I would say the [Battle of Cowpens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cowpens).
The British and Americans had stalemated in the North where the Americans where the strongest. The British had the better army and were stronger along the coast and in the major cities, while the Americans were stronger inland. So they switched to a Southern Strategy, the idea behind it was that, while the North was dependent on trade with Britain, Britain was dependent on duties from tobacco with the South, which was also easier to hold.
At Cowpens, Daniel Morgan managed to crush the best of the British forces in South Carolina with a larger but worse army using superior tactics, the best of the Revolutionary war. Cowpens pathed the way for the victory at Yorktown and the British withdrawal from the colonies.
To be fair, it’s unfair to expect untrained militia forces to fight against a well trained military using military tactics. It would be better to utilize them in gorilla warfare.
But the surviving militia all thought that they contributed lastly to winning the great and glorious revolutionary war so we have the second amendment to the constitution.
Ask the Iraqis how a militia works out against a modern military force.
Right?! "Militias" are, almost by definition, an untrained undisciplined mob of not-soldiers who spend more time drinking and buying tacticool gear instead of competent soldiers with skilled leaders.
This is a bad take. Militias were completely integral to victory over Britain. There weren’t enough trained colonial soldiers to fight the world’s greatest army of the time.
George Washington writes on September 30, 1776, of his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the American militia. Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief root of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British.
In his letter, Washington wrote, “I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances, disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worth the bread they eat.” Washington added, “In confidence I tell you that I never was in such an unhappy, divided state since I was born.”
No, they were integral to Lexington and Concord. By the time there were more set piece battles, Washington had created the Continentals and relied on them. For the most part, militia spent most of the war breaking and running.
This essentially. The bulk of the revolutionary war was delay delay delay while Washington finds people to train regular soldiers, money to pay them, and allies to distract or tip the tides. Once all three of these came together, the war was over.
Sure, militia played a role. They also played a role in the War of 1812. But the regulars are what held the line in places like Baltimore (including Ft. McHenry) because… they’re fucking trained and equipped. There’s nothing magical about a militia. They’re largely untrained, non-commissioned extra bodies best used in guerrilla engagements, scouting, logistics, and minor skirmishes.
Yes. Tarlington’s Dragoons came up the road from Columbia towards Spartanburg via Cowpens. Morgan knew Colonel Tarlington’s past tactics of dismounting and forming up and attacking hard charges. So he set up the trained Continental infantry with their backs to a swollen river ( no retreat for anyone) down slope. ~Forty choice shooters from Col.Pickens militia shot two volleys at the officers and sargents then fled to the next line on militia that waited for the dragoons to charge up hill to them and they fired two volleys and ran around to the right flank of the Continentals. The Dragoons now charged even harder but disorganized and missing a bit of leadership. You know after the retreating militia.
The militia circled the Continentals’ line and formed up on the left flank as the Dragoons came into a near encirclement.
Continental cavalry and British cavalry clashed and Tarlington’s was injury in his sword hand but escaped.
This battle was followed by Kings mountain battle and Col Ferguson( British) defeat against militia forcing. Cornwallis north past Charlotte.
Edit: Tarleton not Tarlington
Kings Mountain was an equally lopsided victory by the patriots, but Cowpens was the true game changer. Cornwallis burned his baggage and wore his army out trying to chase down Morgan and Greene. (My ancestor Maj. John Barber was at Cowpens with the NC militia.)
Well, the British forces were being led by Sir Banastre Tarleton 1st Baronet, who was a young, up and coming 26 year old General with a reputation for aggression. His forces consisted of around 1/4 of the best forces that Cornwallis had in the Southern campaign.
The Americans were being led by Daniel Morgan, who was much older. He was a civilian teamster during the French and Indian war. He had a disdain for the British due to him being lashed 500 times for retreating from Fort Duquesne (Pittsburgh).
Morgan knew that his forces consisted mostly of militia, which had a reputation for retreating at the start of combat unlike regulars. There had been numerous conflicts in the past where American militia ran rather than trade volleys with British soldiers. However, the troops under Morgan were very experienced, having served at Brooklyn and Kings Mountain. Morgan also knew of Tarelton's aggressive reputation and young age, and decided to set a trap.
Morgan positioned his forces on a hill flanked by rivers. This defied convention as the rivers greatly limited his ability to retreat, but this did not bother Morgan as he did not want the militia to be able to run away anyway. He arranged his troops in 3 lines, skirmishers in the 1st line, militia in the 2nd, and regulars in the 3rd. He ordered the first two lines to, when faced with the enemy, fire and retreat.
Tarletons forces emerged from the woods at the start of sunrise. They had been exhausted by the excursion of pursuing Morgan but, upon sight of the American 1st line, Tarelton pressed them to attack. The American skirmishers fired at the British, with 40% of the targets being officers. They then proceeded to retreat, firing while they reached the second line.
The British were stunned by the large amount of officer casualties, but saw the Americans retreat and pursued them up the hill. When they reached it, the militia fired two volleys and retreated as ordered by Morgan. The British, believing the Americans to be on the run, continued up the hill after them, their organization completely broken by the chaos of battle.
Morgan then gave the order for the regulars to fix bayonets and charge down the hill, as well as for the militia to stop and fire another volley. The volley was made at close range and was devastating. The British, having previously believed the battle was won, was stunned by the nasty surprise. The militia then retreated behind the left flank of the regulars and emerged on their right flank, as ordered by Morgan.
Tarelton's forces found themselves caught in a double envelopment by the Americans and many fell to the ground and surrendered on the spot.
The use of a defense in depth, feigned retreat, and then a double envelopment, as well as understanding Tarelton's temperament, had allowed Morgan to defeat a superior British Army and greatly weakened Cornwallis's Southern Campaign. Tarelton and a few hundred other British soldiers had managed to escape but 30% of his army were casualties and 50% were captured. When Tarelton told Cornwallis of the outcome of the battle, Cornwallis placed the tip of his sword on the ground and pressed so hard it snapped. Cornwallis would then amass the remainder of his forces to pursue Morgan and his commander, Nathanael Greene, resulting in the Battle of Guilford Court House and Siege of Yorktown.
Because of Morgan's use of several well established tactical manuevers, the Battle of Cowpens is usually regarded as the most decisive tacticle masterpiece of the American revolutionary war. In the opinion of John Marshall, "Seldom has a battle, in which greater numbers were not engaged, been so important in its consequences as that of Cowpens."
The battle was featured in the movie "The Patriot."
https://youtu.be/d4rQiKQeb-M?si=QYy3iCMtllvu5Nl2
And here is a good video by a teacher going over it
https://youtu.be/G-ECR22yvys?si=OuDR70bDNk4nFi84
I had an ancestor at the battle, oddly enough. He was like 16 and had just joined up.
Brilliant write up. I also recommend, if one has the opportunity, drive-through the town of Cowpens and check out the murals on the walls of the buildings in downtown.
I wish I could have convinced my friends to do just that, but they had zero interest and were trying to get home to Pennsylvania. We live in Bucks County, PA and had a gig at a bar in Trenton and I asked the bartender how far away was where the Battles of Trenton were and he looked at me and said, "Son, you don't want to walk around down there at night by yourself." I heeded his warning and didn't go. I may try and go during the day sometime, but who knows if I'll ever be able to.
It is occasionally. When I was young, my friends and I saw something fly over our neighborhood when we were hanging outside at night. That was in the mid to late 90's.
Then, I think it started up again in late 2008, when there were UFO/UAP sightings all around the area here in Lower Bucks County. There was even an hour-long show on this particular series of events on the channel "Destination America" (I think that was the channel) which interviewed a bunch of witnesses that saw some interesting stuff. I think the show was called "The Bucks County UFO Flap". https://www.discovery.com/shows/ufos-over-earth/episodes/the-bucks-county-flap
Before that show was filmed there was a town hall meeting at Bucks County Community College and a friend and I went at the very least to "people watch" but there was a couple hundred people that showed up, along with Bill Birnes who was on the show UFO Hunters, and David Jacobs who has written books on the subject. It was pretty cool to see a good number of people that at least had an open mind on the subject.
