Greatest military operations

[JimC]

Here is my nomination.

From September 1939 to February 1940, a force of 2 divisions of the British Army designated the British Western Desert Force under General O'Connor advanced 500 miles from Egypt into Libya, destroying an Italian Army of 10 divisions, losing only 2,000 casualties and capturing 130,000 prisoners, 400 tanks and 850 guns.

Beat that...

[mistermack]

Here is my nomination.

From September 1939 to February 1940, a force of 2 divisions of the British Army designated the British Western Desert Force under General O'Connor advanced 500 miles from Egypt into Libya, destroying an Italian Army of 10 divisions, losing only 2,000 casualties and capturing 130,000 prisoners, 400 tanks and 850 guns.

Beat that...

Easy. August 6th 1945, the Enola Gay killed 130,000 of the enemy, on a single mission with one bomb.
Including school children, babies, 90% of the doctors and 93% of the nurses.

And they got home without a scratch.

Beat that . . .

[cronus]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-falluj ... ne/5430186

Beat this when it happens? Soon? Soonish?

[mistermack]

You've got to admire the way Hitler rolled through France in 1940, from a Military perspective.
France had years of preparation to be ready for anything Germany could throw at them, but were defeated in a bit over a month. And France were supposed to be a world power, on a par militarily with Germany.

[JimC]

You've got to admire the way Hitler rolled through France in 1940, from a Military perspective.
France had years of preparation to be ready for anything Germany could throw at them, but were defeated in a bit over a month. And France were supposed to be a world power, on a par militarily with Germany.

The French had a defensive mindset, and their tanks (which were fairly crap, but they had lots of them) were distributed evenly along the front, and not used in large numbers at a single, decisive point, as the Germans did. Also, the Germans were much better at co-ordinating all arms, including air, to make one powerful whole.

[Hermit]

The French had a defensive mindset, and their tanks (which were fairly crap, but they had lots of them) were distributed evenly along the front, and not used in large numbers at a single, decisive point, as the Germans did. Also, the Germans were much better at co-ordinating all arms, including air, to make one powerful whole.

Not only did France have more tanks, but they were also better armoured. The German tanks could not knock them out. Rommel had to bring in artillery to get them. One problem with the tanks themselves was that only 20% were equipped with two-way radios. The biggest problem, as you said, was how they were used. The French only ever used them to support the infantry. The Germans concentrated their units in columns and used them as strike weapons. The French never read Guderian's book, Achtung – Panzer!, published in 1937, or they didn't think his idea was any good. Fatal misjudgement, that.

It amazes me that the book was even allowed to be published. Wouldn't the content have rated as a military secret? My mother had a first edition of it, signed by the author. Apparently, Guderian is part of our extended family. Last time I saw it, it was in my oldest sister's possession. I don't know who actually has it now. Perhaps her ex-husband.

[DaveDodo007]

Well 300 strippers from dreamguys took on some heffalumps and whatnot. So there.

Sothin' to with hotgates or hotpants, how the fuck should i know. Jeez.

[DaveDodo007]

Here is my nomination.

From September 1939 to February 1940, a force of 2 divisions of the British Army designated the British Western Desert Force under General O'Connor advanced 500 miles from Egypt into Libya, destroying an Italian Army of 10 divisions, losing only 2,000 casualties and capturing 130,000 prisoners, 400 tanks and 850 guns.

Beat that...

To be fair the Italian guys were not cowards they simply didn't want to be there and who can blame them. They where just interested in wine, women and song, would you fight for some bloated cunt who just wanted an empire. Did you know that when the Italian prisoners where marched through Liverpool a local Mother superior told the local lads that they couldn't throw stones at them (unlike the Germans) because they where people of the holy father.

Source: That weirdo twat with the long scarf in Dr Who.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Chuck Norris once took on the Mongol hordes without getting out of bed. Don't see many Mongol hordes anymore, do you?

[JimC]

Here is my nomination.

From September 1939 to February 1940, a force of 2 divisions of the British Army designated the British Western Desert Force under General O'Connor advanced 500 miles from Egypt into Libya, destroying an Italian Army of 10 divisions, losing only 2,000 casualties and capturing 130,000 prisoners, 400 tanks and 850 guns.

