Best Battle / best campaign

[Franconicus]

We have a thread looking for the most important battle. I am looking for the best battle and campaign. Excellent Generals work, new tactics or superior strategies. Even though the result might be meaningless. And please explain why you choose one.

Let me start: what about Sitting Bulls battle against General Custer?

[Brutus]

So you are looking for the best campaign or battle in history, right? Not in-game?

[Franconicus]

Right!

Did a put the thread at the wrong place? ~:confused:

[Brutus]

Well, possibly this should be at the Monastery. But it was the title that confused me, though. ~:)

You question is a though one, by the way. Many campaign and battles qualify as very good ones, but almost all of them had downsides too. Possibly these qualify?:

Campaigns:
-Alexander the Great in Persia: brilliantly conducted, but with limited long-term strategical results (assuming you fight a war to gain land or power and get peace afterwards).
-Hannibal in Italy: Brilliant tactical result, but very poor strategical ones.
-Julius Caesar in Gaul: Long-lasting results, though fought over quite long and very brutal, Gauls' population being decimated.
-The First Crusade: brilliant result, even though organisation was a shambles.
-The Mongol expansion: Largest empire ever created, but with an terrible toll to the countries they conquered.
-Gustav Adolph's invasion of Germany in the Thirty Years' War: Strategically and tactically very good, but the leader ending up dead in battle (Lutzen 1632).
-Napoleon's conquest of Europe: Well done but creating a counter-alliance too big to handle.
-Hitler's Blitzkrieg: done very fast and very decisive, but left unfinished at England (luckily, I might add)

I could continue much longer with campaign great and small, and get even more battles. So my first question would be: what makes a campaign/battle a great one?

[Franconicus]

I agree!

I think a 'best battle' should have these elements:

1. Superior enemy
2. new surprising tactical elements / new tactics due to new technical means

Same thngs should be applied at campaigns. Maybe we should add there:

3. perfect exploitation
(4. Preparation and 5. Diplomacy ?)

We should not care if the winner was mad, cruel inhumane or criminal. Also doesn't matter if the battle was a singular vitory and the war was lost in the end.

What about Napoleons campain in Italy. Think it fulfills all criterias.

[Lord Hornburg]

Do operations count?

Operation Overlord (D-Day) (Nazi commucation shambles)
Allies campaign in france (Nazi counter attack pathetic)

D Day is commonly thought of the allies walking up the beach. Anyone who has played MOH Allied Assault or Frontline will think different. Apalling conditions at Omaha.

[Franconicus]

Do operations count?

Operation Overlord (D-Day) (Nazi commucation shambles)
Allies campaign in france (Nazi counter attack pathetic)

D Day is commonly thought of the allies walking up the beach. Anyone who has played MOH Allied Assault or Frontline will think different. Apalling conditions at Omaha.

Thanks! Operations are alright! I think you can also say that D-daywas a battle and France a campain.

Why do you think that it is so great. I think it was outstanding from a logistic point of view. But the Germans were so increadably outnumbered (for example airpower) and made so stupid mistakes! And the operation was not perfect. Wasn't there a quarrel between Monty and Patton!

[Shambles]

The build up to d day was the best.
They fooled the nazis in to thinking the attack would be els where,
and even made an inflatable and cardboard army, so the nazis could see them amassing units,
when in fact they were mooving the real tanks and stuff closer to normandy,

I beleve they even threw a dead body over board with
"top seecret documents" That confirmed the attack would be els where,
Hopeing the nazis would find him,

So in all respects that was a tactical win,

But they still had to march up a beach being shot at from a well forty fied bunker,

if were talking tactics.

Then i beleve The Virtualy un armed zulu's did a good number on the welsh
Using a pinser moovment with a strong centrall atack,

They killed all the welsh "who Had guns,"
"This is mainly down to the way they stored bullets"
They stored bullets in a mettal canister That was tough to open,
So when they were under attack the welsh soon found them selfs without ammo,

but It was a Decent victory for the zulu's

[Lord Hornburg]

It was a mixture of german disorganisation and british air superioty. Man they had prepared for over 2 years!

[Franconicus]

The build up to d day was the best.
They fooled the nazis in to thinking the attack would be els where,
and even made an inflatable and cardboard army, so the nazis could see them amassing units,
when in fact they were mooving the real tanks and stuff closer to normandy,

I beleve they even threw a dead body over board with
"top seecret documents" That confirmed the attack would be els where,
Hopeing the nazis would find him,


I think it was not so difficult to carmouflage their goals. The Western allies had more than enough. They could easily build a phantom army, they could easily shoot down all German recon planes and they could easily bomb the 'wrong' targets to dust.

The thing with the dead body was before the landing on Sicily, I guess.

I think that the attack on France in May 1940 was a very good campaign.
Even though the French had prepared this war for 20 years and huge fortifications all along the border the Germans found a way to surprise them.
They also had knew tactical and technical elements:
airborne units, hollow charge to burst the bunkers, Stukas to support the advanced troops, panzers equiped with radio equipment, operating independantly.
However, in the end they almost spoiled it by not attacking Dunquerke in time.