NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think was the greatest military upset (battle or war) in which the underdogs amazingly came out on top?

What do you think was the greatest military upset (battle or war) in which the underdogs amazingly came out on top?

Iraq? :confused:

What do you think was the greatest military upset (battle or war) in which the underdogs amazingly came out on top?

I'd have to say Thermopylae. Though it was a tactical loss, it gave Athens time to mount a propper defence and beat the largest army of the day.

That followed very, very closely by Agencourt. Henry V beats the hell out of the french with one of the earliest weapons of mass destruction.

I would just like to add Crecy to the list of Hundred Years War battles ;-)

I'd say Vietnam, but any full scale offensive mounted by the Americans would have met a counteroffensive produced by the Chinese.

The largest upset would really have to be "America" defeating Britain in the Revolutionary war, seeing as we were outnumbered, outarmed, and isolated.

Battle of the Teutoburg Forest - Arminius leads Germanic tribes to victory over superior Roman forces.

I'd have to say Thermopylae. Though it was a tactical loss, it gave Athens time to mount a propper defence and beat the largest army of the day.


That's probably my favorite, even if it wasn't a 'victory' in the traditional sense.

Also, the charge of Little Round Top. That was pretty good too, though smaller in scale.

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War was a big upset, pretty embarrassing for Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Transjordan as well. 5 major armies from well-established countries, as well as two nationless militias, all getting their asses handed to them by a nation that's not even a decade old.

The battle of Thermopylae of course. 300 spartans stood their ground against the countless thousands of persians.

I think the second would have to be WWII where the British/Americans/Canadians etc. etc. stood against the massive and more technologically advanced army of Germany.

The battle of Thermopylae of course. 300 spartans stood their ground against the countless thousands of persians.

I think the second would have to be WWII where the British/Americans/Canadians etc. etc. stood against the massive and more technologically advanced army of Germany.

300 spartans and a SHEDLOAD of their allies.

Teuroburg was all Arminius' advantage, everything went to plan. Of course we don;t know what size the German forces were but I think there would have been at leas man-for-man equality.

Rorkes Drift for me. 80-odd british soldiers versus thousands of Zulus after the main army had been utterly annihilated.

Teuroburg was all Arminius' advantage, everything went to plan. Of course we don;t know what size the German forces were but I think there would have been at leas man-for-man equality.

The Romans had several thousand more, not to mention being more technologically advanced.

The battle of Thermopylae of course. 300 spartans stood their ground against the countless thousands of persians.

I think the second would have to be WWII where the British/Americans/Canadians etc. etc. stood against the massive and more technologically advanced army of Germany.

I wouldn't go so far to crown the Allies in WWII as an upset, primarily because Hitler drove his tanks and infantry into the Russian winter.

Too bad he focused on art and not European history.

When the Ewoks defeated the Empire. I mean COMON!

The Romans had several thousand more, not to mention being more technologically advanced.

Were there ever numbers for how many Germans were involved? Given that there was either one or two (or no) Roman survivors and the Germans weren;t generally in the business of written history.

Also, as I say, the battle was on the German's terms and the Romans had a crap commander. Which makes up for a hell of a lot if there WAS a major numerical advantage to Rome.

The Battle of Britain?

Marathon.

Were there ever numbers for how many Germans were involved? Given that there was either one or two (or no) Roman survivors and the Germans weren;t generally in the business of written history.

Also, as I say, the battle was on the German's terms and the Romans had a crap commander. Which makes up for a hell of a lot if there WAS a major numerical advantage to Rome.

Roman forces were probably around 24000, the Germanic forces probably around 18000.

When the Ewoks defeated the Empire. I mean COMON!

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~jskong/orly.gif

The Battle of Long Tan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_long_tan)

I don't think it is the best, but what about the little spasm of violence we had in Lebanon when Israel went after Hezbollah?

Teutoberg is one of the few examples of a battle in the ancient world where we have reliable figures for the numbers of troops on each side.
Varus had led his legions into an ambush a blind man would have seen, and the conditions were totally unsuited to Roman tactics. Given those factors, defeat was pretty well inevitable and not an upset at all.

I suppose this thread question turns on how you define 'upset'. Is it just a question of numbers?

300 Spanish troops conquering the Aztec nation looks like one hell of an upset at first glance. However, the key factor is that they showed up at a time when the Aztec prophecies said the gods were going to come and destroy them all. Hence, there was no point fighting them at all.

Hannibal's defeat of the Roman Legions at Cannae would have to be in consideration.

The spartans holding the pass deliberately dissmissed almost all their allies, some boetians and thebans remained but it would not have ammounted to more than perhaps 700 thespians. The core of resistance would have been the 300 elite red coated spartiates and their king. There was no "SHEDLOAD" of allies.

While there are many i would say The Battle of Plassey June 23, 1757.

The British army was vastly outnumbered, consisting of 2,200 Europeans and 800 native Indians and a small number of guns. The Nawab had an army of about 50,000 with some heavy artillery operated by about 40 French soldiers sent by the French East India Company.

Their enemy was equiped with firearms and artilery and by rights could have purged the small force with littl effort. But a number of diplomatic, atmospherical and military factors came into effect and lead to those 2,200 europeans essentially taking over all of Bengal.

Other contender i'll put forward for now.

Wavells thirty thousand in north africa, early WWII.

30,000 men, including non combatants obliterating an intalian force perhaps 8 or 9 times their size and capturing an inordinant amount of material and men for so few losses it defies belief.

But when you consider the Italian military as it was, it becomes more believable and perhaps less surprising.

Battle of the Teutoburg Forest - Arminius leads Germanic tribes to victory over superior Roman forces.
Disagreeable.
At point of contact the German tribes were stronger and had a massive and 'unfair advantage of surprise and the Romans were strong out in Marching formation.

Minqar Qaim, the Germans were pissed!:p
Kasserine Pass, the unstopable American War machine was mauled.

Battle of the Teutoburg Forest - Arminius leads Germanic tribes to victory over superior Roman forces.

That, or the battle of Bosworth Field.

Disagreeable.
At point of contact the German tribes were stronger and had a massive and 'unfair advantage of surprise and the Romans were strong out in Marching formation.

Minqar Qaim, the Germans were pissed!:p
Kasserine Pass, the unstopable American War machine was mauled.

Still, defeating an entire Legion? Hasn't happened before, and wasn't going to happen again for a long time.

When Napoleon lost his kitten. He cried for days.

That, or the battle of Bosworth Field.
Bosworth Field wasn't really an upset though, was it? The sides were reasonably evenly matched.

Still, defeating an entire Legion? Hasn't happened before, and wasn't going to happen again for a long time.
Perhaps, i'll have to read my books on Military Blunders and Military upsets.


The Battle of Tsushami(Or something).
Where the Russian Pacific Fleet was anihilated by the Japanese, no one(if anyone) predicted that.

After thrashing the Chinese, I think that would have been expected.

After thrashing the Chinese, I think that would have been expected.
In 1905?
The Chinese would have had Paper boats and Junks.

Thermopylae

Battle of Britain

Waterloo

Both attempted invasions of Japan by the Yuan Emperor and Mongols in 1274. (long live weather!)

Gaugamela.

The Battle of Tsushami(Or something).
Where the Russian Pacific Fleet was anihilated by the Japanese, no one(if anyone) predicted that.

I'll second that one, and raise it to the entire Russo-Japanese War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_war

Nobody...NOBODY expected Japan to be able to beat a European power in open war after barely a century on the world stage.

Not even the red-headed stepchild of Europe, Russia, was expected to lose...instead, they got their ASSES handed to them.

Bosworth Field wasn't really an upset though, was it? The sides were reasonably evenly matched.

Not on the outset, they weren't.

Thermopylae

Battle of Britain

Waterloo

Both attempted invasions of Japan by the Yuan Emperor and Mongols in 1274. (long live weather!)

Neither the B of B or Waterloo was an upset. The British had all the advantages in an air battle over their home counties - fighting planes already close to bingo fuel, with good radar coverage and an aircraft the equal of anything the German forces fielded. At Waterloo, it was a very even fight - it would not have been an upset in either case.

I must agree with Harlesburg - the Battles of the Yellow Sea and Tsushima in the Russo-Japanese war. Japan, never before thought of as a naval power, sank first the Russian Pacific Fleet, then the Russian Baltic Fleet for very light losses. Nobody saw that one coming.

What do you think was the greatest military upset (battle or war) in which the underdogs amazingly came out on top?

some, not in any order

1.Stalingrad and the stance against the siege of Leningrad (the soviets had performed poorly until then, although their potential was already greater than the nazis' by far)
2.Montaperti (Renaissance: powerful Firenze attacked the Republic of Siena and was beaten)
3.The Crusades against the Hussites (when Z'iz'ka showed to the world what a peasant militia can do against heavy cavalry)
4.Aleksandr Nevskij's battles against Swedes and German Knights
5.The attempted invasion of Greece by fascist Italy (When Mussolini said "Spezzeremo le reni alla Grecia!" (we will crush the backbones of Greece)... yeah, right...)
6.The mine battle on the Dolomites in 1916, near Cortina d'Ampezzo, when the Italians were able to burrow faster than the Imperial-Royals and blast a mine under the I.R. fortress before the I.R. could blast the mine above the Italian lines - a battle fought ENTIRELY underground...
7.The Italian torpedo boat raids in WW1 against Imperial-Royal warships, no one believed small boats could sink battleships and cruisers
8.The Battle of Britain - the Luftwaffe looked like it could raze England in two weeks, and the Messerschmitt Bf-109 was superior to the Spitfire by far.
9.The Vietnamese against the French first, and then against USA. Wow. Almost incredible.

Neither the B of B or Waterloo was an upset. The British had all the advantages in an air battle over their home counties - fighting planes already close to bingo fuel, with good radar coverage and an aircraft the equal of anything the German forces fielded. At Waterloo, it was a very even fight - it would not have been an upset in either case.

I must agree with Harlesburg - the Battles of the Yellow Sea and Tsushima in the Russo-Japanese war. Japan, never before thought of as a naval power, sank first the Russian Pacific Fleet, then the Russian Baltic Fleet for very light losses. Nobody saw that one coming.

The German Lutwaffa outnumbered the RAF. The RAF had bugger all in the way of fighters. Why do you think Fighter Command only sent up single squadrons? No. The Battle of Britain was meant to be a British defeat. And it oh so nearly was.

Waterloo. Wellington was lucky. Had Quata Bra not been a feck up and the Prussians not turned up...Boney would have won. It was an upset.

