Top 12 Decisive Battles, Post-1900:

[Orko]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Sure, but then Operation Yellow is counted despite the reality that Nazi Germany ultimately lost. Galliipoli is counted despite the Ottomans losing. Singapore is counted despite Japan losing that war before it fairly got started. For that matter the Chinese Offensive of 1950 did not produce a victory for the PRC in Korea any more than the USA's victories at Inchon and Pusan did for the USA. If Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan get a pass despite their total defeats, I think counting the opening phase of an indecisive war certainly has every reason to count. I also think that it's less the IDF that defeated the Egyptians than the Syrians, on grounds of their being the ones, not the IDF, not Sharon, not Dayan, to get the Egyptians out of their local victory.

Are you comparing the Battle of France with the capture of the Bar Lev Line? A major military operation with very surprising consequences to a huge fighting force overwhelming a small garrison?

[AdA]

If we take the Yom kippur war as a whole, it changed the game in the middle east in the sense that israel finally understood that relying purely on military means to survive was risky, in the sense that they had that "one of this days we're gonna loose one" feeling. It was also important because of the fact that a country believed to be nuclear capable was rumured to have contemplated using it's nukes. Real or not, the possibility of the Israelis nuking Damascos as the first Syrian tanks rolled into Telavive made both superpowers pause and decide it was time to tell the children to shake hands and stop fighting. The US supported peace with Egipt followed, and Israel adjusted its defence policy to avoid the risk of a two front war.
So it was a major event, and a game changer in international politics. Egipt breaking Israeli forward defences was not, in itself that big, but is comparable, for example, with Cambrai, in the sense that it demonstrated to one side that the other now had a new and dangerous capability that could force them to change their game. In Cambrai it was Brits with tanks, in Suez it was Arabs with brains. Israel would go on to make big mistakes, but not risk a major two front war in its future.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Orko

Are you comparing the Battle of France with the capture of the Bar Lev Line? A major military operation with very surprising consequences to a huge fighting force overwhelming a small garrison?

Yes, in that the victory was one that should not have happened was a reflection that the other side made very poor use of its forces. The Battle of France was a huge force overwhelming a small force in the Ardennes, after all.

[John Farson]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Yes, in that the victory was one that should not have happened was a reflection that the other side made very poor use of its forces. The Battle of France was a huge force overwhelming a small force in the Ardennes, after all.

Yes, and like the Battle of France, Yom Kippur ended with Egypt and Syria overrunning Israel and placing a puppet government in Jerusalem.

[Gannt the chartist]

Arguably its Vitoria not Leipzig that is the decisive land battle as it persuades Austria to intervene, but mostly because of the delivery of the message.

3 a.m., Vienna British Ambassador and a very very knackered courier burst into Metternich's bedroom and announce:

'Monsieur le Comte! Monsieur the Comte! the Roi Joseph est Fucked en Espagne!'

The prescence or otherwise of top austiran totty is not recorded but may be inferred.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Yes, in that the victory was one that should not have happened was a reflection that the other side made very poor use of its forces. The Battle of France was a huge force overwhelming a small force in the Ardennes, after all.

That was just a part of the opening move in one of the flanks. At that time another "huge" force was allredy moving into Belgium as part of the diversionary attack and an even "huger" force moving into Belgium to get into a "huge" trap.
The battle of Midway could, in your terms, be described as a "huge IJN force overwhelming a small Torpedo Bomber Force"
France 1940 was big in the sense that it shaped all the susequent events of WW2, remove an entire (large) country from the war (along with two smaller ones that never wanted in in the first place)

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by John Farson

Yes, and like the Battle of France, Yom Kippur ended with Egypt and Syria overrunning Israel and placing a puppet government in Jerusalem.

Germany overran France but did not defeat the UK. Germany gained the resources of France but horribly bungled the invasion of the USSR even when it was merely a concept, not yet executed. This does not, however, disqualify that the invasion of France was the decisive moment of the war on the Axis side. Likewise the ultimate stalemate in the Yom Kippur War does not alter that in the crossing of the Bar Lev line the Israelis realized that they would no longer be guaranteed huge swathes of Arab territory carved away at gunpoint in a war.

Originally Posted by AdA

That was just a part of the opening move in one of the flanks. At that time another "huge" force was allredy moving into Belgium as part of the diversionary attack and an even "huger" force moving into Belgium to get into a "huge" trap.
The battle of Midway could, in your terms, be described as a "huge IJN force overwhelming a small Torpedo Bomber Force"
France 1940 was big in the sense that it shaped all the susequent events of WW2, remove an entire (large) country from the war (along with two smaller ones that never wanted in in the first place)

What I'm referring to is the Crossing through the Ardennes, directly into a place where the Allies had some of their weakest forces, as opposed to where the Germans confronted the Allies in strength and got slapped silly for it. Tactics involves massing great concentration of forces against small enemy forces, and it was this offensive that ensured Israel's mentality here would for the first time be genuinely defensive in a war, not seeking to see how much of Syria and Egypt it could take this time.

