Thread: Dreadnoughts thread on military history

Germans arguably still had a chance in Spring of 1918. All the troops that had been fighting the Russians were freed when the Bolsheviks took power and signed a seperate peace.
They broke through, but it was too little too late and the French and British armies held enough in the end to stop the offensive. It had a much better chance of winning than the Battle of the Bulge. The trouble was the German population was starving both literally and figuratively as raw materials for the industrial machine had shut off. Sadly part of this lesson was that strategic bombing could win a war and interwar theorists went crazy with the concept of destroying a country from the air. I sat through and taught enough USAF history classes written by a segment that still adhered to that in 2003.
BTW the Kaiserschlact is a reason to excuse the WWII western allies that harbored depp suspicions about Soviet reliablility as an ally - well, that and the Ribbentrop-Molotov non-aggression pact in 1939

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I'm not that up on Ancient warfare, but I thought Greek shields were oxhide stretched over a frame - tough and still fairly light. I could be wrong though

It was layered with in base of wood, then linen and finally the bronze front.

Originally Posted by BigDaddyBronco

It said the Spartans had a giant lamda painted on their shields. I wonder what that signified?

Pick up the Spartan by Cartledge if you want a detail history of them. The lambda stand for the city state of Lacedaemon (Sparta)

Or lamda legal foundation - 2400 years ahead of their time

dread, how about one where air or cavalry power is used to defeat a larger force?

Originally Posted by hoptard

dread, how about one where air or cavalry power is used to defeat a larger force?

Dread is better with the write ups
Air Power was critical in Gulf War I and used extensively in Afganistan in conjunction with spec ops on the ground working with locals.

Patton's breakout from Normandy relied on massive carpet bombing of German units by B-17s, when the US got into german lines, many of the germans gave no resistance.

In general the expulsion of the Nazis from France was greatly assisted by Air Supremacy that prevented the Germans from using the roads during the day in any kind of decent weather

Parthians spanked quite a few Roman invasions - anytime the Romans moved into the plains, they would get squashed.

Mongols built an empire larger in land area than the Romans in a couple of generations

Dread, what is the effective tactic against war elephants?

They are cool.

High mountain passes I think, Sneak.

Originally Posted by Ottokar Prohaska

Germans arguably still had a chance in Spring of 1918. All the troops that had been fighting the Russians were freed when the Bolsheviks took power and signed a seperate peace.
They broke through, but it was too little too late and the French and British armies held enough in the end to stop the offensive. It had a much better chance of winning than the Battle of the Bulge. The trouble was the German population was starving both literally and figuratively as raw materials for the industrial machine had shut off. Sadly part of this lesson was that strategic bombing could win a war and interwar theorists went crazy with the concept of destroying a country from the air. I sat through and taught enough USAF history classes written by a segment that still adhered to that in 2003.
BTW the Kaiserschlact is a reason to excuse the WWII western allies that harbored depp suspicions about Soviet reliablility as an ally - well, that and the Ribbentrop-Molotov non-aggression pact in 1939

It was a good thing World War I ended when it did, because there was the 1919 Spanish Flu Pandemic right around the corner, and that would have effectively ended the war because all the soldiers would have been sick/dead.

Originally Posted by sneakers

Dread, what is the effective tactic against war elephants?

They are cool.

The effective tactic for war elephants as shown by Alexander the Great in India and Scipio Africanus was to have the troops/legionaries open up blocks in their fronts and attack them for the flanks after they had engaged. War elephants are extremely ineffective when attacking professional troops.

Example:
Start:
Ele

XX XX XX (Legion)

Start

XX E XX
XX

Originally Posted by elsid13

The effective tactic for war elephants as shown by Alexander the Great in India and Scipio Africanus was to have the troops/legionaries open up blocks in their fronts and attack them for the flanks after they had engaged. War elephants are extremely ineffective when attacking professional troops.