8.The Battle of Britain - the Luftwaffe looked like it could raze England in two weeks, and the Messerschmitt Bf-109 was superior to the Spitfire by far.


No, that's a myth. According to the British military analysis post-war, the Bf-109 and the Spitfire were roughly equal in capability throughout the war. On average, the 109 was a little bit faster, while the Spitfire had a better rate of climb and range. Each was equally maneuverable.

You may have been thinking about comparisons between the BF-109 and the Hurricane. The Hurricane was older, slower, less heavily armed and part-wood - it was excellent at shooting down incoming Dornier and Fokker bombers, but dead meat to a Bf-109. So, British tactics were to engage the 109's (and other escorts) with Spitfires while the Hurricanes took on the bombers.

8.The Battle of Britain - the Luftwaffe looked like it could raze England in two weeks, and the Messerschmitt Bf-109 was superior to the Spitfire by far.

Actually the Messerschmitt Bf-109 and the Spitfire were equal.
Where one had superiority over the other in one area of combat effectiveness, this was balanced by the other lacking in one area having superiority over the other in another area of combat effectiveness.

All moot, however, as it was the Hawker Hurricane which won The Battle Of Britain and fought most of the aerial battles, not the Spitfire as popular belief has it.


9.The Vietnamese against the French first, and then against USA. Wow. Almost incredible.

You forgot the Chinese.

Vietnamese vs France =Vietnamese wins.

Vietnamese vs USA= Vietnamese wins

Vietnamese vs China= Vietnamese wins.

Three powers in three decades.

Don't mess with the Vietnamese.

The German Lutwaffa outnumbered the RAF. The RAF had bugger all in the way of fighters. Why do you think Fighter Command only sent up single squadrons? No. The Battle of Britain was meant to be a British defeat. And it oh so nearly was.

Waterloo. Wellington was lucky. Had Quata Bra not been a feck up and the Prussians not turned up...Boney would have won. It was an upset.

Actually, the Brits had plenty of fighters - and all but a few of them were Hurricanes. The Brits sent up single squadrons of Spitfires, yes, but supported by Hurricanes, usually two squadrons of them to each Spitfire squadron launched.

Don't get me wrong, the pilots of the Battle of Britain did some amazing and unbelievably heroic things, and I praise them as brave and resourceful men. But the battle wasn't nearly as one-sided as some people (and especially Hollywood) would have you think.

King Edward 2nd of England's invading army was crushed by Robert The Bruce's greatly outnumbered Scottish army in 1314, so freeing Scotland of English colonial intentions.

Actually, the Brits had plenty of fighters - and all but a few of them were Hurricanes. The Brits sent up single squadrons of Spitfires, yes, but supported by Hurricanes, usually two squadrons of them to each Spitfire squadron launched.

Don't get me wrong, the pilots of the Battle of Britain did some amazing and unbelievably heroic things, and I praise them as brave and resourceful men. But the battle wasn't nearly as one-sided as some people (and especially Hollywood) would have you think.

I heard there was one day that won it for the RAF where the RAF were down to their reserves and broke the back of a last aerial offensive by the Luftwaffe, in September?

The Americans (Joe Kennedy in particular, America's answer to Chamberlain) had written us off and told the British to talk to the Nazis, but the British told him to bugger off.

The Germans had no intentions of invading Britain, but bombing Britain to submission.

I heard there was one day that won it for the RAF where the RAF were down to their reserves and broke the back of a last aerial offensive by the Luftwaffe, in September?

That's more-or-less accurate. The particular battle you're referring to actually lasted close to three days of continuous conflict - Reichsmarshall Goering decided to throw everything he had at Britain at once. When the dust settled, Great Britain could still muster a few squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes, but the Luftwaffe had shot their bolt. From that point on, aerial superiority over Britain was never seriously challenged.


The Germans had no intentions of invading Britain, but bombing Britain to submission.

That was Goering's plan, and he managed to sell Hitler on it. Major error. Operation Sea-Lion, the proposed seaborne invasion of Britain, would have succeeded in 1939 or 1940 - according to the British War College, Britain would have been rolled up in about six weeks of hard fighting.

Actually, the Brits had plenty of fighters - and all but a few of them were Hurricanes. The Brits sent up single squadrons of Spitfires, yes, but supported by Hurricanes, usually two squadrons of them to each Spitfire squadron launched.

Don't get me wrong, the pilots of the Battle of Britain did some amazing and unbelievably heroic things, and I praise them as brave and resourceful men. But the battle wasn't nearly as one-sided as some people (and especially Hollywood) would have you think.

I am aware that the main fighter was the Hurricane and not the Spit (amazes me that even history buffs loose sight of this fact).

The total RAF aircrew for the battle was a touch over 3000. That also includes gunners in Blenheims and Defiants...obvious well known fighter aircraft!

Also the Brits did not use Radar. It was called RDF before we gave the US a very important piece of technology (high power cavity magnetron )that allowed the US to complete its RADAR programme. I digress...sorry.

I think you are forgetting a couple of important points though. The logistics of running an air campaign while undergoing a virtual blockade is very difficult. How they managed to keep the planes armed and fueled is beyond me. Also the age and experience of the pilots was virtually 0 until the the first stage of the Battle (the Battle of the Channel). The Germans had aircrew who had already seen action in France and Spain.

Its not only a matter of numbers...its also how fit for combat the RAF was. And lets face it...it was not ready to take on the Luftwaffe. But through determination, bravery and sacrifice Operation Sealion did not happen. (yes I know some say that the Royal Navy would have put paid to any invasion across the channel...I am not too certain about that).

And it would have been Elstreet...not Hollywood:)

Basically, the Royal Navy would have destroyed any invasion fleet, but the RN was based in Scapa Flow around that time, and would have to stay there if the RAF was wiped out, as if the Luftwaffe was in control of the Channel, then it could have destroyed the Royal Navy.

I am aware that the main fighter was the Hurricane and not the Spit (amazes me that even history buffs loose sight of this fact).

The total RAF aircrew for the battle was a touch over 3000. That also includes gunners in Blenheims and Defiants...obvious well known fighter aircraft!

Also the Brits did not use Radar. It was called RDF before we gave the US a very important piece of technology (high power cavity magnetron )that allowed the US to complete its RADAR programme. I digress...sorry.

I think you are forgetting a couple of important points though. The logistics of running an air campaign while undergoing a virtual blockade is very difficult. How they managed to keep the planes armed and fueled is beyond me. Also the age and experience of the pilots was virtually 0 until the the first stage of the Battle (the Battle of the Channel). The Germans had aircrew who had already seen action in France and Spain.

Its not only a matter of numbers...its also how fit for combat the RAF was. And lets face it...it was not ready to take on the Luftwaffe. But through determination, bravery and sacrifice Operation Sealion did not happen. (yes I know some say that the Royal Navy would have put paid to any invasion across the channel...I am not too certain about that).

Actually, I'm reasonably sure the RN could NOT have stopped Sealion. They were stretched, fighting the Battle of the Atlantic, The Battle of the Mediterranean and the blockade of German Navy all at once. Plus, most of the RN consisted of deep-draft warships - not suitable for a battle of maneuver in the tight confines of the English Channel.

I would say the logistics part of the Battle of Britain is probably the most impressive feat of the conflict. But do remember that the logistics problems worked both ways - even as early as 1940 Germany was having to look at alternate fuels and robbing Peter to pay Paul. And while the RDF wasn't as effective as true RADAR, it did give the Brits a heads-up that something was coming.

And the Brits did have some experienced pilots. Most of the pilots from the BEF actually survived - the Brits promptly turned most of them into flight instructors!

I don't want to sound like I'm putting the British pilots down, or giving them less than their due. They went up against the most experienced and powerful air armada of their day and won. I just don't consider it as much of an upset as Rorke's Drift, Thermopylae or Tsushima (or Midway, for that matter).

And it would have been Elstreet...not Hollywood:)

I stand corrected.:D

For my money, the greatest upset of all time, or at least the one where the tactics were the most complex...

Chancellorsburg.

In a pure eye-staring contest against a (metaphorically) half-blind opponent, Hooker blinked.

Of course, now that I think about it, that might be listed as more of a blunder than an upset, but still, Lee had no business winning that battle. He only really won because Hooker screwed up big time and then chickened out.

I'd second the Russo-Japanese war.
Also to whoever said so earlier, Agincourt was an upset only in numbers and the thing wasn't decided because the British had the Longbow, as believed, studies have proven the arrows of the time could NOT penetrate French armour.
Rather it was the unique soil of Agincourt that ground into a thick clay-like mud after continous marching that did the French in, their heavy armour stopped them from even having a chance.
Really it was a well-defended small army with the terrain advantage fighting a large, better equipped army.

Maybe Hannibal's defeat to Scipio too, Hannibal finally unable to pull the win is a pretty big upset for me.

Actually, I'm reasonably sure the RN could NOT have stopped Sealion. They were stretched, fighting the Battle of the Atlantic, The Battle of the Mediterranean and the blockade of German Navy all at once. Plus, most of the RN consisted of deep-draft warships - not suitable for a battle of maneuver in the tight confines of the English Channel.

I would say the logistics part of the Battle of Britain is probably the most impressive feat of the conflict. But do remember that the logistics problems worked both ways - even as early as 1940 Germany was having to look at alternate fuels and robbing Peter to pay Paul. And while the RDF wasn't as effective as true RADAR, it did give the Brits a heads-up that something was coming.

And the Brits did have some experienced pilots. Most of the pilots from the BEF actually survived - the Brits promptly turned most of them into flight instructors!

I don't want to sound like I'm putting the British pilots down, or giving them less than their due. They went up against the most experienced and powerful air armada of their day and won. I just don't consider it as much of an upset as Rorke's Drift, Thermopylae or Tsushima (or Midway, for that matter).

I never thought you were putting down the people who fought in the BoB...I think we are just having a decent discussion (shock horror on NSG! LOL)

Re the RN...I think what people also forget is that had the RN been fighting in the Channel they'd be within striking distance of German aircraft. After all in the first channel battles the Brits lost. If the Germans use their tactical bombers to take out the capital ships (the channel is deep btw) and use the stratigic bombers to continue inland...what do the Brits do? Either way its a sticky wicket...Also I would imagine that a decent concentration of capital ships in the channel would be like a alarm call for the German subs...

Not sure it would be a battle of maneuvers....more of bombarding the German troop transporters from a distance...how many German capital ships were available? (I have no idea...)

Concerning the logistics...yeah...talk about supply chain management! I would however dispute the effects of logistics with the Germans...(ok...baring the problem of different gauge rail tracks in the East to the West)...they did manage reasonably ok as far as I am aware...early in the War that is!

