Final battle of the Zulu war. Basically, British formed up into a massive square and moved through Zulu country until the Zulus were obliged to meet them in the field then shot them to bits. then set the cavalry on them.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Zulus ....
I'm still not sure that qualifies as great.
Sure it secured the Zulu country for the British but was it truly a great victory. I'm not even sure the consequences of the victory warrant such a claim (certainly a argument to use against my selection of Schwarzkopf).
I still say Omdurman is the only colonial victory approaching greatness and even that is questionable to me.
I'm still not sure that qualifies as great.
Sure it secured the Zulu country for the British but was it truly a great victory. I'm not even sure the consequences of the victory warrant such a claim (certainly a argument to use against my selection of Schwarzkopf).
I still say Omdurman is the only colonial victory approaching greatness and even that is questionable to me.
Re: GWI and Colonial Wars .....
Superior technology does not neccessarily disqualify one as a great leader. Certainly, the US and Germans had marginally superior technology in WWII, and they still have great leaders. However, I would not consider an officer great because he commanded a razzia against a force that was still fighting with 1960s kit, no matter how inspired his strategy. In greatness, there must be some element of risk. Schwartzkopf simply has not faced that risk, because there was never a chance of him losing, or even being severely bloodied.
About the only chance the French had was somehow tying down the German panzers. If they could stop the mad dash, they might have been able to win. However, they got outmaneuvered by the speedy German tanks, and it would have taken a miracle for them to pull it off. Nevertheless, the French were still a credible opponent for the Germans.
However, the Turks were a credible threat to the Venetians. Sure, an individual christian ship was better, but not by such a wide margin that the battle was out of their reach. This was not the battle of the Navarino. By the way, I am interested in hearing what you consider to be the other three great naval battles, and what criteria you used to identify these as great. Naval history is my specialty!
Superior technology does not neccessarily disqualify one as a great leader. Certainly, the US and Germans had marginally superior technology in WWII, and they still have great leaders. However, I would not consider an officer great because he commanded a razzia against a force that was still fighting with 1960s kit, no matter how inspired his strategy. In greatness, there must be some element of risk. Schwartzkopf simply has not faced that risk, because there was never a chance of him losing, or even being severely bloodied.
Re: Re: GWI and Colonial Wars .....
And it appeared that bulk of Irakian army wasn't engaged in any great encounter. In fact, it didn't fight, or almost, except for delaying operations.
(fortunately : if I remember CNN, and other world medias, Irak had 4 million soldiers, thousends tanks and other modern weapons. Terrific ! )
If not, how can you explain that this army, some weeks or month after the war, was always able to crush Kurd and Chiit's separatist movements ?
So, the risk...
And it appeared that bulk of Irakian army wasn't engaged in any great encounter. In fact, it didn't fight, or almost, except for delaying operations.
(fortunately : if I remember CNN, and other world medias, Irak had 4 million soldiers, thousends tanks and other modern weapons. Terrific !
)If not, how can you explain that this army, some weeks or month after the war, was always able to crush Kurd and Chiit's separatist movements ?
So, the risk...
Re: Re: GWI and Colonial Wars .....
Instead of sending 100% of the reserves north, a decent French CinC using the exact same doctrine Gamelin and Georges used would have 1) kept a reserve and 2) shored up the Meuse on May 11th or 12th with AT guns and a couple decent divs because there were reports tanks were coming this way and better safe than sorry.
That doesn't have anything to do with doctrine, just Generalship 101.
Wether it would have stemmed the German tide is another matter, but it certainly would have complicated Kleist's task.
Kleist's task: try saying this 10 times very fast!
Instead of sending 100% of the reserves north, a decent French CinC using the exact same doctrine Gamelin and Georges used would have 1) kept a reserve and 2) shored up the Meuse on May 11th or 12th with AT guns and a couple decent divs because there were reports tanks were coming this way and better safe than sorry.
That doesn't have anything to do with doctrine, just Generalship 101.
Wether it would have stemmed the German tide is another matter, but it certainly would have complicated Kleist's task.
Kleist's task: try saying this 10 times very fast!
Originally posted by Sire Enaique
Instead of sending 100% of the reserves north, a decent French CinC using the exact same doctrine Gamelin and Georges used would have 1) kept a reserve and 2) shored up the Meuse on May 11th or 12th with AT guns and a couple decent divs because there were reports tanks were coming this way and better safe than sorry.
That doesn't have anything to do with doctrine, just Generalship 101.
Wether it would have stemmed the German tide is another matter, but it certainly would have complicated Kleist's task.
Kleist's task: try saying this 10 times very fast!
Agree, of course.
Churchill : "Send your reserves"
Gamelin : "We have no reserve..."
7th army, the best motorized and trained of french army, and the three DCR, were normally ordered to constitute some sort of strategic reserve.