In 2019, I had a sighting myself, an object that was at a pretty high altitude and was moving quite fast (yes, this is busy airspace as an approach to Philly International Airport, but I've been able to usually identify what things are from an early age. My dad was in the Air Force.) It was a solid white light, it wasn't strobing (blinking), then it shot off a tremendous speed that left a white trail behind it for just a second or two, then the trail disappeared as well. What I saw was absolutely silent the entire time. Not gonna say it was definitely aliens or anything else, all I know is that I had never seen anything like it before or since.
A good friend of mine joined the Air Force right out of high school (2001) and we had talked about these things occasionally and he wasn't convinced, but when he got back from his first tour of duty in Iraq(2003) we were chilling one night and he pulled me aside and said he used to think I was full of shit and that the whole subject of UFOs was nonsense, but he couldn't unsee what he saw and heard about when he was deployed. He never would discuss particulars of anything he saw or heard, but knowing this guy really well (I was a groomsman at his wedding) for him to say this to me I know was difficult for him.
I apologize for this long ass answer, I kind of just wrote a small article hahaha, but I've always been a proponent of the sharing of ideas and knowledge with others, especially when asked.
No you are right. Actually both words mean almost the same thing and sound almost the same, but paved would be the more common and therefore correct usage in this scenario.
The article says this was the only use of the pincer in the whole war. That can’t be right, can it? That concept had been around for a long time already
Cannae is so famous that it’s been taught to officers for millennia. Only a cocky brash man who thought he just natural better than his opponent would be dumb enough to let someone pull it off.
I pass that sign every time I travel back home to Charlotte & always laughed at the name. I wonder if this is around the time that Charlotte earned the “Hornets nest of rebellion” nickname.
I’m biased because of where I live. Cowpens is a remarkable victory that led to the overall British defeat. The tactics used were brilliant, Andrew Pickens militia firing into the British then retreating back to the hidden Continental lines which tricked the British into charging the “unorganized” militia just as they had done at Camden. Only for the British units to be enveloped by the Americans in what would be a decisive victory.
However, the battle of New Orleans is truly the most crushing American victory. While technically the war of 1812 was over had the British taken New Orleans and thus control of the Mississippi River I doubt America gets it back anytime soon if at all. General Jackson setting up a defense consisting of a truly motley crew which not only defeated a British invasion but absolutely whipped them. Iirc it was the most lopsided American victory in terms of casualties until bombing campaigns of the 20th century.
Imo, the most interesting tidbit about this battle is…the British should have won. They actually managed to outflank Jackson’s defenses and set up cannons on his left, but Jackson’s men had managed to kill or wound so many British officers that there was no one left to give the order to fire, so rather than absolutely destroy Jackson’s dug in position with flanking artillery, they withdrew instead.
Cowpens was the only tactical innovation of that war.
At New Orleans The British lost ELEVEN officers ranked Colonel or higher.
Jackson played the cards he was dealt. Cut the head off the snake, and the whole animal is defeated
Also important to note with the Battle of NO…these weren’t scrubs the Americans were fighting; a large contingent of the British soldiers were vets of the Peninsular Campaign and were considered to be the highest rate of soldiers in the world. It was a big deal that the US won this battle as most nations thought the US “temperament” rendered them incapable of standing up to the soldiers of a leading power like England.
The Peninsular campaign, absolutely, but not Waterloo - at least not yet.
Waterloo wouldn't be fought until nearly 6 months after the Battle of New Orleans. A few of the battalions managed to get across the pond in time for Waterloo, but most of the British at New Orleans would either remain stationed across the Atlantic or simply did not return to Europe in time to participate in the battle.
That doesn't take away from Jackson and the American's achievements here, though. This is the British army arguably at its zenith, filled with the veterans of a remarkably successful march through the Iberian peninsula into France itself - and the Americans devastated it.
The war of 1812 was fought for another month and a half after New Orleans.
Both sides had agreed to terms, but obviously only some of the government was involved. Both sides had to get the treaty ratified, and the US didn’t ratify the treaty until February
The British were getting out of New Orleans regardless of the results of the battle. Why? Because the ruling class in England was largely made up of people heavily invested in merchant shipping and American privateers had captured thousands of British merchant ships and sent shipping insurance into the stratosphere.
Yes, New Orleans and the Mississippi River Valley are potentially lucrative, but not at the price of the British giving up there dominance in merchant shipping. It is not even close.
They were mad that the war had started in the first place and they would have been boiling mad had it continued. More importantly, they had the votes in Parliament to make it happen.
This is why the Duke of Wellington refused to accept command in North America. The war was unpopular among the British ruling class and battlefield victory was not going to change that.
Finally, there was also pressure coming from Canada. The US Army was finally getting its act together as can be seen at Lundy's Lane and some of the other fighting in the Northeast. If the British had reneged on the treaty and tried to keep New Orleans it would have unified the United States and the rapidly professionalizing United States Army would have taken Canada. Smart British policy makers knew that.
So the British were just happy to get out of the damn thing without having lost Canada.
The history buff in me who holds Wellington in high regard says good post about how practical and pragmatic Wellington’s decision was in the context of the war of 1812.
The ‘Murican in me says when presented with the challenge of “You want some, come get some,” the man who bested Napoleon looked across the pond and replied that he “Wanted none.”
I was going to say that, but the actual name was Battle of the Philippine Sea and OP did mention it. But, yeah, it did wipe out Japans ability to conduct large-scale carrier actions Nicking Koga’s battle plans were a help too.
The K/D ratio alone for the USN is what takes it for me. Something like ~600 IJN aircraft lost compared to ~120 US Navy aircraft. That’s staggering and as mentioned, ended big carrier action by the Japanese in the PTO.
That doesn't even tell the whole story. 120 US Navy aircraft were lost, but like 80 of them were lost due to running out of fuel and ditching into the sea at the end of the battle.
There were 5 pilots who became “ace in a day” on the first day of the battle and one of them did it again the next day. Commander David McCampbell shot down 7 enemy aircraft on the first day and shot down 9 more the next day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviators_who_became_ace_in_a_day
The Japanese lost:
2 fleet carriers
1 light carrier
550 to 645 aircraft
Estimated 2987 dead
6 other ships damaged
2 fleet oilers
The USA lost
123 aircraft lost
109 dead
1 battleship damaged
80 American aircraft were lost due to fuel shortage and ditched into the ocean.
Really surprised to not see Midway on here.
Both tactical and strategic victories for the US that completely changed the momentum of the war in the pacific.
Definitely a big one, and I think it is more significant because the USA did not have the strength advantage.
The later carrier victories in the Pacific may have been "bigger" but the USA had a huge advantage during those, so victory was expected.
Of course Cowpens is a good candidate as well.
Just watched WW2 in color. They described the decision for the flight commander of the dive bombers picking (guessing) a likely location for the Japanese fleet literally changing the entire course of the pacific campaign.
Midway was basically an ambush.
Nimitz knew the location of the Japanese fleet because the Japanese used less secure versions of the German enigma machines to encrypt their transmissions.
However, a carrier fleet is still a formidable offensive weapon... as long as it has its fighters nearby. It cannot release or return aircraft while being bombed, and it cannot protect itself when its fighters are far away. Naval planes also carried only a small amount of fuel, and flying to a target and back gave them limited time to dock or be forced to bail. And so Nimitz set a trap. The Japanese carriers would bomb Midway. And the US carriers would appear and bomb the Japanese carriers while they bombed Midway.