After all, Germany overran France because France moved its reserves into Belgium, but this doesn't make the Battle of France any less a victory for Nazi Germany.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by AdA

If we take the Yom kippur war as a whole, it changed the game in the middle east in the sense that israel finally understood that relying purely on military means to survive was risky, in the sense that they had that "one of this days we're gonna loose one" feeling. It was also important because of the fact that a country believed to be nuclear capable was rumured to have contemplated using it's nukes. Real or not, the possibility of the Israelis nuking Damascos as the first Syrian tanks rolled into Telavive made both superpowers pause and decide it was time to tell the children to shake hands and stop fighting. The US supported peace with Egipt followed, and Israel adjusted its defence policy to avoid the risk of a two front war.
So it was a major event, and a game changer in international politics. Egipt breaking Israeli forward defences was not, in itself that big, but is comparable, for example, with Cambrai, in the sense that it demonstrated to one side that the other now had a new and dangerous capability that could force them to change their game. In Cambrai it was Brits with tanks, in Suez it was Arabs with brains. Israel would go on to make big mistakes, but not risk a major two front war in its future.

On the contrary, this is the last war between Israel and Arab states in the Middle East's contemporary history. Israel has successfully made a defensive myth for itself even as all the land-grabs have been a solidly one-way-street, so I don't see how the Arabs forcing Israel to significantly yield territory by organizing one of the all-time great tactical offensives does not qualify, while people have no issues accepting the Battle of Singapore in the Pacific War given how Japan lost that war 7 December 1941!

[Athelstane]

Originally Posted by Zmflavius

On the subject of the Bar Lev line, I think that there's no dispute whatsoever that Israel by a large margin emerged the victor from the Yom Kippur war, and that the breaching of the line did result in an ultimately disastrous outcome for the Egyptians (the siege of the 3rd army), but simply put, that's irrelevant when one considers the effect it had on the Arab world. Even though they lost, Arabs widely consider it a victory. Whether it is important enough to be located on this list is another matter, but IMO, it is certainly as important in Middle Eastern politics as the 6 day war.

I wouldn't quite say it's irrelevant.

The one notable fact about the Yom Kippur War is that there has been no conventional Arab-Israeli war since. There's a reason for that.

If the Arab states really had drawn the conclusion that the IDF was vulnerable and beatable in any real sense, Yom Kippur would not have been the last attack. What they gained instead was a sense of restored honor, at least for the Egyptians: they could field a more or less competent modern army, and at least achieve tactical successes. For Sadat, that was enough - he wasn't interested in playing the tables any longer once he was playing with house money.

The Bar Lev attack was mounted against a very lightly defended line, and that militates against whatever judgment it makes on Israeli arms. But it is still a very impressive operation - it achieved full operational surprise, it was competently executed, and it achieved all of its tactical objectives. In the end, it led to disaster strategically, or what would have been disaster had not the USSR intervened.

In any event, I just don't think any of the Arab-Israeli battles are big enough to make this list. If I did, I would probably opt for the Six Days War campaign, particularly against Egypt; but I also don't think the Bar Lev is an indefensible pick by Snake if we're to pick one of them for the list.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Athelstane

I wouldn't quite say it's irrelevant.

The one notable fact about the Yom Kippur War is that there has been no conventional Arab-Israeli war since. There's a reason for that.

If the Arab states really had drawn the conclusion that the IDF was vulnerable and beatable in any real sense, Yom Kippur would not have been the last attack. What they gained instead was a sense of restored honor, at least for the Egyptians: they could field a more or less competent modern army, and at least achieve tactical successes. For Sadat, that was enough - he wasn't interested in playing the tables any longer once he was playing with house money.

The Bar Lev attack was mounted against a very lightly defended line, and that militates against whatever judgment it makes on Israeli arms. But it is still a very impressive operation - it achieved full operational surprise, it was competently executed, and it achieved all of its tactical objectives. In the end, it led to disaster strategically, or what would have been disaster had not the USSR intervened.

Only if we say that the Germans crossing through the Ardennes against a small, poor-quality, lightly-equipped French force negates 1940, or the Soviets deliberately ensuring the Germans stripped their already depleted forces prior to Bagration negates Bagration, or British 10:1 superiority and cheating through air interdiction negates Third Gaza. As people do not object to these battles, or the inclusion of Yamashita's Asian campaign, well......

