Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

History's Greatest Military Defeats

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • And just then Tokyo and Berlin would be glassed.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mandala View Post
      It would not have been possible for Germany and Japan to conquer and occupy the United States. Nevertheless, the Japanese could have won the Battle of Midway. The Germans could have won the battle of Stalingrad. If they had won both the U.S. and the other Allies would have been in serious trouble. The Second World War could still have ended with the Germans occupying the mainland of Europe, and the Japanese occupying the Philippines and Hawaii.
      So Japan wins Midway, then what? How does losing 3 fleet carriers affect the USN operations in any way, shape, or form, in 1945? US built 24 fleet carriers in 3 years, along with 127 light and escort carriers. By 1945, US accounted for more than half of the entire world's industrial output, and that was when huge orders were cancelled due to the war winding down. US industral capacity was by all intents and purposes of WWII, limitless.

      The best the Axis could have done was delay the inevitable by maybe 1 year, and that's if they win all the "decisive" battles.

      These so called "decisive" victories only existed for the Allies, as the Axis losses were crushing blows to their capacity to make war.

      There were no scenarios in which the Axis could score a "decisive" victory against the Allies. Nothing the Axis could do would have crippled the Allies' ability to make war. There were practically endless reinforcements and endless warmachines coming from the US.

      The Allies also held the A-bomb. Series production could come as early as 1946.

      The war ending in 1945 was probably the best outcome for Germany and Japan, short of surrendering earlier. Prolonged conflict would only lead to the same result with more deaths.
      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mandala View Post
        It would not have been possible for Germany and Japan to conquer and occupy the United States. Nevertheless, the Japanese could have won the Battle of Midway. The Germans could have won the battle of Stalingrad. If they had won both the U.S. and the other Allies would have been in serious trouble. The Second World War could still have ended with the Germans occupying the mainland of Europe, and the Japanese occupying the Philippines and Hawaii.
        Unfortunately for you, you're in a forum full of military historians as well as service members.

        Stalingrad was of very little strategic importance to the Soviets except that it trapped AG Central there. The Germans winning Stalingrad would not helped them to face down the armies that did Operations MARS and URANUS.

        The Imperial Japanese Empire was not the Philipines or even Hawaii or Midway. It was China and Korea and by 1942, the Chinese were starting to match army for army against the IJA. The Chinese Armies that did the Korean War would have made mince meat out of the IJA.

        Comment


        • gunnut,

          By 1945, US accounted for more than half of the entire world's industrial output, and that was when huge orders were cancelled due to the war winding down. US industral capacity was by all intents and purposes of WWII, limitless.
          all true, but also realize that the US was starting to get close to war exhaustion herself. by 1945 the US was starting to run short on money (adjusted for size of the economy/inflation, spending was something like 30-50x the size of the 2009 stimulus....) and men-- trainers were beginning to get pulled out for duty at the front. by then, US war lust was pretty much spent in the grueling battles of okinawa and the philippines, and instead there was just a grim determination to see the job done.

          wouldn't have stopped the US from utterly crushing japan and germany, of course, but there probably would have been no extensive reconstruction in japan, at least.
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment


          • Originally posted by astralis View Post
            gunnut,



            all true, but also realize that the US was starting to get close to war exhaustion herself. by 1945 the US was starting to run short on money (adjusted for size of the economy/inflation, spending was something like 30-50x the size of the 2009 stimulus....) and men-- trainers were beginning to get pulled out for duty at the front. by then, US war lust was pretty much spent in the grueling battles of okinawa and the philippines, and instead there was just a grim determination to see the job done.

            wouldn't have stopped the US from utterly crushing japan and germany, of course, but there probably would have been no extensive reconstruction in japan, at least.
            Yes, and to quote Russel Peter talking about his dad lecturing him: "somebody is gonna get hurt."

            Early surrender of the Axis was the best outcome of the war. The longer the war dragged on, the more dead people we would have. And most of those dead would be in the Axis countries.

            Here lies the wisdom of James T. Kirk. War should be scary, dirty, hellish, full of death and destruction. Make wars too clean and men would fight it often.
            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
              So Japan wins Midway, then what? How does losing 3 fleet carriers affect the USN operations in any way, shape, or form, in 1945? US built 24 fleet carriers in 3 years, along with 127 light and escort carriers. By 1945, US accounted for more than half of the entire world's industrial output, and that was when huge orders were cancelled due to the war winding down. US industral capacity was by all intents and purposes of WWII, limitless.

              The best the Axis could have done was delay the inevitable by maybe 1 year, and that's if they win all the "decisive" battles.