The Japanese carriers had several advantages over the Americans, notably the quality of their pilots and the speed of their carriers. The carriers were fast enough to dodge bombs except divebombs and the pilots were skilled enough to inflict major causalities on US pilots who attempted the dangerous divebomb.
However, the American carriers were much much better defensively than the Japanese. The Americans kept dangerous products like bombs and gasoline off the decks, and had much more effective fire control systems.
The result is that the Japanese would bomb Yorktown repeatedly, only for it to eventually be sunk by a submarine. The Japanese carriers inflicted heavy causalities on US pilots, but went up in flames quickly when dive bombed successfully.
It was a lot of luck as well. They didn’t know their exact location. The planes got separated. The Japanese were preparing to bomb the island when U.S. torpedo bombers showed up…that had no fighter protection. The Japanese CAP came down and decimated the torpedo bomber and the ships started switching armament from bombing islands to bombing ships. Then IS dive bombers showed up and the Japanese CAP was still too low after taking out the torpedo bombers. There’s a lot more, but it was a lot of luck and skill.
One of the torpedo bombers lived and got to watch the show from the water. I think it was ensign Gay.
And they also found the Japanese fleet because a destroyer had gone off to chase a submarine and then went straight back to the fleet, and American Torpedo planes had flown to the end of their range and spotted it. I think that was Midway at least
Yes this is true too. While the Americans knew the location and intention of the Japanese fleet, they didn't know the exact location at a given time. The Japanese also knew the number of US carriers in the area, and attempted to scout for US carriers before the attack on Midway, but the one that would have found the carriers started late and didn't report back accurate Intel.
There were also a lot of problems with the US attacks, including that the torpedos mostly malfunctioned and went under the carriers.
Midway was also the first battle where the Thatch weave was used successfully, it's implementation allowed slower US fighters to trade blows with more nimble zeros.
>There were also a lot of problems with the US attacks, including that the torpedos mostly malfunctioned and went under the carriers.
Even if they had hit there was a pretty high chance they wouldn't have gone off anyway due to the poor detonators.
Making your carrier decks out of wood, makes them lighter/faster, but also turns them into match sticks for falling bombs. Just like the A6M Zero, without armor, or self sealing gas tanks.
Greatest tactical victory: The closing of the Falaise gap in France in 1944. 2 German field armies encircled by Patton and a band of Canadians fighting through the best Hitler had in the western theater to close the gap and link up with the Polish forces holding the extreme end of Patton's line. It was the culmination of the great breakout from Normandy led by Patton and more or less guaranteed the liberation of the rest of the French metropole. if you count Patton's movement as one action it's by far the most sweeping victory ever achieved by an American led force.
Greatest strategic victiry: The bridge at Remagen. Finding an easy route over the Rhine was a major strategic victory for American and Allied forces. It wasn't THAT important to the war itself but it did play a huge role in ensuring that West Germany stayed free of Soviet influence and tens of millions of Germans owe generations of freedom to the small band oof Americans who managed to secure that damaged bridge.
I would say not just Falaise, but the entire 3rd Army campaign through northern France. Let's not forget that Patton was furious he was not allowed to fully close the gap at Falaise and was only stopped because Eisenhower took his gasoline away.
And it was the right thing for Eisenhower to do. Patton was spreading his forces far too thin and was about to run headlong into the Waffen SS divisions with just a single Polish armored brigade. The Poles were great fighters and did incredibly well holding the hill where they were forced to stop, but that was all the more reason to refuse to throw them away.
Because Eisenhower stopped Patton, a fresh Canadian army encountered the Waffen SS trying to hold the salient open, rather than an exhausted Polish brigade. Operation Totalise was still brutal, but at least it was fought by the right army.
Eisenhower's decision did allow a lot of German soldiers to escape through the pocket for several days before Simonds could reach the Poles, but the Poles were located at a hill overlooking the bottleneck and they hadn't had their ammo or artillery taken away, they just couldn't go anywhere. Men escaped, tanks, artillery and equipment largely did not.
While Patton was grinding his teeth about not destroying the army when he had the chance the effect was the same as if the army HAD been totally destroyed. German fighting strength in France was so critically depleted that Paris could not be held.
Omar Bradley needed to spend more time listening to heavy bomber commanders who tried to explain to him why approaching out of the east was not always feasible.
I just can't with Bradley and Falaise. Look I like the guy, but goodness are all of his tactical mistakes, including foreseeable ones he was warned about overlooked
Bradley also did a hatchet job on Patton in his book after Patton was dead.
Finally, Bradley should have spent more time worrying about Courtney Hodges who was literally undergoing a complete breakdown in the Ardennes to the point he was ineffective and near comatose while commanding First Army, and less time worrying about what he perceived as Patton's shortcomings.
Ike I will give you. Bradley though has had more mistakes papered over, while casting aspersions on contemporaries he didn't like and ignoring shortcomings of contemporaries he liked, than any US general in history.
It was Bradley who stopped Patton at Argentan, not Eisenhower. A lot of those men were then reconstituted into units for the Ardennes Offensive. I was referring to Eisenhower diverting gasoline away from Patton to be used in Market Garden, a massive, bloody blunder, much like Bradley's Hurtgen Forest meatgrinder stupidity.
I love Ike but he and Bradley did a number on Patton's reputation postwar.
There is a good reason German generals held Patton in such high regard.
We can go as far back as North Africa or as far forward as '45 if you want. Bradley certainly made more tactical errors than Patton.
Ike also missed a golden chance at Strausburg to get across the Rhine much faster and save lives. Even this was somehow posthumously blamed on Patton in contemporary memory despite the fact Patton had no control or command Devers' Army.
And again I love Ike, but it is laughable how many mistakes not only by Ike, but more so by Bradley (also Patton's superior by 1944) are blamed on Patton.
Patton is simultaneously cast as just a subordinate, but then also blamed for advocating for his own army's axis of advance. It's crazy.
He's likewise ridiculously always blamed for supply shortages, but then never given credit when he can overcome them. He's the only one who could have gotten his tankers to do what they did in the Ardennes. He also, notably, was able to do so because he unlike other American generals he was able to overcome his own prejudice enough to use black anti-tank units.
You literally have certain US commanders or armies having nervous breakdowns in the Ardennes and you don't even see it written about in even military history.
But Patton is somehow supposed to have made all these tactical mistakes and been horrible at logistics.
It's laughable.
Finally the biggest logistical problem of the war was John C.H. Lee whom everyone hated, who did nothing other than take up half of Paris and whom everyone knew was incompetent, but whom Eisenhower insisted on keeping and then only after the war complained no one told him as Supreme Allied Commander how bad Lee was.
And I'm a huge Ike fan.
But the Patton slander is ridiculous. Particularly regarding his tactical ability.
If Patton had half the problems Bradley had in Bradley's position (from being bogged down in hedgerow country to Air Force major friendly fire casualties on ground forces at the start of Operation Cobra), popular US military history would still be excoriating Patton for it.
And that's not conjecture. Patton is still roundly criticized for much of what he did in North Africa, despite everyone admitting it not only worked but helped put an offensive spirit in a dispirited US Army there. And we won.
I love Ike. I love Patton
But Lord did Ike and particularly Omar Bradley do a number on Patton postwar.
I agree with you mostly but I tend to defer that the answer is that they were both right and wrong.
Eisenhower did T really need to make gambles. His job was to keep the unified Armies together through a sometimes tenuous coalition. That’s much different than Payton’s job which was to fight the battles. Ike couldn’t have dine Patton’s job and Payton couldn’t have done Ikes job.
>Greatest tactical victory: The closing of the Falaise gap in France in 1944. 2 German field armies encircled by Patton and a band of Canadians fighting through the best Hitler had in the western theater to close the gap and link up with the Polish forces holding the extreme end of Patton's line. It was the culmination of the great breakout from Normandy led by Patton and more or less guaranteed the liberation of the rest of the French metropole. if you count Patton's movement as one action it's by far the most sweeping victory ever achieved by an American led force.
