What is (are) your favorite war(s)?

[RossGr]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
WW2.

I just bought a book on WW1 because I know almost zero about it. That might be a good subject for another Band of Brothers type thing.

Had to study WWI extensively for my intro to military history course. Aside from a few technological innovations, it was basically the war of stupid. Especially on the French side. Even Pershing was something of a moron.

110% disagree. It was an example of where technology and strategy were so far out of whack to begin with that it took two years to figure everything out. To call the men involved idiots is not only short-sighted but it precludes any attempt to explain why the war unfolded the way it did.

Actually most of the lessons they needed where demonstrated in the American Civil War. It was just that the Eureopeans did not give us credit for knowing anything and ignored what there was to be learned. So calling them short sighted is not to far off the mark.

I am partial to the Napoleonic era and the AMC.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
WW2.

I just bought a book on WW1 because I know almost zero about it. That might be a good subject for another Band of Brothers type thing.

Had to study WWI extensively for my intro to military history course. Aside from a few technological innovations, it was basically the war of stupid. Especially on the French side. Even Pershing was something of a moron.

110% disagree. It was an example of where technology and strategy were so far out of whack to begin with that it took two years to figure everything out. To call the men involved idiots is not only short-sighted but it precludes any attempt to explain why the war unfolded the way it did.

Case in point: Pershing. Pershing had the idea that we were going to "win the war through marksmanship". Thus American recruits were trained to shoot targets hundreds of yards away to the neglect of more useful training, when more often than not the distance between opposing trenches was a few hundred feet. This was after the war had been going on for years. If that's not simple ignorance I don't know what is.

And that's just one example. Don't even get me started on Joffre.

You have to remember that there was no type of war like it before. All the tactics they used had to be changed. Saying it was a war of stupid is ignorant. No one had fought that type of war and with all the new technology that had been coming out during it, things kept changing constantly.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
WW2.

I just bought a book on WW1 because I know almost zero about it. That might be a good subject for another Band of Brothers type thing.

Had to study WWI extensively for my intro to military history course. Aside from a few technological innovations, it was basically the war of stupid. Especially on the French side. Even Pershing was something of a moron.

110% disagree. It was an example of where technology and strategy were so far out of whack to begin with that it took two years to figure everything out. To call the men involved idiots is not only short-sighted but it precludes any attempt to explain why the war unfolded the way it did.

Case in point: Pershing. Pershing had the idea that we were going to "win the war through marksmanship". Thus American recruits were trained to shoot targets hundreds of yards away to the neglect of more useful training, when more often than not the distance between opposing trenches was a few hundred feet. This was after the war had been going on for years. If that's not simple ignorance I don't know what is.

And that's just one example. Don't even get me started on Joffre.

Joffre was replaced in 1916, the year the war moved away from the battles of the Somme and going "over the top" and became a war of rolling artillery barrages, counterbattery fire coordinated by forward observers, and the simple understanding that an offensive war is difficult to conduct when your primary weapons are giant artillery pieces and guns that require a crew of eight to operate and weigh close to 75 lbs.

The Great War is always characterized as senseless slaughter and, to some extent it was. It is difficult to discuss American strategy during the Great War because, truthfully, they entered it late and had little understanding of modern warfare in any meaningful capacity during the beginning of the 20th century. The US Army was basically a skeleton crew, dismantled by Congress and left with few resources, few officers, and few clues about how to actually fight a war. American strategic issues are compounded by the fact that the small officer corps was extremely proud and bullheaded. They didn't want to be bossed around or told how to fight by anyone. Hence, their entry into the war was, for the most part, blind.