[Athelstane]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Likewise the ultimate stalemate in the Yom Kippur War does not alter that in the crossing of the Bar Lev line the Israelis realized that they would no longer be guaranteed huge swathes of Arab territory carved away at gunpoint in a war.

Hello Snake,

I share your admiration of the Bar Lev operation. But I can't quite see how you can call the Yom Kippur War a "stalemate."

Absent direct superpower intervention, Israel was well on its way to strategic victory. The Suez Canal had been crossed, the Third Army was cut off, and the IDF was driving on Damascus with little to stop it.

Now, you might also say that it was superpower intervention in the shape of the airlift of supplies to Israel by Nixon that helped make those counterstrokes possible. But I think it's obvious that Israel still would have won the war without it, only at greater cost and time - if necessary, by deployment of battlefield nuclear weapons.

[Athelstane]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Only if we say that the Germans crossing through the Ardennes against a small, poor-quality, lightly-equipped French force negates 1940, or the Soviets deliberately ensuring the Germans stripped their already depleted forces prior to Bagration negates Bagration, or British 10:1 superiority and cheating through air interdiction negates Third Gaza. As people do not object to these battles, or the inclusion of Yamashita's Asian campaign, well......

No, I agree, that is a comparable quality between the Ardennes and the Bar Lev line, at least tactically. On this level, there's as much reason to include one as the other.

Of course, I don't think that the latter gave the same strategic results as the former. Germany did overrun France. The fact that it did not do so with Britain is a separate affair to me. Britain was knocked out of the continental warfare game until it could find another Great Power with sufficient manpower to team up with - which, of course, it ultimately did. To the extent that the Yom Kippur War obtained strategic results for the Arabs, they came at the diplomatic table, much later, and only because of direct and decisive superpower intervention.

As I said, however, that's not my real objection to including the Bar Lev line (unlike some folks in this thread). I'm just not inclined to think that the Arab-Israeli wars are big enough or important enough to make this list. No great powers fought in those wars. But if you think otherwise, then you can certainly make the case for including it in this list.

[AdA]

[


What I'm referring to is the Crossing through the Ardennes, directly into a place where the Allies had some of their weakest forces, as opposed to where the Germans confronted the Allies in strength and got slapped silly for it. Tactics involves massing great concentration of forces against small enemy forces, and it was this offensive that ensured Israel's mentality here would for the first time be genuinely defensive in a war, not seeking to see how much of Syria and Egypt it could take this time.

After all, Germany overran France because France moved its reserves into Belgium, but this doesn't make the Battle of France any less a victory for Nazi Germany.[/QUOTE]

Everybody got that. But when people talk about the battle of France they are refering to all the events in May/Jun 1940.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

On the contrary, this is the last war between Israel and Arab states in the Middle East's contemporary history. Israel has successfully made a defensive myth for itself even as all the land-grabs have been a solidly one-way-street, so I don't see how the Arabs forcing Israel to significantly yield territory by organizing one of the all-time great tactical offensives does not qualify, while people have no issues accepting the Battle of Singapore in the Pacific War given how Japan lost that war 7 December 1941!

Read my post, then your reply, then explain to me (if you wish) why you open with "on the contrary".

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

while people have no issues accepting the Battle of Singapore in the Pacific War given how Japan lost that war 7 December 1941!

Well, I for one certainly wouldn't try to include Singapore on a list of 'decisive' battles...

[AdA]

People who regard Singapure as decisive probably justify that by saying that it demeged British reputation in Asia to the point of making a sustained British presence of an Imperial nature irrelevant. The case can be made that the Empire was doomed anyway. Before WW2 there were a lot of players in the Pacific, after the war there were only two, a major one, the US, and a (re)emerging one, Russia.
If by decisive we mean that a war could have gone one of two ways, and the battle made it go one way, it isn't.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Athelstane

Hello Snake,

I share your admiration of the Bar Lev operation. But I can't quite see how you can call the Yom Kippur War a "stalemate."

Absent direct superpower intervention, Israel was well on its way to strategic victory. The Suez Canal had been crossed, the Third Army was cut off, and the IDF was driving on Damascus with little to stop it.

Now, you might also say that it was superpower intervention in the shape of the airlift of supplies to Israel by Nixon that helped make those counterstrokes possible. But I think it's obvious that Israel still would have won the war without it, only at greater cost and time - if necessary, by deployment of battlefield nuclear weapons.

The crude reality is that if Israel has to nuke Syria and Egypt to save itself, that all by itself is a major confession of weakness. Without superpower aid Israel would have had no choice, as Israel suffered far too much damage in the early battles to do that by itself. This invariably has applied to both 1948-9 and to this war, but somehow Israel having freebie logistics is never taken to work against it, even if that argument is used against other states to discredit them. It's hypocrisy, not analysis.