RDF was Radar mate...

I did sort of wonder about the BEF pilots...how much action did they actually see in the air? remember the BEF fought from the 10th of May until Dunkirk...what...the 26th of May? Not a touch on the years the Germans had spent fighting.


1 - Rourkes Drift...hmmm 11 VC's...but how decisive was the outcome? What international effects did it have? Sorry but the BoB rates much higher in importance. I am not denigrating the people who fought...you don't win 11 VC's very easily! But it was not as important as the BoB

2 - Therm - without a doubt...I agree with you.

3 - Tsushima yeah...but lets face it...the Russians were not capable of fighting effectively. Bad morale, training, food, conditions and equipment...and once again...what influence did it have internationally?

4 - No. The US had access to Japanese intelligence. It was a Turkey Shoot. And well staged. But without the intel...I wonder if things might have been different? (Also incredible luck on the side of the US Navy...which is a given in war...luck is also decisive...!) - This was important as it killed off the Japanese carriers.

No, that's a myth. According to the British military analysis post-war, the Bf-109 and the Spitfire were roughly equal in capability throughout the war. On average, the 109 was a little bit faster, while the Spitfire had a better rate of climb and range. Each was equally maneuverable.

You may have been thinking about comparisons between the BF-109 and the Hurricane. The Hurricane was older, slower, less heavily armed and part-wood - it was excellent at shooting down incoming Dornier and Fokker bombers, but dead meat to a Bf-109. So, British tactics were to engage the 109's (and other escorts) with Spitfires while the Hurricanes took on the bombers.

No way. The Spitfire motor would shut down at negative g, while the Bf-109 was equipped with an injection pump.
Anyway, the Brits won through better strategy of the Fighter Command, than out of tech superiority.

You forgot the Chinese.
Vietnamese vs France =Vietnamese wins.
Vietnamese vs USA= Vietnamese wins
Vietnamese vs China= Vietnamese wins.
Three powers in three decades.
Don't mess with the Vietnamese.

No, I didn't forget the Chinese, but the Sino-Vietnamese war was on a smaller scale if compared to the France-Vietnam and USA-Vietnam wars.

Also, it was Vietnam who eliminated the Cambodian Khmer Rouge regime (Pol Pot). And Vietnamese also fought WW2 against the Japanese for France.

Really. Don't mess with Vietnam. They're proven to be the fiercest fighters of the world. Long live to Uncle Ho and General Giap!

Basically, the Royal Navy would have destroyed any invasion fleet, but the RN was based in Scapa Flow around that time, and would have to stay there if the RAF was wiped out, as if the Luftwaffe was in control of the Channel, then it could have destroyed the Royal Navy.

And Scapa Flow wasn't that safe after all... remember the U-Boot raid on Scapa Flow.
Really. Britain also had some luck with the Battle of Britain... not that they didn't deserve it, but Hitler proved himself a total moron about military matters. Fighting Britain and CCCP wasn't as easy as invading Czechoslovakija and Poland.

No way. The Spitfire motor would shut down at negative g, while the Bf-109 was equipped with an injection pump.
Anyway, the Brits won through better strategy of the Fighter Command, than out of tech superiority.

ahh... the infamous Miss Shilling's orifice...LOL

Well remember it was a design compromise...not flawed technology...also the 109's would need to nose down as well...despite the injection pump...

russians by the Afghan Mujhadeen

I never thought you were putting down the people who fought in the BoB...I think we are just having a decent discussion (shock horror on NSG! LOL)

Re the RN...I think what people also forget is that had the RN been fighting in the Channel they'd be within striking distance of German aircraft. After all in the first channel battles the Brits lost. If the Germans use their tactical bombers to take out the capital ships (the channel is deep btw) and use the stratigic bombers to continue inland...what do the Brits do? Either way its a sticky wicket...Also I would imagine that a decent concentration of capital ships in the channel would be like a alarm call for the German subs...

Not sure it would be a battle of maneuvers....more of bombarding the German troop transporters from a distance...how many German capital ships were available? (I have no idea...)

Concerning the logistics...yeah...talk about supply chain management! I would however dispute the effects of logistics with the Germans...(ok...baring the problem of different gauge rail tracks in the East to the West)...they did manage reasonably ok as far as I am aware...early in the War that is!

RDF was Radar mate...

Yes and no. While fundamentally the two are the same technology, true RADAR was able to do a few things RDF couldn't, like ID individual craft rather than a "mass". But yeah, the differences were only some fairly minor technical upgrades.


I did sort of wonder about the BEF pilots...how much action did they actually see in the air? remember the BEF fought from the 10th of May until Dunkirk...what...the 26th of May? Not a touch on the years the Germans had spent fighting.


Rather a remarkable amount, given the short period of engagement. One Brit racked up ten kills in ten days - the BEF pilots were required to protect the expeditionary force from near-constant attack by Luftwaffe ground-attack aircraft. They got good fast or they got dead fast.


1 - Rourkes Drift...hmmm 11 VC's...but how decisive was the outcome? What international effects did it have? Sorry but the BoB rates much higher in importance. I am not denigrating the people who fought...you don't win 11 VC's very easily! But it was not as important as the BoB


Well, it could be said to be the beginning of the end for the Zulu Nation. It wasn't overly important internationally, but it had a huge impact on the future of South Africa.


2 - Therm - without a doubt...I agree with you.

3 - Tsushima yeah...but lets face it...the Russians were not capable of fighting effectively. Bad morale, training, food, conditions and equipment...and once again...what influence did it have internationally?


Now, this one WAS important. The Russo-Japanese war had a huge impact on the destinies of four nations.

Russia was embarrassed and shamed. Nicholas the Second lost prestige that he never regained - setting up his fall from grace in WWI.

Korea lost it's protector against Japan, Russia. Within a few years, the penninsula was occupied by Japan and annexed - and after the R-J War and the Anglo-Japanese alliance, no one dared make a fuss about it.

China was rendered utterly vulnerable. With Japanese presence in Port Arthur and eventually Korea, China was poised to lose Manchuria, which it did, and eventually came close to being entirely crushed by Japan.

And, of course, Japan itself. Japan got something they had lusted for for centuries - a base on the mainland. More, they were able to see that what they got, they got from military might - not treaties, not diplomacy, but naked aggression. More, they saw that a mighty and economically powerful opponent could be defeated, if they only struck with speed, daring and ruthlessness. I believe the Russo-Japanese War set them up for the mistakes of World War Two.


4 - No. The US had access to Japanese intelligence. It was a Turkey Shoot. And well staged. But without the intel...I wonder if things might have been different? (Also incredible luck on the side of the US Navy...which is a given in war...luck is also decisive...!) - This was important as it killed off the Japanese carriers.

Oh, no argument the US used their advantages in intelligence and communications to pull this one off, not to mention the fact that the Japanese were certain they had already sunk the Yorktown. But it was still 3 CVs with light escorts against 2 CVs and two CVAs, plus many, HEAVY escorts. Luck, yes, but also strategic brilliance turned the tide against the Japanese.

I like this thread. Well done folks, I had those stubborn Spartans and thier allies in mind at first, but others have made good points. I stand undecided.

The battle of Thermopylae of course. 300 spartans stood their ground against the countless thousands of persians.


sigh...
You mean 5200 greeks.
of which a combined force of Thebans, Thespians and Spartans (1700 soldiers) fought right to the end.
And that's not including any heliots

True “upsets” are rare in military history, and many supposed underdog victories turn out not to be upon closer examination. Battles are decided long before the fighting begins.

What do you think was the greatest military upset (battle or war) in which the underdogs amazingly came out on top?

Agincourt

The German Lutwaffa outnumbered the RAF. The RAF had bugger all in the way of fighters. Why do you think Fighter Command only sent up single squadrons? No. The Battle of Britain was meant to be a British defeat. And it oh so nearly was.

I think you are ignoring two major things here: firstly the ill-planned change from targetting aerodromes to targetting cities, and secondly the fact that the Battle of Britain was fought over Britain (obviously enough), which meant that it was possible to recover downed RAF men and planes from the majority of the theatre which allowed some of them to return to fray in a matter of days if not hours, whereas for the Luftwaffe any hope of recovering downed pilots was limited to the rather meagre area of the channel. If a German pilot was downed anywhere over Great Britain, well 'for you, Jerry, the war is over'. Couple this with the amazing repairability of the Hurricanes and the RAF have a pretty major hidden advantage.

...to say nothing of the difficulty of destroying RDF towers with bombs.

...or the flawed Luftwaffe doctrine of tying their best fighters too closely to the bombers, and thus deploying them in a purely defensive role.

That was Goering's plan, and he managed to sell Hitler on it. Major error. Operation Sea-Lion, the proposed seaborne invasion of Britain, would have succeeded in 1939 or 1940 - according to the British War College, Britain would have been rolled up in about six weeks of hard fighting.


I've just written a really long reply about how a documentary about a reconstruction with survivng British military commanders and German military commanders who would have been involved in Sealion had the operation gone ahead showed how the German invasion would have actually faltered and failed, due to stubborn British resistance and tactics, due to Luftwaffe losses in The Battle Of Britain playing a part, and the Royal Navy obliterating German invasion supply ships and the Luftwaffe and Reichsmarine combined could not destroy the Royal Navy to the extent it stopped the invasion being affected by the RN's actions, and that because of Luftwaffe losses in getting air superiority in BoB, it could not cover the British mainland and sea with complete operating success.

But the computer ate it.

Meh.

All computers should be shot.

The battle of Longewala...

Not the all time greatest maybe, but definitely my favorite..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Longewala
The Battle of Longewala December 5 - December 6, 1971 was part of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, fought between Indian and Pakistani forces in the Thar Desert of the Rajasthan state in India. It is generally regarded to be one of the decisive battles in the two week long war.

Against considerable odds, the Indian 'A' company of 120 odd soldiers of the 23rd Bn, Punjab Regiment, managed to hold a 2000-3000 strong assault force of the 51st Infantry Brigade of the Pakistani Army- backed by the 22nd Armoured Regiment- before the Indian Air Force flew in two decisive days against the invading force to dent and ultimately thwart the Pakistani assault.