              These so called "decisive" victories only existed for the Allies, as the Axis losses were crushing blows to their capacity to make war.

              There were no scenarios in which the Axis could score a "decisive" victory against the Allies. Nothing the Axis could do would have crippled the Allies' ability to make war. There were practically endless reinforcements and endless warmachines coming from the US.

              The Allies also held the A-bomb. Series production could come as early as 1946.

              The war ending in 1945 was probably the best outcome for Germany and Japan, short of surrendering earlier. Prolonged conflict would only lead to the same result with more deaths.
              Good article here about what would have happened:

              Grim Economic Realities

              By the end of 43 the US has the advantage again.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
                Good article here about what would have happened:

                Grim Economic Realities

                By the end of 43 the US has the advantage again.
                Excellent read.

                His summation reminds me very much of what happened in the US 1861-1865.
                “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                Mark Twain

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
                  Good article here about what would have happened:

                  Grim Economic Realities

                  By the end of 43 the US has the advantage again.
                  That is a fascinating article. Thank you.

                  The U.S. had 41.7 percent of the world's military potential. The U.S.S.R. had 14.0 percent. That strengthens a point I made earlier in another thread that a Soviet invasion of Western Europe could probably have been stopped without resorting to nuclear weapons.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mandala View Post
                    The U.S. had 41.7 percent of the world's military potential. The U.S.S.R. had 14.0 percent. That strengthens a point I made earlier in another thread that a Soviet invasion of Western Europe could probably have been stopped without resorting to nuclear weapons.
                    You're an idiot.

                    We were outclassed, outnumbered, and outpositioned in Europe up until the Reagan years. Hell, we were even outnuked. No one disputes that. Potential is not tanks on the ground. Factories making Mustangs ain't going to turn around to build tanks overnight. The T-64 outclass every tank in the NATO arsenal at the time.

                    Stop. Just stop. You were not on the lines. We were. So, stop your fucking bullshit telling us how we were to do our jobs. We were going to use nukes whether you like it or not. And there's NOTHING you can write that would EVER CHANGE THAT FACT! AND I MEAN FACT!
                    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 20 Jun 13,, 15:56.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mandala View Post
                      That is a fascinating article. Thank you.

                      The U.S. had 41.7 percent of the world's military potential. The U.S.S.R. had 14.0 percent. That strengthens a point I made earlier in another thread that a Soviet invasion of Western Europe could probably have been stopped without resorting to nuclear weapons.
                      How does US accounting for half of the global production in 1945 stop a Soviet invasion of western Europe in 1970? Do you know what MiG-21s would do to Mustangs and Spitfires? Do you know what T-55s and T62s would do to Shermans of 1945?
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
                        Good article here about what would have happened:

                        Grim Economic Realities

                        By the end of 43 the US has the advantage again.
                        I stumbled across that site years ago and have been using it ever since. The guy used industrial numbers to analyze an industrial war, as it should be. Those numbers indicate WW2 could only end in Axis defeat once the US cranked up production. Blitzkrieg, wonder weapons, human bombs, nothing could stop the American juggernaut short of matching production. And the Axis didn't come close.
                        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                        Comment


                        • I never did go on and complete my PhD in history but if I did I was going to do my dissertation on either the Military History of the York-James Peninsula or on an aspect of the mobilization of US industries in World War 2. Goeffery Perrett does a great job explaining the prewar mobilization planning the US did between the wars. When funds were available they knew what to buy and who produced it. Each year the students at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces researched a sector of the US economy and determined which companies could produce what (Smith Corona could make rifles and carbines, Singer could make machine guns, GM aircraft, etc.) The staff planners just updated on a regular basis. Saved a lot of time.
                          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                          Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • Was the first Persian Gulf War the most successfully executed US foreign policy of the post –Cold War era?

