- This topic has 4 voices and 12 replies.
-
Posts
-
I'm curious – what is the most improbably victory (i.e. the underdog defeating the bigger/badder/more powerful army) in history that you can think of?
Greeks vs Persians (Plataea and Thermopylae) hands down. That would be the equivalent of Canada defeating the United States.
Have to agree with Donnie although the Finns against the Russians in the Winter War is a pretty good one too.
First time responder, long time reader. i would have to take the Colonies over the Empire, although the Greeks and the Finns are great choices as well.
First time responder, long time reader. i would have to take the Colonies over the Empire, although the Greeks and the Finns are great choices as well.
Welcome aboard!
Thank You Scout. i appreciate it greatly. Hope i can add to some of the great discussions around here.
No U.S. Civil War battles make the list?
Were there any that were just completely lopsided in terms of the size of the forces engaged? Not that I am aware of, at least none of the bigger ones.
Were there any that were just completely lopsided in terms of the size of the forces engaged? Not that I am aware of, at least none of the bigger ones.
What about Vicksburg? I know it was a siege for the most part, but Pemberton only had about 22,000 men and Joe Johnston's forces were separated from him and he only had about 34,000 I think. Meanwhile didn't Grant have over 100,000 men at his disposal at one point? Would that be considered lopsided?
According to Wikipedia it was 77,000 Union to 33,000 CSA at Vicksburg and Historynet.com has it at 75,000 to 34,000. I don't think you could discount Joe Johnston's Army of the Tennessee though because it was a force in being that Grant had to take into account thus Grant could not concentrate his army against only Vicksburg. Plus it was a siege and not a come as you are battle where what you bring is what you have. Grant received fresh troops throughout the Siege whereas the Rebs did not have that luxury. grant would not have had that advantage in an open field fight either.
Those numbers are still lopsided but not out of the norm for a siege. The typical ratio for besieger to besieged is roughly 2 1/2 to 1. The other factors that I talked about also mitigate against calling any siege a lopsided battle as a siege is not really a battle but more of a waiting game. Nobody ever wants to storm a besieged town as that kind of assault is the most dangerous and difficult attack you can make. Casualty ratios for failed assaults are all out of proportion to those of anything but the most decisive open-field battles. Ratios for failed assaults are often in the 15-20 to 1 range for casualties suffered by the assaulting force versus defending force. There is no finesse in an assault on defended works.
