Fall of France

[astralis]

Only in set piece battles against entrenched forces. You are seriously over-estimating Japanese artillery.

isn't a siege the definition of a set piece battle against entrenched forces?

You're missing the point. The Koreans don't have to overrun the Japanese positions. They just have to cut it off. Could the Japanese have stopped the PVA's 2nd and 3rd Offensives?

Come to think of it, how would the IJA stop 200,000 Koreans armed with Chinese artillery storming over the Yalu using Mongol/PVA maneuver?

i don't know if the PVA is the correct analogy to use here. yeah, the japanese would probably be beaten against a battle-hardened force that had a lot of US training and equipment and even more Soviet training and equipment.

but a 200K KPA new to combat outside of small unit actions, doing a hostile river crossing?

i can see guerrilla warfare but the idea that Korean guerrillas are going to assemble a maneuver army...i mean, the VC couldn't and didn't do that, it took regular units of the North to beat the Americans and the South Vietnamese.

i understand the Japanese are essentially a WW1 army but for all that, they were good enough to essentially bleed the KMT dry even after the KMT got enormous amounts of US monies and supplies. can't see Koreans posing half the difficulties the Chinese posed.

[WABs_OOE]

isn't a siege the definition of a set piece battle against entrenched forces?

That was the Japanese doing the siege, not in a battle of maneuver. They could not bring their artillery to bear on the Changsha envelopments. Come to think of it, the IJA never used creeping barrage nor reccee by fire. When it comes to combined arms, they sucked.

i don't know if the PVA is the correct analogy to use here. yeah, the japanese would probably be beaten against a battle-hardened force that had a lot of US training and equipment and even more Soviet training and equipment.

Battle hardened in 1930-40 Asia meant experienced generals. Looking at WWII Asian casualties, you will be hard pressed to find first contact regiments that remained intact.

but a 200K KPA new to combat outside of small unit actions,

I don't think so. Considering the real history, more than a few Koreans would have participated in reclaiming Manchuria.

doing a hostile river crossing?

Easily solved and do what the PVA did. Do an unopposed river crossing. Cross at points the enemy isn't watching, ie not established roads nor bridges. Get a regiment across, established defensive points and cross the rest of your forces at your liesure. By the time the Japanese noticed, you would have superiority of position and numbers since the IJA would have to get men and material where the Koreans already have men and material superiority. Get there the firstest with the mostest.

i understand the Japanese are essentially a WW1 army but for all that, they were good enough to essentially bleed the KMT dry even after the KMT got enormous amounts of US monies and supplies. can't see Koreans posing half the difficulties the Chinese posed.

Becuase CKS was an asshole. The NRA had enough victories during the worst of times to state that they were the equals of the IJA. CKS did not and would not exploit their victories.

[Ironduke]

isn't a siege the definition of a set piece battle against entrenched forces?

A siege is where the defending force is surrounded, on defensible ground, and are mostly or totally cut off from outside reinforcement and supply by the attacking force.

A "set piece battle against entrenched forces", that's a type of pitched battle. The Battle of Kursk (1943), for example, wasn't a siege, it was a pitched battle. Both sides knew more or less what was going to happen, when, and the broad strokes of what each were up against. The Soviets simply outlasted the Germans, and the Germans withdrew due to sheer exhaustion.

[zraver]

A siege is where the defending force is surrounded, on defensible ground, and are mostly or totally cut off from outside reinforcement and supply by the attacking force.

Other than artillery fire and skirmishes sieges tend to have much lower levels of actual combat.

A "set piece battle against entrenched forces", that's a type of pitched battle. The Battle of Kursk (1943), for example, wasn't a siege, it was a pitched battle. Both sides knew more or less what was going to happen, when, and the broad strokes of what each were up against. The Soviets simply outlasted the Germans, and the Germans withdrew due to sheer exhaustion.

If a city or fortress is attacked it is often reffered to as attempting to take it by storm. Leningrad was a siege, Sevastopol, Karkhov x4 and Stalingrad were attempts to cities by storm.

[Triple C]

Is there an actual definition of what a siege is in modern military science? If we're going with the traditional definition of sieges, then it's a kind of campaign involving the laborious digging of saps and mines to best a surrounded, but fortified, enemy. In that case there isn't too many true sieges in modern warfare.

[Albany Rifles]

Is there an actual definition of what a siege is in modern military science? If we're going with the traditional definition of sieges, then it's a kind of campaign involving the laborious digging of saps and mines to best a surrounded, but fortified, enemy. In that case there isn't too many true sieges in modern warfare.

Very true.

In US history basically there was Ticonderoga 1777, Charleston 1780, Ninety Six 1781, Yorktown 1781 Vicksburg, Port Hudson and the Channel ports in WW 2.

Richmond-Petersburg wasn't since the Confederates kept rail lines open for 7 months. Siege tactics were used but so was maneuver.

[Monash]

Is there an actual definition of what a siege is in modern military science? If we're going with the traditional definition of sieges, then it's a kind of campaign involving the laborious digging of saps and mines to best a surrounded, but fortified, enemy. In that case there isn't too many true sieges in modern warfare.

Isn't there such a thing as siege at a distance where an enemy force doesn't seek to physically surround an objective but instead seeks to interdict supply and isolate a garrison without coming into direct physical contact by the opposing armies? I was thinking of the Siege of Malta for example. Could the final stages of the US navies war on Japanese home islands be regarded as a siege?

[Triple C]

I recall Halleck more or less pried Beauregard from Corinth without fighting and irked both Lincoln and Davis. So I suppose that's siege at a distance. There were some uses of siege mines in WWI too. Behind that the narrow definition of classic siege battles would rule out most modern battles.

[Albany Rifles]

Isn't there such a thing as siege at a distance where an enemy force doesn't seek to physically surround an objective but instead seeks to interdict supply and isolate a garrison without coming into direct physical contact by the opposing armies? I was thinking of the Siege of Malta for example. Could the final stages of the US navies war on Japanese home islands be regarded as a siege?

We defined it as interdiction.

I guess you could use your definition but there were no land forces directly engaging the enemy in Japan so doesn't meet the classic definition.

As for Corinth the fact that Beauregard's forces were able to withdraw versus surrender like at Vicksburg shows it wasn't a true siege.

[zraver]

Isn't there such a thing as siege at a distance where an enemy force doesn't seek to physically surround an objective but instead seeks to interdict supply and isolate a garrison without coming into direct physical contact by the opposing armies? I was thinking of the Siege of Malta for example. Could the final stages of the US navies war on Japanese home islands be regarded as a siege?

The USN and USAAF employed both close and distant blockade against Japan. Its a siege when the Army does it, its a blockade when the Navy does it.

[zraver]

Is there an actual definition of what a siege is in modern military science? If we're going with the traditional definition of sieges, then it's a kind of campaign involving the laborious digging of saps and mines to best a surrounded, but fortified, enemy. In that case there isn't too many true sieges in modern warfare.

Sevastopol, Aachen, Calais, Hue, Fallujah, Mosul, Homs....