Design Issues for Russian IS Tanks

[The Vyrdolak]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>As for Hannibal, his feat of taking his army across the Alps in Winter, IIRC, has yet to be repeated, AFAIK. [/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Marshal Suvarov did this in 1800, to withdraw

his army from Italy into Austria after his defeat by the French under Massena at the second battle of Zurich.

[The Vyrdolak]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by busboy:

Perhaps you've heard about a chap called Atilla? If you ever see a picture of him, he

looks evil the second you see him. Atilla was

the model that renisance artists used for Satan.<hr></blockquote>

But when he saw his mother --- Niagara Falls!

[Ogadai]

With regard to the Mongols, it was not Timur the Lame who was defeated by the Mamulukes, it was the nephew of Chingiz Khan, Hulegu Khan. He was defeated only through a ruse, the Mamulukes sent a general to parly and he slashed Hulegu across the face, severely wounding him.

As to the invasions of Japan, the Kamikaze (Typhoon) winds did not destroy the invasion fleets until after the invasion forces had come ashore at Kagoshima Bay. In the first case, they were primarily Koreans, and acting on the advice of the Chinese fleet commander, the Mongol force commander re-embarked his forces to ride out the Typhoon afloat. Silly mistake but as a landlubber he knew no better. When the second invasion force arrived, the landed at the same place and in the meantime, the Japanese had constructed a 40 mile long timber wall, enclosing the bay and the Mongols fought at at severe disadvantage. The Japanese had also built/gathered a fleet and attacked the ships off shore. This was clearly detailed in the "Invasion Scroll" which still exists. The Typhoon struck and destroyed/scattered most of the fleet while the forces ashore, cut off were hunted down and killed in detail.

Atilla, by the way, was a puppy, compared to the Mongols. Attilla failed dismally to conqueror Rome, he disrupted a few provinces before his defeat at Challons (I think). The Mongols on the otherhand, swept from Mongolia, first SE into China and then across the Steppes to Persia, Asia Minor and the Caucases into Russia (which in this case is a region, not a country, I admit) and across Ukraine to Hungary and Poland.

The Mongols themselves were excellent soldiers but reality the real reason why they were so successful was more because of the mediocrity of the opponents which faced them. The Mongols were masters of maneauvre, whereas most of their settled opponents allowed themselves to be defeated in detail. If Ogadai Khan had not died, when he did, which forced a gathering of the tribes to elect a new Ka-Khan (Great Leader), the Mongol drive would have continued on into western Europe, without a doubt. No force was organised well enough to defeat them, nor led properly. Even today, Cracow remembers the Mongol attack, when a lone bugler sounds the alarm each evening, which cost him his life but allowed the gates to be closed just in time. It took the Russians 400 years to throw of the Mongol yoke and they've never forgotten the experience. The Chinese still so fear the Mongols, they make sure they control a good portion of their homelands and refuse to countenance reunification with the rest of Mongolia.

[busboy]

I won't go into Monty accept to say he wasn't my favorite. Anything more than that and it looks like I bash Monty to support Patton. Monty was a general who got the job done, and was a great leader of men (which, in my opinion, was his greatest trait.) However, he just took too long and too much to do the job compared to other folks. I think Market Garden is a strike against him, as he should have called it off, but it was a good plan if there was a realistic chance of sucsess. I also think his massive Rhine crossing operation was a bit more than needed.

In the end, all I will say is that Monty isn't my type of commander, but he could indeed lead his men. I do think Eisenhower prolonged the war by giving Monty his chances, but I don't mean to insult Montgomery by saying that.

I'll shut up on that note before I dig myself into a trap.

Iron, you misunderstand me. Hannibal was a great commander, but I think he pales compared to Scipio.

Yes, Hannibal did throw a spear at the city walls of Rome, but he did not lay siege to it. The spear was a sign of defiance after Caenne. If you'd like, I'd be glad to find several sources on this for you.

