Page 35 of 35 FirstFirst ... 26272829303132333435
Results 511 to 519 of 519

Thread: Fall of France

  1. #511
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,576
    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.
    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

  2. #512
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    977
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    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.

  3. #513
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,808
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Ironduke; 22 May 18, at 19:27.
    What I don't want to see is the Bills winning a Super Bowl. As long as I'm alive that doesn't happen.

  4. #514
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,922
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    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.

  5. #515
    Senior Contributor Triple C's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Apr 06
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    2,397
    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.
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

  6. #516
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Triple C View Post
    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.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  7. #517
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,608
    Quote Originally Posted by Triple C View Post
    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?
    If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

  8. #518
    Senior Contributor Triple C's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Apr 06
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    2,397
    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.
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

  9. #519
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    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.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 22 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 22 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Fall of Pelosi?
    By Ironduke in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 15 May 09,, 22:15
  2. The Fall Of Rome?
    By Ironside in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 26 May 06,, 02:47
  3. The Fall of Communism
    By Leader in forum Multimedia & Jukebox room
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 26 Jul 05,, 10:40
  4. The fall of France
    By tarek in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27 Sep 04,, 23:26

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •