I dunno, Hitler made plenty of good decisions in addition to the bad. The "stand fast" order in winter 1941 probably saved the Wehrmacht, the decision to attack Kiev in autumn 1941 cleared Army Group Center's flank and made Typhoon possible, the decision to attack south in 1942 completely circumvented the massive Soviet defenses around Moscow and wrong-footed Stalin and the stavka, the decision to delay Zitadelle gave it a much better chance of success, and so on, and so forth...
And there are instances when you can definitely say "poor performance of individual Italian units had serious operational repercussions" (although this was more the fault of the poor Romanians in URANUS).
And there are instances when you can definitely say "poor performance of individual Italian units had serious operational repercussions" (although this was more the fault of the poor Romanians in URANUS).
MilesGregarius
Half-baked Renegade
Hitler made some good calls during the war, but once Germany was pushed onto the defensive, he was definitely a detriment to the successful prosecution of the war.
Most of them were erroneously referred to as poor decisions after the fact by generals writing in memoirs. Take that how you will.
Gen.Mannerheim
Grand Moff
Yea, while the Italians were horrible inept in many ways, but with the proper babysitting they were usable. One can't say enough on hoe Hitler screwed up Germany's chances in the war.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
I remember writing a paper once claiming the Italians were the only Axis power with any hope of winning the war.
That was fun.
That was fun.
dIZZyBlIZZy
Batteries not included
That sounds like an interesting read, do you still perchance, have the doc?
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
I'm afraid not, that was a computer ago.
Basically the short of it (and it was a short paper) was that Italy was the only one with actually attainable goals. At a maximum: Nice, Greece, Corsica, Malta, the Ethiopian-Libyan Corridor, the end of British Occupation of Egypt, and possibly the occupation of Gibraltar by either Spain or Portugal.
They would certainly have settled for Malta, The Ethiopian-Libyan Corridor and the End of the Occupation in Egypt, and possibly concessions in Greece and Yugoslavia.
It is conceivable therefor, that with a better military and/or sufficient luck, the British could come to terms with such a loss.
On the other hand, the Germans and Japanese had goals so outrageous in the case of the Germans, or so ill-defined as in the case of the Japanese, that there was no hope of the allies conceding to such, and no hope of victory.
Basically the short of it (and it was a short paper) was that Italy was the only one with actually attainable goals. At a maximum: Nice, Greece, Corsica, Malta, the Ethiopian-Libyan Corridor, the end of British Occupation of Egypt, and possibly the occupation of Gibraltar by either Spain or Portugal.
They would certainly have settled for Malta, The Ethiopian-Libyan Corridor and the End of the Occupation in Egypt, and possibly concessions in Greece and Yugoslavia.
It is conceivable therefor, that with a better military and/or sufficient luck, the British could come to terms with such a loss.
On the other hand, the Germans and Japanese had goals so outrageous in the case of the Germans, or so ill-defined as in the case of the Japanese, that there was no hope of the allies conceding to such, and no hope of victory.
Gen.Mannerheim
Grand Moff
There was now way over Nelson's dead body the Italians were going to get the British out of Egypt. The Suez Canal was their major link to India, which was the key stone to the entire Empire. A professor once told me that all roads lead to India for the British. If something could jeopardize that road than the British aint having none of it lol.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Hitler also was deluded not to equip hes army with winter equipment and hes soldiers paid the price. He encirclement did gut the soviet forces in army group south which was another of Stalins mistakes not to break out of the encirclement. This put Moscow out of reach of army group center.
Hold fast orders might have worked in 41 but these doomed Germany when they were repeated in Stalingrad and through out the rest of the war
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
I think that the Continental Army of the American Revolution is worthy of note. By no means was it a well organized or well supplied army, but it turned those limitations into advantages by the use of asymmetrical warfare. The use of guerilla warfare and other tactics, like the first use of snipers, turned the doctrines of battle on their heads.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
It was more a case of the British were broke, their generals were incompetant, and they just got sick and tired of the war. I'm not sure you can say a military was worthy of note simply because it lasted a while due to British incompetance. Only a few battles were of British choosing, and they won just about all of them.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
I’d say it was worthy of note because it introduced asymmetrical warfare to the modern world. Asymmetrical warfare has been a serious game changer since then, just look at Vietnam, American operations in Somalia, and both the American and Russian invasions of Afghanistan.
You make the point that only a few engagements were of British choosing and that they won many of them. In fact, that’s exactly my point; that the British chose few of the engagements. They were still hidebound into the old way of thinking that presumed engagements would be between standing armies, rather than seeing individual battles as a means to an end.
If a military system can include rules of engagement then I’d say that the Continentals are worthy of note on that regard. By no means the best military structure of all time or even of their day, but worthy of mention because of how they changed the face of warfare.
Of course, if you define military systems more narrowly then you might dispute my contention.
You make the point that only a few engagements were of British choosing and that they won many of them. In fact, that’s exactly my point; that the British chose few of the engagements. They were still hidebound into the old way of thinking that presumed engagements would be between standing armies, rather than seeing individual battles as a means to an end.
If a military system can include rules of engagement then I’d say that the Continentals are worthy of note on that regard. By no means the best military structure of all time or even of their day, but worthy of mention because of how they changed the face of warfare.
Of course, if you define military systems more narrowly then you might dispute my contention.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Israeli military, without a shadow of doubt.
imperialman
Admiral
Why? I'm no expert on the Israeli military but I've been there a couple of times with the lady (Israeli citizen), she done her two years in the Modi'in (military intelligence I believe but nothing glamorous). It does seem to me though that they're unremarkable, a mostly conscript force with nothing standing out.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Yet somehow this unremarkable force of conscripts managed to kick the butts of pretty much all Middle Eastern countries that together totally outnumber it.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
I don't think you can really draw a parallel between the asymetrical warfare of the American Revolution and the more famous episodes of asymetrical warfare. Outside of a very few and very small battles, all the battles were still fought in the traditional line of battle. American troops may have fought in a looser formation, and made greater use of the rifle then the british, but they still were set-piece battles. We only began to win battles regularly after Washington/Baron Von Steuben managed to drill our troops in how to fight in a line of battle.
Looking at it on a strategic sense, the operations weren't very different from continental wars. The war was still determined by set piece battles.
imperialman
Admiral
In 1973, has it done anything that significant since? Besides, I don't imagine fighting a coalition of Arab nations such as Syria, Jordan etc would be very hard in the first place for any country with a military the size and composition of Israel's. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Israeli F-15s integrated into a strike package at a Red Flag ex a couple years back do terribly?