Hannibal most decidedly did NOT invent encirclement. Hell, the Greek/Persian navel battle at Salamis demonstrates the practice of pinning the enemy between the rock(s) and a hard place. You want a textbook example of encirclement? Look the Athenian assault on Sphacteria in the Peloponnesian wars.

Conclusion: Crediting Hannibal with inventing encirclement is like crediting Patton with the idea of the light bulb. However, encirclement was not a "famous" manuver for quite some time. Why? Because armies until the Roman age fought either in hordes flailing at whatever they saw, or phalanx. Once you get a phalanx army into position, there's only one way to go-forward. The men can shift their spears and baisically rotate the phalanx 90 degrees, but if you have formed a line, then you're suddenly in coloum. At Caenne, Hannibal used his phalanx on his flanks. His celtic "hordes" were in the center. They kept the Romans busy while the phalanx marched forward until they were alongside the Roman forces. They then rotated 90 degrees (one on each flank mind you) and advanced. At this critical moment the Numidian cavalry decends on the Roman rear and the result is Rome's worst defeat ever.

Even with this envelopment, Hannibal still is limited by the phalanx. When his time comes at Zama, he is totally outclassed by the tactical versitility of the Roman cohorts. If Hannibal was the master of envelopment, he should have seen Scipio deploying his reseves on his flanks rather than hacking at the center, especially considering that Scipio was known to use the tactic himself.

But Hannibal's veterens were formed in a phalanx, which offered no flexability. It offered so little room for gaps in the diciplin that when the celtic and conscript ranks fled, the phalanx would not open their ranks to allow their men passage. So, the shattered remains of the celts and cathaginian levies formed on the flanks.

Rather than swapping out his Hastii as per the usual Roman meathod, Scipio uses his Hastii to "grab 'em by the nose" while the Priciptius and Triarii headed to the flanks made of shattered troops. Again, at this critical moment the Numidian cavalry returns, only this time they're on the Roman side. With troops in front, the phalanx can't break rank, and they are assaulted from the sides and rear, concluding a classical envelopment with a "kick in the ass."

I would be daft to say Hannibal wasn't a great general, but Scipio was far superior. If he had been in command at Caenne rather than two senators that were too busy tripping over eachother than to fight, then Hannibal would have met his fate much sooner when he was outnumbered two to one.

Instead, Hannibal has a celebrated victory, and Scipio remains forgotten by far too many.

[Bastables]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai:

With regard to the Mongols, it was not Timur the Lame who was defeated by the Mamulukes, it was the nephew of Chingiz Khan, Hulegu Khan. He was defeated only through a ruse, the Mamulukes sent a general to parly and he slashed Hulegu across the face, severely wounding him.

<hr></blockquote>

Taken from "The life of Baybars" By Egyptian Chronicler 'Abd-al-Zhair' , As transcribed By Amin Maalouf.

"Kitbuga was preparing to march out to meet them when a popular insurrction erupted in Damascus. The Muslims of the city, enraged by the exactions of the invaders and encouraged by the departure of Hulegu, built barricades in the streets and set fire to those churches that had been spared by the Mongols. It took Kitbuga several days to reestablish order, and this enabled Qutuz to consolidate his postions in Galilee. The two armies met near the villige of Ayn Jalut (Fountian of Goliath). Qutuz had time to conceal most of his troops, leaving the battlefield to no more than a vanguard under the command of Baybars. Kitabuga fell into the trap. He observed the small forces and apparently ill informed launced a full scale assault. Baybars fled and as Kitabuga ('May Allah curse his name')gave chase he suddenly found himself surrounded by Egypttian forces more numerous than his own. The Mongol filth were exterminated in a few hours and Kitabuga himself was captured and beheaded forthwith.

3 months before Rammandan Mamluk horsemen rode jubilantly into Damascus, where they were greeted as liberators."

