korn's Civ3 vs. History Challenge!

[korn469]

The fact remains that disadvantaged forces do NOT win battles as a general rule. They DO win wars when the advantaged lack the determination or ability (political, economic) to prosecute those wars.

You asked for the history buffs to come out. Now you are dismissing the lessons of history. Strange.

You are not going to find more than 2 hand fulls of examples of the primitive/irregular defeating the advanced in a SINGLE battle. These sorts of wars do not work that way.

Salve

exactly

i'm not dismissing history, i am wondering how many times on the battlefield clearly outclassed armies won through either better tactics, suprise, or overwhelming odds etc, i wanna know how common it is

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
What the HELL do we care about how the Americans felt about their deaths ?

Not much really. It just caused them to loose the war, that's all.

You're right, it has nothing to do with depicting warfare in a strategy game spanning years at a turn. Your're right, we should focus on the troopers fighting for their lives in some perimiter or other that was overrun in a matter of days, or not.

The overall effects of all the combat should be of little consequence to us. Or something.

Salve

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by korn469


Salve

exactly

i'm not dismissing history, i am wondering how many times on the battlefield clearly outclassed armies won through either better tactics, suprise, or overwhelming odds etc, i wanna know how common it is

Very rarely in a single battle. Verrrrry raaaarrrrrely.

Like I said, less than 2 hands full.

Salve

PS. I've lost less Cav/Tank/ModArm to Spear/Sword/etc. than 10.

[Akka]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Not much really. It just caused them to loose the war, that's all.

You're right, it has nothing to do with depicting warfare in a strategy game spanning years at a turn. Your're right, we should focus on the troopers fighting for their lives in some perimiter or other that was overrun in a matter of days, or not.

The overall effects of all the combat should be of little consequence to us. Or something.

Salve

My god, another troll...
Ok, clueless, I will spell it for you as you seem to have rather low understanding and as it seems you were not able to read my post pas the first sentence.
We be talking about battles. We do not be talking about politics. You to understand ? We be taking examples of units with tech advantage be losing to inferior unit. You still to understand ? We only be talking about fights on the battlefield. You understand ?

[korn469]

here is a little more on the zulu victories but if anyone can find a more definitive source or account please feel free to post it

http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/misc/isandhlwana.html

By the dawn of January 22, Chelmsford had left his main camp in search of the elusive enemy. Isandhlwana was down to half its strength; that is 2,000 men. While Chelmsford and the other half of the camp's contingent was chasing around the countryside the Zulu force of 20,000 warriors was resting in a steep ravine only four miles from the camp. It was an amazing and brilliant achievement to move an army of this size so close to the British position through countryside which was not exactly covered in forests and which was alive with British scouting parties. One can only marvel at the ability of the commanders; the stealth and discipline of the regiments. Undoubtedly this was the basis for the famous victory, for the attack was launched with great speed and surprise enabling the traditional Zulu "horns" to encircle the camp while the main body — the "chest" — charged at the weakest point. For half-an-hour the British poured out a desperate fire cutting down many warriors. Displaying great velour and determination the impis kept charging the lines of redcoats until they were able to come to close quarters with infantrymen Engels had described as "the best in the world for fighting at close quarters". On this occasion the assegais of African warriors proved too much for English bayonets and after a battle that had lasted little more than an hour there were very few survivors on the British side to tell the tale. Two thousand Zulu warriors had died in defence of their country and Cetshwayo remarked that "an assegai has been thrust into the belly of the nation".

here is about St. Clair's defeat

http://www.noacsc.org/ohiohist/region1/fort/facts.htm

*Fort Recovery is the site of the two largest Indian-military battles in the United States.

*Fort Recovery is the site of the worst defeat of an American army on American soil in the history of the United States. Over 65% of the entire U.S. Army was completely destroyed in three hours. Our country went virtually without an army for two years.

*The first battle at Fort Recovery (St. Clair's Defeat) resulted in the very first U.S. Congressional investigation. St. Clair was blamed for the defeat, but was exonerated of all charges when it was found the Secretary of War, Henry Knox, and his friend, William Duer, stole $55,000 of the $75,000 allocated to buy supplies for the newly formed army and used it to speculate on land.

*St. Clair's Defeat is the greatest victory of a native force (the Indians) over a white invading force (the army) in the history of the world.

http://www.indigenouspeople.org/natlit/turtle.htm

He led the confederation of Indians that defeated General Arthur St. Clair, at Fort Recovery on November 3, 1791. His force inflicted the worst defeat ever suffered by the U.S. Army at the hands of native Americans. St. Clair's army consisted of 1300 soldiers. In the battle, 602 were killed and about 300 wounded. The Indian force consisted of approximately 1000 warriors. Only 66 Indians were killed in this battle! It was the greatest defeat the Americans ever suffered at the hands of the Indians. Even worst than the loss suffered at the Battle of Little Big Horn or Custer's Last Stand. Custer only lost about 210 men compared to St. Clair's loss of 602 killed! Me-she-kin-no-quah lived the village of Ke-ki-ong-a'. Kekinonga means blackberry patch. This was the Miami capitol (Ft. Wayne, IN).

once again a more definitive source or account would be very appreciated

think we will be able to find 20 battles that fit into the criteria?