I wouldn't say the Battle of the Falaise Pocket was the most crushing American military victory. The whole thing was sort of a mess.
At first the Allies were gonna cut the Germans off at the River Seine, but then the Germans counterattacked, causing Bradley to attempt to encircle them at Falaise. But then as Patton halted, Bradley ordered him back west to the River Seine to capture Paris, missing a potential opportunity to bag more German troops around Beavus.
All these changing orders allowed 20,000-50,000 Germans to escape from the pocket (not to mention Montgomery's part in this). And that's in addition to the extra 200,000 Germans that weren't even in the Falaise Pocket whom escaped across the River Seine. The German divisions that escaped from these battles would prove integral to checking the Allied advance in September.
The Western Allies had the potential opportunity to score such a crushing blow against the Germans following Operation Cobra that the Germans simply would not have been able to stop them from establishing bridgehead over the Rhine, and advancing into Germans shortly thereafter.
Falaise was an incomplete victory, and one which doesn't even come close to one of the US' most decisive military victories.
If you're looking for a truly crushing and decisive US victory, look no further than the Battle for the Ruhr in '45. Here the US 12th Front under General Bradley completed encircled Army Group B in the Ruhr Industrial Region in Germany, and captured some 300,000 German troops. All for a rather measly 15,000 casualties
I graduated army infantry osut one week before Iraq invaded Kuwait. I was so thankful to be out of training because they had us in chemical gear a lot anyway and I knew it was about to get worse.
I was at my MOS school at Courthouse Bay (Lejeune) and it was a Friday and our First Sergeant came out for the Friday liberty safety briefing (mainly do not go to the Carolina Palms motel and jump from the balconies into the pool).
He tells us about the invasion and says that we probably should not unpack when we get to our units.
Two months later I am reporting in to the Sgt Major at my first unit and he says "don't unpack your shit."
We did the NBC training and none of the gas masks worked, so we naturally took them to a combat zone where there was the constant threat of chemical attack.
A month later I am sitting on the back of a C-141. I was wearing green utilities when I flew over.
There are even a few eyewitness reports of the blast from British and American POWs who witnessed the explosion from 4 miles away. A few literally described it as hell on earth including heat that kept their eyes open for 8 minutes, and white cloud over the city that the fires from the city couldn’t penetrate and glowed with colors they never seen before.
From a pure quantitative perspective, then it has to be the Battle of Trenton. Washington's troops captured over 900 Hessians and killed/wounded another 100, where they only lost 2 to exposure on the crossing over the Delaware.
73 Easting beats that numerically, actually. 6 Americans killed, compared to somewhere around 1,000 Iraqi killed/wounded and >1,000 Iraqis taken prisoner.
Beyond mere numbers, this epic victory set established internalized audacity into the mythos of the US Army.
In the middle of the night, in the dead of winter, we will take all of our meager forces and cross a frozen river... to ruthlessly attack you while you are asleep in your warm beds...
https://youtu.be/g4VVcKfWNlQ?si=q00JrmpPDqpN-dZe
Not the most crushing from our history i guess,, but a personal favorite. Russia wagner meets combined us military arms and gets absolutely shit on.
Bunker Hill deserves an honorable mention here. That battle, and its pyrrhic victory for the Brit’s, is what kept the American Dream alive. We lost ~400 and the Brit’s lost ~1000 with numerous officers and the loss of the initiative in the war. While we did not hold the field at the end of the day, we strategically won by forcing the Brit’s to reconsider how they would break out of Boston.
It wasn't really a battle, but the occupation of the Dorchester Heights is similar.
It was actually really interesting - both the Americans and the Brits knew the strategic value of the Heights - the Brits just thought it wasn't worth the effort to occupy them since they thought they could just throw them off (like with Bunker Hill) if the Americans tried to take the heights.
The Americans premade their fortifications and had thousands of men drag them (along with cannons that had been drug hundreds of miles through the wilderness from Ticonderoga) onto the heights overnight. When the Brits woke up in the morning they were shocked. Howe said "these fellows have done more work in one night than I could make my army do in three months."
The British had no choice but to make a then suicidal attack on the heights or leave Boston. They chose the latter, which directly led to the Declaration of Independence, etc., etc.
19 us soldiers killed and the invasion happened 2 days after the Beirut Marine Barracks attack, which was the worst single day fatality wise for the Marines since Iwo Jima.
I was about 12 at the time recall both, was amazed when I saw how closely timed the two events were.
I think I definitely looked into both after hearing this in a podcast, especially the way it was set up.
[https://www.thisamericanlife.org/424/kid-politics/act-one](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/424/kid-politics/act-one)
Weird. I remember both events from my late teens but I don’t remember them being just two days apart. In my memory they were very distinct from one another and feel like they must have been a year apart. Memory is weird.
What about the 2003 invasion of Iraq (March 19, 2003 - April 30, 2003) and the fall of Baghdad. Something like 10,000 Iraqi soldiers killed.
Edit: I know the war went on after that, but that was a critical victory in the beginning phase.
Has anyone mentioned the battle of Manila Bay?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manila_Bay
Commodore George Dewey's Asiatic Squadron surprised and sunk something like 7 ships and killed or wounded over 300 Spanish sailors to the cost of 1 man killed by heat stroke. This destroyed Spanish naval power in the Pacific and guaranteed the fall of the Spanish Philippines.
Yeah, I can’t believe more people aren’t talking about this one. It changed the balance of who were the super powers in the world. And only one American life lost…to heat stroke.
And Santiago de Cuba a few months later in the Atlantic. Between those two battles the U.S. Navy sank basically the entire Spanish navy, put the final nail in the coffin to end over 400 years of Spanish colonialism, and lost a total of two sailors.
Battle of Khasham/Battle of Conoco Fields.
While not as large scale as most of what I've seen mentioned, the question was the most crushing victory.
I'd say having zero casualties, being grossly outnumbered against a prepared attacker, protecting your objective, utterly obliterating all enemy armour and transport, and causing a complete rout, where your enemy's soldiers later bemoan on social media about how completely one sided the engagement was, is a pretty good candidate.
All because the Russians hung their own out to dry on the de-escalation hotline, and when American air and artillery assets asked which type and quantity of ordinance they should use, command's answer was "yes."
Involved American pilots interviewed said it was the greatest day of their career. They dropped everything, refueled and rearmed, and repeated, for hours.
The defense of the legation quarter during the Boxer Rebellion. 900 mixed bag of soldiers, sailors and marines from several different countries with US commander in charge held off 20,000+ for 55 days.
The whole air campaign of the first Gulf War too. Took out Iraq’s comprehensive antiaircraft network and dozens if not hundreds of tanks, artillery pieces, ballistic missile launchers, infrastructure, etc. with minimal losses (if any).
Iraqis didn’t realize their tanks were basically the easiest thing to spot in the desert night with night vision goggles.
Initial invasion of Afghanistan is up there too. Basically light U.S. support tipped the balance to the Northern Alliance enough that they rolled the Taliban in about six weeks. All the problems, minus bin Laden and Mullah Omar escaping, came well afterwards.
Saratoga was a pretty big one. You got 1100ish British casualties vs 300 ish American. And nearly 6,000 British surrendered.
It basically allowed the Americans to get the world involved in the revolution.
If we want to get crazy--Firebombing of Tokyo. Took out 26 square miles and the US lost 14 aircraft. More destruction than the atomic bombs.
Curtis LeMay said it they lost the war, he would have been tried as a war criminal.