This battle crushed Hulegu's acendancy in the Islamic world and cemented the rising power of the Mamluk battle slaves and Egypt who continued on to crush the Franj (Crusaders) of Acre and Tripoli and level the Kingdom Hethoum of Armenia who had made common cause with the Mongols, the latter after Hulegu had died. The horried thing was that Bayber wanted real vengence and actully carried out a policy of genocide vs two Franj cities and an entire kingdom.

Still wondering why Timur I lang poped into my head.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

"Celtic Hordes"??? They were Carthaginian, though Hannibals army was made up of many nationalities.

Canae is the perfect example of a battle of annihilation. No General in the peloponesion wars killed 50,000 soldier in one day. No general in World War2 killed 50,000 soldiers in one day.

There is a reason why all General to this day study Hannibal and attempt to replicate his success.

[argie]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

"Celtic Hordes"??? They were Carthaginian, though Hannibals army was made up of many nationalities.

Canae is the perfect example of a battle of annihilation. No General in the peloponesion wars killed 50,000 soldier in one day. No general in World War2 killed 50,000 soldiers in one day.

There is a reason why all General to this day study Hannibal and attempt to replicate his success.<hr></blockquote>

The centre of the dispositive used for Hannibal in Cannae was made with Celtic and other mercenaries he added to his army through Spain and North Italy.

His best troops, the Carthaginian heavy infantry, were the phalanxs at the flanks.

[busboy]

No General before or since has achieved such results because such a situation hasn't presented itself again. Battles then could be compared to a chess game, with the opposing sides marching onto the field, ect. Mobile war of today does not put 50,000 soldiers in one field to be matched against another force in a single battle.

The idea that everyone is still trying to "out do" Hannibal is rediculias.

As for "no General for or since." How many men did Armenius wipe out in the Teutoubourg Wald?

Finally, again I look at traditional sources to prove my facts. Much of Hannibal's forces were Celtic, many of them were of Spanish origin (Iberian is the name for them if I recall) and many were from the regions that Hannibal marched through going into Italy.

His central line at Caenne, as the gentleman above me noted, were made up of the Celts. At Zama, Hannibal's first line was made up of Celts, and his second line made up of conscripts from the city of Carthage itself.

Iron, perhaps your "?" key is sticky, but every time I post something you don't quite agree with (be it a difference of opinion to a missing fact) you respond with, what seems to me, a tone of shocked outrage at ignorance.

Please understand sir, I'm not trying to insult your knowledge or opinion. This is merely a friendly conversation of history where there is bound to be a difference of opinion, and thats ok.

I just wanted to make sure the "???s" weren't a sign of hostility. We may not agree, but we're all on the same side here. <S!> bud!

[Iron Chef Sakai]

haha, no my question marks are not a sign of hostility.

But battles are still foguht in very much the same was as back then, just with different weapons.

The only time war fare realy changed was in World War1 when both alliances were bogged down by each other and it degenerated into mass trench warfare.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

I don't mean that everything is exactly the same in battles today as then, but the basic principles of war, that Hannibal helped develop remain the same is all i meant.

[Mace]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

The only time war fare realy changed was in World War1 when both alliances were bogged down by each other and it degenerated into mass trench warfare.<hr></blockquote>

Another important recent innovation IMHO is vertical envelopment, the use of airmobile forces (paratrooper or helicopter inserted) to establish blocking positions.

Mace

[Vanir Ausf B]

Can you believe this thread started out as a discussion of Russian IS tanks?

I'd like to hear Rexford's opinion of Hannibal.

[WWB]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

"Celtic Hordes"??? They were Carthaginian, though Hannibals army was made up of many nationalities.

Canae is the perfect example of a battle of annihilation. No General in the peloponesion wars killed 50,000 soldier in one day. No general in World War2 killed 50,000 soldiers in one day.