Originally Posted by Simreeve

Well, I for one certainly wouldn't try to include Singapore on a list of 'decisive' battles...

Well, I for one certainly would. When Percival surrendered to Japan it shattered British invincibility and the imperial myth for the UK as soundly as Tsushima shattered the illusion of Russian strength.

Originally Posted by AdA

People who regard Singapure as decisive probably justify that by saying that it demeged British reputation in Asia to the point of making a sustained British presence of an Imperial nature irrelevant. The case can be made that the Empire was doomed anyway. Before WW2 there were a lot of players in the Pacific, after the war there were only two, a major one, the US, and a (re)emerging one, Russia.
If by decisive we mean that a war could have gone one of two ways, and the battle made it go one way, it isn't.

Sure, but there's no reason the Empire would have fallen in the fashion or shape it did without Yamashita's campaign. If that had been done by Germans it would be demanded to be included on this list.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by AdA

Read my post, then your reply, then explain to me (if you wish) why you open with "on the contrary".

The comparison with Cambrai. When in actual terms the Crossing of the Bar Lev Line is more Amiens.

[Athelstane]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

The crude reality is that if Israel has to nuke Syria and Egypt to save itself, that all by itself is a major confession of weakness. Without superpower aid Israel would have had no choice, as Israel suffered far too much damage in the early battles to do that by itself. This invariably has applied to both 1948-9 and to this war, but somehow Israel having freebie logistics is never taken to work against it, even if that argument is used against other states to discredit them. It's hypocrisy, not analysis.

It's not hypocrisy to note that the sword cuts both ways, Snake. Superpower logistical support was also keeping the Arab armies alive. More to the point, the USSR almost completely rebuilt the Egyptian and Syrian armies in 1967-1973. If it's a "confession of weakness" that Israel can't handle Arab states that outnumber it eighty-fold to one backed by a superpower generously handing over equipment, supplies, and advisers, It's a pretty understandable one.

As with our last argument over Vietnam, you seem eager to denigrate a Western client state for its massive infusion of superpower support, but completely overlook the massive support given to its Soviet-backed opponents. At any rate, if the equipment is U.S., the men using it are 100% Israeli (unlike in Vietnam).

And at the end of the day, those Egyptian and Syrian brigades will be reduced to radioactive cinders and every bit as impotent. Israel still wins. The Arabs still lose. They have no answer for Israeli nuclear weapons.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Athelstane

It's not hypocrisy to note that the sword cuts both ways, Snake. Superpower logistical support was also keeping the Arab armies alive. More to the point, the USSR almost completely rebuilt the Egyptian and Syrian armies in 1967-1973. If it's a "confession of weakness" that Israel can't handle Arab states that outnumber it eighty-fold to one backed by a superpower generously handing over equipment, supplies, and advisers, It's a pretty understandable one.

As with our last argument over Vietnam, you seem eager to denigrate a Western client state for its massive infusion of superpower support, but completely overlook the massive support given to its Soviet-backed opponents.

And at the end of the day, those Egyptian and Syrian brigades will be reduced to radioactive cinders and every bit as impotent. Israel still wins. The Arabs still lose. They have no answer for Israeli nuclear weapons.

Sure, I'm willing to concede Soviet aid mattered in the cases of North Vietnam and the Arabs, but that sword cutting both ways means that if a Western Ally needed a huge amount of US weaponry (some of which might have actually done more for Saigon, which Israel's supporters neglect) it's not an indictment of that military, if a Soviet one does, it is an indictment of them. The reality of the Israeli-Arab Wars is one of the gap between paper strength and real strength, and is the kind of bad argument based on superior numbers = superior strength that could easily make for an argument that democracies can't fight wars unless they have a totalitarian or authoritarian big buddy do the real fighting for them.

If the Arab states having superior numbers to Israel makes Israeli victories impressive because the numbers are big, then that's a bad argument that falls into "Jews think five years ahead with their mind, Arabs five minutes ahead with their dicks" analysis. Numbers have nothing to do with anything in modern war, and in fact are more often a hindrance than a help.

If Israel resorts to nuclear weapons, it's already indicated that it cannot win a war by any means short of breaking the 1945 Taboo. I don't care how you spin that, that's a confession Israel is no longer able to fight a war of armies. And again, I'm puzzled as to why Israelis pulling a sneak attack is worthy of entrance into this list, but Arabs doing the same when nobody except the Egyptians believed this was possible does not. It seems the only case of rewarding a sneak attacks is when it's pulled by Israel. And once more, if the Arab numbers argument is held to show what a little shrimp Israel is, I look at the map and see that Israel has pretty much been absorbing Arab territory in war after war. How many times does it carve out the most populous territories of its neighbors or peninsulas the size of the Sinai before we stop pretending Israel was some pencil-thin 90 lb weakling?