Longewala was a strategic point en route to capturing vast tracts of land and also a pivotal theatre of war in engaging India on the western front. The Indian victory in this battle ensured that Pakistan had no way of countering the Indian Army in the west and eventually succumbed to a swift defeat in the war

Battle plan

Pakistan's battle plan was based on the assumption that an attack in the area would help Pakistan’s 1st Armoured Divisions task in Ganganagar area. Pakistan High command also felt that it was important to protect the North-South road link which they felt was vulnerable as it was close to the border. A Combined Operations Plan was decided upon. This involved two Infantry Brigades and two Armoured Regiments. A separate division, the 18 Division, was formed for this purpose. 18 Division Operation Orders required one Infantry Brigade (206) with an Armoured Regiment (38 Cavalry) to capture and establish a firm base at Longanewala, a junction on the Indian road system and another Infantry Brigade (51) with an Armoured Regiment (22 Cavalry) to operate beyond Longanewala to capture Jaisalmer.[1]

The Pakistani plan was lauded in the words of Brigadier Tariq Mir as "Insha Allah (God willing) we will have breakfast at Longewala, lunch at Jaisalmer and dinner at Delhi". The ambition was far-fetched from the start. And as the day unfolded, Longewala would stand out as one of the biggest routs in a battle for Pakistan despite overwhelming superiority before commencement of the battle.

It does not take brains to figure this one out 3 aircraft battle groups against 80 diffrent japanese ships of varying sizes in the end result was the turning point in the battle of the pacific. Or it could be Korea in which the Americans stopped the chinese and north koreans and the pusan peninsula and pushed back up to beyond the 50th parallel. In modern sense it might be the war be the british and argentines for a stupid island in south america

The Battle of Badr is also an important battle where the underdogs won....and this too had a significant effect in history.

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

i think someone said it already but; my vote goes for Battle of Cannae (i think ti was that one anyway) where Hannibal ambushed the entire Roman army in an open field and then surrounded, routed, and annhialted to the man that same army, which was much larger then his own.
granted he picked the right day to fight, since the Consul who had the army that day was a military moron whereas the consul who would have been in command the next day and was the day before was not a moron.

as for battle of Thermopalae (sp?), the 300 spartans sent the rest of the Greeks away on the last day so that they could form the core of they new army being raised in Athens, though that battle did provide an absolutley wonderful quote from King Laenidus that went something like this:
Messenger> My Lord, the Medes (Persians) have so many archers that when they fire, the sky is darkened!
King> ::to another one of the Greek Generals:: my scouts bring me good tidings, today we shall fight in the shade

I've just written a really long reply about how a documentary about a reconstruction with survivng British military commanders and German military commanders who would have been involved in Sealion had the operation gone ahead showed how the German invasion would have actually faltered and failed, due to ... the Royal Navy obliterating German invasion supply ships and the Luftwaffe and Reichsmarine combined could not destroy the Royal Navy to the extent it stopped the invasion being affected by the RN's actions, and that because of Luftwaffe losses in getting air superiority in BoB, it could not cover the British mainland and sea with complete operating success.

If you look at the shoddy logistical planning that went into Operation Sealion and the implausibly tight schedule it would need to keep to, it is pretty clear that even if the RAF had been taken out of the equation almost entirely the operation would have been a disaster. Nevermind the supply ships, getting the majority of landing troops over the channel would have been a minor miracle.

oh, how bout the Tin Can Navy turning aside the Japanese battleships (ya know the ones with the 18 inch guns)! (i think the heaviest ship present was a few light cruisers, mostly destroyers and destroyer escorts)

The Fallschmirjäger's actions at Monte Casino. Good effort there.

That and the Finns stopping the USSR for anything more than about 9 seconds. Top draw.

The Fallschmirjäger's actions at Monte Casino. Good effort there.

Similarly Frost's men at Arnhem - like your example an eventual defeat, but an incredible holding action.

Similarly Frost's men at Arnhem - like your example an eventual defeat, but an incredible holding action.
Not quite as impressive due to the fact that there was more than about 10% of them left alive, methinks.

Not quite as impressive due to the fact that there was more than about 10% of them left alive, methinks.

I'll get back to you on that one - how about Chapultepec? Depends really on what set of figures you chose to believe.

as for battle of Thermopalae (sp?), the 300 spartans sent the rest of the Greeks away on the last day so that they could form the core of they new army being raised in Athens, though that battle did provide an absolutley wonderful quote from King Laenidus that went something like this:
Messenger> My Lord, the Medes (Persians) have so many archers that when they fire, the sky is darkened!
King> ::to another one of the Greek Generals:: my scouts bring me good tidings, today we shall fight in the shade

I am pretty sure that you are basing this on a fictional book I read a good while back titled Gates of Fire, or something like that. I enjoyed it immensly and recommend it highly. It is also fairly historically accurate, but the force remaining on the last day was about 2:1 Thespians to Spartans.
One thing that I find most impressive about the battle of Thermopylae is how few men the greeks lost before they were betrayed and the Persians snuck around behind them. I believe the best estimates are around 500 actual dead before the last day. Two things should be noted however, first, that many of the Greeks had squires who helped out, wheras the persians were primarily sending conquered armies (nobody helping them) and second, that the numbers from this time are notoriously inaccurate, so who knows how much of the "real history" has been embellished a little bit too.

edit

I meant to also add that I liked the quote and that as far as I know Kind Laenidus was indeed by all accounts an incredibly awesome dude

What do you think was the greatest military upset (battle or war) in which the underdogs amazingly came out on top?

I would say the destruction of the spanish armada that sailed against england in 1588 was a massive upset though not a proper battle.

So I decided to go check the Wiki on Thermopylae, its pretty entertaining. Anyways, it credits the arrows in the sky quote to Dienekes, but added that Leonidas coined the phrase Μολών Λαβέ, or "Come and take them" in reply to the larger persian forces demand to surrender thier arms. yeah, he's a badass, no doubt.

The June War, or the 'Six-Day' war. June 1967.

/thread.

Also to whoever said so earlier, Agincourt was an upset only in numbers and the thing wasn't decided because the British had the Longbow, as believed, studies have proven the arrows of the time could NOT penetrate French armour.


Which just goes to show how much relevance some of these modern studies of old technology have.
Making a longbow was a job for a skilled craftsman using the right materials in just the right way.
Using a longbow properly took years of practice, several hours a week.
And some historians on TV bodge a few together and discover, surprise surprise, they're not very good.

I saw a similar study of 'Greek fire', a secret weapon which made the Byzantine navy unbeatable for centuries. They cobbled together a device that took about five minutes to sink a rowing boat at very close range, then announced that was how it had been done back in the day.

I saw a similar study of 'Greek fire', a secret weapon which made the Byzantine navy unbeatable for centuries. They cobbled together a device that took about five minutes to sink a rowing boat at very close range, then announced that was how it had been done back in the day.

I didn't think we knew what made greek fire? And it's not napalm.

Pizarro vs the Inca's, pick a battle any one of many....odds of 10 to 300 against armies of 30-80,000......

I didn't think we knew what made greek fire? And it's not napalm.

We don't know. That's part of what they were trying to figure out. They were probably completely wrong, hence the machine they made was no use.

The battle of Thermopylae of course. 300 spartans stood their ground against the countless thousands of persians.

I think the second would have to be WWII where the British/Americans/Canadians etc. etc. stood against the massive and more technologically advanced army of Germany.

Youy obviously didn't even bother to read the OP as it specified that the outnumbered side had to win the battle in questiuon and since every single Spartan was killed how the fuck can that be considered a victory? In what Bizarro universe do you live.

And as for your claim of the Nazis being more massive and having a more technologically advanced army then the Soviets/british/Americans, that's yet more bullshit. By the end of the war Soviet troops outnumbered the Nazis by nearly 2 to 1 and the US and Soviets had built so many tanks that iut didn't matter if the Nazis blew up 20 every single hour, they'd still be overwhelmed.

When the Ewoks defeated the Empire. I mean COMON!

LOL!!!! First thing I have seen today that has made me laugh.

It does not take brains to figure this one out 3 aircraft battle groups against 80 diffrent japanese ships of varying sizes in the end result was the turning point in the battle of the pacific. Or it could be Korea in which the Americans stopped the chinese and north koreans and the pusan peninsula and pushed back up to beyond the 50th parallel. In modern sense it might be the war be the british and argentines for a stupid island in south america

Nice confusing nation name!

Actually the Spartans and company did win that battle, they held the Persians long enough for the Greek Nation states to properly prepare, provided a symbol and hope for the states and they instilled doubt into the minds of the Persian army. In the end they achieved the main goals of their defence the fact that they were wiped out in the end doesn't change that.

The battle of Tenochtitlan comes to mind; Cortez battled millions of Aztecs sucessfuly and toppled an entire empire. Of course, disease did most of that for him. Still, it was a long shot at best.

The Easter Rising in Dublin, Ireland in 1916 was pretty impressive as well; 2,000 Irish rebels versus a very large detachment of the British army. The Irish were slaughtered, of course, but they held their own for a while; in one instance in downtown Dublin, 500 British soldiers ran into a small IRA detachment of 17 men. The 17 skiled Irishmen marksmen held thier own for several hours against the inexperianced British troops charging them. By the end of the engagement, the IRA had lost 8 men; the British lost 230.

Even though the Easter Rising was a failure in a military sense, after the British executed the rebel ringleaders public and world opinion turned against them, eventually forcing England to create an Irish free state.

Battle of Wahlstatt

Battle of Vilaconoga, 10 Spaniards defeated an army of tens of thousands of Incas.....I win this thread, to go on is futile......

Israeli war of Independence.

Kokoda Track campaign or Kokoda Trail campaign

Gloster Hill
http://members.tripod.com/~Glosters/Imjin.html
or
Imphal and Kohima

Gloster Hill
http://members.tripod.com/~Glosters/Imjin.html
or
Imphal and Kohima

oh my Nation had something like that too ,i just can't dig it up in my mind

That was Goering's plan, and he managed to sell Hitler on it. Major error. Operation Sea-Lion, the proposed seaborne invasion of Britain, would have succeeded in 1939 or 1940 - according to the British War College, Britain would have been rolled up in about six weeks of hard fighting.

Hitler never wanted to invade britain, just have the threat there to force us to sue for peace. He envisioned a Anglo-German Alliance, because he saw us brits as an Aryan race.

The Spanish Inquisition.

No one saw THAT coming.

:p

Noone expects the Spanish Inquisition! :eek:

The battle of Thermopylae of course. 300 spartans stood their ground against the countless thousands of persians.


There were NEVER just 300 Spartans at Theropylae. In all, there was roughly 6,000-10,000 greeks allied greeks within the greek forces. Even after the mountain pass was found, and the most of the forces left, approximately 1000 Thespians stayed with the Spartans. I can't believe they still teach that crap.

