If Rommel had used his resources to build a better road system. He'd probably would be able to bring all of his forces to bare far, far faster than if he just put most of his defenses right along the coast
Halder????Are you sure your not thinking of Erich Von Manstein?
Halder was not the one that came up with the plan to invade France.
I agree it was a local war then, but you better believe the whole world was watching, since we invented modern warfare and the tools that go with it.
I was talking about Belesarius and Justinian, not Grant and Sherman.
I am surprised you didn't cover the French and Indian War and the War of 1812.
To be precise, you said:
That is a very different statement. Insurgencies certainly don't have the upper hand on available force, which is why a brutal strategy works. It is much harder with protecting the population.
Indeed, although I'll bet the Russians and the Chinese can get away with it.
Fair enough, a bad example.
I was thinking about Northern Ireland. Doing a deal that undercuts the insurgency is completely kosher was of dealing with the insurgency. I believe it is called "separating the population" in COIN literature.
Nobody wins battles on pure skill. The success of German generals was mostly because of their military doctrine and organizational structure. The allies won primarily because of vast superiority in manpower and materials. Neither the Americans, British or Russian ever won a campaign while notably outnumbered.
Russia took the most losses because they had the fight the overwhelming majority of German soldiers. Everyone had poor tactics compared to the Germans in the early years of the war, the Russians didn't have a moat to hide behind. They sacrificed troops because it was the only way to win. In the later years, the Russians became quite proficient at fighting mechanized warfare.
You confused the KGB and NKVD, Pete. You really are proving my point about you relying on stereotypes.
Right. That is why the Russian generals managed to beat the Germans in an even-odds fight in 1943 during the summer. The winter stalled the Germans long enough to let the Russians regroup, but it sure as hell wasn't the Russian winter that marched into Berlin during a fine day in May.
Disagree fully. The world barely knew what the US was at the time. As for "inventing modern warfare".. a bit of a stretch. Yes it was one of the first conflicts where rail-road was used as part of the logistics, but considering the time-line of rail-roads and the available wars, then it was pure luck.
As for the rest.. hardly. Artillery had been used since the Roman times and the cannon was used by Chinese in warfare long before Columbus "discovered" the American continent again.
Where does it say "available force"? I said as you pointed out they have the upper hand, which is very true. They are far more mobile than conventional military forces, they can blend into the local population (especially if the population is sympathetic) and they know the lay of the land since it is their backyards they are defending. So my comments are 100% accurate. They might not have the biggest guns, but that is not the only and critical aspect of having "the upper hand". If so then the Chinese have the most powerful military in the world, since it is the largest with the most guns.. would you accept that comment? I would not.
But the insurgency was not defeated.
Does not change the fact that Russia had no regard for its troops.
I disagree. In almost every major battle the Russians had material superiority and manpower superiority. The defining battle in 1943, the battle of Kursk, the Russians had more tanks, planes and troops than the Germans, who were also worn out after trying to break the Russians in an offensive.
Stop just spouting stereotypes. Western European generals in WW1 were far more willing to throw away lives for no reason at all. The Russian strategy may have been incredibly brutal in the early years, but it had a useful purpose.
Battle of Kursk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although somewhat outnumbered by the Russians, it hardly was by a decisive amount. Considering that the rest of the Allies fought with even greater material superiority in Western Europe, its hardly a criticism of the Soviets.
You don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever heard of rifled artillery?
The average person in the street may not have known about the war, but every military officer and most political leaders knew what was up.
So sorry your empire is over. Move along now.
Nor is their ability to blend in and know the "lay of the land". I don't know how those items translate to the "upper hand" all of a sudden.
Sure it was! They stopped their aggression, did they not?
Way to not respond to my posts, I guess its because no one wants to debate the historian
That is false too. What ruined the Germans during the battle of Kursk-aside from the Russians knowing where the Germans were going to attack
was Hitler decided that he was the brilliant military tactician and that gave the Germans the lower hand. Hitler single-handedly ruined the battle of Kursk. The German generals in charge-Manstein and Kluge-could have defeated the Russian forces if it had not been for Hitler.
Actually you win war based on pure skill or because your enemy has gotten tired of war.
The Germans had good tactics even when they were in retreat of the Russians and right up to the battle of Kursk. Things changed after that because the Germans had no more material to fight a war with.
Right read my post about Hitler being the biggest reason for defeat in the summer of 1943. Had the Germans generals been allowed to decide how to bring the fight during that summer, the Soviets would have had a lot more dead Soviets and the war might have continued for longer.
He came up with the critical part of the plan. Which was my point.
How on earth could he build a better road system?!?! He had the British on the run and had to follow them and not let up. Building a road takes time...
Like it or not the US civil war was and still is a local war that very few people outside the US know much about.
Once again Peter you lack of knowledge on anything USA is showing.
Which critical part was that?
Are you talking about the rehash of the Schlieffen Plan that Halder submitted to Hitler?
The Manstein Plan
Developed by German Lieutenant-General Erich von Manstein, the plan greatly modified the original 1939 versions by Franz Halder of the invasion plan known as Fall Gelb. One way to look at the Manstein Plan was that it was the German Army's answer to the French Army's Dyle Plan. Originally, in Aufmarschanweisung N°1, Fall Gelb, the German Army planned to push the Allied forces back through central Belgium to the Somme river, in northern France, not unlike the first phase of the famous Schlieffen Plan of the First World War
Once again Peter you lack of knowledge on anything USA is showing.
If the US Civil War is not well know outside of the USA then why are there World Wide are there many US Civil War reacting Groups, plus with movies like God's and General's,Gettysburg and Ken Burns PBS show The US Civil War have made the US Civil War well know thru out the World.
There appears to be a lack of European knowledge also.
I was refferring to before the invasion
So you are saying that just because PBS made a documentary then the US civil war is well known around the world? Ya everyone around the world dropped everything and went to the TV because the "gods" from America had produced another documentary on their glorious history and it was mandatory watching. Get real.
Your total lack of knowledge what happens outside of the USA yet again shows through. You claim I have a lack of knowledge of the USA? Funny how when people start to loose an argument they always throw that in ones face.. but hey, if I have such a "lack of knowledge" of the US, then prove me wrong. Prove to me that the rest of the world has an intimate knowledge of the US civil war....
Yes, I believe that Halder had a greater impact than Manstien on the over all plan.
Eh? You are saying that Rommel should have not "invaded" but built roads? You do know that the fighting started long before Rommel arrived with his Afrika Corps right? That the British invaded Libya (then under Italian rule) first right?
So you are saying the first thing that Rommel should have done is to make roads in the areas he controlled with the Italians, and then attack take more land, then make more roads, and then attack again?.. I see..:roll:
Of course I have a lack of European history.. After all we are talking about 30+ countries with 3000+ years of history... your point being?
I think we're talking about two differant campigns. I'm saying that he should've built a better road network in northern France before D-Day to allow his army to move around better to counter an invasion, instead of spreading his forces piecemeal
oh, okay. You mean an autobann?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?