That doesn’t sound like the Syrians did well though.
From the far east I will nominate the battle of Kawanakajima (Japan, 1561) and the battle of Wuzheng plains (China, 234). Neither were decisive, and both are arguably evenly matched and also the greatest battles in the history of their respective countries.
~Max
Yes, it’s a quote from one of the early Jack Ryan novels. It may have been from Captain Ramius in Red October?
If you are a student of Gettysburg, then you have to talk about Joshua Chamberlain’s defense of Little Round Top.
Napoleon’s victory at Austerlitz has to be worth something… 68,000 French vs. 90,000 Coalition troops, and Napoleon stomped the crap out of them.
Well-fought despite those errors. Halsey wanted to use his battleships instead of carriers to smash Kurita. That meant he had to make a dash and not just circle around Kinkaid’s force. It was a scientific choice. Do you think 12 fleet carriers have enough bombs and torpedoes in their planes to sink seven battleships? Well, everyone knows Halsey fell for it. But Kinkaid’s forces performed well. It was later found that Lee wanted to leave 4 battleships to guard Northern Samar as Halsey went north. Ah well.
Kurita executed his plan admirably Just before Northen Samar, as did the other Japanese admirals, albeit the loss of the Musashi, and a couple cruisers to enemy subs. But he had cold feet at northern Samar. Stumbling at the finish line it was. Any armchair tactician will tell you sinking enemy ships using carrier planes requires that you plan and coordinate as though you were God himself. But with battleships, you need to get lucky only once, and you’ve won. Kurita’a indecision at Northern Samar I deem worse than Halsey getting suckered.
Nishimura didn’t have much of a choice at Surigao Strait.
I nominate the Battle of Kursk. From what I’ve read, I’m not aware that either side committed any egregious mistakes.
Adaher: I suspect you will find very few battles where at least one of the sides didn’t make any major mistakes. Think of Hood vs. Thomas in the Civil War. Also, what the statue said to Don Juan in Don Juan in Hell: He knows of many battles won simply because the commanders were less idiotic than their opponents.
Wrenching Spanners: I would agree with your last paragraph. In his account of the Second Punic War, Livy relates that the Romans would form channels through which the elephants charged, then throw javelins into their sides.
The very German attack at Kursk itself was a big mistake. It was impaling itself upon many rings of prepared Soviet defenses.
I wouldn’t include theValley of Tears in this thread - while the Syrians fought bravely enough, they were not well-led. Now, if you want to see a well-fought battle from the Arab-Israeli wars, I’d go with the battle for Jerusalem in 1967. Not for nothing do Israelis consider the Jordanians to be the finest soldiers they ever fought. The Jordanian army had good defensive positions and fought tenaciously, and if Israel hadn’t used its air superiority to prevent them from reinforcing, the fight could have gone very differently.
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the battles of Heraclea and Asculum in 280 and 279 BCE, respectively. They were victories over the Romans by King Pyrrhus of Epirus, but were so closely fought that over 2000 years later, we still call a very costly win a “Pyrrhic victory.”
Regarding Midway and Leyte Gulf, both mentioned above, I commend to you Herman Wouk’s book War and Remembrance, the second volume (following The Winds of War) of his historical fiction set during WW II. He gives detailed accounts of both battles, with literally epic praise for Spruance and his conduct of Midway, and severe condemnation of Halsey at Leyte Gulf — so severe that he used the character of a German general to deliver it. I’m not sure how accurate they are, but I’ve yet to find more enthralling versions of either battle.
I remembered it from the movie version of The Hunt for Red October; it’s been ages since I read the book. It’s near the end when Ryan and some crew from the Dallas have gone on board the Red October and finally met Ramius. Ryan admits to him that he’s just an analyst who writes books for the CIA. Ramius admits that he’s read the book about Halsey, but doesn’t agree with Ryan’s take on the subject.
I thought it was an interesting Easter egg, in a sense. There’s no explanation of who Halsey was, or why Ramius would disparage him; but I suspect military history buffs were surprised to hear a reference like that in a big-budget, Hollywood movie.
That, and they attacked too late in the year. Basically both sides realized that the salient was the obvious place for the Germans to attack fairly early. The Russians started building up defenses in depth and placing extensive reserves nearby, and the Germans started preparing.
The OKW and most German generals were lukewarm if not cold on the idea of attacking there.
The German plan was early May, but due to various things, not least of which was Hitler’s meddling, they delayed until early July, giving the Russians a lot of time to shore up their defenses.
Tactically, there weren’t any big mistakes really, but the error was more on the strategic/operational level.
The Jets vs. The Sharks.
The Germans no longer had air superiority, and could not proceed with operation Sea Lion, the invasion of England. It was, indeed, “Their finest hour”.
Ramius asks Ryan “What books did you write?” and Ryan answers that he wrote a book on Admiral Halsey and combat tactics. So it’s indicated that Halsey was an Admiral.
Remembering the OP: then you also have to discuss the folly of the South attacking the Union center head-on in the climactic battle, or failing to press an advantage in numbers early on to keep Union forces from retaining the high ground.
Also code breaking , the Brits let the Russkies know a big attack was really coming.
Or Sickles moving his entire corps forward against orders and almost causing the collapse of the Union left flank, or Ewell’s botched assault, or cavalry actions on both sides. Really, there were enough screw-ups for half a dozen battles.
Random Q: Is this the battle that Tom Clancy writes about so vividly in the prologue to *The Sum of All Fears? * IMHO, still some of the best 4-6 page of writing Clancy has ever penned.
I haven’t delved deeply into military history, so this may be a naive question. Would any of the battles in the North African Campaign be considered well fought on both sides?
My impression has always been that the deciding factor was resupply. The British could and the Germans couldn’t (couldn’t quite meet what was required to keep their tank strength on par with the British). The Campaign always seemed to me to be back and forth, with learning curves early on on both sides.