How about the Texas Revolution?

Was Houston masterfully stretching the Mexican supply lines, and misleading Santa Anna about his willingness to fight? Was he trying to get to US troops, just across the Sabine? Was he just running away with no real plan?

For that matter, when the Texian Army reached a literal fork in the road, either toward San Jacinto (Harrisburg) or the Sabine, did he order them to San Jacinto, or did he let the Army make its own decision?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

How about the Texas Revolution?

Was Houston masterfully stretching the Mexican supply lines, and misleading Santa Anna about his willingness to fight? Was he trying to get to US troops, just across the Sabine? Was he just running away with no real plan?

For that matter, when the Texian Army reached a literal fork in the road, either toward San Jacinto (Harrisburg) or the Sabine, did he order them to San Jacinto, or did he let the Army make its own decision?

---

I remember my Texas history professor in college telling us that Houston was trying to get to the border where the US troops were waiting in the neutral ground. He just didnt make it that far because the army was about to have a mutiny if there wasn't a fight. I believe this.

The prof also said the army just randomly made the turn towards San Jacinto at the fork. There wasn't an order given. It was fate. Not sure about this one.

The Battle of Zama between Hannibal & Scipio Africanus is a legendary one from Antiquity.

And one could argue that Saddam did not just let them build up there was the Battle of Khafji in late January 1981 where Saddam did a probe and his forces came up wanting.

aTmAg said:

---

74OA said:

---

Many of Napoleon's battles were chess matches with him using interior lines to out-maneuver larger opponents.

---

What do you think is the best example for me to look up?

Were there any that had him secure a surrender merely by moving his army in smart ways without actually having to fight (much)?

---

Battle of Ulm. Out-maneuvered a 40,000-strong coalition army and forced them to surrender with minimal casualties.

Eliminatus said:

---

HollywoodBQ said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Rabid Cougar said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Rabid Cougar said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I'm no historian, but it seems to me that many battles in history were won by superior firepower on one side. Or one side just being a lot better at it (more experienced or whatever). That what won the day was preparation prior to the battle, not necessarily actions taken during the battle itself.

However, I have been binge watching a bunch of youtube videos about various Roman battles, especially the civil war involving Caesar. When Caesar fought against Pompey, he was fighting against troops with similar backgrounds, training, weapons, etc. These battles were more like a chess match than I realized. They would sometimes maneuver armies for weeks trying to gain the tactical advantage before having a meaningful fight. One in particular involved each army trying to surround the other in a wall. One army built a wall that was 28km long, but Caesar's army was faster and was able to build one 32km long and turn the corner and cut them off from water supplies. That forced Pompey to fight sooner from a disadvantaged position (and lose).

What I find most interesting about this sort of thing, is it make me respect those guys intelligence more. I often think tactics of the past were naive (like wearing bright red coats, standing up in lines, etc.) But I think that if you were to put me in charge of Pompey's army, that Caesar would have kicked my ass worse than Pompey.


Anyway I found that damn interesting. Are there any other interesting examples of "chess matchy" battles from the past? Those interest me at the moment.

---

Win by superior firepower/ better overall? Well then Agincourt shouldn't have ended the way its did.

Ceasar v Pompey : Lee v Grant - Overland Campaign ending in the Siege of Petersburg, 1864-1865.

Operation Desert Storm - 1991.

Warfare in general throughout history is wrought with examples of maneuver trying to gain tactical advantages.

Standing in lines was the best way to deliver the most impact using the weapons of the time.. It was also how they could best control the forces delivering said impact.

---

So, I'll look up the other ones, but this one:

Quote:

---

Operation Desert Storm - 1991.

---

Was a huge difference in firepower and capability. Not a "fair" fight by any stretch.

---

Not really.. The American Army was under no illusions about what they thought was going to happen. They were expecting 30% casualties.

Not "fair" because the Iragi's(Pompey) were out maneuvered. They had pretty much written off the desert in front of VII Corps (Ceasar) as unnavigable and thus left it undefended. They had no idea about the use of GPS. To fight "fair' is a true travesty.

The Iraqis adhered to Soviet doctrine and had their asses handed to them by true Blitzkrieg tactics developed by Guderian, refined to the fullest by Rommel and implemented by Schwarzkopf. (Battle of 73 Easting).