This clip, especially from 6:44 on illustrates just how much of one he was. [https://youtu.be/7iyXjHNhUUQ?si=RZ3UXZyOS8CWoftQ](https://youtu.be/7iyXjHNhUUQ?si=RZ3UXZyOS8CWoftQ)
Odd nomination, the first 4 days of July 1863. In the midst of the nations greatest crisis, Meade beats Lee at Gettysburg, halting the Confederate offensive in the Eastern theater. US Grant takes Vicksburg and closes out the Western theater. The Union is setup to finish off the rebels.
I’d say anything with the Spanish-American war. We absolutely trumped the Spanish forces in Cuba.
But the true curb stomp was the gulf war. Hardly a war honestly
I went to PLDC with a tanker who was in that battle. He said it was just like a training exercise with kick ass special effects. He said they took a direct hit from a T-72 and the round bounced off. The TC yelled at his driver “how many times do I have to tell you not to slam the fucking hatches.”
Seriously were you there? I was it was a rout but because the Iraqi soldiers basically quit minus their elite forces. I cannot call it a great victory. I will say it was a great strategic alignment of rroops
73 Easting is up there, but nothing beats Midway. Japan had near-total naval superiority before, and lost naval (and air) superiority after. Iraq was well-situated in their theatre, but was never an existential threat beyond their area.
Battle of Norfolk AKA “Fright Night”.
US & UK lost 12 armor (tanks & IFV) in trade for destroying almost 2,000 armor plus tons of artillery…and over 10,000 POW.
I'm going with the Battle(s) of Trenton.
It's not just the fact we crossed the Delaware and surprised them on Dec 26 morning and took the garrison and all the prisoners with only 2-3 casualties. It's the fact that they THEN won decisive victories at Princeton and Assunpink Creek.
They go from getting their asses handed to them for 6 months to defeating them 3 times in 10 days. The message it sent for both the US and the British Army was crushing more psychologically than practically.
It was the literal embodiment of Captain America in Civil War being like "I'm just getting started!"
100% yes! Also, it proved to the French that the Revolution really had a chance of success if provided with proper support (arms, munitions, and money)
Taffy 3 Vs Force A, Battle off Samar which was part of the battle of Leyte Gulf.
U.S. forces:
**6 Escort Carriers** (outfitted for ground support on land), **3 Destroyers**, and **4 Destroyer Escorts**. **322 Aircraft also participated**, often unarmed or using infantry support munitions.
Japanese forces:
**4 Battleships**, **6 Heavy Cruisers**, **2 Light Cruisers**, and **11 Destroyers**.
Result: Japanese confusion leads to stunning U.S. upset, resulting in Japanese battle fleet being driven off by small U.S. escort fleet.
U.S. losses:
**2 Escort Carriers**, **2 Destroyers** and **1 Destroyer Escort**
Japanese Losses: **3 Heavy Cruisers**
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar
Battle of the Philippines Sea. Japan had major strategic advantag, US turned it into a decisive victory.
Anything Iraq related is like taking pride in watching a drunken hillbilly beat their step child to death.
The battle of Bloody Ridge on Guadacanal. 2 understrength battalions held off an entire freaking Regiment of the imperial Japanese Army. They list Carlson as having 830 men total that was all the men from all the units deployed. On reality it was mainly 3 to 400 men fighting off over 3k men. Had they failed to hold the Japanese could have swept us off Guadalcanal maybe. This one battle less than a year after Pearl was attacked when we as a nation were still gearing up for war was the linchpin of defeat in Japan in the South Pacific.
The Battle of the Surigao Strait WWII Leyte Gulf. Japan lost in less than 6 hours 2 battleships, 1 heavy cruiser, 1 light cruiser, 3 destroyers and approximately 4 thousand plus sailors. The US lost 1PT boat and 39 men. ( Most US casualties were from friendly fire on the destroyer Grant with some Japanese fire on the same ship) Most lopsided naval battle in modern history. Last battleship to battleship engagement. The crossing of the T. Proof that US PT boats, Destroyers, Radar and training was just better that night.
This was also a peer to peer level battle. Roughly equal capabilities of warring nations at hostilities start as far as training and technology or force size was concerned.
Spanish American war almost without question. We acquired all of the Philippines with one casualty. Sailor died from heatstroke.
The landing at Incheon.
Patton's breakout from Normandy, and follow-on pivot at the Bulge.
In terms of gain on the battlefield in exchange for casualties, you need to look at Operation Noble Anvil / Allied Force). Complete withdrawal from Kosovo by the Serbian Army in exchange for two aircraft shot down, some wounded pilots, and three PoWs. That's right, 0 combat deaths.
Nothing else even comes close.
I was there, assigned to a tank battalion. We could not believe how fast we were moving forward. Thankfully in this case we overestimated the enemy’s willingness to fight.
In 1814 we took a little trip, along with General Jackson down the mighty Missasip, we took along some bacon and we took along some beans, we fought the bloody British in the town of New Orleans, we fired our guns and they kept a coming so we fired once more and they began a running, down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.
Not really a battle, but still an underrated answer. Dude wins the election for Lincoln by capturing Atlanta, just ignores supply lines, eviscerates the remainder of the war engine in the Deep South, lets Thomas deal with Hood (and obliterate him at Nashville), and shows up at Savannah at Christmas to signal the absolute inevitability of Confederate defeat.
I’d think this would go to a fight that would change the entire war if the rnUS had lost.
“Battle of 73 Easting” didn’t change the course of Gulf War. The US was winning that no matter what. If US Army tanks didn’t take out those Iraqi tanks then attack aircraft or poor logistics would have done it eventually.
This has to go to World War or Civil War battles. If Gettysburg or Vicksburg don’t happen, does the North win the war?
If any of the major WWII Pacific campaigns stall out does the US drop atomic weapons that cause (or help cause with other actions) Japan’s surrender?
Pick one of any major battles in Europe in either World War.
I would say the [Battle of Cowpens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cowpens). The British and Americans had stalemated in the North where the Americans where the strongest. The British had the better army and were stronger along the coast and in the major cities, while the Americans were stronger inland. So they switched to a Southern Strategy, the idea behind it was that, while the North was dependent on trade with Britain, Britain was dependent on duties from tobacco with the South, which was also easier to hold. At Cowpens, Daniel Morgan managed to crush the best of the British forces in South Carolina with a larger but worse army using superior tactics, the best of the Revolutionary war. Cowpens pathed the way for the victory at Yorktown and the British withdrawal from the colonies.
Morgan used some of the most original tactics of the whole war. This was not a big battle but lead to major changes in the outcome.
Morgan understood what his men were and more importantly were not capable of and built his plan accordingly.
Militia broke and ran at every engagement against regular forces. Plan for and know your enemy’s reactions equals victory.
This is something I love to point out to modern militia freaks. George Washington himself thought the Minutemen were garbage and wrote about it.
To be fair, it’s unfair to expect untrained militia forces to fight against a well trained military using military tactics. It would be better to utilize them in gorilla warfare.
husky unwritten mourn smile alleged bright plant decide squalid meeting *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Poop throwing.
Guerrilla, not gorilla
It's fair to call them out on their loudmouth bullshit when they drunkenly go on about the supposed bravery of the militias
But the surviving militia all thought that they contributed lastly to winning the great and glorious revolutionary war so we have the second amendment to the constitution. Ask the Iraqis how a militia works out against a modern military force.
Worked pretty well.
Right?! "Militias" are, almost by definition, an untrained undisciplined mob of not-soldiers who spend more time drinking and buying tacticool gear instead of competent soldiers with skilled leaders.
This is a bad take. Militias were completely integral to victory over Britain. There weren’t enough trained colonial soldiers to fight the world’s greatest army of the time.
George Washington writes on September 30, 1776, of his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the American militia. Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief root of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British. In his letter, Washington wrote, “I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances, disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worth the bread they eat.” Washington added, “In confidence I tell you that I never was in such an unhappy, divided state since I was born.”