Also, once one looks at the terrain, the tactics, and the troops used, it is not at all as spectacular. Sure, the Persians had at least 200,000(Some put it closer to a million), but let's look at this:

They made a spear wall across a narrow passage in the mountains. The only real advantage numbers gives you is the ability to flank your enemy. Due to the fact that there was no way to flank the Greeks, numbers didn't matter. It was an impassible wall of spears.

Second, the arrows of the short bows used by the Persian archers were weak, and short ranged. They could not penetrated the heavy armor of the hoplites.

Third, the greeks used long spears, which easily kept the Persians(Whom had shortspears and swords) at bay. This is actually the reason why the "immortals" were descimated-they used short spears against the long spears of the Greeks. Not only this, but the armor of the greeks was heavier than the persians, which was far weaker.

Fourth, the Greeks rotated their troops, always keeping the frontline fresh, and ready to fight.

Lastly, a large portion of the Persian army was poorly trained concripts, and most of the casualties suffered were.

So, really, Thermopylae, when broken down, wasn't extroardinarily impressive.

No one has mentioned the battle of New Orleans?

No one has mentioned the battle of New Orleans?

Had to be done....

In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.

We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin' on
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

We looked down the river and we see'd the British come.
And there must have been a hundred of'em beatin' on the drum.
They stepped so high and they made the bugles ring.
We stood by our cotton bales and didn't say a thing.

Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise
If we didn't fire our muskets 'til we looked 'em in the eye
We held our fire 'til we see'd their faces well.
Then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave 'em ... well

Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

We fired our cannon 'til the barrel melted down.
So we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round.
We filled his head with cannon balls, and powdered his behind
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind.

Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

That is all.

Pizarro vs the Inca's, pick a battle any one of many....odds of 10 to 300 against armies of 30-80,000......

How about William Walker's 57 Immortals against the entire nation of Nicaragua?

Had to be done....

In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.

We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin' on
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

We looked down the river and we see'd the British come.
And there must have been a hundred of'em beatin' on the drum.
They stepped so high and they made the bugles ring.
We stood by our cotton bales and didn't say a thing.

Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise
If we didn't fire our muskets 'til we looked 'em in the eye
We held our fire 'til we see'd their faces well.
Then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave 'em ... well

Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

We fired our cannon 'til the barrel melted down.
So we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round.
We filled his head with cannon balls, and powdered his behind
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind.

Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

That is all.

lot it had to be done

Israel in 1948 beat the shit out of 7 different countries without even an organized and trained military with no help from the Allies.

How about William Walker's 57 Immortals against the entire nation of Nicaragua?

You know, I just looked that up. Quite Hilarious, really.

However, to the person whom posted before you, I would just like to say that I hold very little credit to the Conquistadores. Often times their claims were bogus, they were allied with the various tribers whom were enemies of the various nations they overthrew, and were not very influential as far as actually fighting went. Really, most of the fighting was done by indegenous peoples, and the Conquistadores claimed victory. The actual effect they had is often times overhyped.

Second Mongol Invasion of Japan

Second Mongol Invasion of Japan

The kamikaze one, right?

The Mongols build the greatest empire ever and get beaten... by wind. lol

Somebody else mentioned it before, and yes, there are more impressive things than a "draw"... but the Winter War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War). Just because it was close.

The kamikaze one, right?

The Mongols build the greatest empire ever and get beaten... by wind. lol

Wind? I thought they were sacked by China!

Wind? I thought they were sacked by China!

The Mongols were sacked by China; but the Second Mongol Invasion of Japan didn't work because the kamikaze blew them away.

Why else do you think the Pearl Harbor bombers were called kamikaze?

The Mongols were sacked by China; but the Second Mongol Invasion of Japan didn't work because the kamikaze blew them away.

Why else do you think the Pearl Harbor bombers were called kamikaze?

OOOO, ok. I thought you meant the whole empire. What's odd is that the kamikaze's wore sorta helmet like things. I know they were used for communication but still, helmets in a suicide plane. Makes you wonder....

Wind? I thought they were sacked by China!

He's referring to Kublai Khan's assault on Japan, with a massive fleet and army(The invading fleet is only rivalled by that on D-Day), which was devasted by a sudden typhoon, completely and totally destroying the fleet and army before it ever touched Japanese soil.

He's referring to Kublai Khan's assault on Japan, with a massive fleet and army(The invading fleet is only rivalled by that on D-Day), which was devasted by a sudden typhoon, completely and totally destroying the fleet and army before it ever touched Japanese soil.

It is a little like when China invaded Japan but got pwned by the waves and their fleet destroyed...

TWhy else do you think the Pearl Harbor bombers were called kamikaze?

Kamikazes at Pearl Harbor? Is that your final answer? Are you sure about that?

I'd say probably the EPLF and TPLF's victory in Ethiopia. Even 500,000+ Ethiopian troops, 17,000 Cubans, and a few thousand Soviet advisors couldn't bring them down. And the Ethiopians, Cubans, etc. went all out.

Another great military upset is the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale.

Kamikazes at Pearl Harbor? Is that your final answer? Are you sure about that?

going once

Kamikazes at Pearl Harbor? Is that your final answer? Are you sure about that?

Yeah... I agree...

Last I checked, Kamikaze pilots didn't arise until much later, when a random pilot, low and fuel, and who's plane was shot to hell, refused orders to fly back, and decided instead to crash his plane into an American ship... and the idea picked up some major speed among pilots whom were inspired by the "Divine Wind", decided to embody it in such acts, believing they were acting as the divine wind(Interesting fact-The Emporer intitially forbade such kamikaze attempts, but due such decrees not stopping it, he finally endorsed it).

And there were no kamikazes at Pearl Harbor. Where the hell you'd have to go to school to be taught that, I have no idea...

Yeah... I agree...

Last I checked, Kamikaze pilots didn't arise until much later, when a random pilot, low and fuel, and who's plane was shot to hell, refused orders to fly back, and decided instead to crash his plane into an American ship... and the idea picked up some major speed among pilots whom were inspired by the "Divine Wind", decided to embody it in such acts, believing they were acting as the divine wind(Interesting fact-The Emporer intitially forbade such kamikaze attempts, but due such decrees not stopping it, he finally endorsed it).

And there were no kamikazes at Pearl Harbor. Where the hell you'd have to go to school to be taught that, I have no idea...

no that's not right too

no that's not right too

What...?

*head explodes*

no that's not right too

Eh... huh? Maybe I got my info mungled up(As it has been a long while since I've studied the issue), but that is what I recall... what wrong about it?

What...?

*head explodes*

read this ,yes i know this place not right most times, but i have see most of it in books too

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

read this ,yes i know this place not right most times, but i have see most of it in books too

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

Ah, you are forgetting that which may have inspired it, the unknown pilot whose plane crashed into the USS Indiana in June of '44.

The Battle of Pelennor Fields.

Yeah... I agree...

Last I checked, Kamikaze pilots didn't arise until much later, when a random pilot, low and fuel, and who's plane was shot to hell, refused orders to fly back, and decided instead to crash his plane into an American ship... and the idea picked up some major speed among pilots whom were inspired by the "Divine Wind", decided to embody it in such acts, believing they were acting as the divine wind(Interesting fact-The Emporer intitially forbade such kamikaze attempts, but due such decrees not stopping it, he finally endorsed it).

And there were no kamikazes at Pearl Harbor. Where the hell you'd have to go to school to be taught that, I have no idea...

US, where else?

They lie all the time in elementary and middle school history.

He's referring to Kublai Khan's assault on Japan, with a massive fleet and army(The invading fleet is only rivalled by that on D-Day), which was devasted by a sudden typhoon, completely and totally destroying the fleet and army before it ever touched Japanese soil.

That's the one.

Ah, you are forgetting that which may have inspired it, the unknown pilot whose plane crashed into the USS Indiana in June of '44.

Eh? Never heard of this. Where did it occur?

Ah, you are forgetting that which may have inspired it, the unknown pilot whose plane crashed into the USS Indiana in June of '44.

that was not call a Kamikaze at time it was some pilot with guts

that was not call a Kamikaze at time it was some pilot with guts

Yeah. I doubt the first guy was like "I call this kamikaze!" and then crashed. It was more like some newspaper calling it that.

Or is that only how US culture works? *Honestly doesn't know*

Yeah. I doubt the first guy was like "I call this kamikaze!" and then crashed. It was more like some newspaper calling it that.

Or is that only how US culture works? *Honestly doesn't know*"Divine Wind" or some such it means. In, you know, Japanese.

Yeah. I doubt the first guy was like "I call this kamikaze!" and then crashed. It was more like some newspaper calling it that.

Or is that only how US culture works? *Honestly doesn't know*

i don't think they know what kamikaze was back then
not till they read the Japanese high command codes later on in the war when the full scale attacks happen

"Divine Wind" or some such it means. In, you know, Japanese.

Yeah. That's what it means...

But the first suicide bombers didn't call it that. Someone else had to.

I'm thinking a newspaper, but that might only apply in the US.

that was not call a Kamikaze at time it was some pilot with guts

...and it were nowhere near Pearl Harbor.

...and it were nowhere near Pearl Harbor.

Yeah, you guys mentioned that.


However, the US schools seem to think it WAS Pearl Harbor... *is :mad: (at the schools)*

...and it were nowhere near Pearl Harbor.

the only planes to crash were the ones that were shot down

but that might only apply in the US.That's for sure.

That's for sure.

lot and they all so say it was just the USA that won the war with out help

lot and they all so say it was just the USA that won the war with out helpYeh. Right. And?

I'm gunna say... Vietnam during the Vietnam War.

Originally Posted by The Pictish Revival

Which just goes to show how much relevance some of these modern studies of old technology have.
Making a longbow was a job for a skilled craftsman using the right materials in just the right way.
Using a longbow properly took years of practice, several hours a week.
And some historians on TV bodge a few together and discover, surprise surprise, they're not very good.

I saw a similar study of 'Greek fire', a secret weapon which made the Byzantine navy unbeatable for centuries. They cobbled together a device that took about five minutes to sink a rowing boat at very close range, then announced that was how it had been done back in the day.


Did you see the program? No, thought not.
Would I mention it if I thought it wasn't reliable? No, I wouldn't.
Have I seen documentaries like you describe? Yes I have and they do suck.

They didn't use longbows to test, they just used arrows against armour of the time and the arrows failed because they weren't high enough quality steel.
The arrows were made, however, exactly the way English fletchers would make them, they would penetrate chainmail and leather armour but they couldn't get through French plate. The historians used actual samples of that ages arrows, from Agincourt I think, and took the carbon content and shape and used arrows derived from it.

You gotta remember that the English had longbowmen because they were cheap and worked well but they didn't bother to spend a lot of money on them, not yet at least, so the longbowmen of Agincourt's time had to make do with low-grade arrows and arrows that weren't specialised for anti-armour.

