|
| Thread: Greatest War Empires, Heroes, and Strategies |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
posted July 25, 2001 07:14 AM |
|
|
Suomassalmi
Sure, I should have been more prcise- the Germans didn't send actual fighting units until later; but there were German troops at many battles of the winter war as "advisors" just like Americans started in Vietnam and are presently engaged in Columbia and a few other places around the world. Also- Hitler did send materiel reinforcements to the Finns before the winter war and after. It wasn't much, mostly as a gesture of support- but those weapons did make a difference in some of the battles. A few of the things the Soviets learned from the Finns in that war were applied to the Germans a couple years later(Finnish ski troops, infiltration tactics, etc.) The battle along the road was classic military battle with Finns applying their lesser #'s and firepower with superior organization and mobility dividing the enemy and destroying in detail. The Russians were somewhat hampered by not having proper winter gear and learned that lesson very well to teach it to the Germans later on. The few experienced soldiers of the Soviet army during German invasion came mostly from this war and some engagements vs Japanese in Siberia front and those left over from wwI. It's really interesting to see how this war affected the war on the Eastern front- many of those German officers there in "advisor" capacity later rose to prominence during Barbarossa and if only their knowledge could have been applied more in preperation for that invasion things might have been very different. Same on the Russian side... also if the Finns had pushed on to St Petersburg or even just went deeper into the northern part to disrupt the flow of materiel Soviets recived from Britains and US through the Arctic ports many things would have changed. One thing that is often question is if the Finns really thought the Germans ever had a chance to win against Soviets. It might be they only agreed to invade to regain lost lands and in the hope that Germany would either sue for peace(unlikely with Hitler in power and Britain still in the war)and also some suspect that it was the idea to invade and take back Karelia so there was some buffer for the Soviets ro retake and salvage their pride, if the Finns had ever taken St Petersburg Russia would have never stopped until the border of Sweden if then.
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
|
posted July 25, 2001 09:43 AM |
|
|
There were also others..
Like swedish and estonian volunteers in the winter war.
Commander of finnish troops at battles of Suomussalmi was general Siilasvuo (not Sillanpää as I mentioned). Battle was really classical straight from the military handbook.
Germans did help finns a little and this was mainly because Hitler possibly felt that Finland could be if not strong then helpful allie in upcoming war. Also germany had sent troops already when Finland was in civil war 1918 and Finland was close to name some sort of noble from Germany to be Finlands first king. This however never happened...
It's very possibly that finns didn't believe during WW2 that Germany had chance to win. Finnish army head commander Carl.Gustav.Mannerheim was close to Hitler but it's said that he didn't like Hitler's methods and possibly saw him as a madman.
It's strange thing that Germany never took a real lesson from winter war. You were right that most of experienced soldiers in Soviet army were from Siberia. They could fight in the cold and with help of some of their units Soviets almost broke the Finnish line before the war ended. Finns had only few machinepistols in winter war but Soviet learned how powerful machinepistols were and started to manufacture huge amount of them. We can see that their firepower was amazing in the battles of eastern front.
The reason that Soviet attacked 1939 and winter war started was pretty much because Soviets wanted new territories (they had taken already Baltia)and they wanted to make sure that St.Petersburg was safe. It can be said that finns considered their options whether to attack St.Petersburg or not. Maybe finns didn't have trust into germans and decided just to create buffer between.
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
Ubik
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 25, 2001 02:35 PM |
|
|
About the '88s
OK Ichon, I never said the Mongols came in Europe in such huge numbers, I just said that most of their ravaging conquest was made by a far larger force than the 30.000 men you implyied.
In most parts about Byzantium you have right, the Byzantine diplomacy though was more than just an exhibition of wealth and luxury and "the name of Rome".
Actually, Byzantine emperors were handing out credentials to wannabe kings/emperors/whatever of the west (usually, former Germanic tribesmen, trying to establish as a sovereign "house" with credits of royalty) and they managed to go along way with the western doing this.
For the less civilized threats (like the Huns, for instance) they had to pay - big money. In the times of Attila, the Byzantines used to pay huge amounts of gold every year, to hold back the Huns from ravaging the land.
When money and diplomacy didn't work (like in the case of the Bulgarian and the Turks) they had to go into battle - and they did pretty good at that too.
And, yes, the walls of Constantinupolis were probably the greatest defensive work of all times. Prior to the Ottomans, hey fell to the crusaders in 1204 - but there was treachery involved.