---

Seems to me that having stealth fighters and other advanced aircraft that earned absolute air superiority and pummeled the enemy for over a month straight before the ground war started along with the fact that our tanks and other weapons outclassed theirs in every way probably had more to do it than any ground maneuverings.

(In short... if we swap places but used our same technology, we still would have crushed them)

---

There are multiple factors at play in Desert Storm not the least of which is Desert Shield. Saddam allowed a coalition to form, deploy and rehearse for six months before the ground war began. Heck, the 1st Cavalry Division upgraded from M1s to M1A1s in the process. I can't think of another conflict in history where one side sat there and allowed the other side to build up their forces unmolested for six months.

---

*Cough*, every Allied nation in regards to Nazi Germany *cough*

---

By *every* Allied nation, you mean basically the USA, the UK and a handful of Poles and Frenchies. Oh, I guess some Canucks too.

But, during that build up to D-Day, the Germans still had the Luftwaffe in the air and V2 rockets that were more effective than Saddam's Scud missiles. Not to mention U-Boats interfering with supply lines.

I wouldn't say our D-Day build up was un-molested.

HollywoodBQ said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

HollywoodBQ said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Rabid Cougar said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Rabid Cougar said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I'm no historian, but it seems to me that many battles in history were won by superior firepower on one side. Or one side just being a lot better at it (more experienced or whatever). That what won the day was preparation prior to the battle, not necessarily actions taken during the battle itself.

However, I have been binge watching a bunch of youtube videos about various Roman battles, especially the civil war involving Caesar. When Caesar fought against Pompey, he was fighting against troops with similar backgrounds, training, weapons, etc. These battles were more like a chess match than I realized. They would sometimes maneuver armies for weeks trying to gain the tactical advantage before having a meaningful fight. One in particular involved each army trying to surround the other in a wall. One army built a wall that was 28km long, but Caesar's army was faster and was able to build one 32km long and turn the corner and cut them off from water supplies. That forced Pompey to fight sooner from a disadvantaged position (and lose).

What I find most interesting about this sort of thing, is it make me respect those guys intelligence more. I often think tactics of the past were naive (like wearing bright red coats, standing up in lines, etc.) But I think that if you were to put me in charge of Pompey's army, that Caesar would have kicked my ass worse than Pompey.


Anyway I found that damn interesting. Are there any other interesting examples of "chess matchy" battles from the past? Those interest me at the moment.

---

Win by superior firepower/ better overall? Well then Agincourt shouldn't have ended the way its did.

Ceasar v Pompey : Lee v Grant - Overland Campaign ending in the Siege of Petersburg, 1864-1865.

Operation Desert Storm - 1991.

Warfare in general throughout history is wrought with examples of maneuver trying to gain tactical advantages.

Standing in lines was the best way to deliver the most impact using the weapons of the time.. It was also how they could best control the forces delivering said impact.

---

So, I'll look up the other ones, but this one:

Quote:

---

Operation Desert Storm - 1991.

---

Was a huge difference in firepower and capability. Not a "fair" fight by any stretch.

---

Not really.. The American Army was under no illusions about what they thought was going to happen. They were expecting 30% casualties.

Not "fair" because the Iragi's(Pompey) were out maneuvered. They had pretty much written off the desert in front of VII Corps (Ceasar) as unnavigable and thus left it undefended. They had no idea about the use of GPS. To fight "fair' is a true travesty.

The Iraqis adhered to Soviet doctrine and had their asses handed to them by true Blitzkrieg tactics developed by Guderian, refined to the fullest by Rommel and implemented by Schwarzkopf. (Battle of 73 Easting).

---

Seems to me that having stealth fighters and other advanced aircraft that earned absolute air superiority and pummeled the enemy for over a month straight before the ground war started along with the fact that our tanks and other weapons outclassed theirs in every way probably had more to do it than any ground maneuverings.

(In short... if we swap places but used our same technology, we still would have crushed them)

---

There are multiple factors at play in Desert Storm not the least of which is Desert Shield. Saddam allowed a coalition to form, deploy and rehearse for six months before the ground war began. Heck, the 1st Cavalry Division upgraded from M1s to M1A1s in the process. I can't think of another conflict in history where one side sat there and allowed the other side to build up their forces unmolested for six months.

