Greatest tactical victory of the 20th century

The actual street fighting WAS a tactical draw if not defeat for the Russians... they suffered heavy casualties and lost most of the city... however it WAS a strategic victory, since they took the wind out of the 6th army, kept them confined to a small area, which left them vulnerable to encirclement

1st Alemein was much the same... the body count didn't particularly favor the british however, fighting to a draw in that battle allowed them to take the initiative permanently away from Rommel

I think he missed the concept of the OP

Actully in any account of the battle, it was the street fighting that give the Soviets victory. The morale and combat prowess of the 6th Army suffered a lot due to the street fighting. The Soviets on the other hand got better as did their morale. They saw just how ragged and worn out the German ''supermen'' became.

Since the whole plan was to hold on long enougth to draw a the bulk of the 6th Army's combat power into the city where they could be trapped. Then it has to count both as a tactical and strategic victory.
 
I don't have the link, or source, but isn't it true the 2nd Panzer Division was all but destroyed by the US 2nd Armored in the Ardennes in a single action? The German tanks were caught on a road march (Not knowing their southern flank was exposed)? This was supposed to be the point of the 5th Panzer Army's deepest penetration.

The story goes that the Germans lost 60 tanks to the American's 6. If this was an overblown tale, and the US tankers were just blowing up abandoned tanks, it might explain the difficulty I've had authenticating it. Does anyone else know of this battle? If true, it's certainly the most lopsided tactical victory I can think of by the US Army over the German Army.
 
I don't have the link, or source, but isn't it true the 2nd Panzer Division was all but destroyed by the US 2nd Armored in the Ardennes in a single action? The German tanks were caught on a road march (Not knowing their southern flank was exposed)? This was supposed to be the point of the 5th Panzer Army's deepest penetration.

The story goes that the Germans lost 60 tanks to the American's 6. If this was an overblown tale, and the US tankers were just blowing up abandoned tanks, it might explain the difficulty I've had authenticating it. Does anyone else know of this battle? If true, it's certainly the most lopsided tactical victory I can think of by the US Army over the German Army.

It might have been a case at the end of the battle where the Germans ran out of fuel and "abandoned" some of the tanks... doesn't change the scorecard, but explains some of the circumstances
 
I never said all six carriers were fleet carriers, I said the four the U.S. sent to the bottom were fleet carriers.

You said:

The Americans, despite having out-classed air craft, puts four of those carriers on the bottom and cripples a fifth. All fleet carriers.

Your phrasing indicates that the crippled carrier (which, BTW, didn't exist) was a fleet carrier.

There was no IJN carrier crippled at Midway, and no fifth fleet carrier available to be crippled.

For all those who keep saying Midway was a victory by the underdog, some facts:

Nagumo's carriers may have had as few as 227 operational aircraft embarked (per PW database; I don't have any of my books handy to confirm). PW Encyclopedia gives the combined operational capacity of the four carriers as 251, with 272 aircraft embarked (including those disassembled as reserves).

The IJN 'main body' was hundreds of miles behind Nagumo's Mobile Force, denying any chance of mutual support. Hosho was only carrying 8 aircraft, and Zuiho had 23.

The US Army and USN both had aircraft based on Midway itself which did manage to get into the fight. These included PBY's (which located IJN forces several times), B-17's, a few TBF's, SBD's, and F4F's among others; 115 aircraft.

The three USN carriers had 233 aircraft embarked.

The US thus had more combat aircraft available to them than the IJN did, and roughly as mainly operable floatplanes.
 
I would argue that Pearl Harbor was not a great tactical victory, although it was impressive.

1) The Japanese failed to sink the ships they really needed to sink - the aircraft carriers.

2) The Japanese failed to destroy the infrastructure that they really needed to destroy - the oil tanks, the shipyard facilities, the administrative facilities, and the sub pens.

3) The battleships "lost" were not sunk. The settled in extremely low sea level and had repair facilities nearby. 5 of the 8 battleships "sunk" were repaired and fighting later.

These are all major tactical failures that I think argue against Pearl Harbor being one of the best all time tactical victories in the 20th century.

Of course, I haven't even addressed the major strategic failures of the attack - like that it wasn't even needed, as the ships they took out for a time wouldn't have mattered anyway in the short term. Maybe Wake Island wouldn't have fallen, but pretty much all their other successes would have happened.
 
I would argue that Pearl Harbor was not a great tactical victory, although it was impressive.

1) The Japanese failed to sink the ships they really needed to sink - the aircraft carriers.

2) The Japanese failed to destroy the infrastructure that they really needed to destroy - the oil tanks, the shipyard facilities, the administrative facilities, and the sub pens.

3) The battleships "lost" were not sunk. The settled in extremely low sea level and had repair facilities nearby. 5 of the 8 battleships "sunk" were repaired and fighting later.

These are all major tactical failures that I think argue against Pearl Harbor being one of the best all time tactical victories in the 20th century.

Of course, I haven't even addressed the major strategic failures of the attack - like that it wasn't even needed, as the ships they took out for a time wouldn't have mattered anyway in the short term. Maybe Wake Island wouldn't have fallen, but pretty much all their other successes would have happened.

While I agree that it doesn't belong in the top 3, I think it was a tactical victory. Note that the factors you cite are all strategic; the battle itself was a clear victory for the IJN.

The IJN lost 29 aircraft with 55 aircrew and half a dozen midgets subs with about 10 crew.

The USN lost eight battleships and half a dozen smaller warships sunk or badly damaged, 188 aircraft destroyed, and over 2,400 KIA.

This, despite the fact that the US had nearly as many aircraft on Oahu as were in the IJN strike force, and had radar that could (and did!) pick up the attack on the way in.