As for Anatolia, it wasn't stripped away from the B.Empire till well into the 12th century (by the Seljuks) - the Arabs who tried prior them, had no luck.
Finally, some data I found on the 88s: While most people seem to believe that their first use as an anti-tank weapon was during the French campaign in WW2, actually the German troops send to help Franko in Spain used 6 or 8 Flak 18 (the "official" name of the '88s) against ground troops and light tanks of the Democratic Army.
They were pretty effective (even with standard, not anti-tank ammunition) and the German army ordered the appropriate anti-tank ammunition to make the Flak 18 a double-role (anti-aircraft and anti-tank) weapon. The ammunition was produced from 1939.
The first great success in operational use was in France by Rommels division, so some people tend to believe it was his idea to use them as anti-tank weapon. Wrong. They wouldn't be able to do more than scratch the Matildas with their standard anti-aircraft ammunition. They had the right ammo and it was specially designed for that role (and that weapon) so prior to the first officially mentioned use the Flak 18 was thought as a double-role weapon.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2001 03:49 PM |
|
|
Sha_Men....
Dont forget the Norwegian and Danish volunteers aswell. Actually both those countries government supported the volunteers, and helped them with the travel arrangements, as opposed to the volunteers for the Spanish civil war, who was actually prosecuted after their return to Denmark and Norway.
After all we are brother nations, eventhough u finns speak a completely different language 
Defreni
(One of the few proud moments during ww2 the danes had  )
____________
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
posted July 25, 2001 04:56 PM |
|
|
Sorry Defreni...
I didn't forget volunteers from Denmark and Norway but I didn't want to name everyone of them...
I just took two (somehow Sweden who sent about 8000 volunteers to support Finland and Estonia who was under threat of Soviet Union) of them that came first into my mind.
Did you know that even the british supported Finland during winter war by sending needed supplies (not military equipment though)?...
We are brother nations (I take that as compliment) but we aren't really brother people as estonias are more close to us finns. In fact it's hard to say where finns originally came here(that's whole different story)
And we do speak whole different language...(I take this also as compliment)
BTW At least we don't have "hot potato" in our mouth when we speak if you know what I mean...
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2001 11:10 PM |
|
|
LOL, actually the only finish words I know is "one, two, three" But Im fairly sure I cant spell it properly, and well where all Scandinavians eventhough ur linguistically closer to Bulgarians than to the rest of us Norsemen
Defreni
(Who when it comes to it, dreams of a place with no nations at all, just people)
P.S I know, farfetched, but hey, we all gotta have dreams.
____________
|
|
TheBlackDragon
Promising
Famous Hero
Dungeon Defender/ Dragon Lord
|
|
posted July 25, 2001 11:21 PM |
|
|
Wow you guys are great can u tell me about Saladin Campaign anyone
____________
* Dragons Lovers are Friends Of Mine*
|
|
thunderknight
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted July 26, 2001 06:51 AM |
|
|
It seems that most (if not all) of the greatest war empires, heroes, and strategies which have been mentioned in this thread are quite "old". I mean most are before
WWII.
Is it that no great war heroes/strategist/generals after that worth mentioning ? coz no great wars after WWII ? or maybe due to the advancement of war technology that intelligence/wisdom/vision of one person will never be enough? Just curious. 
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2001 08:00 AM |
|
|
Ubik:
Yes, the Mongols had more than 30,000 men, but that was the average size of their armies. Mongols warriors anyway. Often in China and midle east they had many more auxilaries, but some other places besides Europe they also only went with only that amount.
True the entire Anatolian province didn't fall away from Byzantium until 12th, but the borders were overrun very drastically a coupel times and the last one did so much damage Byzantium never recoverd and lost it a coupel decades later. As for Byzantine diplomacy- that example you mentioend is exactly what I meant about the name of Rome, the reason little kinglings from far off came to Byzantium for coronations and things like that was legitamacy- the only Empire that had evern been so permanent in that region was Rome, and to have bestowed their authoirty to rule by such a prestigious factor was what many king's intent on setting up a dynasty wanted. Byzantines played the card well, but you can't underestimate the factor of their wealth also.