[korn469]

how about this

Cuito Cuanavale

http://web.syr.edu/~hgcampbe/milit.htm

Between October 1987 and June 1988, in the fiercest conventional battles on African soil since Erwin Rommel was defeated at El Amien, the South African Defense Forces (SADF) fought pitched tank and artillery battles with the Angolan army (FAPLA) and its Cuban supporters at Cuito Cuanavale. This small base located in southeastern Angola became important in the military history of Africa, for there the South African army, supposedly the best on the continent, was trapped with its tanks and artillery and held down more than 300 miles from its bases in Namibia. Failing to take Cuito Cuanavale with over 9000 soldiers, even after announcing that it had done so, losing air superiority, and faced with mutinies among black troops and a high casualty rate among whites, the South Africans reached such a desperate situation that President Botha had to fly to the war zone when the operational command of the SADF broke down.

With Cuban reinforcements, the Angolans withstood major assaults on January 23, February 25, and March 23. The South Africans were repulsed with heavy losses, and the Angolan/Cuban forces seized the initiative. For the first time since 1981, the Angolan army was able to reoccupy the area adjacent to Namibia. So confident were the Angolans and Cubans, that in the space of less than three months they built two air strips to consolidate their recapture of the southern province of Cunene. Trapped by the rainy season, hogged down by the terrain, and encircled, the South Africans made one desperate attempt to break out on June 27 and were again defeated. One South African newspaper called the defeat "a crushing humiliation."

and how about the Chinese entrance to the Korean War (and i am just limiting to their entrance and early victories not the stalemate that finally ensued?

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/kowar/50-chin/50-chin.htm

On 25 November 1950, a day after United Nations and Republic of Korea forces began the offensive they expected would complete the unification of Korea, Communist China countered with a terrific, and very successful offensive of its own. Within a few days, the Chinese onslaught reversed the UN/ROK northward drive in central and western North Korea, devastating several South Korean divisions, badly tearing up the U.S. Second Division and forcing the rest of the UN command to rapidly withdraw southwards to escape destruction.

On 27 November, near eastern North Korea's Chosin Reservoir, the Chinese fell on the First Marine Division and a nearby U.S. Army task force, almost wiping out the latter and provoking a Marine response that ranks as one of history's greatest feats of arms. Over the following two weeks, the Marines battled their way to the port of Hungnam, from which they would be evacuated by sea. In their wake were the ruins of the opposing Chinese divisions, which suffered so many casualties from combat and the bitterly cold weather that they were out of action for months.

In the new year, a renewed enemy offensive captured Seoul and drove the UN/ROK armies into new defensive lines in central South Korea. With no prospect of significant reinforcement, facing what appeared to be a total commitment of China's almost inexhaustable manpower, and fearing Soviet air and naval involvement, it briefly seemed that the UN forces might have to evacuate Korea to avoid unacceptable threats to Japan and, perhaps, to Europe.

[Akka]

The St-Clair defeat is a very adequate example. I'm more skeptical about the Zulus, as they suffered quite big losses, but still it's not too bad example.

However, North Korea is not a good example. The whole casualties for UNO troops in the whole three years were 55 000, while the Chinese suffered over 900 000 deaths, and about half as much for North Korea. Chinese were able to pull the UNO back only because of overwhelming numbers (and courage, as waves of infantry were continually crushed under artillery fire, but still kept advancing).

[kailhun]

Originally posted by notyoueither
No, it wasn't nuff said.

American Revolution (War of Independence). An army came from nowhere (from among the civs population) and routed the civ.

But used the same weapons and strategies. The only diff. was in level of training. Besides the colonists did very badly against the british on most occasions and the war was eventually decided by the French intervention, if I remember correctly.

Zulu Wars. Prior to Yorke's drift the Zulu dusted a sizable British contingent.

at Isandhlwana. Minor point: Rorke's Drift.

Any number of occasions in North America when Amerind bands or tribes wiped out European or American military units. Custer anyone (to name the most famous)?

Indians and Americans both used the same guns and horses. The diff. was tactics, ability to replace losses and the fact that the Americans destroyed the Indian homelands while the Indians hardly touched the American homelands (the eastern states).

The battle at little big horn was won by Indian numbers and American mistakes.

If this counts then so does the Soviet's fight against the Germans in WWII. They simply threw their soldiers at them. Some were bound to reach the Germans at some point. It was so bad that the third wave to attack was sometimes not armed (didn't have enough weapons) and told to pick up the weapons from the dead.

Afghanistan (again). That time the Red Army was brought to its knees by the combined arms of what? Devout Muslims from all over the world who went there to fight the infidel.

Again same tech., just diff. in training.

This time the British were annihilated by the Afghans when they tried to annex the country in the 19th (18th?) century. 1 man left the country.

Drawing a blank on this one.