Beat that...

To be fair the Italian guys were not cowards they simply didn't want to be there and who can blame them. They where just interested in wine, women and song, would you fight for some bloated cunt who just wanted an empire.

There is some truth in that, but it was also a case of very tentative and defensive-minded leadership by the various Italian generals. At various times and places during the campaign, particular Italian units fought hard.

[Blind groper]

My father was a sergeant in the North African desert in WWII. On one occasion, he and one other New Zealand soldier, both armed with old style bolt action rifles, took about 100 Italian soldiers prisoner without a shot being fired. They just pointed their rifles at the Italians and told them to surrender (in Italian) and all the Italians dropped their guns, including automatic weapons, and put their hands in the air with great big smiles on their faces.

Beat that!

Mind you, my dear old Dad told me that he made great friends with a few of them. The NZ forces kept them around to carry out labour, such as digging ditches, and they worked with a will, because they hated the Germans with a hate far worse than any allied soldier, and they loved doing something, anything, that might make it more difficult for the German forces.

[klr]

Here is my nomination.

From September 1939 to February 1940, a force of 2 divisions of the British Army designated the British Western Desert Force under General O'Connor advanced 500 miles from Egypt into Libya, destroying an Italian Army of 10 divisions, losing only 2,000 casualties and capturing 130,000 prisoners, 400 tanks and 850 guns.

Beat that...

They then had to retreat most of the distance when the Afrika Korps arrived.

Then they got most of it back.

Then they had to retreat almost back to the Nile.

And you know the rest.

Oddly enough, something very similar happened during the Libyan uprising. So it's largely a feature of desert warfare.

[klr]

The French had a defensive mindset, and their tanks (which were fairly crap, but they had lots of them) were distributed evenly along the front, and not used in large numbers at a single, decisive point, as the Germans did. Also, the Germans were much better at co-ordinating all arms, including air, to make one powerful whole.

Not only did France have more tanks, but they were also better armoured. The German tanks could not knock them out. Rommel had to bring in artillery to get them. One problem with the tanks themselves was that only 20% were equipped with two-way radios. The biggest problem, as you said, was how they were used. The French only ever used them to support the infantry. The Germans concentrated their units in columns and used them as strike weapons. The French never read Guderian's book, Achtung – Panzer!, published in 1937, or they didn't think his idea was any good. Fatal misjudgement, that.

It amazes me that the book was even allowed to be published. Wouldn't the content have rated as a military secret? My mother had a first edition of it, signed by the author. Apparently, Guderian is part of our extended family. Last time I saw it, it was in my oldest sister's possession. I don't know who actually has it now. Perhaps her ex-husband.

The Germans also had to use significant numbers of Czech tanks, as they did not have enough of their own. Actually, the Czech designs were very good mechanically.

[klr]

The French had a defensive mindset, and their tanks (which were fairly crap, but they had lots of them) were distributed evenly along the front, and not used in large numbers at a single, decisive point, as the Germans did. Also, the Germans were much better at co-ordinating all arms, including air, to make one powerful whole.

Not only did France have more tanks, but they were also better armoured. The German tanks could not knock them out. Rommel had to bring in artillery to get them. One problem with the tanks themselves was that only 20% were equipped with two-way radios. The biggest problem, as you said, was how they were used. The French only ever used them to support the infantry. The Germans concentrated their units in columns and used them as strike weapons. The French never read Guderian's book, Achtung – Panzer!, published in 1937, or they didn't think his idea was any good. Fatal misjudgement, that.

It amazes me that the book was even allowed to be published. Wouldn't the content have rated as a military secret? My mother had a first edition of it, signed by the author. Apparently, Guderian is part of our extended family. Last time I saw it, it was in my oldest sister's possession. I don't know who actually has it now. Perhaps her ex-husband.

Good point. But I suspect the answer is something along the lines of it not being accepted doctrine at the time, and so he was publicly championing it. There would have been significant resistance in the top brass of most armies at the time to such radical new ideas.

[Brian Peacock]

Admiral Nelson's amputation.