88's- interesting about them being used in Spain, the only idea I ever had with them being used so early was that many 88's were present after the British sent so many RAF squadrons as "volunteers" Now I wonder how Rommel's name came to be so associated with the 88's also. The war in Africa was very see-saw with first British Matilda's being offensive power, then Germans Tiger's then British Firefly's, then German Panther D's etc- I think that was as far as it got in Africa, though there were the newest Panther's being shipped there I remember reading, but the British based on Malta sunk all 8 transport ships with the new tanks. Rommel used 88's in Kasserine Pass, and also Tobruk to good effect, but very difficult to use on the offense which Rommel preffered. His wide swings arounf defensive perimeters by going into the desert with mechanized and armor often left the regular infantry and 88's behind to hold. The 88's were probably cheapest most cost effective defensive weapon of the Germans however- they were effective right until the end of the war when some Soviet tanks armor(Joseph Stalin 2&33's and T34-44's) was too strong and also the British Centurions. It was definately a squad infantry weapon though- when the Germans mounted it on half tracks it wasn't as effective.
____________
|
|
Sha_Men
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jack-Of-No-Trades
|
|
posted July 26, 2001 09:44 AM |
|
|
Rommel...
Now that we have come to my favorite tactician...
I have little disagreement with Ichon here.
Rommel preferred counterattack.
Of course he would have attacked if possible but he understood that it would be madness to do in desertwar as he didn't have enough troops or supplies.
You see that British in El Alamein (there were also other factors like supply and some imaginary brigades) that they put Rommel first into attacking position and then counterattacked.
Before that Rommel had usually waited until british attacked and with help of 88's and with some maneuvers turned the whole battle upside down.
And yes 88's were left very often behind in desertwar. Too bad that the equipment and supplies didn't arrive so regularly from Germany as they should have. I believe Rommel would have been the winner in case if they would had.
88's were still effective against those tanks you mentioned but not as effective as earlier as they were deadly (with anti-tank ammo) against most of the allied tanks. I knew that they were used in Spain but everytime I check where they were used as antitankgun in real action name Rommel comes along.
Because there seems to be more than one that has read some military history...
I have to ask do you prefer Tiger or Panther as Germany's best tank? Of course they were used little bit in different role but somehow I manage to like Tiger more. Maybe it's because of the 88 gun and thicker armor in the cost of maneuvarability.
____________
Catch the vigorous horse of your mind.
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2001 12:29 PM |
|
|
Couner-attack
Every attack except the first in a war of manuover is a counter-attack. Rommel preffered to take the iniative whenever possible, but the war in Africa limited the possible in many ways. Supply was terrible on both sides initially, and the Germans were the worst off, but Rommel swung into the desert skirting the minefields and layered defenses several times, trapping British units and supplies. If oftentimes the British and Germans both sat and waited for their supplies- unable to advance or retreat. Rommel made the best of this situation, and I agree would have captured Egypt easily if he had even half the support the British he faced recieved. Malta and the unimpressive performance of Italy were as meaningful to the desert war as any battle that occured.
____________
|
|
Ubik
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 26, 2001 01:56 PM |
|
|
Rommel and King Tiger
Yes those two have little to do with eachother (ok, not nothing, just a little - Rommel had a couple dozens "King Tiger" (PzKpfwg VI) under his command in the western front, just before D-Day) but here is some info on both:
Rommel in Africa
The Africa Corps was definitely better in any aspect than the British troops in the region... but the decisive factor (as Ichon mentioned already) was the supplies. The problem was not that they couldn't get enough in - the problem was that Hitler had shifted his interest in the Eastern front and left Africa Corps with nothing! Despite Rommel's efforts, no sufficient supplies (especially) or men or ammo or tanks or whatever came in Africa. The eastern front ate up everything the German factories could produce. That was the decisive factor. Yes the allies had air supremacy in the area, but that happened only after "Barbarossa" started.
About the Panzerkampfwagen (Panzer)
Probably, the best tank the German came up with (and with no doubt the best in the WW2) was the "King Tiger", a marvelous design, practically unstopable by any means except a)a direct artilery shot (very rare) and b)airborn attacks (very common, indead). But it was produced in small numbers and it was hard to maintain - so it never became a deciseve factor in a large scale.
Tiger (PzKpfw VI) was it's predesessor and it was very effective in the eastern fron, allthough the problems with it's engine, the difficult maintainance and the rather small numbers (only 1300 of them manufactured during WW2) did not let this marvelous design achieve it's full potential. You must be familiar with the story in Normandy, when a single Tiger stopped 25 British tanks!
Panther (PzKpfwg V) was definitely a good tank, but it wasn't a match for Tiger - and it had many engine problems in the first months of it's production. Later it became more reliable and it's quite impresive that the Americans have came up with a calculation that it took 5 (!) M4 Sherman to take out one Panther!!!!