But this makes sense, plate armour is actually very good and the they hadn't yet invented armour-piercing arrows.
Basic point, longbow alone is not good enough to penetrate armour, for that you need a specialised arrow-head unless you're lucky enough to hit a chink in the armour or the visor.


So I restate my point: Agincourt proved that a small, well-led and well fortified army with the terrain advantage can overcome a larger, badly led, and better armed army. It was not an upset for one who looks close at the facts.

Did you see the program? No, thought not.
Would I mention it if I thought it wasn't reliable? No, I wouldn't.
Have I seen documentaries like you describe? Yes I have and they do suck.

They didn't use longbows to test, they just used arrows against armour of the time and the arrows failed because they weren't high enough quality steel.
The arrows were made, however, exactly the way English fletchers would make them, they would penetrate chainmail and leather armour but they couldn't get through French plate. The historians used actual samples of that ages arrows, from Agincourt I think, and took the carbon content and shape and used arrows derived from it.

You gotta remember that the English had longbowmen because they were cheap and worked well but they didn't bother to spend a lot of money on them, not yet at least, so the longbowmen of Agincourt's time had to make do with low-grade arrows and arrows that weren't specialised for anti-armour.

But this makes sense, plate armour is actually very good and the they hadn't yet invented armour-piercing arrows.
Basic point, longbow alone is not good enough to penetrate armour, for that you need a specialised arrow-head unless you're lucky enough to hit a chink in the armour or the visor.


So I restate my point: Agincourt proved that a small, well-led and well fortified army with the terrain advantage can overcome a larger, badly led, and better armed army. It was not an upset for one who looks close at the facts.

Actually, a big part of Agincourt depended on the weather. It was raining heavily during the battle, which didn't provide too much of a deterrant to the English; All they had to do was fire their arrows. To the French, however, it was complete death. Heavily armored French knights were sucked down into the muddy soil beneath them; unable to rise, many drowned in their own platemail. Those that survived had their throats cut by English Yeomen after the battle.

ie. they used their terrain properly. Just because a leader is brilliant and uses good tactics, and corners an enemy on well chosen terrain doesn't mean that his win isn't an upset. HOlding a bridge against a million man army is still an upset, ya know?

Although I don't really believe the argument that armor piercing arrows were neccessary against the French armor is all that true. There was also a lot of chain in use back then, and good old fashioned arrows did just fine against that. I am sure plate was proof in some ways, but when enough arrows go flying your way, well, you're bound to get poked at some point. And the horses were NOT proofed against arrows. Which meant the riders got to take a fall in the mud under a 1500 lb horse. THEN they got to try to crawl out from under the horse if they didn't have a broken leg and advance, weighing 300 lbs or more, across the same muddy field under fire all the way.

Sounds like an upset to me LoL!

at least I would have been upset if I was a French heavy cav man that day :p

...*grits teeth*

THAT IS WHAT I MENT BY TERRAIN. The fact that the heavily armoured french had to run across thick muddy soil that was of a very rare composition where it appears dry untill it is working, say, by marching soldeirs after which it turns into a thick clay-like mud that sucks heavily on metal due to the surface tension.

In fact I'll quote myself to prove it

Also to whoever said so earlier, Agincourt was an upset only in numbers and the thing wasn't decided because the British had the Longbow, as believed, studies have proven the arrows of the time could NOT penetrate French armour.
Rather it was the unique soil of Agincourt that ground into a thick clay-like mud after continous marching that did the French in, their heavy armour stopped them from even having a chance.
Really it was a well-defended small army with the terrain advantage fighting a large, better equipped army

Also it is not an upset if you have that many factors in you favour. The whole point of an upset is that it is unexpected, the odds are stacked AGAINST the person who won.

The bodkin point was in use before the fifteenth century.

Pearl Harbor maybe.

Also it is not an upset if you have that many factors in you favour. The whole point of an upset is that it is unexpected, the odds are stacked AGAINST the person who won.

*rolls eyes*

Dude, the factors were in Henry's favor because HE CHOSE them to be in his favor. Had those two armies met in an open field on a nice dry day Henry would have been rolled. It was an upset.:D

Same for the 300. they chose their ground. Just because you use every factor you can to even the odds against a superior foe doesn't mean you didn't gain a huge win...

The bodkin point was in use before the fifteenth century.

Didn't the Bodkin start dying out after that? Becaue armor was getting harder to penetrate and guns started replacing them?

Also, I thought they used a mix of AP and broadheads in those days, so as to get light and heavy armor down...

Didn't the Bodkin start dying out after that? Becaue armor was getting harder to penetrate and guns started replacing them?

Also, I thought they used a mix of AP and broadheads in those days, so as to get light and heavy armor down...

The bodkin started to die out about century after agincourt. I don't imagine that broadheads would have been used because they are really a hunting tip. Also, bodkins were cheaper and had a greater range.

And even though they can't pentrate armour at extreme range, they can still stop a cavalry charge because the horses weren't entirely cased in armour.

At closer ranges they could penetrate plate. And though it might not be a killing wound, imagine trying to fight with two to three inches of steel sticking into your chest and pulling everytime the plate moved. i.e., whenever you moved your arms.

Good longbow men took to much effort to train however. Remember, before you can train a bowman, you must first train his grandfather.

And of course crossbows were even easier to learn. And used in combination with pikes were really bad news for cavalry...You couldn't really combine lobgbows with pikers I dont think...a pikeman however could carry a crossbow, stick the pike in the ground, and then pull the pike out to use when the cav got close...

Im putting my vote in for The Battle of Long Tan. The NVA by all rights should have taken D Coy 6 RAR on sheer weight of numbers but because they fought so well the NVA believed that had engaged with at least a battalion and possibly the whole task force.

Im putting my vote in for The Battle of Long Tan. The NVA by all rights should have taken D Coy 6 RAR on sheer weight of numbers but because they fought so well the NVA believed that had engaged with at least a battalion and possibly the whole task force.

we have been out number lots of times and fought like hell to came out on top

that is the one where you killed every rubber tree within 20 klicks wasn't it?

that is the one where you killed every rubber tree within 20 klicks wasn't it?

oh you got to watch out for them they will kill you if you let them ;)

Same for the 300. they chose their ground. Just because you use every factor you can to even the odds against a superior foe doesn't mean you didn't gain a huge win...

As I said before, it wasn't ever 300. It was 6000 or so. At it's lowest, 1300(Not including subsequent casualties).

Second off, the reason why it wasn't an upset was largely due to the different troops used-Greeks had well equipped men with longspears and shields, the Persians used mostly conscripts with shortspears.

Also, the entire point of the battle wasn't that they could win, only stand their ground(Which they very well knew they could. The odds were never stacked against them in this regard).

Really, Thermopylae was not an upset in any way.

Oh lord I knew I shouldn't have gone there. My point still stands. They used superior tactics and terrain to win against the Persians. Ergo they won and upset in my mind. THe Germans were hugely outnumbered in Russia and won tremendous battles until they wore themselves down. Upset. Rourkes drift: superior tactics against every Zulu in the world. Upset.

My point is that just because you use your head, doesn't mean it isn't an upset. A lot goes into any win, and so I think an upset has more to do with PERCEPTIONS than anything else.

Even a small well led well trained army can get caught out. In fact wins by such forces usually are very close and it doesn't take much to clean them up by larger less trained or equiped armies if the elites have a bad day. Agincourt was an upset to the people who fought it and lived then. So it's an upset. Shoot, I am a middle aged man with a bit of a gut. But if I got jumped by a couple of 25-year olds who don't have my training, bystanders would call it an upset when I kick their butts. See what I mean?

[[QUOTE=Uldarious;12092955]They didn't use longbows to test, they just used arrows against armour of the time and the arrows failed because they weren't high enough quality steel.
/QUOTE]

Of course they didn't use longbows. And, had they bothered to employ someone who knew the first thing about ballistics, he'd have told them to stop wasting their time. Projectile penetration is mostly about impact speed, not materials. This is why a lead bullet, if it is moving fast enough, will go through steel.
The 'unique mud' of Agincourt, which that documentary claimed was the decisive factor, can't have been that unique if it was also present at Crecy, Poitiers etc.
Documentaries like that are the reason you can't trust this 'revisionist history' stuff. If someone had genuinely made a ground-breaking discovery it would have been reported as such when it happened, not left up to a TV crew.

Anyway, the effectiveness of the longbow is very clearly demonstrated by the string of battles in which British longbowmen defeated heavily armoured French cavalry and infantry. Some historians argue that the usefulness of the longbow-armed peasants, compared with the posh people in fancy armour, was so obvious that it became a major agent for social change in Britain.

Back to the topic - no-one has raised the issue of the crossbow-armed Spanish mercenaries at Agincourt. Had the French knights obeyed orders and left them to do the fighting, things might have been different. I'd say this strengthens Agincourt's claim to be an upset. So do other factors - the British were half starved and exhausted, having marched and fought their way across a hostile country. Many were also suffering from dysentry - pretty disastrous both for morale and physical strength.

The Battle of Badr is also an important battle where the underdogs won....and this too had a significant effect in history.
And then there was the single battle that essentially gave the Arabs control of the once-mighty Persian Empire...

Even though the Easter Rising was a failure in a military sense, after the British executed the rebel ringleaders public and world opinion turned against them, eventually forcing England to create an Irish free state.

They were going to do so anyway, as plans had already been underway before WWI began but were set aside for the duration: The main argument wasn't over whether there would be one but over how much of the Protestant-dominated north would be included in it...

Still, defeating an entire Legion? Hasn't happened before, and wasn't going to happen again for a long time.

It had happened before: Carrhae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae), 53 BC, Roman army under Crassus smashed by the Parthians... but that wasn't an upset, it was more predictable.

And the next time? Wasn't one legion smashed (again, as at Teutoberg, when caught on the march?) by Boadicea or Boudica (or however her name's being spelled these days) in Britain in the early 60sAD?
*checks*
Here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica)

________________________________________________________


H'mm, one that hasn't been mentioned yet, the Dutch gaining their independence from Spain back in the 16th century AD...

Battle of Flodden Field

The English Bill deafeats the modern fancy new Pike of the Scots army

I'd have to say America during the Revolutionary War versus Britain. We were outnumbered by far, they had much better weapons, a large Navy fleet (which prevented us from being supplied, they came from the North, East, and attempted to come at us from the South (thankfully we had Andrew Jackson in Louisiana), etc... Britain at first thought it would be an easy sweep to fight and win against a bunch of disgruntled farmers with pitchforks. :D

Boudicca did indeed annihilate a legion (mostly because they were rushing to relieve Verulamium and didn;t scout properly). About 300 horsemen escaped and spent the rest of the uprising cowering in the fort at Eburacum.