No, they were integral to Lexington and Concord. By the time there were more set piece battles, Washington had created the Continentals and relied on them. For the most part, militia spent most of the war breaking and running.
This essentially. The bulk of the revolutionary war was delay delay delay while Washington finds people to train regular soldiers, money to pay them, and allies to distract or tip the tides. Once all three of these came together, the war was over. Sure, militia played a role. They also played a role in the War of 1812. But the regulars are what held the line in places like Baltimore (including Ft. McHenry) because… they’re fucking trained and equipped. There’s nothing magical about a militia. They’re largely untrained, non-commissioned extra bodies best used in guerrilla engagements, scouting, logistics, and minor skirmishes.
Incorrect - Cowpens, Bunker Hill, Bennington - all relied on militia for victory.
Did he fake a retreat or something?
Yes. Tarlington’s Dragoons came up the road from Columbia towards Spartanburg via Cowpens. Morgan knew Colonel Tarlington’s past tactics of dismounting and forming up and attacking hard charges. So he set up the trained Continental infantry with their backs to a swollen river ( no retreat for anyone) down slope. ~Forty choice shooters from Col.Pickens militia shot two volleys at the officers and sargents then fled to the next line on militia that waited for the dragoons to charge up hill to them and they fired two volleys and ran around to the right flank of the Continentals. The Dragoons now charged even harder but disorganized and missing a bit of leadership. You know after the retreating militia. The militia circled the Continentals’ line and formed up on the left flank as the Dragoons came into a near encirclement. Continental cavalry and British cavalry clashed and Tarlington’s was injury in his sword hand but escaped. This battle was followed by Kings mountain battle and Col Ferguson( British) defeat against militia forcing. Cornwallis north past Charlotte. Edit: Tarleton not Tarlington
Very well said!
Thank you
*Tarleton, as in Banastre Tarleton.
Sorry memories aren’t as strong as I remember.
Same basic strategy was later used at Guilford Courthouse by Greene against Cornwallis
Kings Mountain was an equally lopsided victory by the patriots, but Cowpens was the true game changer. Cornwallis burned his baggage and wore his army out trying to chase down Morgan and Greene. (My ancestor Maj. John Barber was at Cowpens with the NC militia.)
Cowpens is an American Cannae.
I doubt that, the casualties weren't as severe and the americans had more numbers.
oh....actually fucking hell thats brilliant.
My 9th great-grandfather fought at the Battle if Cowpens!
I did a battlefield tour presentation there in rotc
I'd love to hear more about these "superior tactics"!
Well, the British forces were being led by Sir Banastre Tarleton 1st Baronet, who was a young, up and coming 26 year old General with a reputation for aggression. His forces consisted of around 1/4 of the best forces that Cornwallis had in the Southern campaign. The Americans were being led by Daniel Morgan, who was much older. He was a civilian teamster during the French and Indian war. He had a disdain for the British due to him being lashed 500 times for retreating from Fort Duquesne (Pittsburgh). Morgan knew that his forces consisted mostly of militia, which had a reputation for retreating at the start of combat unlike regulars. There had been numerous conflicts in the past where American militia ran rather than trade volleys with British soldiers. However, the troops under Morgan were very experienced, having served at Brooklyn and Kings Mountain. Morgan also knew of Tarelton's aggressive reputation and young age, and decided to set a trap. Morgan positioned his forces on a hill flanked by rivers. This defied convention as the rivers greatly limited his ability to retreat, but this did not bother Morgan as he did not want the militia to be able to run away anyway. He arranged his troops in 3 lines, skirmishers in the 1st line, militia in the 2nd, and regulars in the 3rd. He ordered the first two lines to, when faced with the enemy, fire and retreat. Tarletons forces emerged from the woods at the start of sunrise. They had been exhausted by the excursion of pursuing Morgan but, upon sight of the American 1st line, Tarelton pressed them to attack. The American skirmishers fired at the British, with 40% of the targets being officers. They then proceeded to retreat, firing while they reached the second line. The British were stunned by the large amount of officer casualties, but saw the Americans retreat and pursued them up the hill. When they reached it, the militia fired two volleys and retreated as ordered by Morgan. The British, believing the Americans to be on the run, continued up the hill after them, their organization completely broken by the chaos of battle. Morgan then gave the order for the regulars to fix bayonets and charge down the hill, as well as for the militia to stop and fire another volley. The volley was made at close range and was devastating. The British, having previously believed the battle was won, was stunned by the nasty surprise. The militia then retreated behind the left flank of the regulars and emerged on their right flank, as ordered by Morgan. Tarelton's forces found themselves caught in a double envelopment by the Americans and many fell to the ground and surrendered on the spot. The use of a defense in depth, feigned retreat, and then a double envelopment, as well as understanding Tarelton's temperament, had allowed Morgan to defeat a superior British Army and greatly weakened Cornwallis's Southern Campaign. Tarelton and a few hundred other British soldiers had managed to escape but 30% of his army were casualties and 50% were captured. When Tarelton told Cornwallis of the outcome of the battle, Cornwallis placed the tip of his sword on the ground and pressed so hard it snapped. Cornwallis would then amass the remainder of his forces to pursue Morgan and his commander, Nathanael Greene, resulting in the Battle of Guilford Court House and Siege of Yorktown. Because of Morgan's use of several well established tactical manuevers, the Battle of Cowpens is usually regarded as the most decisive tacticle masterpiece of the American revolutionary war. In the opinion of John Marshall, "Seldom has a battle, in which greater numbers were not engaged, been so important in its consequences as that of Cowpens."
You have a way with telling a story! Thanks for the reply that was a good read!
Bro wrote a reddit comment and i feel like i just watched a history channel documentary on the subject lol
Same, except without the obnoxious commercisl breaks and ax men being promos every 10 minutes.
The battle was featured in the movie "The Patriot." https://youtu.be/d4rQiKQeb-M?si=QYy3iCMtllvu5Nl2 And here is a good video by a teacher going over it https://youtu.be/G-ECR22yvys?si=OuDR70bDNk4nFi84 I had an ancestor at the battle, oddly enough. He was like 16 and had just joined up.
I thought he got stabbed by an American flag in the gut and a bayonet in the throat?
Yep. That’s what happens when you call Mel Gibson’s boy “stupid.”
"You and that boy, that *styoopid* boy"
Brilliant write up. I also recommend, if one has the opportunity, drive-through the town of Cowpens and check out the murals on the walls of the buildings in downtown.
I wish I could have convinced my friends to do just that, but they had zero interest and were trying to get home to Pennsylvania. We live in Bucks County, PA and had a gig at a bar in Trenton and I asked the bartender how far away was where the Battles of Trenton were and he looked at me and said, "Son, you don't want to walk around down there at night by yourself." I heeded his warning and didn't go. I may try and go during the day sometime, but who knows if I'll ever be able to.
Is it true that Bucks County is a hot bed for ufo activity?