There is a reason why all General to this day study Hannibal and attempt to replicate his success.<hr></blockquote>

1) No one in the Peloponesian Wars could field a 50,000 man army. That would have to wait for Roman mass levee & logistical tricks. Alexander and the Diodachi might have come close to that figure, and some Indian monarchs might well have been able to put forth that many, but west of the Euphrates it was an unheard of number.

2) Hannibal never, ever won a war. Not the 2nd Punic, not defending Carthage, not ever. Even in his later days as a 'Military Consultant' he never won a war. So while Cannae is well studied, there is no real success for anyone to replicate.

WWB

[WWB]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

haha, no my question marks are not a sign of hostility.

But battles are still foguht in very much the same was as back then, just with different weapons.

The only time war fare realy changed was in World War1 when both alliances were bogged down by each other and it degenerated into mass trench warfare.<hr></blockquote>

1) Modern battles are far, far different than anything that came before. Aside from weapons with ranges beyond LOS, the major difference is telecommunications. The ability to transmit orders in real time to someone outside of vocal range makes a much different form of warfare possible. Wellington was personally at nearly every critical juncture at Waterloo. A century later, Foch never even saw the front at the Marne.

2) There were many, many radical changes in warfare well before World War I. I will mention just a few:

1) Chariots: the main battle tanks of the 2nd millenia BC.

2) Hoplites: well lead Greeks kicked butt.

3) Romans: better led Romans sliced and diced Greek butt.

4) Stirrups: now you can put a Viking (aka Norman) on a horse and he can charge effectively.

5) Gunpowder: now you can shoot the heavily armored viking off his horse. And pound castles to dust to boot.

6) The Socket Bayonet: now your pikemen and musketmen are one and the same, slashing army budgets everywhere.

And that is a brief list.

WWB

[busboy]

wwb, good points. The evolution of horses suitable to be ridden allowed chariots to be replaced by cavalry, that was a major development.

Iron is absolutely right. While weapons have changed, the principals of war are exactly the same as they ever were. Battles look different because of technology, and communication and mobility allows armies to fan out like in WW2 rather than function like chess men like they did even as late as the American Civil war.

However, while technologies come and go, war is and always will be the same bloody business it has been.

Finally, I'd like to throw in that Hannibal was indeed worth tactically studying, but his failure was to win the war he should have won. As I quoted before, he knew how to win the battles, but not how to use them.

By the way, would anyone be intirested in an ancient warfare mod for CM? I was thinking this before the conversation anyway. It'd be very VERY crude mind you, mostly graphics mods and infantry running around with "low" ammo, but I thre together a Zama scenario last night and it actually functions ok. Just a pet thought, I dunno if I'd find time to do the work.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Are you serious? your taking away Hannibals credibility because he misjudged his oppononets center of gravity???? Wow your harsh....so because Patton won he must be better?

First look at what Hannibal did do instead of didnt.

He marched an entire army across the alps to fighting a superior Roman army and utterly crushed it. The romans had no more armies after that for a long time.

Napolean also lost......does this make him an infeiror general in your opinion as well?

Also as a side note, every modern day General has studied Hannibal. All of them borrow tactics from him. This is all a testiment to how well the ability of Hannibal was to lead an army.

Don't make me post a grog like thread about Hannibal.......

[argie]

Epaminondas invented the "schwerpunkt". Let's do a grog thread on Epaminondas

[Cogust]

But Epaminondas unfortunately led from the front as every Hoplite general is supposed to, so it was just a matter of time before he would get an 'early retirement'.

Bta, does anyone have any sources that say if he was leading the left flank (The Schwerpunkt) or the right flank (the traditional position of the generals)? I'd figure he would lead the Einbruch forces so that he could coordinate the Durchbruch directly. :b

[Patgod]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

....so because Patton won he must be better?

<hr></blockquote>

and by what metric do you rate commanders? if not by WINNING WARS by the number of people they slaughtered? hell if thats so then the flight commander of the enola gay kicks all their asses.

