganger said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 I think that i am a little bit of midevilist but I think that the United States could stand a little work on Agincourt, revanna ( I apologize for the spelling). There is also a battle in wich a group of Middle classes persons fought off Teutonic Knights with Muskets while traveling in a rolling circle of wagons I would like to find out more about this battle oh um like its name ect.

Personally i could use more information on the gaelic wars and the roman civil war.

Just a have a question about the chinese civil war. Wich one?
 
the most recent one:

they should've covered hte battle of huai hai, in wihch more than 1 million units has been in battle.

a historical battle i china:
during the 3 kindoms, a battle( dont kno its name anymroe) occured between 700,000 northern units agnist chao chao's 70,000 troops, guess who won????
 
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.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Doppleganger said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

Doppleganger said:
the_13th_redneck said:
Doppleganger said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
leandros said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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)
 
Trevor said:
I'd say the War of 1812, the U.S. vs. the Canadian British Colony.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
Flak88 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top