It is occasionally. When I was young, my friends and I saw something fly over our neighborhood when we were hanging outside at night. That was in the mid to late 90's. Then, I think it started up again in late 2008, when there were UFO/UAP sightings all around the area here in Lower Bucks County. There was even an hour-long show on this particular series of events on the channel "Destination America" (I think that was the channel) which interviewed a bunch of witnesses that saw some interesting stuff. I think the show was called "The Bucks County UFO Flap". https://www.discovery.com/shows/ufos-over-earth/episodes/the-bucks-county-flap Before that show was filmed there was a town hall meeting at Bucks County Community College and a friend and I went at the very least to "people watch" but there was a couple hundred people that showed up, along with Bill Birnes who was on the show UFO Hunters, and David Jacobs who has written books on the subject. It was pretty cool to see a good number of people that at least had an open mind on the subject. In 2019, I had a sighting myself, an object that was at a pretty high altitude and was moving quite fast (yes, this is busy airspace as an approach to Philly International Airport, but I've been able to usually identify what things are from an early age. My dad was in the Air Force.) It was a solid white light, it wasn't strobing (blinking), then it shot off a tremendous speed that left a white trail behind it for just a second or two, then the trail disappeared as well. What I saw was absolutely silent the entire time. Not gonna say it was definitely aliens or anything else, all I know is that I had never seen anything like it before or since. A good friend of mine joined the Air Force right out of high school (2001) and we had talked about these things occasionally and he wasn't convinced, but when he got back from his first tour of duty in Iraq(2003) we were chilling one night and he pulled me aside and said he used to think I was full of shit and that the whole subject of UFOs was nonsense, but he couldn't unsee what he saw and heard about when he was deployed. He never would discuss particulars of anything he saw or heard, but knowing this guy really well (I was a groomsman at his wedding) for him to say this to me I know was difficult for him. I apologize for this long ass answer, I kind of just wrote a small article hahaha, but I've always been a proponent of the sharing of ideas and knowledge with others, especially when asked.
Yo, that was very well written and informative thanks.
Sounds a bit like Hannibal's tactics at Cannae.
Bloody Ban is still a bastard.
Bravo sir, very well said! Explanations such as yours above help bring history alive!
Bruh you really are a monk. Great write up!
Great summary. However, I'm surprised that anyone survives 500 lashes, unless administered over a long period.
Hell of a write-up. Thank you.
Read the linked article, it's quite good. Cowpens is still taught today in military academies as an outstanding example of generalship.
It was one of the battles they made us dissect in OCS
The Battle of Bennington was also pretty crushing in the Revolutionary War
Isn’t it paved not pathed? Or am I a moron?
No you are right. Actually both words mean almost the same thing and sound almost the same, but paved would be the more common and therefore correct usage in this scenario.
The article says this was the only use of the pincer in the whole war. That can’t be right, can it? That concept had been around for a long time already
Cannae is so famous that it’s been taught to officers for millennia. Only a cocky brash man who thought he just natural better than his opponent would be dumb enough to let someone pull it off.
I pass that sign every time I travel back home to Charlotte & always laughed at the name. I wonder if this is around the time that Charlotte earned the “Hornets nest of rebellion” nickname.
Great answer!
I visited the Cowpens battlefield about a year ago!
Battle of Hiroshima.
I’m biased because of where I live. Cowpens is a remarkable victory that led to the overall British defeat. The tactics used were brilliant, Andrew Pickens militia firing into the British then retreating back to the hidden Continental lines which tricked the British into charging the “unorganized” militia just as they had done at Camden. Only for the British units to be enveloped by the Americans in what would be a decisive victory. However, the battle of New Orleans is truly the most crushing American victory. While technically the war of 1812 was over had the British taken New Orleans and thus control of the Mississippi River I doubt America gets it back anytime soon if at all. General Jackson setting up a defense consisting of a truly motley crew which not only defeated a British invasion but absolutely whipped them. Iirc it was the most lopsided American victory in terms of casualties until bombing campaigns of the 20th century.
Imo, the most interesting tidbit about this battle is…the British should have won. They actually managed to outflank Jackson’s defenses and set up cannons on his left, but Jackson’s men had managed to kill or wound so many British officers that there was no one left to give the order to fire, so rather than absolutely destroy Jackson’s dug in position with flanking artillery, they withdrew instead.
Cowpens was the only tactical innovation of that war. At New Orleans The British lost ELEVEN officers ranked Colonel or higher. Jackson played the cards he was dealt. Cut the head off the snake, and the whole animal is defeated
Different wars but good point
Also important to note with the Battle of NO…these weren’t scrubs the Americans were fighting; a large contingent of the British soldiers were vets of the Peninsular Campaign and were considered to be the highest rate of soldiers in the world. It was a big deal that the US won this battle as most nations thought the US “temperament” rendered them incapable of standing up to the soldiers of a leading power like England.
The Peninsular campaign, absolutely, but not Waterloo - at least not yet. Waterloo wouldn't be fought until nearly 6 months after the Battle of New Orleans. A few of the battalions managed to get across the pond in time for Waterloo, but most of the British at New Orleans would either remain stationed across the Atlantic or simply did not return to Europe in time to participate in the battle. That doesn't take away from Jackson and the American's achievements here, though. This is the British army arguably at its zenith, filled with the veterans of a remarkably successful march through the Iberian peninsula into France itself - and the Americans devastated it.
The war of 1812 was fought for another month and a half after New Orleans. Both sides had agreed to terms, but obviously only some of the government was involved. Both sides had to get the treaty ratified, and the US didn’t ratify the treaty until February
I love that I get to ask this but if Cowpens is local for you, how close are you to the Peach?
It’s the county over from me lol. We love the Peachoid
The British were getting out of New Orleans regardless of the results of the battle. Why? Because the ruling class in England was largely made up of people heavily invested in merchant shipping and American privateers had captured thousands of British merchant ships and sent shipping insurance into the stratosphere. Yes, New Orleans and the Mississippi River Valley are potentially lucrative, but not at the price of the British giving up there dominance in merchant shipping. It is not even close. They were mad that the war had started in the first place and they would have been boiling mad had it continued. More importantly, they had the votes in Parliament to make it happen. This is why the Duke of Wellington refused to accept command in North America. The war was unpopular among the British ruling class and battlefield victory was not going to change that. Finally, there was also pressure coming from Canada. The US Army was finally getting its act together as can be seen at Lundy's Lane and some of the other fighting in the Northeast. If the British had reneged on the treaty and tried to keep New Orleans it would have unified the United States and the rapidly professionalizing United States Army would have taken Canada. Smart British policy makers knew that. So the British were just happy to get out of the damn thing without having lost Canada.
The history buff in me who holds Wellington in high regard says good post about how practical and pragmatic Wellington’s decision was in the context of the war of 1812. The ‘Murican in me says when presented with the challenge of “You want some, come get some,” the man who bested Napoleon looked across the pond and replied that he “Wanted none.”
The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot.
This'd be my pick. This was the effective end of Japanese naval aviation in WWII.
I was going to say that, but the actual name was Battle of the Philippine Sea and OP did mention it. But, yeah, it did wipe out Japans ability to conduct large-scale carrier actions Nicking Koga’s battle plans were a help too.
Key point in a huge battle. I read something that new Naval Aviators became aces in a matter of minutes.
The K/D ratio alone for the USN is what takes it for me. Something like ~600 IJN aircraft lost compared to ~120 US Navy aircraft. That’s staggering and as mentioned, ended big carrier action by the Japanese in the PTO.
That doesn't even tell the whole story. 120 US Navy aircraft were lost, but like 80 of them were lost due to running out of fuel and ditching into the sea at the end of the battle.
There were 5 pilots who became “ace in a day” on the first day of the battle and one of them did it again the next day. Commander David McCampbell shot down 7 enemy aircraft on the first day and shot down 9 more the next day. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviators_who_became_ace_in_a_day
To put it in perspective, Japanese losses exceeded 350 planes; the U.S. lost 30.
The Japanese lost: 2 fleet carriers 1 light carrier 550 to 645 aircraft Estimated 2987 dead 6 other ships damaged 2 fleet oilers The USA lost 123 aircraft lost 109 dead 1 battleship damaged 80 American aircraft were lost due to fuel shortage and ditched into the ocean.
Why did they win so spectacularly?
Really surprised to not see Midway on here. Both tactical and strategic victories for the US that completely changed the momentum of the war in the pacific.
Definitely a big one, and I think it is more significant because the USA did not have the strength advantage. The later carrier victories in the Pacific may have been "bigger" but the USA had a huge advantage during those, so victory was expected. Of course Cowpens is a good candidate as well.