Finally, Plan Dyle with variant Breda totally ruins this safe decision, by extending defensive front until Netherlands (to protect Antwerp, and for political reasons), and the DCR's were sent in Belgium, recalled when panzer's threat appeared, and finaly disrupted before any using in force could be planned.
Have you ever seen a commander, knowing a bit german mobile doctrine and in a defensive position, destroying all his reserves at the beggining of a battle ?
Originally posted by Sire Philippe
Have you ever seen a commander, knowing a bit german mobile doctrine and in a defensive position, destroying all his reserves at the beggining of a battle ?
it's not a question of German doctrine. It's a basic tenet of good generalship. ALWAYS keep a reserve. You never know what might happen, and in battle the unexpected ALWAYS happens.
Agree to disagree ....
I guess we'll just have to disagree on Schwarzkopf. I admit it isn't the strongest case so I can't press the argument completely but I think its at least a possibility that he is great. Another problem with his claim is that its short. Most of the others on the list ahd multiple battles and longer periods of time to judge their effectiveness. H. Norman doesn't have that. We have a whopping 100 hours of land combat. Still, like I said, its the strategy and tactics that seem to make the battle great not necessarily the stupidity or inferiority of the enemy.
Now completely off topic .....
As for great naval battles .....
Salamis
Lepanto
Trafalgar
Midway
I am not a naval historian so I wouldn't make any large bets on these but all four seem to have far reaching consequences. They also were universally decisive in their character. In other words, you knew for sure who won. I think all four changed the course of history.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on Schwarzkopf. I admit it isn't the strongest case so I can't press the argument completely but I think its at least a possibility that he is great. Another problem with his claim is that its short. Most of the others on the list ahd multiple battles and longer periods of time to judge their effectiveness. H. Norman doesn't have that. We have a whopping 100 hours of land combat. Still, like I said, its the strategy and tactics that seem to make the battle great not necessarily the stupidity or inferiority of the enemy.
Now completely off topic .....
As for great naval battles .....
Salamis
Lepanto
Trafalgar
Midway
I am not a naval historian so I wouldn't make any large bets on these but all four seem to have far reaching consequences. They also were universally decisive in their character. In other words, you knew for sure who won. I think all four changed the course of history.
Re: Agree to disagree ....
Agreed
Good choices. I would toss Midway, and put in the Saintes in it's place. A British aggressive pursuit at the Saintes would have won them the American revolution. Even though they won the battle, they won it in such a way to lose the war. Midway, on the other hand, was simply the manifestation of what had to be. The Japanese could not have won, even if they had sunk the entire US Navy at Midway, and captured the island, and then conquered Hawaii.
Re: Re: Agree to disagree ....
In the same way, in replacing of the Saintes, why not Cheasapeake's Bay ?
I don't know details of this battle, in fact, so I hope you'll explain me why this choice couln't be good : didn't this battle decide the result of Yorktown, and so of final outcome of the war ?
In the same way, in replacing of the Saintes, why not Cheasapeake's Bay ?
I don't know details of this battle, in fact, so I hope you'll explain me why this choice couln't be good : didn't this battle decide the result of Yorktown, and so of final outcome of the war ?
Re: Re: Re: Agree to disagree ....
Now that I think about it, I am starting to like Cheasapeake Bay a little better. You are right, let's sub that one in.
Yes, yes it did. Actually, the Saintes occured after Yorktown, but with many of the same officers. It would be a tossup between the two, I guess. Cheasapeake Bay doomed Cornwallis, and the inconclusive Saintes ensured that any English attempt to land an army in America would have to contend with the French Fleet.Originally posted by Sire Philippe
In the same way, in replacing of the Saintes, why not Cheasapeake's Bay ?
I don't know details of this battle, in fact, so I hope you'll explain me why this choice couln't be good : didn't this battle decide the result of Yorktown, and so of final outcome of the war ?
Now that I think about it, I am starting to like Cheasapeake Bay a little better. You are right, let's sub that one in.
Re: Agree to disagree ....
I´d like to propse a controversial battle, Jutland, and in British favour. Though the Royal Navy lost more ships then the Hochseeflotte, the Germans never dared to risk another open battle against the Home Fleet. Effectivly ensuring that the blockade would not be broken.
Edit: Tsushima! How could this naval be forgotten? Now there´s an decisive and surprising win, if there even was one.
I´d like to propse a controversial battle, Jutland, and in British favour. Though the Royal Navy lost more ships then the Hochseeflotte, the Germans never dared to risk another open battle against the Home Fleet. Effectivly ensuring that the blockade would not be broken.
Edit: Tsushima! How could this naval be forgotten? Now there´s an decisive and surprising win, if there even was one.
Last edited:
Re: Re: Agree to disagree ....