Any revolution that succeeded that you care to name. French, Russian, Cuban, etc. These are all irregular forces that toppled contemporarily armed regimes (well, the French doesn't really fit, but oh well).

Again same tech., just diff. in training.

I will grant that no band of Cro-magnons ever bested a bunch of good ole boys by hurling rocks. But the Palestinians did accomplish a great deal with those same rocks. I guess they knew how to throw them better.

The palestinians accomplished war and the impoverishment of their people. Same with the IRA. The sad state of the Palestinian people and (Northern) Ireland should deter anyone from violence these days. I am of the opinion that if the Palestinian people and the people of (Northern) Ireland has not resorted to violence they would be far better of today than they are.
The question is will non-violence now bring peace after all the bloodshed. Especially since leaders on all sides have based their power on this struggle and so have a vested interest in maintaining it.
BTW. The opposite of violence is not sitting in a corner and being quiet.

Robert

[kailhun]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Yes, there are times when an *ancient* cuture is found by a *modern* culture, such as Columbus bumping into America. However, the majority of human history has ideas and goods moving to and fro far beyond the control of Dictators such as Caeser, Pope, Warlord and President. In other words, there never will be a case of Spearmen vs ModArm, no matter how far you look for it. Even though for Somalia, the Mechanicals cost about the same as a Spearmen.

Salve

This is the problem with finding historical spearmen vs. tanks examples. They don't really happen. Contrary to civ III the AI in reality upgrades and upgrades are sold worldwide as soon as they are discovered (legally or illegaly).

Especially these days as the US is both one of the two biggest armsdealers and one of the most advanced armsdesigners (if not thé) there are.

Robert

[kailhun]

Re: One by one

Originally posted by GePap

4. Isandhdlwana: Best example so far. I can't say numbers of my head but the british force was nearly 1000, the Zulu force larger. The Brits had guns, the Zulus didn't (big tech difference), though the Zulus were definitely a trained army with complax tactics. I don't really know about the other two Zulu battles.

Zulu's about 20 000, I think. Although the British should have been able to take them out in about six (6!) minutes if the commanders hadn't ballsed up (It was on TV so it must be true . ). So in this case the low tech. army managed to defeat a high(er) tech army through numbers and mistakes by the loser.
The numbers and training of the Zulu, their complex tactics and their use of wardrugs was cancelled out by the British rifles. But tactical mistakes on the part of British command shifted the advantage squarely back to the Zulu.

Basically the firing line was too far forward, so the soldiers were not standing shoulder to shoulder but with a couple of meters between them. The Martini-Henry rifle was prone to jamming as it was fired more and more. This meant that if a couple a men stopped firing to unjam their rifles that section of the line was undefended. The Zulu broke through these parts and swung around attacking the British in the rear. In hand to hand combat the Zulu outclassed the British and the line fell to pieces.

Robert

[yin26]

Korn: As said above, the Chinese simply used a human wall strategy. Effective in its own way, but has limits, clearly.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Vietnam
American casualties : 55 000
Vietnamese casualties : more than 1 million
Both used automatics weapons.
USA forced to end the war because of international pressure and civil protestations.


Afghanistan
Russians casualties : between 10 and 30 000
Afghani casualties : more than 1 100 000
Both used automatics weapons.
USSR forced to end the war because of international pressure and cost.

Then the American Revolutionary War doesn't count either. The British didn't lose. They merely decided to make a strategic withdrawal.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by kailhun

The battle at little big horn was won by Indian numbers and American mistakes.

[b]Of course it was due to Custer's mistakes.[/u] That's the whole point!!

In any human endeavor, mistakes can and will be made. That is why war can be so uncertain, and why sometimes the little guy can still win. Ask the a military commander. Commitment is worth more than weapons.

BTW, at Isandhdlwana the British had Infantry.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Zachriel


[b]Of course it was due to Custer's mistakes.[/u] That's the whole point!!

In any human endeavor, mistakes can and will be made. That is why war can be so uncertain, and why sometimes the little guy can still win. Ask the a military commander. Commitment is worth more than weapons.

BTW, at Isandhdlwana the British had Infantry.

Riflemen, not infantry.

Then the American Revolutionary War doesn't count either. The British didn't lose. They merely decided to make a strategic withdrawal.

British DID lose quite a few battle, sieges, naval engagements, and did not killed 20 enemies for 1 casualty. Stop acting childishly.
Amazing how people can't differenciate politics and military battlefield. I did not think the difference was so small that nobody could understand the difference between having a destroyed army and protestations about policy.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by yin26
Advanced tech in Civ3 should almost alway win because the elements that could contribute to their being rendered almost useless do no exit in the game.

Exactly wrong, Yin26. Those factors do exits. That is what the randomizer does. You slide your cavalry unit over, attacking the primitive Native American unit. Due to circumstances beyond your control (primarily mistakes made by the commander on the battlefield), your Cavalry unit is destroyed. There is an investigation. The politicians in Washington blame Firaxis.

In any human endeavor, mistakes can and will be made. That is the purpose of the randomizer. The most common mistake, maybe the only mistake, is to underestimate your enemy -- hubris.