Joined May 2011
564 Posts | 61+
UK
Of course I wasn't excusing Graziani, he acted like an ......
Yet, what kind of victory was it?
British had a lot of advantages,italian troops couldn't react in any way.
On June 6th, 1944, US armed forces conducted a multi-division amphibious landing at Normandy
I may be wrong here, but I believe other armed forces were involved also.
I bet Miltiades could.I like Marathon a lot. I bet the Athenians couldn't believe they won it.
more, the romans lost something like 70,000 at Cannae, america lost around 60,000 in the vietnam war if we are to include the 2,000 or so that are still reported as missing in actionI should give an honorable mention for Cannae as well, one of the hugest blood baths in military history, in one battle Hannibal inflicted almost as many fatalities than the Vietnam war did on the American side.
Well, Xander..you disagree and I respect that but it was a great victory..no, a great rout, no matter by what yardstick it's measured.
On June 6th, 1944, US armed forces conducted a multi-division amphibious landing at Normandy and less than three weeks later did so again on the other side of the planet at Guam. That's kinda impressive.
I may be wrong here, but I believe other armed forces were involved also.
You know you sliced Lucius' post in half, right? That completely changes the point he was trying to make.
what about the battle of Isandlwana in 1879 when a zulu army wiped out a british force of 1300. to often its looked at as a defeat, we need to accord the zulus as being brave and intelligent in how they pulled off the attack, they earned that victory
What exactly do you mean here?You refer to the fact that mobilisation of Russian forces was much quicker than Germans predicted?- Salvation of Paris by Russian troops at the beginning of the First World War.
Just to be clear I have quoted the original, my post and your objection.
I focused on the fact that in talking about Normandy Lucius gave the impression that Normandy was a US operation. . It may have been unintentional, if so it was sloppy. If it wasn't then it was misleading.
If you are going to give an example then it should be complete.
I take nothing away from the US actions but the landings were so much more.
First the Dieppe landings by British and Canadians showed that attacking a harbour was difficult and costly in lives. So their sacrifice should be acknowledged
From this the idea of Mulberry Harbour was developed ( British design). The two harbours towed across were for Omaha and Sword.
Without them any landing would have been impossible because the landing forces needed supplies. Omaha Mulberry was not securely anchored and broke up leaving Sword as the only harbour still working. Any operation of such magnitude is not down to one group. If it had been a US action alone then the loss of Omaha Mulberry would have made it a disaster.
Just giving an opinion without supporting evidence is not history.