Example:
Start:
Ele

XX XX XX (Legion)

Start

XX E XX
XX

Throw stuff at them. Like El Sid says. Let the elephants through your ranks and shoot the people on them and try to kill them through missiles. WIthout the driver the elephant will run off eventually.
Elephants are great against cavalry since horses are afraid of them and terrific at terrifying guys that are on the edge just standing there waiting for the battle to start. So great against a lot of eastern armies that tended to masses of not very motivated infantry and a decent sized core of competent cavalry.
Elephants in general are like the wildcat offense. hard to deal with the first time you see it, but once you learn how to defeat it, they have no second trick up their sleeve

Elephants in general are like the wildcat offense. hard to deal with the first time you see it, but once you learn how to defeat it, they have no second trick up their sleeve

Perfect comparison

Now - Everyone weigh in on this one - give me a military history parallel for Josh McDaniels. I'll weigh in with mine after there are some nominees

Worst General Ever. Generale Luigi Cadorna, Italian CinC for most of WW1

Cadorna is great. Stubborn. Stupid. Vicious.

He is known for having lost all twelve (!) Battles of the Isonzo River. All are pretty much identical; Italian Army is ordered to launch a frontal attack across a river over open stony ground on entrenched Austrians, who shoot the Italian attackers to pieces. Repeat as needed. No deception plan required. No Manouever, just assault! The fighting spirit of properly motivated troops will win out, you see.

The repeated failures of his Army enraged Cadorna, who even revived the Ancient Roman custom of Decimation (one in ten, literally). Some of his defeated units had one man in ten selected by lottery for execution by firing squad. This was to improve the fighting spirit of his men - kind of like hauling the assistant coaches into Bowlen's Office for a public humiliation after the Raiders game last year. The failures, you see, were not Cadorna's fault. His men were just soft and needed toughening up. Threats always work to acheive this.

After the Army completely collapsed at Caporetto in 1917 the Italian government finally fired Cadorna, and morale immediately improved. The Italian troops get kind of a bad rap, but would you fight for this a$$hole? To me he epitomizes phony tough guy crap leadership, where posturing replaces Generalship. He looks pretty dapper, with all those medals and stuff though.

I was kind of thinking Hitler.

Adored at first, and had some good conquests.

In the end, he was a snithering little bitch curled up in a corner and killed.

First that springs to mind is John Pope

Moderately successful in the western theater of the Civil War, he defeated Sterling Price (which was as tough as beating KC the first two weeks this year) and captured a well defended fort at Island Number 10.
Lincoln gave him command of the Army of the Potomac in 1862 after the army evacuated the Peninsula and moved to DC. What makes him McDanielsish is his proclamation to an Army that was in pretty good shape. McCLellan was good at building an Army but was timid with it once he was in action. Mighty Mac was like one of those coaches that you hire to take you from 3-13 to 9-7. Great improvement but will never take you all the way.

So, to an Army that did not feel defeated he issued this bombastic proclamation
"Let us understand each other. I have come to you from the West, where we have always seen the backs of our enemies; from an army whose business it has been to seek the adversary and to beat him when he was found; whose policy has been attack and not defense. In but one instance has the enemy been able to place our Western armies in defensive attitude. I presume that I have been called here to pursue the same system and to lead you against the enemy. It is my purpose to do so, and that speedily. I am sure you long for an opportunity to win the distinction you are capable of achieving. That opportunity I shall endeavor to give you. Meantime I desire you to dismiss from your minds certain phrases, which I am sorry to find so much in vogue amongst you. I hear constantly of "taking strong positions and holding them," of "lines of retreat," and of "bases of supplies." Let us discard such ideas. The strongest position a soldier should desire to occupy is one from which he can most easily advance against the enemy. Let us study the probable lines of retreat of our opponents, and leave our own to take care of themselves. Let us look before us, and not behind. Success and glory are in the advance, disaster and shame lurk in the rear. Let us act on this understanding, and it is safe to predict that your banners shall be inscribed with many a glorious deed and that your names will be dear to your countrymen forever

— John Pope, message to the Army of Virginia"

He also famously claimed that his headquarters was in the saddle. Something his distractors agreed with, but in a different way than originally meant.

At second Bull Run, He made contact with Stonewall Jackson's troops and focused entirely on that threat, then had his flank rolled by Longstreet. He then tried to pin blame on Fitz-John Porter and had him Court Martialed and disgraced

His performance was so appalling that he was sent to Minnesota for the rest of the war, defeating an indian uprising out there, but not much else. None of the other failed commanders in the East were treated with quite the same severity. McClellan retook command and beat Lee at Antietam, but failed to finish Lee off when he had the chance and was replaced by Burnside, then Hooker, the Meade before Grant took over.

What makes him less of a candidate for the McDaniels suckage trophy is that the army did not suffer for a prolonged period from his failed tenure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Po...litary_officer)