Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fall of France

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

  • 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

    Comment


    • 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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      Comment


      • 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,, 19:27.
        "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

        Comment


        • 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.

          Comment


          • 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.

            Comment


            • 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

              Comment


              • 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.

                Comment


                • 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.

                  Comment


                  • 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

                    Comment


                    • 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?
                      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.

                      Comment


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

                        Comment


                        • Will history repeat itself or the Messiah is come to save the day ?
                          It is all up to French Gov. in public & private !

                          Comment


                          • Just reading a bit about this and it seems a large amount of British troops were still in France after Dunkirk. Falling back through Abbeville. Which was badly damaged during street fighting.. In fact a Canadian div was trying to disembark further along the coast to continue the fighting. I find this interesting because the main theme has always been that the British left at Dunkirk.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                              basically, the incorporation of French war material, the whole-scale looting of the French economy, and the end of one major front was what allowed Battle of Britain/Barbarossa to happen.

                              prior to that, the German military and economy were essentially only good for one major operation at a time. Germany prior to the defeat of France was very much a war economy, badly dependent on looting to prevent an economic collapse.
                              .
                              Was this a calculus the soviets understood well...elements within the soviert leadership that new this was a game changer...Should they have re-evaulated once France fell so quickly that Germanys ability to absorb french material, manpower, and economy would open the war up the germans...
                              Last edited by tantalus; 14 Sep 20,, 22:37.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by astralis View Post

                                now, the attack on Pearl Harbor WAS the most remarkable event of the war...for the Allies. no US intervention in the war, or even delayed intervention in the war, would have resulted in a -lot- of major changes.
                                I agree probably as a singular short event the most influential of the war.

                                But I had been thinking of grander scale events. Obviously as the fall of france occurred early it has an unfair first mover advantage on shaping the war. After all, the elimination of the french fleet from the pacific and the battle of britain removed two opposing fleets to the japanese in south east asia. This has said to have influenced the inner struggles in japan (they couldnt resist) and led to the japanese navy gaining influence over the IJA, especially after the debacle in mongolia with the soviets, favouring southern expansion through the navy, instead of northern expansion into soviet territory. Obviously oil being another key factor, This led to the delusional and foolish attack on Pearl habour, surely the greatest strategic blunder of the war. This was not set in stone and the ripples of the fall of france are said to have been felt in Tokyo.

                                Whats interesting about the fall of france is that nobody could have realistically predicted it, and it completely reshaped the dynamic for every major actor. From there, all probabilities changed, It should be a lesson to how one unpredictable event can alter all future events in a complex system, making fools of strategic planners that would have spent years considering more realsitic scenarios.
                                Last edited by tantalus; 14 Sep 20,, 22:39.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X