There was also at least one venture into Parthia led by Marcus Crassus (in the days of Julius Caesar and Pompey, well before Teutoburg) which got utterly destroyed by the Parthian's horse archers.

Plus the bits where legions fought each other under Marius, Caesar/Pompey Augustus/Anthony, plus the Year of the Four Emperors, two of whom were deposed by open warfare.

The Legions weren;t as invincible as we like to make out. Up against a disciplined force or under poor commanders (or both) they were still a very hard opponent but very much beatable. I'd be interested to see what would have happened in a sustained war between the Chatti (German tribe, renowned for their organisation "The germans go to battle, the Chatti go on campaign") and the Legions.

I'd have to say America during the Revolutionary War versus Britain. We were outnumbered by far, they had much better weapons, a large Navy fleet (which prevented us from being supplied, they came from the North, East, and attempted to come at us from the South (thankfully we had Andrew Jackson in Louisiana), etc... Britain at first thought it would be an easy sweep to fight and win against a bunch of disgruntled farmers with pitchforks. :D

On the other hand we were fighting the dreaded 'war on two fronts' with France as well which tied up our best commanders and a fair whack of our army and navy. If we'd been secure in peace at home then you'd still be a colony (albeit maybe with seats in parliament).

So I decided to go check the Wiki on Thermopylae, its pretty entertaining. Anyways, it credits the arrows in the sky quote to Dienekes, but added that Leonidas coined the phrase Μολών Λαβέ, or "Come and take them" in reply to the larger persian forces demand to surrender thier arms. yeah, he's a badass, no doubt.
Sparta was one the thoughest people that lived and I can remember. The word "laconic" comes from them (Laconia or something was part of Sparta, or the other way around).

"...With key Greek city-states in submission, Philip of Macedonia turned to Sparta; he sent them a message, "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city." Their reply was "If." Philip and Alexander would both leave them alone."

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

I'd have to say America during the Revolutionary War versus Britain. *snip* and attempted to come at us from the South (thankfully we had Andrew Jackson in Louisiana)
That was in the next war...

On the other hand we were fighting the dreaded 'war on two fronts' with France as well
and Spain, and the Dutch...

_____________________________________________________________________

There was also at least one venture into Parthia led by Marcus Crassus (in the days of Julius Caesar and Pompey, well before Teutoburg) which got utterly destroyed by the Parthian's horse archers.

"Ahem!" First paragraph... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12093611&postcount=156)

It had happened before: Carrhae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae), 53 BC, Roman army under Crassus smashed by the Parthians... but that wasn't an upset, it was more predictable.

And the next time? Wasn't one legion smashed (again, as at Teutoberg, when caught on the march?) by Boadicea or Boudica (or however her name's being spelled these days) in Britain in the early 60sAD?
*checks*
Here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica)
And Ambiorix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiorix) was also good for at least one destroyed marching Roman legion in 54 BC.

Than again, there were 3 Roman legions defeated at Teutoburg, not 1.

[QUOTE=Interesting Specimens;12093656]Boudicca did indeed annihilate a legion QUOTE]

That's the impression the Roman historian Tacitus gave, but it doesn't convince me. In fact, he later goes on to let slip that after the rebellion had been put down, 2,000 reinforcements were shipped over from Gaul and these were enough to bring the forces in Britain back up to strength. If a full legion had been lost, it would take more than 5,000 infantrymen to reform it. That's before you take into account the troops the Romans must have lost in their two other pitched battles with the rebels.

I'd suggest that Tacitus exaggerated the seriousness of the Iceni revolt because he wanted to marry the daughter of the general who suppressed it.
I'd also suggest that it worked - he married her.

I'd have to say America during the Revolutionary War versus Britain. We were outnumbered by far

Wow! Which parallel universe do you come from?

Boudicca did indeed annihilate a legion

That's the impression the Roman historian Tacitus gave, but it doesn't convince me. In fact, he later goes on to let slip that after the rebellion had been put down, 2,000 reinforcements were shipped over from Gaul and these were enough to bring the forces in Britain back up to strength. If a full legion had been lost, it would take more than 5,000 infantrymen to reform it. That's before you take into account the troops the Romans must have lost in their two other pitched battles with the rebels.

I'd suggest that Tacitus exaggerated the seriousness of the Iceni revolt because he wanted to marry the daughter of the general who suppressed it.
I'd also suggest that it worked - he married her.

H'mm. I'm going to have to check this...

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

Losing 90,000 people in short order by the sword is pretty unbalanced, considering that the Romans were outnumbered.

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

Losing 90,000 people in short order by the sword is pretty unbalanced, considering that the Romans were outnumbered.

Nice one. Gaius Marius knew his stuff, no doubt about that. I was thinking of bringing Aquae Sextiae into this, but the thread appeared to have died. First time the Romans had beaten the Germans, which strengthens its claim to be a genuine upset result.

St Edmundan Antarctic - the passage is in Tacitus' Annals of Roman History, book XIV.

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War was a big upset, pretty embarrassing for Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Transjordan as well. 5 major armies from well-established countries, as well as two nationless militias, all getting their asses handed to them by a nation that's not even a decade old.

Seconded.

Seconded.
Meh, if you look at the so-called "armies" of those Arab countries, you wouldn't be that surprised.

Meh, if you look at the so-called "armies" of those Arab countries, you wouldn't be that surprised.

lot

Meh, if you look at the so-called "armies" of those Arab countries, you wouldn't be that surprised.

True enough. Give them their due, the Arabs learned a few things; Yom Kippur and Six Day they were much better equipped.

Nice one. Gaius Marius knew his stuff, no doubt about that. I was thinking of bringing Aquae Sextiae into this, but the thread appeared to have died. First time the Romans had beaten the Germans, which strengthens its claim to be a genuine upset result.

St Edmundan Antarctic - the passage is in Tacitus' Annals of Roman History, book XIV.

There are several small engagements by Quintus Sertorius that are interesting as well. My favorite is one of his first engagements, where he and a few men dressed as the enemy, ostensibly returning victorious from battle.

They got inside the gates and slaughtered everyone, then slaughtered the returning enemy.

A very cunning man.

Rorke's Drift, hands down. It doesn't get much better than beating off 4-6,000 Zulus with 80-90 healthy men. I'm surprised I only saw this mentioned once... some of the nominations I've seen look pretty ridiculous by contrast.

Rorke's Drift, hands down. It doesn't get much better than beating off 4-6,000 Zulus with 80-90 healthy men. I'm surprised I only saw this mentioned once... some of the nominations I've seen look pretty ridiculous by contrast.

Yeah I liked that movie about it. Zulu!

What do you think was the greatest military upset (battle or war) in which the underdogs amazingly came out on top?

Israel's field trip to Lebanon.

Rorke's Drift, hands down. It doesn't get much better than beating off 4-6,000 Zulus with 80-90 healthy men. I'm surprised I only saw this mentioned once... some of the nominations I've seen look pretty ridiculous by contrast.

80-90 men with guns.

80-90 men with guns.
Sitting on an ammunition dump.

80-90 men with guns.

Guns didn't save the the British as Isandlwana, where the odds against the Brits was about 15 to 1. Unlike Rorke's Drift, where it was more like 500 to 1. But yeah - it was just the fact that the British had guns, nothing else.

Rorke's Drift, hands down. It doesn't get much better than beating off 4-6,000 Zulus with 80-90 healthy men. I'm surprised I only saw this mentioned once... some of the nominations I've seen look pretty ridiculous by contrast.

the Zulus had 4,000 warriors,the British had roughly 100 healthy men (not counting wounded men) as i Quote from Wikipedia

I would have to say that the Hobbits beating Sauron qualifies for this.

Guns didn't save the the British as Isandlwana, where the odds against the Brits was about 15 to 1. Unlike Rorke's Drift, where it was more like 500 to 1. But yeah - it was just the fact that the British had guns, nothing else.

I was under the impression that most of the British casualties came from Zulu sniper fire from the hills above Rorke's Drift. They had, after all, captured a huge amount of weaponry at Isandlwana.
And the wikipedia account mentions many instances of Zulu rifle fire - so it wasn't just a case of British soldiers with guns fighting off hordes of spear-wielding Zulu.

I was under the impression that most of the British casualties came from Zulu sniper fire from the hills above Rorke's Drift. They had, after all, captured a huge amount of weaponry at Isandlwana.
And the wikipedia account mentions many instances of Zulu rifle fire - so it wasn't just a case of British soldiers with guns fighting off hordes of spear-wielding Zulu.

Yeah, I think I remember something about that too. Plum forgot. Thanks for pointing it out!

I was under the impression that most of the British casualties came from Zulu sniper fire from the hills above Rorke's Drift. They had, after all, captured a huge amount of weaponry at Isandlwana.
And the wikipedia account mentions many instances of Zulu rifle fire - so it wasn't just a case of British soldiers with guns fighting off hordes of spear-wielding Zulu.

Yeah, I think I remember something about that too. Plum forgot. Thanks for pointing it out!

here
http://rapidttp.com/milhist/vol044gc.html

I was under the impression that most of the British casualties came from Zulu sniper fire from the hills above Rorke's Drift. They had, after all, captured a huge amount of weaponry at Isandlwana.
And the wikipedia account mentions many instances of Zulu rifle fire - so it wasn't just a case of British soldiers with guns fighting off hordes of spear-wielding Zulu.

most of their casualties were from gunfore. The zulus never really broke the meally bag wall and got to grips. ALthought there were men stabbed to death.
I'd say those mealy bags were what saved the Brits at rorke's drift...

Id say the battle of midway or guadalcanal

the Zulus had 4,000 warriors,the British had roughly 100 healthy men (not counting wounded men) as i Quote from Wikipedia
As far as I remember, the wiki army count includes the men interred at the hospital; there were close to 150 men at the British outpost but probably only about 80-90 of them were in fighting condition.

Also: the Zulus had guns too. It's hard to ignore the technology difference yes, but even with those weapons beating off at least four thousand angry Zulus is a more respectable feat than most of the engagements I've seen discussed so far. They fought wounded, outnumbered, and without reinforcements for ten hours while suffering more or less negligible losses.

there were a bunch of natives that ran away as well. total fighting numbers ended up around 80 before the action. 50-1 odds that :eek:

As far as I remember, the wiki army count includes the men interred at the hospital; there were close to 150 men at the British outpost but probably only about 80-90 of them were in fighting condition.