Still, that wasn't really a consequence of the battle, but rather of timidity on the German side. The German refusal to gamble is what cost them the war at sea, more than any defeat at Jutland could have.
See the '20 Most decisive Battles' thread in the General History section. Although Togo certainly was the preeminant battle admiral of his time, Tsushima wasn't exactly a world changer. It was important for Japan and Russia, but it hardly altered the balance of power.
Re: Re: Re: Agree to disagree ....
On the other hand, who is to say that if they indeed had gambled, that they wouldn't have lost anyway? It is an interesting question, since some argue that when the Germans were defeated at Jutland (yes, not defeated in that sense, but lost control of the sea) then the supply lines were open to Britain. Well, the true threat were the subs, and they damn near crippled Britain. I've done a smaller study on the subject, and Britain was closer to trouble back then than you would think today. I will try and get the numbers.
On the other hand, who is to say that if they indeed had gambled, that they wouldn't have lost anyway? It is an interesting question, since some argue that when the Germans were defeated at Jutland (yes, not defeated in that sense, but lost control of the sea) then the supply lines were open to Britain. Well, the true threat were the subs, and they damn near crippled Britain. I've done a smaller study on the subject, and Britain was closer to trouble back then than you would think today. I will try and get the numbers.
Re: Re: Re: Agree to disagree ....
BTW im not that supporting of this, Im just throwing it around as an idea....
Well, I said it was controversial, but it can be argued that the German admirals realized they couldnt win an open fight with the Home Fleet, and resolved to use "covert" warfare (subs), wich was one of the prime reasons for drawing in the yanks in the fight.
BTW im not that supporting of this, Im just throwing it around as an idea....
Well, I consider Tsushima to be more important than any battle in the American rebellion, as the USA might have formed either way. And yes it altered the balance of power.... ever heard of the British-Japanese alliance?
The Battle of Jutland was probably Germany's last and best chance to take on and destroy the Royal Navy Grand Fleet. Shortly after the Battle of Jutland the Royal Navy introduced the Pollen fire control system which not only rectified British fire control problems (British fire control was weaker than that of the High Seas Fleet at the time of Jutland and was a key weakness [ironically and painfully, the system had been available for a while before the battle but had had not been adopted due to bureaucratic wrangling]) but made British fire control significantly more effective than their German counterparts. Add to that the fact that British ships kept rolling off the slips (and later on in the war, ships that were a lot more powerful than anything the Germans were putting out) and Jutland was really Germany's last window of opportunity.
Well the Baden class was actually just as powerfull... though maybe not as fast as the QE class.....
I remember looking at all those maps in late 1990 that showed the Iraqi army concentrated in Kuwait, and the journalists and "military experts" drawing big, thick arrows right through the thick of Iraqi defences and calling it strategy, and me thinking "hey, dudes, see that wide open flank?".
So I guess if I could think about it as something so obvious, as somebody already put it the maneuver wasn't exactly the military equivalent of rocket science.
All Schwarzkopf showed in 1991 was that he wasn't stupid.
Now for a nomination:
O'Connor.
His campaign from Compass to Beda Fomm was absolutely outstanding. What were the odds against him? 7:1? which other XXth century general can claim a complete offensive victory against such odds with dozens of thousands involved on both sides?
and most importantly there were only 2 of them.
About Jutland: when you think of all the things that went wrong for Jellicoe during those two days - like radios breaking down repeatedly at the worst possible moment, the simple fact that he managed to engage the German fleet twice shows he was more than simply adequate.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Agree to disagree ....
You know, I wonder if at any point the Germans sent a message to the US saying "Stupid Americans! There is a war! Do not sail your ships here! Do not travel aboard ships flying the British flag! Don't be so stupid!"
If the English had control of the sea, they could have blown the piss out of the Continental Army from the sea, and brought in enough reinforcements to swamp the colonies under. Without French naval aid, the USA cannot be created. And the creation of the US is of far more historical importance than a small war between Russia and Japan.
Yeah, their return to unrestricted submarine warfare was unfortunate. However, even if the entire High Seas Fleet was sunk at Jutland, the Germans wouldn't have really lost anything. It was worth the risk.
You know, I wonder if at any point the Germans sent a message to the US saying "Stupid Americans! There is a war! Do not sail your ships here! Do not travel aboard ships flying the British flag! Don't be so stupid!"
And how did Tsushima cause that? It was old news even in 1905. The British built the IJN, and the Russians were worried about the Japanese using British bases to attack them in the North Sea.
If the English had control of the sea, they could have blown the piss out of the Continental Army from the sea, and brought in enough reinforcements to swamp the colonies under. Without French naval aid, the USA cannot be created. And the creation of the US is of far more historical importance than a small war between Russia and Japan.