---

*Cough*, every Allied nation in regards to Nazi Germany *cough*

---

By *every* Allied nation, you mean basically the USA, the UK and a handful of Poles and Frenchies. Oh, I guess some Canucks too.

But, during that build up to D-Day, the Germans still had the Luftwaffe in the air and V2 rockets that were more effective than Saddam's Scud missiles. Not to mention U-Boats interfering with supply lines.

I wouldn't say our D-Day build up was un-molested.

---

I think he's referring to the German build up, when Germany was violating the terms of the Treaty of Versaille and annexing territory unopposed. Then the 9-months or so when the Allies sat around in France as Germany invaded Poland, then subsequently moved its army West in preparation for the invasion of France.

The D-Day build up was unopposed because the Germans didn't have the means to oppose it at that point. Their Air Force and surface Navy were basically irrelevant by then.

OK, I'll buy that. I was thinking that the only time we fought Germany in WWII where there was a lull in the fighting so to speak, was in preparation for D-Day.

But, if we go back further and just talk about German build up in general, I agree that Germany was allowed to build up, unchecked for a decade+. However, that's not exactly an apples to apples comparison because we weren't at War with Germany while they were building up in the 1930s. And Germany wasn't technically at war with anybody until September 1, 1939.

It was 4 years between Dunkirk and D-Day, so I guess the Germans had that much time to prepare their positions for the coming Allied attack. Looks like D-Day planning begun in Spring of 1943.

They weren't sitting around doing nothing but preparing for the invasion from England.

They were fighting tooth and nail in Russia, getting chased around N Africa, and dealing with some pretty nasty fighting in Italy.

They knew a build up was happening in England and that eventually those troops were going to cross water, but they were in dog fights elsewhere during that entire stretch.

I was going to say something similar. The Eastern Front was draining their army, then we hit North Africa and eventually Italy. Not to mention they had to garrison basically the entire coastline from Norway to Spain and the underside of Europe as well.

Oof. Yeah. What CougarHunter said. I was referring to the blatant abuse of the arms restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles that every Allied Nation knew about for years pre 1939. There was creative labeling and weapon designs and etc on the Nazis part but there is only so much you can do before it is just obvious. Nazi Germany reached that level and then beyond. And the Allied Nations allowed it to happen.

Stive said:

---

They weren't sitting around doing nothing but preparing for the invasion from England.

They were fighting tooth and nail in Russia, getting chased around N Africa, and dealing with some pretty nasty fighting in Italy.

They knew a build up was happening in England and that eventually those troops were going to cross water, but they were in dog fights elsewhere during that entire stretch.

---

Yeah, of course Germany was busy the whole time from 1939 straight through to 1945 but, there was a period from 1940 - 1944 where on that one particular front (France), the Germans weren't actively engaged in ground combat against "The Allies". Obviously they were engaged in Aerial and Naval warfare in that area but from Dunkirk to D-Day, I don't believe there were any invasion attempts which gave the Germans plenty of time to prepare for what would one day happen.

The original bent of my comments before we got off into WWII was that in modern warfare, the idea that Saddam Hussein just let the US led coalition build up for 6+ months is just mind boggling. I believe that Saddam thought the lack of ability to navigate through the desert would be a natural defense that would protect him.

Eliminatus said:

---

Oof. Yeah. What CougarHunter said. I was referring to the blatant abuse of the arms restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles that every Allied Nation knew about for years pre 1939. There was creative labeling and weapon designs and etc on the Nazis part but there is only so much you can do before it is just obvious. Nazi Germany reached that level and then beyond. And the Allied Nations allowed it to happen.

---

Yeah, I agree with you that everybody knew about it and nobody did anything about it but, since nobody was at war yet, i don't really know what could have been done. I believe that apart from maybe oil, Germany was relatively self-sufficient. My point there being that I don't think you could have setup trade embargoes or a naval blockade. Not to mention the fact that even the British Royals were still friendly with Germany until the war started.

Also, fact-checking myself from earlier, I didn't realize that the V-1 buzz bombs didn't start until a week after D-Day. And the V-2 rockets didn't come along until September 1944.

Quote:

---

I don't believe there were any invasion attempts which gave the Germans plenty of time to prepare for what would one day happen.

---

There was the St. Nazire and Dieppe Raids. The latter could have turned into a full fledged invasion had it not been an unmitigated disaster.