Also: the Zulus had guns too. It's hard to ignore the technology difference yes, but even with those weapons beating off at least four thousand angry Zulus is a more respectable feat than most of the engagements I've seen discussed so far. They fought wounded, outnumbered, and without reinforcements for ten hours while suffering more or less negligible losses.
i'am still looking at it so heres a link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorke%27s_Drift

battle of Roncevaux Pass

After Ganelon fulfills his side of the bargain, Roland, with Oliver and the other Twelve Peers, takes charge of the 20,000 strong rear-guard of the Frankish army. An army of Saracens, 100,000 strong, led by the nephew of Marsile and 11 other Saracen champions, is seen to be approaching the rear guard. Roland's friend Oliver advises him to blow his horn Olifant to summon the rest of the army, but Roland's code of honour obliges him to fight despite being outnumbered. The battle that follows is comprised of two parts. The initial onslaught of Saracens is repelled by the Franks, but only 300 Frankish knights, including Roland and most of the Twelve Peers, survive. The Saracens attack a second time, with Marsile himself leading a host of 300,000 warriors. It soon becomes clear that the Franks will lose. At the advice of Archbishop Turpin, Roland blows his horn, not in the expectation of rescue, but hoping that Charles will return to bury their bodies and revenge their martyrdom. When only Roland, Turpin and Gualter de Hum are still alive, Roland slices off the right hand of Marsile. Marsile flees from the field and is followed by those of his men that still survive. Roland and Turpin are the only warriors still standing on the field of battle, and are as such victorious.

So what the heck turned the ultra tough franks into cheese eatin surrender monkeys?

There are several small engagements by Quintus Sertorius that are interesting as well. My favorite is one of his first engagements, where he and a few men dressed as the enemy, ostensibly returning victorious from battle.

Another good choice. Sertorius later won some pretty impressive victories against fellow Romans while he was effectively ruler of Hispania. Pompey the Great is remembered as a good general, but Sertorius had him beat.

Oh! a better one...

the russian/finnish winter war

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

battle of Roncevaux Pass

So what the heck turned the ultra tough franks into cheese eatin surrender monkeys?

Having to fight against real life enemies, not fictional ones.

The 300,000 Saracens didn't exist - they were invented centuries later to romanticise a real battle in which the Franks were defeated by the Basques.

I'd say Vietnam, but any full scale offensive mounted by the Americans would have met a counteroffensive produced by the Chinese.

The largest upset would really have to be "America" defeating Britain in the Revolutionary war, seeing as we were outnumbered, outarmed, and isolated.

That's a laugh. In 1954, any moron could have told you the US was going to lose. The North Vietnamese were never underdogs, in my humble opinion.

That's a laugh. In 1954, any moron could have told you the US was going to lose. The North Vietnamese were never underdogs, in my humble opinion.
The US didn't really lose the war in any sort of tactical sense--we probably killed 5-10 VC per American soldier lost. The US threw in the towel on its own--we still had plenty of fight left in us. I'm not saying the Vietnam war made any sense, really, but we certainly weren't bested in the field by the VC in any meaningful capacity.

crap. We were losing. TActically it is hard to win when your guys are all stoned, scared and just trying to stay alive till you can go home. And by the end that is what we were dealing with. you look at the troops after 68 and you'll see what I mean. OUr Army amost collapsed as a result of that war. That ain't winning.

I thought that too for a long time. But if you really look at it we were badly trained, badly led, badly equiped and badly prepared in gernal to fight that war. We wasted far too much money on far too little actual progress. We blew the shit out of the countryside for little reason. We killed a half trillion kabililion Vietanamese for no reason, and they had NO reason to support us or the regimes we installed over them when we and the regimes were stealing from them and murdering their sons (to their minds)

We trained our soldiers in fucking Washington state in the snow, then sent them to a jungle for god's sake. No, we were losing the war on the ground as well. Had we been winning it would not have gone on for so long, or cost us so many dead. That the NVK held out so long is mostly due to their willingness to outlast us. I dont' mean political will. The guys in the army were willing to stay and do their jobs, and die, same as ours were in WWII. THey won morally long before we lost tactically.

Oh brother, another one of these...

Look, just because you disagreed with me in another thread does not obligate you to follow suit here. Sure, our army wasn't the well-oiled machine it could have been under the circumstances, but there is absolutely no basis to claim that the VC were winning the war at all militarily. We killed a shit ton more VC than they killed American GI's. The reason we lost was because our goal was completely unattainable; and not just as a result of military concerns. Entering a war in order to change a nation's ideology will not a victory make.

We were not badly trained: our armed forces are among the most rigorously, throroughly drilled units in the military world today. We were not at all "poorly equipped" and frankly I'm not even sure where to begin answering your allegation that we were. Badly motivated? Perhaps. Vietnam was fought with a conscript army; the components of which may have been less than interested in the fight, and for good reasons.

300 spartans and a SHEDLOAD of their allies.

And they all died.


The 1948 Arab-Israeli War is my pick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aquae_Sextiae
Losing 90,000 people in short order by the sword is pretty unbalanced, considering that the Romans were outnumbered.

True, it was an impressive victory, although I suspect that the Romans inflated the enemy numbers a bit in their version of the story... or, as those tribes were migrating en masse, the numbers may include a lot of noncombatants as well as their actual warriors...

True, it was an impressive victory, although I suspect that the Romans inflated the enemy numbers a bit in their version of the story... or, as those tribes were migrating en masse, the numbers may include a lot of noncombatants as well as their actual warriors...

How do you determine the difference? The germanics (particularly the various goth tribes) tended to be willing and able to fight from the age they could hoist a sword - and that applies to both sexes.

Suetonius leading the Romans in Britannia against Boedicea's uprising.
About 10000 Romans (legio XIV Gemina, some of XX Valeria Victrix plus auxiliaries, even civilian personnel) against more than 200000 Britons.

Outcome: Romans win, with 400 Roman casualties vs about 80000 Briton casualties.

SPQR

If we are talking battles then I would like to think that the battle of Cer during ww1 was one such thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cer

The serbs routed the Austrians, a superpower at that time. Apparently it was also the first allied victory during world war 1.

Suetonius leading the Romans in Britannia against Boedicea's uprising.
About 10000 Romans (legio XIV Gemina, some of XX Valeria Victrix plus auxiliaries, even civilian personnel) against more than 200000 Britons.

Outcome: Romans win, with 400 Roman casualties vs about 80000 Briton casualties.

SPQR

Like I said before, Tacitus is unreliable, especially where the exploits of his prospective father-in-law Agricola (Suetonius' second in command) are involved. (Yesterday I mistakenly suggested that it was Suetonius himself whose daughter Tacitus married. Sorry.)
I can't remember what other ancient writers say about the numbers involved but, to be honest, they were all prone to exaggeration.
Boudicca has become a lasting British cultural figure, mainly because people have got it into their heads that she was some kind of proto-feminist. She wasn't, and her rebellion was fairly minor in the greater scheme of things.

With Aquae Sextiae, on the other hand, there were entire German tribes on the move, so the figures are more credible. The Germanic peoples didn't carry passengers at the best of times - if you weren't fit enough to fight, the tribe would reject you - and they certainly woudn't have had any cowards or weaklings while they were trying to migrate into hostile territory.
Plus, the existence of 20,000 prisoners (a reliable figure because prisoners were a commodity and had to be accounted for) suggests a pretty major battle.

I'm obviously biased but I think we gave the British a run for their money in the Irish War of Independence (Anglo-Irish War) 1919-1921.

Here! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Camar%C3%B3n)
Wasn't really a win, but meh.

Suetonius leading the Romans in Britannia against Boedicea's uprising.
About 10000 Romans (legio XIV Gemina, some of XX Valeria Victrix plus auxiliaries, even civilian personnel) against more than 200000 Britons.

Outcome: Romans win, with 400 Roman casualties vs about 80000 Briton casualties.

SPQR

you beat me to it!! Boudicca's army was so convinced it would win, they brought spectators-many of whom wound up being slaughtered as well.

Although outnumbered almost 20 to 1, the Romans were far more experiecned and led Boudicca's overzealous army into a trap and 10,000 Roman soldiers annihilated 80,000 Britons.

SPQR

Oh brother, another one of these...

Look, just because you disagreed with me in another thread does not obligate you to follow suit here. Sure, our army wasn't the well-oiled machine it could have been under the circumstances, but there is absolutely no basis to claim that the VC were winning the war at all militarily. We killed a shit ton more VC than they killed American GI's. The reason we lost was because our goal was completely unattainable; and not just as a result of military concerns. Entering a war in order to change a nation's ideology will not a victory make.

We were not badly trained: our armed forces are among the most rigorously, throroughly drilled units in the military world today. We were not at all "poorly equipped" and frankly I'm not even sure where to begin answering your allegation that we were. Badly motivated? Perhaps. Vietnam was fought with a conscript army; the components of which may have been less than interested in the fight, and for good reasons.


Oh give me a break. I do not "follow you around". I simply respond to the threads I have an opinion or know something about. If you can call winning territory by killing a shitpot of VC or NVK and then abandoning that land "winning militarily" you have a lot to learn about warfighting. And yes, we WERE badly trained. Our troops are among the best equiped and trained TODAY. That is because the miiltary leaders today were the platoon leaders of the Vietnam era and they learned the lesson of bad training and poor equipment. They also learned the lesson that you can't win a battle and then walk back to your base and let the bad guy have te land back. That is losing the initiative, and losing the military fight. We gave that war away by using decent tactics and terrible strategy. Could we have won it politically? I dunno. But I do know we lost it militarily by the 68 Tet offensive when we showed that we couldn't prevent the North Vietnamese from infiltrating our bases and cities, by being unable to protect the south vietnamese, and by not demanding that the South Vietnamese get rid of their corrupt leadership. That led to their incompetant and infiltrated army wanting US to do the fighting, and running away in battles, and actually turning on us in battle.

We lost that war on the ground at least as much as we lost it in the public mind.

My army's defeat in 10,00 0B.C. by the Greeks which caused the downfall of my Empire in Europe.

The Battle of Poltava, 1709

Although the Swedes were heavily outnumbered and had been dying in their thousands due to the cold and starvation, it was still a major upset for the Russians ('the Christian Turks') to beat the most well regarded army in Europe. Its effects in geo-political terms were also a huge upset: Sweden lost its status as a great power to Russia, which had before been nothing better than a barbarity clinging to Europe's coat tails.

:cool: The Cod Wars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_war)

Royal Navy crushed by three Icelandic gunboats (two of those even had a gun).