Top 12 Decisive Battles, Post-1900:

I am biased against Israel in that I think the IDF had the Rommel-Lee type of luck in war to face idiotic opponents, the crossing of the Sinai marking what happened when it faced opponents who were not stupid. I don't see any other means to describe Israel taking the Golan, Sinai, Gaza, and West Bank other than land grab, given that these were Syrian, Egyptian, and Jordanian territory in 1966.

Jordan seized the West Bank and Syria seized the Golan Heights in 1948.

What I find funny is how Syria demanded in the 1949 armistice talks that the borders be drawn according to military reality, giving it the Golan. Now, it whines that Israel can't do the same thing and has to return everything unconditionally.
 
No, there's no contradiction. The War of Attrition was the learning curve. Prolonged combat finally led to enough Arabs who were battle-hardened enough that a 1973-level improvement was feasible, while deadening Israel's sense of surprise to any large-scale attacks. Arab armies are invariably weaker than the Israelis for very prosaic reasons, and it is this factor that changed starting with the Bar Lev line operation in 1973. To be blunt the Israeli-Arab wars simply illustrate the Louis XIV rule: any alliance against any single enemy that has a good idea of its objective will invariably have a very hard time at best and invariably have an immensely difficult time crushing said enemy.

That is... not how you explain wars.

Battle hardend soldiers were in 1967 too, troops were called from Yemen for the anticipated Invasion of Israel. But despite being ready for war, and for an early attack by Israel, Egypt was not ready for such a pounding. That's when you get that simple word over the radio that no soldier wants to hear: RUN. Not how, where, when, who is covering who, just run. The vast amount of casualties on the Egyptian front were not in battles with Israel with inexperianced troops, it was from retreating without a clear plan, being easy picking for Israeli jets. The few battles that were fought were no less tenacious than in 1973.

But I think that doesn't bother you. You said yourself that you are biased against Israel so it doesn't realy matter if I'll take the trouble to explain battles in 1967 or 1973, you will simply ignore it.
 
Nothing of what you said explains why the Ruhr pocket was decisive.

It was a good victory for the Americans to show in newsreels but IMO it didn't alter the outcome of the war or the strategic balance at all.

The Ruhr Pocket ensured that the Allies enjoyed a virtual joyride in the West. Had the Germans managed to avoid being entrapped there, the WAllies would have had a rather less simple time moving through Germany once they crossed the Rhine. The same soldiers would have to be defeated in a sequence of battles instead of one, while I rather doubt the USSR would have been intent on adhering strictly to its own occupation zone if it got to the boundary first. And incidentally, I wonder if the people who call me a Soviet-wanker are reading this thread?

Jordan seized the West Bank and Syria seized the Golan Heights in 1948.

What I find funny is how Syria demanded in the 1949 armistice talks that the borders be drawn according to military reality, giving it the Golan. Now, it whines that Israel can't do the same thing and has to return everything unconditionally.

Jordan did not cease the West Bank, rather this was always part of what the Mandate of Palestine included in Cisjordan. Likewise Israel made a deal with the Jordanians to limit confrontation so if Israeli supporters are butthurt that Israel's neighbors sign and adhere to deals and call that seizing something that was always legally Jordanian territory in the first place.......
 
That is... not how you explain wars.

Battle hardend soldiers were in 1967 too, troops were called from Yemen for the anticipated Invasion of Israel. But despite being ready for war, and for an early attack by Israel, Egypt was not ready for such a pounding. That's when you get that simple word over the radio that no soldier wants to hear: RUN. Not how, where, when, who is covering who, just run. The vast amount of casualties on the Egyptian front were not in battles with Israel with inexperianced troops, it was from retreating without a clear plan, being easy picking for Israeli jets. The few battles that were fought were no less tenacious than in 1973.

But I think that doesn't bother you. You said yourself that you are biased against Israel so it doesn't realy matter if I'll take the trouble to explain battles in 1967 or 1973, you will simply ignore it.

The Israelis launched a surprise, "pre-emptive" attack and managed to grab very large chunks of territory. A Pearl Harbor followed by a Philippines Campaign is not decisive when the enemy shows a basic inability to master tactics. The fighting of the War of Attrition was purely tactical and forced Arab armies to learn how to do them in a much-improved fashion.
 