Dunno if anyone is aware with the German super-tank "Maus", a real giant (188 tons, carrying one 128 mm canon and one 75 mm !!!) - only two of those have been produced and the one is supposed to be still intact (was captured outside Berlin) in a Russian war museum!
|
|
TheBlackDragon
Promising
Famous Hero
Dungeon Defender/ Dragon Lord
|
|
posted July 26, 2001 10:47 PM |
|
|
I like to work my armys around my archers and my calavry
I like to draw my units into firing range of my archers then surrond them with my calvary
____________
* Dragons Lovers are Friends Of Mine*
|
|
RagingTitan
Adventuring Hero
Titan Ruler Of The Towers
|
|
posted July 29, 2001 02:39 AM |
|
|
I like that Tatic to but i also like to pound my opponents with units first then surroned them
____________
When Titan footsteps roar
Armeggedon is near
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2001 02:17 AM |
|
|
Ubik
Yeah, I've heard that formula about 5 Shermans vs 1 Panther also. Probably true, though I think ut could be even more if the Panther had experienced commander and recon to support it. As for 88'd effectiveness until the end of the war, sure if could always penetrate even until the end, but once the range went down a certain amount it was practically useless. It could only penetrate the forward armor at extremely close range, side armor was a little easier but not much.
Ok, about the King Tiger- generally in most things of statistics it was superior to the Tiger. More firepower, more armor, a little bit more reliable etc. However, it wasn't as good as the last versions of the Panther in my opinion. Panther had higher top speed, and also it's turret tracked much faster. The final factor is weight, Panther weighed less than the King Tiger. That added mobility made a big difference, not only on the eastern front, but also in the Ardennes, the final thrust of the Wehrmacht. I've looked at this battle and I think if the King Tiger's hadn't been in the front- getting stuck in the mud and very hard to get out, the Germans might have been able to reach the oil depots before the allied reinforcements arrived. Very close battle.. also- the Kings were so slow even the ones with enough fuel to retreat had to be left behind.
____________
|
|
Ubik
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 30, 2001 04:25 PM |
|
|
Ichon
Right! While King Tiger was defintely #1 when it came to fire range, fire power and armour (inpenetrable by any anti-tank device the allies had) its operational use was hindered severely by the factors you mentioned - low speed being one, enormous weight another, and also engine problems/reliability the third.
Panther was more "ripe" design, and they had the time to work on the problems and produce a reliable tank.
Anyway, what you said about the Panther applies to any tank: An experienced commander/crue would add enormous surplus value to it's ability to fight and destroy.
|
|
Wyvern
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2001 07:32 PM |
|
|
Bulgarian khans
What do you know about Bulgarian khans? From the VIIth century Bulgaria was ine of the biggest problems for Byzantium. Here are two of the most important khans.
Khan Asparouh (i don't know how to spell it in English) established the Bulgarian state in 681. But this was not so easy because the Byzantines didn't agree. In 680 thye Byzantine emperor Constantine IV Pogonatus organized a campaign against the Bulgarians who lived in the fortress of Ongul. The Byzantine army consisted of 60000 soldiers. When they reached Ongul, they wanted a quick battle, but the Bulgarians fortificated. The Byzantines besieged the fortress for several days. Constantine decided to go to Mesembria (town at the seaside of Black Sea) to cure himself from a disease. But the Byzantines thought the emperor was fleeing and were afraid. So the Bulgarians (with much smaller army!) defeated them. After that Asparouh conquered the lands between the Danube and the Balkan Mountain and a peace treaty was signed between Bulgaria and Byzantium. Bulgaria became an independent state!
The second famous khan is khan Kroum. At this time there were 3 big states in Europe - Bulgaria, Byzantium and the Frank empire. In 811 the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus I Gennicus made a crucial campaign against Bulgaria - army of 60000 soldiers (again! Just a coincidence?). Kroum felt weak and begged for peace 2 times but Nicephorus refused. Then Kroum said thede great words: "When you don't want peace, here's an axe!". If you want the Bulgarian equivalent: "Êàòî íå ùåø ìèðà, íà òè ñåêèðà!". But I don't know what will yousee from this Cyrilic text so here is its English transcription: "Kato ne shtesh mira, na ti sekira!". What a rhyme! Anyway, the Byzantines entered the Bulgarian capital of that time Pliska and took the treasury. Nicephorus decided to return back. He was so confident that he didn't make reconaissance. And... he was surprised by the Bulgarian forces in Varbitza pass. Byzantines were encircled and totally destructed. From Nicephorus's head was made a GOBLET which khan Kroum used by raising toast on ceremonies with the words: "Cheers, band, with Nicephorus's noddle!". I won't give the Bulgarian equivalent, however!
