Unbelievable battles

[Adler17]

Thanks PH, that it was. Villers-Bocage is another example, when a handful German tanks stopped a British brigade and later (with reinforcements) were able to retake the village.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

Or indeed Snipe during the 2nd battle of El Alamein where a small number of british anti tank guns and supporting infantry drove back determined attacks by Rommel's tanks, in one attack alone destroying 37 out of the 40 tanks involved.

 

[RickFGS]

The Battle of Cannae, i though anyone doesnt know this one....

The Battle of Aljubarrota, greatly outnumbered portuguese vs Spain´s finnest, the outcome, total anihilation of the enemy army (yes they had heavy cavalry).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aljubarrota

 

[innonimatu]

I thought the Spanish Armada was lost in a storm...

And a bloody incompetent admiral! Actually, a bloody incompetent king, the admiral he appointed even tried to refuse the appointment because he lacked any experience at sea!

 

[StarWorms]

Did you read the OP? It says 1882. What kind of body armor do you expect by that date?

Actually, I'd expect better body armour. You don't see soldiers in Iraq walking around with steel armour. There wasn't much armour in WWI or WWII from what I can remember about them. There was more hand to hand combat and so armour was needed more.

 

[Nylan]

I'd say Trafalgar (at least in it's decisiveness) were it not for a certain incompetant French Admiral...

 

[Steph]

Actually, I'd expect better body armour. You don't see soldiers in Iraq walking around with steel armour. There wasn't much armour in WWI or WWII from what I can remember about them. There was more hand to hand combat and so armour was needed more.

For your information, for infantry, no European country used body armor from the 18th century to late 20th century.
Some country used breastplate for cuirassier regiment, but it was not so common.
Second, the European armies, when figthing "natives", relied a lot more on fire power. The goal was to mow them down with quick and precise firearms shot, not to let them come close enough for hand to hand, making body armor useless.

So no, body armour was out of the equation.

I really don't see where you could have picked the idea body armor was used in 1882.

 

[Verbose]

Second, the European armies, when figthing "natives", relied a lot more on fire power. The goal was to mow them down with quick and precise firearms shot, not to let them come close enough for hand to hand, making body armor useless.

To expand upon this and give an idea of the difference in fire-power, at the battle of Omdurman, none of the attacking native Sudanese warriors managed to come closer than three hundred meters from the lines of the combined Anglo-Egyptian army. That's a very one-sided engagement.

The incident of h-t-h that did take place at Omdurman was a cavalry engagement, and then the Europeans pretty much got their ass handed to them. Winston Churchill was in it, and later claimed that having a heavy Mauser pistol and a full clip was what saved his life then; again superior fire power. Anything else involving horses and cold steel the Sudanese had mastered to perfection.

So whenever the European colonial troops found themselves in hand-to-hand combat, it could be concluded they had gone about things in the wrong way.

 

[GinandTonic]

1868 Expedition to Abyssinia. The Abyssinians closed to hand-to-hand with the Sikh Rifles and failed to cause a single fatility.

Clearly if one side has overwelming firepower they attempt to exploit that as much as possible, especially where there are the wide open spaces for it to be fully exploited. Can anyone name a major battle in the 19thc accross india or china that didn't involve a bayonet charge?

In an ideal world a superior force would be able to avoid h-to-h, however from the falklands to iraq (at least the brits) have still used the bayonet charge.

 

[Verbose]

1868 Expedition to Abyssinia. The Abyssinians closed to hand-to-hand with the Sikh Rifles and failed to cause a single fatility.

Clearly if one side has overwelming firepower they attempt to exploit that as much as possible, especially where there are the wide open spaces for it to be fully exploited. Can anyone name a major battle in the 19thc accross india or china that didn't involve a bayonet charge?

And sometimes the roles reversed, as when in 1892 the French army sent to take out Dahomey in West Africa was faced with the fire of five French manufactured Reffye machineguns, with 400.000 rounds, 2000 modern repeating rifles, and six Krupp field-artillery pieces, the Sultan had bought to beef up the firepower of his army.

And in 1914 British cavalry charged an entrenched Senussi position in Cyrenaica (Libya) defended with machineguns, MG-08, courtesy of the German army. (Offloaded from a sub.)