[busboy]

You simply misunderstand my point. I'm just saying that Hannibal should have won, and he could have too. Naepoleon, on the other hand, couldn't have won (after he invaded Russia anyway.) The fact that Hannibal lost the war shows him to be "merely" a wonderful battlefield tactition.

I do, however, think that you can call the loser of a war a brilliant commander. Look at the Conderate masters from the American Civil War, or Naepoleon. All I'm saying is that Hannibal's lessons in tactics are everywhere in history. However, Hannibal's lessons in strategy are limited to crossing the Alps. That is quite a feat, but his strategic skill wasn't sufficient to win the war.

I personally think the crossing of the Alps was an act of tremendous leadership of men, and a dash of luck, not to mention great darring and determination. That says alot for his personality and ability as a leader of men.

Let me reiterate:

Hannibal does indeed rock! He kicked asicus and took namiticii!

However, Scipio did that and more!

Hannbial's campeigns are worth studying, but every military commander should have a comple knowledge of military history anyway, not just the "highlights."

[Patgod]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by busboy:

Hannibal does indeed rock! He kicked asicus and took namiticii!

However, Scipio did that and more!

<hr></blockquote>

i think everyone can agree with that. though i'm probably wrong.

[Dan Robertson]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by wwb_99:

4) Stirrups: now you can put a Viking (aka Norman) on a horse and he can charge effectively.

Roman cavalry could actually charge on their horses with their saddle which featured two large leather horns which firmly attached the rider to the horse. Its not quite as good as stirrups but modernday reinactors have managed to effectively fight from horseback.

5) Gunpowder: now you can shoot the heavily armored viking off his horse. And pound castles to dust to boot.

Again it is rather interesting to note that well built castles with reinforced stone walls resisted cannon balls very well, in the same way that reinforced concrete bunkers have resisted modern weapons. Even with cannons castles still achieved their major purpose, which is to allow the defender to fight numerically superior forces, since even a castle with a hole in the wall requires more men to take it that it does to defend it.

<hr></blockquote>

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

Again it is rather interesting to note that well built castles with reinforced stone walls resisted cannon balls very well, in the same way that reinforced concrete bunkers have resisted modern weapons. Even with cannons castles still achieved their major purpose, which is to allow the defender to fight numerically superior forces, since even a castle with a hole in the wall requires more men to take it that it does to defend it.<hr></blockquote>

Case in point, siege of Kenilworth Castle (Warwickshire) during the English Civil War. The castle with its royalist defenders held out for a long time, and was not actually taken in an assault. The attackers had cannons, muskets, the works.

After this experience, the roundheads blew in one wall completely, to make sure that there was no repeat performance. Kenilworth Castle was built in the 12th century, at one time featured the largest hall in the realm, apart from Westminster, was added to by the Earl of Leicester during Elizabeth I.'s reign, and is beautifully situated on the old Stratford to Coventry road.

[Dan Robertson]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas:

Case in point, siege of Kenilworth Castle (Warwickshire) during the English Civil War. The castle with its royalist defenders held out for a long time, and was not actually taken in an assault. The attackers had cannons, muskets, the works.

<hr></blockquote>

Kenilworth has a very well designed wall, it is very thick with a earth filling. I would be surprised if modern ground lauched weapons could breach it very effectively.

Piercing weapons would drive a hole throught the stone into the earth but would not spread the damage. HESH would blow a large hole in the outer stone a facing but the earth would not transmit the shockwaves to damage the rear. Only really big HE would be any good, 8 inches plus.

[busboy]

On the Roman saddle,

It was copied from a celtic design, and had 4 horns on differing corners. My understanding is that when the rider sat on it, the horns are slightly inclined to angle inward and "pinch" the leg so, yes, fixing the rider into plce.

Again, inferior to stirrups, but ancient cavalry simply functioned without it. While much ancient cavalry fought dismounted, really only useful as very mobile skirmishers, there were many many examples of decisive cavalry units. Alexander's companions (which he always led in person) and the Numidian cavalry are two examples.