Yeah, there were great Bulgarian leaders. I can talk about Bulgarian tzars (they came after the khans) but I think thede two heroes are enough for you to understand that at that tome Bulgaria was one of the greatest states in the world (although not an empire). But who cares? You say Romans, Byzantines... do you know about the Bulgarian history at all?
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted July 30, 2001 08:03 PM |
|
|
With regard to the size of the Mongol armies, one thing that distorts it is that all of the Mongol warriors had multiple horses. When charging into battle, they'd put dummies on the extra horses to artificially inflate their numbers. Plus, in their defense, despite all the looting, raping and pillaging, (oh, come on, who hasn't put a few villages to the torch because they're having a bad day) they were one of the few conquering armies to allow complete freedom of religion (as long as the tribute came in).
|
|
Wyvern
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2001 08:20 PM |
|
|
Hmm... Something happened. Maybe a technical problem and I don't know how to fix it.
I had 7 posts and I posted my reply about yhe Bulgarian khans. But it appeared 3 times and I had to delete two of the three because they were one and the same. So my previous posts (7) + that about the Bulgarian khans (1) = 8 if I don't make a mistake. But then I saw that I had 3 posts! Nevertheless, all the 8 posts are still here. If someone (maybe moderator) could fix this problem...
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2001 09:01 PM |
|
|
Nationality and Glory
About the Bulgarian Khans, Tzars and everything else. Sure I am aware of it, most nations have a time of past glory or prestige when they fought the brilliant battle against superior numbers and won etc. Fewer have a history of empire and changing the world. Bulgaria did have some impact especially in eastern europe- and also I think even had Frankish princess wed to a prince for possible alliance that never finalized, but besides a few victories against Byzantium and carving out a country north of the Danube, not much was done impatfully historically. Not that this makes what they did achieve any less, but it's not as unique as that except they were the ones who accomplished it at that time and place. If you want a history of some peoples who fought more battles and won against greater numbers of invaders than anyone, look to Azerbajain and Afghanistan... some of those central asian countries have a history of continous warfare. Usually they didn't win the long run, but they faced so many invaders. Of course since they lost so many times their history is hard to discover always being obliterated by the victors. Byzantium didn't always win it's battles, but it usually did. It only takes a few times in a row of losses though to lose a nation. For a long time Byzantium could afford to lose 600,000 mean. It would just replace them. Slowly though the borders contracted and they coudn't lose so many one day. Same happened in earlier Rome. What the Gauls didn't quite understand or even later the Germanii was that a few legions here or there wasn't enough. Only the Vandals and Celtii seriously threatened Rome as a nation. Hannibal roamed the Italian provinces for some years, but even he didn't have enough men to finish off Rome who could recruit from Hispaniola, Macedonia, Sardinia, and Sicily even at that time. Rome lost not just a few legions, but many legions more than once in it's history. Even losing 5 legions was about 1/10 of it's strength only. Impossible for many periphery civilizations to comprehend. Of course Rome couldn't lose legion after legion indefinately, but it never did. Usually its losses were because of terrible leadership of the consul who were often appointed for political reasons not military ones. I think Rome lost it's legions valiantly against Hannibal and the Celtii. Hannibal out fought the legions every time except the last battle. The Celtii were the plug on Roman expansionism for a few centuries, pillaging almost to Rome's walls several times, they killed numerous legions, and Rome finally only prevailed by enlisting other at that time barbarian tribes(these tribes became citizens of rome a few short years after). The legion wasn't exactly formed as a concept at the time of the wars with the Celtii(original celts- the Gauls Caeser fought were many differen tribes). Certainly when the Germanii slew 5 legions, or when Cennius marched into the Syria desert with 8 legions to disappear fighting some army no one is really sure about, or Hannibal engaged 12 legions in the space of one week marching back and forth to defeat them all... those were terrible losses by Rome. However those are actually isolated incidents. If you look at Rome's decline, most often the legions weren't defeated in battle, but were recalled from the borders to replace legions lost in civil war or disbanded due to corruption in the treasury.
|
| |
|
|