                            Although there were many successful features of US Foreign Policy during the Persian Gulf War I do not believe it was ultimately successful and therefore not the most successfully executed US Foreign Policy during the post-cold war era. I believe that the inability to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East despite great economic expense, military effort, and human sacrifice has been one of the biggest failures in United States foreign policy despite moments of success such as removing Iraq from Kuwait. On the contrary I believe the most successful foreign policy initiative since the end of the Cold War has been the successful and crippling sanctions against North Korea, which have prevented them from becoming a nuclear power and maintained peace in the region despite times of elevated talks of aggression.
                            During the first Bush administration the Persian Gulf War took place which was the main foreign conflict in the Middle East during his presidency. Some historians might argue that the Persian Gulf War was a successful use of political and military foreign policy, as President Bush was able to gain the support of several Middle Eastern countries, NATO forces, and the support of the United Nations. The actual military conflict only lasted 44 days and Iraq was successfully removed from Kuwait. In the conference keynotes at the Wye Plantation Policy Conference in 1991 policy analysis stated,
                            “The argument for taking military action was this trio of aggression, oil, and nukes. I do not think the administration ever really explained that, but I think that eventually, it kind of soaked in to the American public. Looking back at whether those objectives were achieved, I think you'd say: "Pretty good. Not too bad." Aggression has been dealt with; oil has been dealt with; a big dent has been made in Iraq's nuclear program, and the prospects for its ultimate disposal look pretty good.”
                            In an article titled “The Gulf War in retrospect” by Dr. Tom Mahnken, a professor of strategy currently working at the US Naval War College, he states that the ability for George Bush to gain the support of a “broad base of countries” along with UN resolutions allowed for a common goal of forcing Iraq out of Kuwait very successfully while showing the power of the US military and limiting US casualties.
                            However, he further goes on to say, “…the end of the war saw Saddam still alive, in power, and -- most importantly -- unrepentant. President Bush's diaries make it clear that he hoped that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown in the wake of his army's defeat.” In fact, journals found later would actually show that Hussein viewed the Iraq war as a success since US troops did not actually enter Iraq and remove him from power. If the foreign policy was successful then Saddam Hussein should not have viewed it as a victory for Iraq and should have been removed from power. Being able to have the power of historical retrospect we also know now that we had to eventually go back into the region and enter Iraq and engaging in military conflict once again. This was costly both economically and with casualties, and ultimately viewed as a mistake when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. If Saddam Hussein was removed from power during the Persian Gulf War it would have prevented the second war in Iraq.
                            The policy employed by the United States was similar to sending a child to his room after misbehaving for ten minutes, letting him come out to play only to have him misbehave again ten minutes later. A stiffer punishment was needed in order to either control Saddam Hussein’s regime or a removal from power, and without one of those two the policy was ultimately unsuccessful.
                            On the contrary the sanctions levied on North Korea(a summary of those can be found here : http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...nts/nkorea.pdf) have not only been effective at limiting the military proliferation of North Korea, but also avoided any direct military conflict in the region. Any policy which has successfully been able to use political and economic means to achieve objectives as opposed to military where lives are risk should be viewed as a success. Many of the critics of the United States foreign policy directed toward North Korea say that the sanctions are not doing enough to cripple North Korea and deter them from attempting to gain greater military capabilities. They have continued to test nuclear devices and short range ballistic missiles. In an editorial piece by the New York Times they stated, “But there is no reason to believe that the sanctions resolution will persuade Pyongyang — which conducted its third nuclear test on Feb. 12 — to curb its nuclear weapons program. The international community has failed to devise a coherent policy that might reverse or even slow the North’s accelerating efforts to become a full-fledged nuclear state.”
                            But I believe that without those sanctions and pressure from the United States, the UN, and other countries around the world North Korea could have already been even further ahead with their nuclear capabilities. George Lopez, who is the Hesburgh chair of Peace Studies at the Kroc Institute, writes “A major sanctions goal is to erode North Korea’s capacity to acquire spare parts, technologies, and other materials needed to maintain and upgrade the nuclear program and expanded missile systems. The evidence suggests that efforts along these lines have had moderate success.” Simply testing devices does not mean they have the ability to actually deliver a nuclear device, and I think if intelligence sources suggested that North Korea was actually getting to that point then military action might be in order. Until that time though, the United States has been able to curtail North Korea’s efforts to gain military efforts with political talks and sanctions that have spanned several presidencies and not had to use any direct military efforts endangering human lives and I think that has made the policy successful.

                            Sources :
                            A Post
                            The Gulf War in retrospect - By Tom Mahnken | Shadow Government
                            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/op...orea.html?_r=0
                            Sanctions and Incentives in North Korea: A Challenging Environment | Peace Policy

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ECI525 View Post
                              Was the first Persian Gulf War the most successfully executed US foreign policy of the post –Cold War era?
                              The thread asked for "military" defeats. The first Gulf War produced one of the greatest defeats of all time suffered by any military, bar none.

                              Foreign policy is much more complex and harder to analyze. Sometimes it takes over a century to really feel the impact of certain policies.

                              Regarding North Korea, the sanction, and nukes, I will let the Colonel respond.
                              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                              Comment


                              • Bangladesh Liberation War Is the biggest Defeat , More than 90,000 Pakistani Soldiers Surrender To Indian Army in 1971

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X