The Germans could have wiped out all of the airbases within range and it would not have facilitated Sealion - the British had a number of air groups (all of their training and refitting units, as well as others) based outside the range of German planes based in France (or at least escorted German planes). The British could fight on from those bases and as long as the Germans were based in France the British would still have the edge in response time and loiter time over southern England.
If the Germans had wiped out all of the radar stations on the other hand, things might have gotten a wee bit dicier.
But the point is, if Germany had not changed tactics, they would have won the Battle of Britain. The whys are as you described, but the outcome was also as described. The Brits did get a bit ‘lucky’ in that by the Luftwaffe changing targets, the RAF was able to regroup.
[QUOTE=LoganF]
What are the most striking examples of strategic or tactical genius when it comes to overcoming the odds and beating a “superior” foe?
Examples;
1. War is irrational, Germany lost two world wars and yet everybody adopted their general staff concept.
2. The supertechnological solider marches forward to wreak destruction on anyone he can entice within range. Meanwhile the despicable enemy has opened fire with an old-fashioned but extremely cheap and efficient sub-machine gun.
3. Practice war manouvers on a chess board.
Well, yes, the change of tactic is what saved Britain (although it is also rumoured that ‘Sea Lion’ was not really seriously contemplated at upper militairy HQ).
But it wasn’t just ‘luck’ it was a delibarate terror attack that caused that change.
I wasn’t thinking of Sealion specifically, just the period of time that the Battle of Britain took place over.
If southern England couldn’t have been defended as easily from the air it surely would have affected other operations like Overlord? Would the southern cities have had to evacuate their populations in greater numbers and their manufacturing capabilities?
GomiBoy I wouldn’t have said luck was a tactic or strategy, just something to have taken advantage of. How much of the 101st’s “luck” was down to the depleted resources the German’s had to carry out their Blitzkreig tactics. Would the RAF’s tactics have stood up to the German’s had their circumstances been different and the German’s continually pounded their airbases?
I take your point about the 101st, and agree that in that instance it was more than simply luck that allowed them to hold on. I also think victory in the larger war was inevitable at that stage (if not a forgone conclusion for the 101st at Bastogne) as the German war machine was simply gutted by that time and they couldn’t maintain an effective assault or defence and the allies would never have accepted anything other than unconditional surrender.
As to your other question, around the RAF standing up, I would say yes. This was not abstract for them - they were flying over their houses and fighting an invading enemy. I don’t think they would have backed down ever. I also think that if the Germans had continually pounded the southern British RAF bases with every bomber in their command, as well as destroying the radar sites, they would have won the BoB and would have commenced Operation Sealion, as then the RAF would have had much less advantage if they had to fly from bases in the North of England due to fuel restrictions.
I just think ‘luck’ is something a good plan takes into account and works towards. There is a saying that we had when I was in special forces training for the Air Force - you make your own luck. But I think the SAS had the best slogan - Who Dares, Wins.
You have to take chances in combat, especially if you are at a disadvantage. I think victory comes from not only doing that, but ensuring that your troops have the capability to capitalize on whatever ‘luck’ or ‘chance’ throws their way. And in that, is how a weaker force can defeat a stronger force.
The 20th Maine Volunteers’ stand on Little Round Top during the battle of Gettysburg always comes to mind. I could summarize it here, but I’ll instead link to Col Chamberlain’s after-action report. Keep in mind that he was a college professor who purchased his commission; he had read books on Napoleonic tactics but had no formal training in leadership or field commands. I believe this was his unit’s second or third battle; the units he fought against at Gettysburg were much more experienced.
His job was to hold the flank – his confident delegation of duties to Company B, and his ultimate bayonet charge helped him hold a tactical objective, which in turn won a battle, which in turn may have won the war for the North.
Some of his tactical “tricks” included
spreading a regiment at intervals to cover double the frontal area they normally would
bending this thread of a line into a salient, while taking fire, so that the follow-up attack on his flank would meet an entrenched line of musket-fire instead of an exposed flank
executing a bayonet charge just before his men ran out of ammunition, to shock and surprise the enemy with one last (desperate!) push
a silent advance in the dark which cost the life of a lieutenant, but resulted in the capture of an enemy General (!)
reinforcing his unit by arming and positioning former Union soldiers who were prisoners under guard awaiting court-martial (after the battle he recommended their sentences be commuted).
Also, it’s nice to read an after-action report where he continues to give credit to everyone he was leading, while downplaying his own role in the victory. Notice that while recovering the wounded he also recovered the enemy’s wounded men.
Um, I’d say that was precisely what it was. Tactical genius most certainly includes anticipating/reacting to the opponent’s tactics in the most effective manner.
Well, first of all, I don’t think the actual strategy or tactics used by the terrorists qualifies as superior. The astounding success of their feat was magnified multiple times by sheer luck - they didn’t know they would take out the WTC buildings, just like they knew they wouldn’t take out the Pentagon. I actually think that they would have preferred to NOT take out the WTC, as it would have provoked a less viscious response.
Regarding their strategy, it hasn’t been effective. Their strategy has basically been a string of bombings and inspiring political unrest growing in scale - starting with locals, targetted at US foreign interests, scaling up to the Cole and embassy bombings, and cumulating with the 9/11 attacks. None of this has really furthered their cause(s) (setting aside their causes possibly being getting a bunch of virgins in heaven).
Anyone can orchestrate a mass killing. The problem is, they usually lose at some point, given a superior enemy.
1). Romanus III Argyrus came to the Byzantine throne in 1028 when it was near the height of its military power in the wake of the reign of the great soldier-emperor Basil II Bulgaroctonus. An old man already ( over 60 ), he fancied himself a great general, when he was actually a rather inept one. In 1030, responding to raids against his incompetent governor in Antioch by the emir of Aleppo ( a petty ruler of Bedouin origin recently established in northern Syria ), he set out with a powerful imperial army to punish the transgressors and begin a campaign of conquest in the east. Comparatively speaking it was rather like if the U.S. invaded Venezuela or perhaps Guatemala.
The emir, Nasr I, well aware that in any real battle he’d get crushed like a grape, posted a force of calvary on a ridge and lured Romanus and his impressive army into a narrow defile. As the Byzantines fully entered the cramped quarters, a second small force of Bedouin suddenly appeared across the Byzantine rear and, not engaging, charged back and forth across the rear making a big commotion. This had the desired effect - the Byzantine troops, thinking they were trapped and about to be beset on two sides, panicked and routed en masse without ever engaging anyone at all.
It was [says the historian] a sight which surpassed all expectation or belief. Here was an army which had conquered the world, an army so equipped and deployed as to be invincible by any number of barabarians, but which was now unable to even look the enemy in the face. The very life-guards of the emperor wheeled about and galloped off without drawing reign. And the unfortunate monarch, who had hoped to shake the earth, as nearly as possible fell into the enemey’s hands.
Psellus, as quoted in Romilly Jenkins’ Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries, A.D. 610-1071 ( 1969, First Vintage Books ).
The humiliation and blow to his prestige was such that he never led another campaign again. Meanwhile the Mirdasid dynasty in Aleppo went on to survive for another half century ( long enough to see another, far more devastating victory of a outmatched army over the Byzantines - Manzikert in 1071 ).
I’d say it qualifies because the English defied conventional wisdom/tactics of the era. Outnumbered force tries something innovative and pulls out a victory. Seems to meet the OP’s requirements.
What actually triggered Churchhill’s raid was that a German bomber accidentally went off course and dropped one on London. Then Churchill went off on berline, and Hitler returned the favor. C’est la vie. I don’t recall if Churchill knew or cared that the bombing was accidental.
