11 Dec 08
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyFrances largest contribution to American independence was Joan of Arc kicking the Brits out of town. IF she doesn't, the Brits don't have to worry about it's biggest enemy being right next door and can concentrate on the colonies.
Both of those victories were largely accomplished through the aid of well-equipped professional militaries; the French in the case of the American Revolution and the British in the Peninsular War. I'm not sure that there are examples of major militaries being defeated entirely by civilian militias.
Besides, the Brits were backed up to Charleston by the time the French showed up.
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by smw6869No disagreement with your history lesson. The United States still lost that war to a ragtag bunch whether NVA regulars or VC. They lost a war while winning every battle. It was a war of attrition, with Americans lacking the resolve to win, and American politicians playing politics with the war effort.
"The French lost to the Vietcong, as did the Americans."
The US left Vietnam in the early 70's after signing the peace accord. The NVA defeated the South Vietnamese military in 1975 because the US hung the South out to dry....The US stopped sending parts, ammo and other military supplies.Just what the radicals Marxists wanted. The NVA were well supplie ...[text shortened]... cation camps many of which died. Millions of others fled in whatever would float.
GRANNY.
Precisely why citizen militias can and do win against superior numbers and technology. They have no doubts about why they are fighting.
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyThe French were late to the battlefield in the American revolution, although not irrelavent. During that time Frech v. British was a constant anyway.
Both of those victories were largely accomplished through the aid of well-equipped professional militaries; the French in the case of the American Revolution and the British in the Peninsular War. I'm not sure that there are examples of major militaries being defeated entirely by civilian militias.
The Cuban revolution might be another modern example. Surely the defeat of Sane Anna's Mexican army by Sam Houston's militia is another.
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMF
Not so. The reason Germany rolled over most of the continent in 1940 in short order is because Germany "lost" the First World War. Off they went after 1919 and invented blitzkreig as a logical response to having, on the face of it, been beaten. Meanwhile, a shockingly incompetent and inflexible generation of British and French senior officers were suddenl ...[text shortened]... a historian who argued that Switzerland was not invaded because it was heavily armed.
They no longer thought a threat existed. And British diplomats were worse yet, ignoring the brewing threat.
Not so much disarmament, but a failure to move forward in response to Germany's development. Hitler's own analysis that I've read estimated 5 to 7 divisions to invade and hold either Switzerland or the Balkans. Neither was considered worth the expense of man and machine power, not exclusively due to heavy armaments but because of favorable terrain for the host guerrilla fighters.
11 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenign"The United States still lost that war to a ragtag bunch whether NVA regulars or VC"
No disagreement with your history lesson. The United States still lost that war to a ragtag bunch whether NVA regulars or VC. They lost a war while winning every battle. It was a war of attrition, with Americans lacking the resolve to win, and American politicians playing politics with the war effort.
Precisely why citizen militias can and do win against superior numbers and technology. They have no doubts about why they are fighting.
Hardly Ragtag. The NVA were regarded by most military scholars as possibly the best Light Infantry in the world at the time. They had been fighting the French since the 1600's. Their air defense over the North was the best in the world. Their Migs out performed the US F-4, at least in the beginning of US involvement. The small arms they used are still regarded as the best in the world. General Giap was as great as any military general, ever. Certainly better than the US Pres. and the politicians that ran the war. And yet, a bunch of 19 yr old kids kicked their butts in Every battle. The NVA absolutely refused to come to the peace table because they knew the US citizens would loose the courage to continue. The US military lost nothing. I have nothing but respect for the NVA,especially the ones i knew ( those in the Chu Hoi program) and watched die. Ragtag my ass.
GRANNY.
12 Dec 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamYes. You must be aware of the Siege of Yorktown, to name but one decisive contribution by the French army. And the French navy as well (most notably the Battle of the Chesapeake). Arguably tipped the balance.
French Army? In the American Revolutionary war?
12 Dec 08
For Sam the Sham: Sorry, my previous post was in error; I meant NVA and not ARVN. However, according to Wikipedia, there were 3000 Soviet military and 170000 Chinese military participants in the Vietnam War.
As for the American Revolution, there is a list of participants here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War#An_international_war.2C_1778.E2.80.931783
12 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFYes, Europe wasn't so much disarmed as addicted to "peace at any price" (which in the US manifested as isolationism) -- Neville Chamberlain, appeasement, etc.
Not so. The reason Germany rolled over most of the continent in 1940 in short order is because Germany "lost" the First World War. Off they went after 1919 and invented blitzkreig as a logical response to having, on the face of it, been beaten. Meanwhile, a shockingly incompetent and inflexible generation of British and French senior officers were suddenl ...[text shortened]... a historian who argued that Switzerland was not invaded because it was heavily armed.
There is nothing like losing to make you change your tactics/strategy -- and nothing like winning to convince you the same will work again.
The British invented tanks during WWI but conceived of them as heavy, slow wepaons that would simply support infantry units. The Germans built faster tanks and concentrated them together.
Germany also changed their view of airpower. Strategic bombing (zepplins, gothas) hadn't proved that effective in WWI, so they put more energy into air superiority, i.e. fighters and close air support, i.e. Stukas.
The result was the blitkrieg that stunned the world.
I'm not sure if American tactical/strategic doctrine was so superior. But clearly American production of war material was enormous.
12 Dec 08
Originally posted by spruce112358I am not sure, as such, either. But I have read several takes on it that assert that the American approach to conditions on the Great War's Western Front - as they tackled the situation in 1918 - was fresh, innovative, responsive, able to weigh doubt and certainty and turn it into action i.e. superior. As for the British generals of that time, their inability to weigh doubt and certainty correctly lead to the greatest and deadliest exercise in futility in British history. Good grief. In a sense, nothing was on the line (as it certainly was in WW2). Britain could have just as easily decided, during the first decade of the C20th, to have moved itself closer to Germany and could have ended up on the same side as Germany in the First World War.
I'm not sure if American tactical/strategic doctrine was so superior. But clearly American production of war material was enormous.
12 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFIt wasn't so much that the Americans where innovative as it was that the European powers were (as you've said) bogged down in group think, which leads to poor execution of new ideas. Something Europe wasn't short on. It was Execution of those ideas that was lacking.
I am not sure, as such, either. But I have read several takes on it that assert that the American approach to conditions on the Great War's Western Front - as they tackled the situation in 1918 - was fresh, innovative, responsive, able to weigh doubt and certainty and turn it into action i.e. superior. As for the British generals of that time, their inability ...[text shortened]... f closer to Germany and could have ended up on the same side as Germany in the First World War.
14 Dec 08
Originally posted by ale1552American Revolution was won by the Continental Army, not just the militia.
A couple of notable victories by civilian militia against regular armies come to mind.....the American Revolution against England, and the armed citizenry of Spain against the French Army during the Napoleonic War. Any others anyone can recall? But, as a general rule, I am sure you are correct.
14 Dec 08
Originally posted by ale1552Napoleon faced many conventional armies.
A couple of notable victories by civilian militia against regular armies come to mind.....the American Revolution against England, and the armed citizenry of Spain against the French Army during the Napoleonic War. Any others anyone can recall? But, as a general rule, I am sure you are correct.