I'm not sure if the Battle of Leyte Gulf was one of the top decisive battles in post-1900 era, along with the Battle of Midway since they pretty much sealed the fate of the Imperial Japanese Navy. On the other hand, there's the Battle of Vimy Ridge, which was a very important battle since Vimy Ridge was won by the Canadians with British help against the Germans.
 
The Ruhr Pocket ensured that the Allies enjoyed a virtual joyride in the West. Had the Germans managed to avoid being entrapped there, the WAllies would have had a rather less simple time moving through Germany once they crossed the Rhine. The same soldiers would have to be defeated in a sequence of battles instead of one, while I rather doubt the USSR would have been intent on adhering strictly to its own occupation zone if it got to the boundary first. And incidentally, I wonder if the people who call me a Soviet-wanker are reading this thread?

I'm not saying the Ruhr pocket didn't ensure an easier ride afterwards but I thought this thread was about decisive battles.

The war ended a month later. The zones of occupation had already been decided and I really don't see what difference it made to anything.

As for the Soviets not respecting occupation zones. They allowed the Allies into West Berlin and Vienna.
 
The Israelis launched a surprise, "pre-emptive" attack and managed to grab very large chunks of territory. A Pearl Harbor followed by a Philippines Campaign is not decisive when the enemy shows a basic inability to master tactics. The fighting of the War of Attrition was purely tactical and forced Arab armies to learn how to do them in a much-improved fashion.

How can you compare the Six day war with Pearl Harbor? Pearl Harbor was a surprise. Egypt knew it was about to engage with Israel, it also knew that Israel will try to pre-empt. There was no surprise from the attack itself. Just what day of the first two weeks of June it was going to be.

Choosing June 5th was not done at random. It was picked after a deceptive campaign to convince Egypt Israel is to attack to the south. June 5th was to be the day Egyptian forces were to be the most disorgenised after moving foces to southern Sinai.

You are trying to portray events as if they were easy, Arabs were stupid, no wonder Israel won, anyone could do it. That diminishes both the Arab armies and Israel only to serve your misconception.
 
Hello Snake,

Arab armies are invariably weaker than the Israelis for very prosaic reasons, and it is this factor that changed starting with the Bar Lev line operation in 1973. To be blunt the Israeli-Arab wars simply illustrate the Louis XIV rule: any alliance against any single enemy that has a good idea of its objective will invariably have a very hard time at best and invariably have an immensely difficult time crushing said enemy.

That certainly helped.

But Israeli success had more to do with superior training, leadership, and (later) superior equipment, especially in the air...so much so that it eventually amounted to a kind of moral advantage over their foes. There's just no getting around that.

Most great generals cut their teeth defeating poorly led opponents, but history tends not to hold that against them - otherwise we might be talking about Alexander the Pretty Good. Victory still has to be grasped, and even against an inferior opponent that may not always be cheap.

You've got your dander up about the Israelis, however, so I'm not sure how fruitful further discussion here will be.

And incidentally, I wonder if the people who call me a Soviet-wanker are reading this thread?

I've often felt that way about you, and I have to say I've been pleased to see you offer more balanced comments about the Red Menace in this thread.
 
How can you compare the Six day war with Pearl Harbor? Pearl Harbor was a surprise. Egypt knew it was about to engage with Israel, it also knew that Israel will try to pre-empt. There was no surprise from the attack itself. Just what day of the first two weeks of June it was going to be.

Choosing June 5th was not done at random. It was picked after a deceptive campaign to convince Egypt Israel is to attack to the south. June 5th was to be the day Egyptian forces were to be the most disorgenised after moving foces to southern Sinai.

You are trying to portray events as if they were easy, Arabs were stupid, no wonder Israel won, anyone could do it. That diminishes both the Arab armies and Israel only to serve your misconception.

Pearl Harbor was a surprise due to the scale of the Japanese attack. That Japan was headed to war with the United States, however, was not a surprise. Likewise that the Arabs were once again going to attack and invade Israel in 1973 was not a surprise, that they massed troops to the quantity and quality they did was the surprise.

That certainly helped.

But Israeli success had more to do with superior training, leadership, and (later) superior equipment, especially in the air...so much so that it eventually amounted to a kind of moral advantage over their foes. There's just no getting around that.

Most great generals cut their teeth defeating poorly led opponents, but history tends not to hold that against them - otherwise we might be talking about Alexander the Pretty Good. Victory still has to be grasped, and even against an inferior opponent that may not always be cheap.

