Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In modern times i'm still in awe of general Washington's crossing of the Delaware and attacking and subsequent victory against the hessians in the Battle of Trenton Dec. 26, 1776.
In ancient times i'm still in awe of the roman's victory with some 12,000 troops under general Seutonius defeating the Iceni britons with some 80,000 warriors under Boudica in the Battle of Watling Road 60 A.D.
I didn't watch the whole thing yet, but from what I saw, it's a diligently researched material. I've already received explanation of certain things, that I only vaguely understood before. Like the beginning of war for example.
I always knew that SA was at the stage of reorganization in 1941, but I always assumed that it was shortage of ammunition (or outdated equipment) that was the major reason for heavy losses and disastrous outcome of the first days of war, but I didn't know that it was shortage of men that was the main culprit. I mean I didn't realize how heavily Russians were outnumbered in the initial war zone, since one doesn't think about men shortage when it's coming to Russian Army in WWII.
Yep. I think most statistics you will see quoting the RKKA numbers of something like 4.5 million which is comparable to the German army. However only a part of this 4.5 million was located in the direct vicinity of the border and other parts were tens or hundreds of miles away. The second point is that the Soviet mobilization plan called for a total strength of 8 million. So the men were there, they were just not mobilized and deployed, ready for war because the German attack came without any warning.
Instead of Waterloo, I would pick the Battle of Leipzig during the Sixth Coalition as the one of the most important in history and the most important of the Napoleonic Wars. It is often called the "Battle of Nations" and marks the first time the various allied nations arrayed against Napoleon truly began to work as one. Napoleon's defeat there broke his hold on Central Europe and led to his defeat (the first time). A Napoleon victory at Leipzig may very well have shattered the fragile coalition and allowed Napoleon to defeat his enemies piecemeal as he had done so many times before.
It is still studied as the paramount example of commanding combined arms from many nations and the best way for allies to work together toward a common goal.
Speaking of boxing i'm going with Leon Spnks defeating Muhammad Ali (1978) or Buster Douglas knocking out Iron Mike Tyson (1990) .
Tyson was already whipped by his wife before he climbed into the ring. Ali was already suffering from early Parkinson's desease by the time of the Spinks fight.
The first Duran/Leonard fight was the best boxing match I have ever seen.
Tyson was already whipped by his wife before he climbed into the ring. Ali was already suffering from early Parkinson's desease by the time of the Spinks fight.
The first Duran/Leonard fight was the best boxing match I have ever seen.
Marvelous Marvin Hagler vs Tommy "The Hit Man" Hearns has to be a contender for the most exciting fight ever.
Speaking of Duran, I can never shake the image of how he won his first championship against Scotland's Ken Buchanan in 1972. When the bell sounded to end the 13th round, Buchanan stopped fighting, but Duran not only kept going, but landed a haymaker low blow right into Ken's plaid covered groin. Buchanan was unable to continue...and of course the ref awarded the fight to Manos de Piedra. I mean, a low blow after the bell which cripples the opponent, why should that be considered in the decision?
I think when we beat the Taliban in Afghanistan with a few hundred troops and planes. An amazing feat ...
How come we stayed there fighting them for 9 more years and in 2010 deployed an additional few hundred (30,000) troops, and they still control most of the country?
According to a report by the United Nations, the Taliban were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 82% by May 2011. In spite of the fact that we beat them almost a decade earlier with a few hundred ltroops and planes, an amazing feat.
We beat them in 2002/3 but lost the country but since them we have been fighting Pakistan which has been using the Taliban as it's forces in Afghanistan. If the Paki's withdrew is support of the Taliban we would have a much easier time of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