The Europeans won out regardless in both instances. So it was a matter of tactics and disposition as well.

 

[carmen510]

Khe Sanh. Enough said.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Khe Sanh. Enough said.

On that note, La Drang.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

I thought the Spanish Armada was lost in a storm...

Yes, but that happened while they were retreating from their defeat by the British.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

The Battle of Guagamela. The Greeks face an Army estimated to be three times their size (though contemporary accounts put the Persian army's strength at 1,000,000), and only lose four thousand men, while wiping the floor with the Persians.

Call it nitpicking, but they were Macedonian.

Guadalcanal, running out of supplies, rife with disease, and the US Marines still managed to fight off attack after attack of the Japanese military. With increasing (troop) number with each successive wave. I believe the Marines only had bolt action rifles (1903 Springfields iirc), and only a slight few had anything different. Oo-rah!

Spoiler :

I would have to check my books to be absolutely sure.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I really don't see where you could have picked the idea body armor was used in 1882.

Maybe he's thinking of Infanterie-Panzer

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I'm sure that's pleasant to wear in the desert.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'm sure that's pleasant to wear in the desert.

Couldn't have been much better when they were using it in Flanders.

 

[Sovin nai]

How about Salamis, Lepanto, and many other similar battles? Or even Thermoplylae, or Marathon. Other than Lepanto, there is no way that they had better firepower. Better motivation sure, but not better firepower.
More modern (Kind of) examples would be the sieges of Ciudad Rodrigo, Burgos (several times), Salamanca, and others by Wellington and his subordinates in the Peninsular war. Horrible mismanagement plus enemy firepower brought entire ranks of men to their knees in seconds. Some of the sieges suceeded by blind luck, and sucess of diversions. However, the Battle of Vimeiro, 1808, really showed what firepower could do. 14,000 experienced French troops, against slightly more, inexperienced British troops. The French marched up the hill in column, the British line blasted away, and the French fell down. Sound familiar? (The "thin red line")

 

[Zibong]

Kind of late to the discussion, but I just wanted to chime in here...

How about Salamis, Lepanto, and many other similar battles? Or even Thermoplylae, or Marathon.

Actually, Thermopylae wasn't surprising at all. Remember, the much smaller force LOST that battle

As for my own opinions? Well, as far as eye-openers go...

Ancient Era: Gaugamela. As impressive as battles like Alesia and Marathon were, Gaugamela takes the cake. Alexander completely routs a force nearly ten times his size (if the 30,000 to 250,000 numbers are to be believed) by taking the offensive on a traditional battlefield. That's absolutely incredible. Alesia? Ceasar had fortified his position. Marathon? The Athenians prevented the Persians from establishing a solid beachhead. Gaugamela? Alexander messes Persia up by playing THEIR game.

Honorable Mention: Cannae. For virtually the same reasons. The only difference was that Hannibal could never land that final blow.

(Speaking of Alesia, is any one else here reminded of Guan Du? Holed up in a fortification, supplies running out, brilliantly successful raid to demoralize the enemy... I don't suppose Cao Cao read Caesar...)

Medieval Era: Agincourt. Sure, it doesn't seem that surprising in hindsight. But for a contemporary? The sheer magnitude of the disaster ("HOW many knights did we lose there?!") must've been a real eye-opener.

Honorable Mention: The Mongol Conquests.

Random City: Hmph, silly barbarian raiders. Lock the gates! They'll never get throOMGWTFBBQ WHERE DEY GET SIEGE ENGINES FR0M?!?!

China: Sorry guys!

Random City: BLARGGG WE ALL DED KTHXBYE!

Industrial Era: Napoleon's Russia Campaign. "Erm, eh... *trembles*... what Grand Armee, mon empereur?"

Honorable Mention: Hitler's Russia Campaign, most notably Stalingrad. "Erm, eh... *trembles*... what Sixth Army, mein Fuhrer?"

Moral of the story? Don't mess with Russia.

Modern Era: Six-Day War. "Wow, that was fast."

Honorable Mention: Yom Kippur War. "Wow, they learn fast!"


--Zibong

 

[aelf]

Moral of the story? Don't mess with Russia.

More like don't mess with crazy people who are too familiar with suffering. Unless you're equally deranged (like Mongols v.s. Russians).