Without getting into a lengthy discussion off the bat, here's why I think it is deeply foolish to write off the Great War as a war run by morons. The war opens in 1914 with the Schlieffen Plan which, until the First Battle of the Marne was a brilliant operation that worked exactly how the Germans expected it to. This opening phase of the war was characterized by a relatively freedom of operation, a fast-paced tempo, and proof that offensive maneuvers carry the day. Again, to keep this brief, the war becomes a war of foolishness with some (albeit little) innovation. As 1916 rolls around, new technology and a new wave of leadership bring the beginnings of a new type of war. By 1917, casualties are down dramatically and new strategies are actually starting to shift the lines more than ever before. 1918 is another improvement. The Spring Offensive is the culmination of WW1 and its an offensive that bears little (no) resemblance to the battles of the Somme or Marne or Ypres. It is an offensive of fast-moving shock troops supported by captured tanks, artillery, and aircraft designed to create holes in the French and British lines through which German infantry can move and advance. Sound familiar?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: sandorski

B) Napoleon had one Technological advance that helped him. Food Preservation in the form of Canning. It allowed him to extend his Supply Lines significantly by being able to send enough Food with the Military for an extended campaign.

Agreed and while better food probably meant better prepared troops, I was mainly referring to the actual weapons of war. For instance, Napoleon didn't have any new type of field gun, musket, or other weapon that gave him a distinct advantage during the battle itself. Again, I should stand corrected though that improvements in food and raw troop numbers helped Napoleon tremendously.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
WW2.

I just bought a book on WW1 because I know almost zero about it. That might be a good subject for another Band of Brothers type thing.

Had to study WWI extensively for my intro to military history course. Aside from a few technological innovations, it was basically the war of stupid. Especially on the French side. Even Pershing was something of a moron.

110% disagree. It was an example of where technology and strategy were so far out of whack to begin with that it took two years to figure everything out. To call the men involved idiots is not only short-sighted but it precludes any attempt to explain why the war unfolded the way it did.

Case in point: Pershing. Pershing had the idea that we were going to "win the war through marksmanship". Thus American recruits were trained to shoot targets hundreds of yards away to the neglect of more useful training, when more often than not the distance between opposing trenches was a few hundred feet. This was after the war had been going on for years. If that's not simple ignorance I don't know what is.

And that's just one example. Don't even get me started on Joffre.

Joffre was replaced in 1916, the year the war moved away from the battles of the Somme and going "over the top" and became a war of rolling artillery barrages, counterbattery fire coordinated by forward observers, and the simple understanding that an offensive war is difficult to conduct when your primary weapons are giant artillery pieces and guns that require a crew of eight to operate and weigh close to 75 lbs.

The Great War is always characterized as senseless slaughter and, to some extent it was. It is difficult to discuss American strategy during the Great War because, truthfully, they entered it late and had little understanding of modern warfare in any meaningful capacity during the beginning of the 20th century. The US Army was basically a skeleton crew, dismantled by Congress and left with few resources, few officers, and few clues about how to actually fight a war. American strategic issues are compounded by the fact that the small officer corps was extremely proud and bullheaded. They didn't want to be bossed around or told how to fight by anyone. Hence, their entry into the war was, for the most part, blind.

Without getting into a lengthy discussion off the bat, here's why I think it is deeply foolish to write off the Great War as a war run by morons. The war opens in 1914 with the Schlieffen Plan which, until the First Battle of the Marne was a brilliant operation that worked exactly how the Germans expected it to. This opening phase of the war was characterized by a relatively freedom of operation, a fast-paced tempo, and proof that offensive maneuvers carry the day. Again, to keep this brief, the war becomes a war of foolishness with some (albeit little) innovation. As 1916 rolls around, new technology and a new wave of leadership (your man Joffre is gone) bring the beginnings of a new type of war. By 1917, casualties are down dramatically and new strategies are actually starting to shift the lines more than ever before. 1918 is another improvement. The Spring Offensive is the culmination of WW1 and its an offensive that bears little (no) resemblance to the battles of the Somme or Marne or Ypres. It is an offensive of fast-moving shock troops supported by captured tanks, artillery, and aircraft designed to create holes in the French and British lines through which German infantry can move and advance. Sound familiar?

I will admit the Schlieffen Plan was good, and the Germans were by far the most tactically proficient army IMO. Not everyone was a moron. IIRC on the allied side Churchill spearheaded developement/production of the Tank. But the adaptations you mention came after years of ridiculous, stupid, and avoidable mistakes that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Only a few major wars have that kind of track record.