You've got your dander up about the Israelis, however, so I'm not sure how fruitful further discussion here will be.

You're talking to someone who does see Alexander as Alexander the Pretty Good and dismisses Lee with a rather flippant indictment as a Luigi Cadorna type. ;) I use this standard at least in attempt impartially against everyone, not just the IDF.

I've often felt that way about you, and I have to say I've been pleased to see you offer more balanced comments about the Red Menace in this thread.

I've made no secret of seeing WWII as properly interpreted as a coalition war and the victory of one coalition over the other.

I'm not saying the Ruhr pocket didn't ensure an easier ride afterwards but I thought this thread was about decisive battles.

The war ended a month later. The zones of occupation had already been decided and I really don't see what difference it made to anything.

As for the Soviets not respecting occupation zones. They allowed the Allies into West Berlin and Vienna.

It made the difference in that the war did end one month later instead of two or three months. The Soviets would still have captured Berlin during that timeframe but of those soldiers had not been destroyed in the Ruhr it would have led to the Germans dragging the war out in the West rather longer than was the case IOTL. The Germans did not have some great affinity for being defeated by democratic soldiers running rings around them and bombing and shelling them to rubble, the German army in the West was destroyed. There is a big difference.
 
Pearl Harbor was a surprise due to the scale of the Japanese attack. That Japan was headed to war with the United States, however, was not a surprise. Likewise that the Arabs were once again going to attack and invade Israel in 1973 was not a surprise, that they massed troops to the quantity and quality they did was the surprise.

We were talking about 1967.

I said that the Israeli attack in early June was known, just not the exact day.

1973 was a surprise because the Egyptians did a great job of lulling Israel into a false sense of security.
 
Top 12

Let me explain my logic first. To me decisive means that there was more than one possible outcome, and the battle settled the fate of a conflict or the political progress of a nation.

1.Tsushima. The war had been won, but it prevented the Russians from the temptation of contesting the outcome, and turned the IJN into a major political player in Japan, creating the conditions that led to Japan daring to attack the US.

2. Marne. Prevented the Germans from winning in France in 1914, half responsible for the way WW1 was fought.

3. Tannemberg. The other half.decisive in the sense that if the Germans had lost there and in the Marne war could be over by Xmas.

4. Jutland. The way it went, it changed nothing. But Jelicoe really was the only man on both sides that could have lost the war in an afternoon. a major german win would have had massive moral implications, affected the outcome of the battle of the Atlantic in 1917.

5. Warsaw 1920. Prevented the Russian civil war from becoming the Russian revolutionary wars.

6. France 1940. The allies could have won, WW2 could have been massively different.

7.Stalingrad. The whole campaign, not just the final siege. If there was any
chance of the Germans winning in Russia it died there.

8. The battle of the Atlantic. The Germans did to little, to late. If Britain could have been cut off in 1941 it could have changed a lot.

9. Mukden 1948. The reds won. China went Maoist. World changing stuff

10. 1st Chinese offensive in Korea. The cold war got real. Proved that infNtry still mattered in the nuclear age.

11. Dien Ben Phu. Ended European imperial dreams. There were some hanger ons, but it sealed the fate of colonialism.

12. 1991 Iraqui war. Destroyed the concept of the large low tech arm as an option. Chinese wen high tech from then. Bombs got smarter. Every army in the world in a few years went pro and conscription seemed as old-fashioned as the crossbow.


Not included for lack of space he'll, let's make it 15!
Verdun highly misunderstood plan to make war so nasty the French would just gave up. 1917 strikes in French arm prove just how close it come to success. Had EvF plan Ben better understood and implemented, it could have worked.

100 days offensive in 1918. Made Versailles inevitable. The allies won fair and square and when that happens payback is a bich.

1973 yom Kippur war. Israel won the war but lost its mojo. The long road to peace followed, and from a military viewpoint it was downhill for the IDF. Lebanon 82 leading to the mess that was Lebanon 2006.
 
Hello Snake,

You're talking to someone who does see Alexander as Alexander the Pretty Good and dismisses Lee with a rather flippant indictment as a Luigi Cadorna type. I use this standard at least in attempt impartially against everyone, not just the IDF.

Cadorna?

Even for "Marble Man" critics that's a low blow.

The only thing Lee and Cadorna seem to have had in common was suffering high casualties.

I think style points only matter in discussions like these. The IDF could not afford to lose even one war, given their lack of strategic depth.
 
Top