Better than 6:1 in aircraft, 37:1 personnel killed, and the ship losses, despite parity in aircraft, superiority in surface forces, and ground defenses on the USN side.

Sure sounds like a victory to me.
 
WAs not the Zuikako and Shokaku present at Midway?IF i remember Correctly Hosho was sunk at Coral Sea
My vote:
Gold:Midway
Silver:Taranto
Bronze:i liked Lang Son.

Shokaku had taken bomb damage at Coral Sea as was still being repaired. Zuikaku's air wing had been gutted and (if Shattered Sword is to be believed) _no_ replacement aircraft were available so she too sat Midway out.

Hosho was used as a training and ASW carrier except for Midway, it was Shoho that was sunk at Coral Sea.
 
Honorable Mention
-British and UN troops delaying actions at the Injun River.

Bronze
-Singapore. Yeah maybe the Japanese lost the war but they sure as hell won the battle. out numbered 3 to 1 having to take a city that many thought untakeable having to fight down the jungkes of the Malaya penisula. You may not like the WWII Japanese but you have to admit that is some crazt $#!7

Silver
-Israeli defense of the Golan Heights. A more indepth review on the first page (or maybe the second) at one point 2 Israeli takes held back an entire Syrian tank bridgade.

Tied for Gold
Stalingrad and Midway

Stalingrad-The USSR pushed back all hope seems lost. Germans ramping through the motherland. TIre them and pull them into the city. Winter comes surround them destroy them. THe battle that turned the tide of the war.

Midway-Might not be considered ASB if it didnt happen would be called a cliche miracle that is very unlikely. Well this battle did happen and it turned the tide of the war in the pacific
 
Actully in any account of the battle, it was the street fighting that give the Soviets victory. The morale and combat prowess of the 6th Army suffered a lot due to the street fighting. The Soviets on the other hand got better as did their morale. They saw just how ragged and worn out the German ''supermen'' became.

Since the whole plan was to hold on long enougth to draw a the bulk of the 6th Army's combat power into the city where they could be trapped. Then it has to count both as a tactical and strategic victory.

I fail to see how the actual street fighting can be construed as a tactical victory... the Soviets lost ground and suffered heavy losses... admittedly the Germans suffered heavy losses too; but that only makes the case at best for a tactical draw... a tactical victory by common understanding would involve some combination of gaining ground and favorable body count which the street fighting didn't give either to the soviets

Uranus is a different story since this was a tactical victory AND a strategic victory (ie crush the romanians tactically, encircle the 6th army and change the course of the war strategically)
 
I fail to see how the actual street fighting can be construed as a tactical victory... the Soviets lost ground and suffered heavy losses... admittedly the Germans suffered heavy losses too; but that only makes the case at best for a tactical draw... a tactical victory by common understanding would involve some combination of gaining ground and favorable body count which the street fighting didn't give either to the soviets

Uranus is a different story since this was a tactical victory AND a strategic victory (ie crush the romanians tactically, encircle the 6th army and change the course of the war strategically)

After holding the city in the first few weeks, the whole point of the street fighting in Stalingrad from the Soviet POV became ''weaken the Germans and draw them in''. The Soviets in the city were in fact grossly outnumbered for most of the battle and inflicted greater casualties on the Germans through superior urban-tactics and leadership. Based on the objectives and losses on both sides the Soviets are the incontestable victors.
 
Shokaku had taken bomb damage at Coral Sea as was still being repaired. Zuikaku's air wing had been gutted and (if Shattered Sword is to be believed) _no_ replacement aircraft were available so she too sat Midway out.

Hosho was used as a training and ASW carrier except for Midway, it was Shoho that was sunk at Coral Sea.

*Sigh* See post #59.:mad:
 

Satrap

Donor
I would be inclined to include Herman Balck's defense of the Chir river line in the winter of 1942/3.

With 11th panzer division, in the depths of a fercious russian winter, he probably saved AG South from an even greater catastrophe than Stalingrad already was as Manstein tried to relieve 6th Army.
 
I would be inclined to include Herman Balck's defense of the Chir river line in the winter of 1942/3.

With 11th panzer division, in the depths of a fercious russian winter, he probably saved AG South from an even greater catastrophe than Stalingrad already was as Manstein tried to relieve 6th Army.

Agreed his screening of army group don's left flank was the stuff legends where made of. His single division defeated two reinforced tank corps and crushed multiple bridge heads on the chir... even though both of Balck's flanks where in the air and his only support was from an exhausted infantry division and an unblooded luftwaffe field division

Parallel to that was Raus's 6th panzer obliterating a Soviet cavalry and rifle corps at Kotelnikovo as part of Manstein's winter tempest/storm operation... My grand father commanded a battalion in that battle; they utterly destroyed 6 soviet divisions but it used up a ton of fuel and ammo and cost the division two vital days away from their mission of trying to relieve Stalingrad.... the textbook example of a tactical victory that is also a major strategic defeat
 

Ming777

Monthly Donor
My List of Canadian victories:

Gold: Each and every engagement of the Canadians during the Hundred Day's offensive or more pointedly labeled by some as "les cent jours du Canada." Four Canadian Divisions kicked the collective ass of forty-seven German Divisions, 25% of German Forces on the Western Front, while still a Dominion controlled by Britain.

Silver: Battle of Vimy Ridge. Enough Said.

Bronze: Battle of Juno Beach. Tactically, it was the most successful landing on D-Day. The Canadians had virtually succeeded in their objectives within the specified time and place.

Honorable mention: Battle of the Sheldt. Allies, primarily Canadian

995
 
Top