 

[Arkaign]

WW2 simply for the pure scale. Unprecedented at the time, and hopefully never again equaled or exceeded. Particularly interesting are the more tertiary battles and largely ignored Japanese actions in the 30s.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: irishScott

I will admit the Schlieffen Plan was good, and the Germans were by far the most tactically proficient army IMO. Not everyone was a moron. IIRC on the allied side Churchill spearheaded developement/production of the Tank. But the adaptations you mention came after years of ridiculous, stupid, and avoidable mistakes that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Only a few major wars have that kind of track record.

Right, but these mistakes obviously weren't as avoidable as we see them. We have the luxury of being able to say, "no you stupid Frenchies, sit tight, dig in, and wait for better technology before you start attacking the Germans."

Nobody understood the killing power of the new weapons that were showcased in World War I. This was a world that had just managed to avoid a serious war in Europe for forty years. The last large-scale conflict fought in Western Europe was the Franco-Prussian War in 1872 which was fought with weaponry basically identical to the weapons of the American Civil War -- muskets, cannons, and calvary.

World War I would be fought with weapons never before seen in Western European combat -- machine guns, long-range artillery, rifles, and aircraft. It would be fought on a scale unimaginable forty years earlier. The French had ~500,000 troops in active duty during the Franco-Prussian War, the Germans had 300,000.

For the latter half of those forty years, tacticians had proclaimed certain truths about the next war. They believed it would be very short (six weeks), that it would be bloody, and that the first country to mobilize its forces and attack would be at a significant advantage. It would be interesting to try and investigate why this belief was so popular, but it was. Everyone had convinced themselves that offense would carry the day. Hence, when the war turned into a stalemate, everyone found themselves fighting a war they were unprepared to fight. They didn't know what to do besides try and fight it the way they were taught. That's where a lot of these casualties come from. Generals found themselves in a war they didn't know how to win and the public found itself being drafted and dying in a war it was never prepared for.

A great example is the American Civil War. The Union, and the rest of the world, was thoroughly convinced that it would trounce the Confederate Army at Bull Run. They believed that one battle would end the whole war and that there was no way they could lose. They lost and it prompted a four-year conflict which nobody was ready or prepared to fight.

Anyway, it's a pretty interesting topic.

 

[eplebnista]

Civil War

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
The war where we kick out all the mexicans. Given the rate at which they come here and breed, I suspect it will be called the 2nd Civil War.
If they leave of their own free will, I think we should give them back Texas.

While I'm all for dumping Texas, your vile racism is tiresome.

 

[guyver01]

The Shadow War.
Not the one we fought a 1000 years ago, but the most recent one.
Damn i'm gonna miss the vorlons.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: shortylickens
The war where we kick out all the mexicans. Given the rate at which they come here and breed, I suspect it will be called the 2nd Civil War.
If they leave of their own free will, I think we should give them back Texas.

While I'm all for dumping Texas, your vile racism is tiresome.

I'm not racist. I love Mexicans.
In Mexico.
Not storming up here by the millions without paying taxes and using our hospitals for free.

 

[manowar821]

I'm particularly fond of the wars that never happen.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: manowar821
I'm particularly fond of the wars that never happen.

Yeah, those are by far my favourite. :thumbsup:

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: manowar821
I'm particularly fond of the wars that never happen.

Yeah, those are by far my favourite. :thumbsup:

The war that never happened with Russia was kinda nice. Of course, people were scared shitless for 40 years, but not actually having the war was super.

 

[Sea Moose]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Ones that I've been in or....?

you were in afganistan werent you tall bill?

 

[Rastus]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: manowar821
I'm particularly fond of the wars that never happen.

Yeah, those are by far my favourite. :thumbsup:

The war that never happened with Russia was kinda nice. Of course, people were scared shitless for 40 years, but not actually having the war was super.

It ain't over yet dude.

 

[nanette1985]

Favorite war is an odd way of putting it, but Civil War, because I had family on both sides, and it's still something that the relatives talk about/argue about. There were so many aspects that affect our family lives even today.