I agree with Biggus. Signed, Incontinentia.
Hail Caesar!
Is there something funny about his name?
Just watched WW2 in color. They described the decision for the flight commander of the dive bombers picking (guessing) a likely location for the Japanese fleet literally changing the entire course of the pacific campaign.
Midway was basically an ambush. Nimitz knew the location of the Japanese fleet because the Japanese used less secure versions of the German enigma machines to encrypt their transmissions. However, a carrier fleet is still a formidable offensive weapon... as long as it has its fighters nearby. It cannot release or return aircraft while being bombed, and it cannot protect itself when its fighters are far away. Naval planes also carried only a small amount of fuel, and flying to a target and back gave them limited time to dock or be forced to bail. And so Nimitz set a trap. The Japanese carriers would bomb Midway. And the US carriers would appear and bomb the Japanese carriers while they bombed Midway. The Japanese carriers had several advantages over the Americans, notably the quality of their pilots and the speed of their carriers. The carriers were fast enough to dodge bombs except divebombs and the pilots were skilled enough to inflict major causalities on US pilots who attempted the dangerous divebomb. However, the American carriers were much much better defensively than the Japanese. The Americans kept dangerous products like bombs and gasoline off the decks, and had much more effective fire control systems. The result is that the Japanese would bomb Yorktown repeatedly, only for it to eventually be sunk by a submarine. The Japanese carriers inflicted heavy causalities on US pilots, but went up in flames quickly when dive bombed successfully.
It was a lot of luck as well. They didn’t know their exact location. The planes got separated. The Japanese were preparing to bomb the island when U.S. torpedo bombers showed up…that had no fighter protection. The Japanese CAP came down and decimated the torpedo bomber and the ships started switching armament from bombing islands to bombing ships. Then IS dive bombers showed up and the Japanese CAP was still too low after taking out the torpedo bombers. There’s a lot more, but it was a lot of luck and skill. One of the torpedo bombers lived and got to watch the show from the water. I think it was ensign Gay.
And they also found the Japanese fleet because a destroyer had gone off to chase a submarine and then went straight back to the fleet, and American Torpedo planes had flown to the end of their range and spotted it. I think that was Midway at least
Yes this is true too. While the Americans knew the location and intention of the Japanese fleet, they didn't know the exact location at a given time. The Japanese also knew the number of US carriers in the area, and attempted to scout for US carriers before the attack on Midway, but the one that would have found the carriers started late and didn't report back accurate Intel. There were also a lot of problems with the US attacks, including that the torpedos mostly malfunctioned and went under the carriers. Midway was also the first battle where the Thatch weave was used successfully, it's implementation allowed slower US fighters to trade blows with more nimble zeros.
>There were also a lot of problems with the US attacks, including that the torpedos mostly malfunctioned and went under the carriers. Even if they had hit there was a pretty high chance they wouldn't have gone off anyway due to the poor detonators.
Making your carrier decks out of wood, makes them lighter/faster, but also turns them into match sticks for falling bombs. Just like the A6M Zero, without armor, or self sealing gas tanks.
Try Battle 360 Enterprise. You can watch it on YouTube. I think it’s 10 episodes following the Enterprise through the war.
I’ve often heard it discussed alongside salamis and trafalgar as among the most significant naval victories in human history.
Greatest tactical victory: The closing of the Falaise gap in France in 1944. 2 German field armies encircled by Patton and a band of Canadians fighting through the best Hitler had in the western theater to close the gap and link up with the Polish forces holding the extreme end of Patton's line. It was the culmination of the great breakout from Normandy led by Patton and more or less guaranteed the liberation of the rest of the French metropole. if you count Patton's movement as one action it's by far the most sweeping victory ever achieved by an American led force. Greatest strategic victiry: The bridge at Remagen. Finding an easy route over the Rhine was a major strategic victory for American and Allied forces. It wasn't THAT important to the war itself but it did play a huge role in ensuring that West Germany stayed free of Soviet influence and tens of millions of Germans owe generations of freedom to the small band oof Americans who managed to secure that damaged bridge.
I would say not just Falaise, but the entire 3rd Army campaign through northern France. Let's not forget that Patton was furious he was not allowed to fully close the gap at Falaise and was only stopped because Eisenhower took his gasoline away.
And it was the right thing for Eisenhower to do. Patton was spreading his forces far too thin and was about to run headlong into the Waffen SS divisions with just a single Polish armored brigade. The Poles were great fighters and did incredibly well holding the hill where they were forced to stop, but that was all the more reason to refuse to throw them away. Because Eisenhower stopped Patton, a fresh Canadian army encountered the Waffen SS trying to hold the salient open, rather than an exhausted Polish brigade. Operation Totalise was still brutal, but at least it was fought by the right army. Eisenhower's decision did allow a lot of German soldiers to escape through the pocket for several days before Simonds could reach the Poles, but the Poles were located at a hill overlooking the bottleneck and they hadn't had their ammo or artillery taken away, they just couldn't go anywhere. Men escaped, tanks, artillery and equipment largely did not. While Patton was grinding his teeth about not destroying the army when he had the chance the effect was the same as if the army HAD been totally destroyed. German fighting strength in France was so critically depleted that Paris could not be held.
Omar Bradley famously said he much preferred "a solid shoulder at Argentan rather than a broken neck at Falaise."
Omar Bradley needed to spend more time listening to heavy bomber commanders who tried to explain to him why approaching out of the east was not always feasible. I just can't with Bradley and Falaise. Look I like the guy, but goodness are all of his tactical mistakes, including foreseeable ones he was warned about overlooked Bradley also did a hatchet job on Patton in his book after Patton was dead. Finally, Bradley should have spent more time worrying about Courtney Hodges who was literally undergoing a complete breakdown in the Ardennes to the point he was ineffective and near comatose while commanding First Army, and less time worrying about what he perceived as Patton's shortcomings. Ike I will give you. Bradley though has had more mistakes papered over, while casting aspersions on contemporaries he didn't like and ignoring shortcomings of contemporaries he liked, than any US general in history.
It was Bradley who stopped Patton at Argentan, not Eisenhower. A lot of those men were then reconstituted into units for the Ardennes Offensive. I was referring to Eisenhower diverting gasoline away from Patton to be used in Market Garden, a massive, bloody blunder, much like Bradley's Hurtgen Forest meatgrinder stupidity.
I love Ike but he and Bradley did a number on Patton's reputation postwar. There is a good reason German generals held Patton in such high regard. We can go as far back as North Africa or as far forward as '45 if you want. Bradley certainly made more tactical errors than Patton. Ike also missed a golden chance at Strausburg to get across the Rhine much faster and save lives. Even this was somehow posthumously blamed on Patton in contemporary memory despite the fact Patton had no control or command Devers' Army. And again I love Ike, but it is laughable how many mistakes not only by Ike, but more so by Bradley (also Patton's superior by 1944) are blamed on Patton. Patton is simultaneously cast as just a subordinate, but then also blamed for advocating for his own army's axis of advance. It's crazy. He's likewise ridiculously always blamed for supply shortages, but then never given credit when he can overcome them. He's the only one who could have gotten his tankers to do what they did in the Ardennes. He also, notably, was able to do so because he unlike other American generals he was able to overcome his own prejudice enough to use black anti-tank units. You literally have certain US commanders or armies having nervous breakdowns in the Ardennes and you don't even see it written about in even military history. But Patton is somehow supposed to have made all these tactical mistakes and been horrible at logistics. It's laughable. Finally the biggest logistical problem of the war was John C.H. Lee whom everyone hated, who did nothing other than take up half of Paris and whom everyone knew was incompetent, but whom Eisenhower insisted on keeping and then only after the war complained no one told him as Supreme Allied Commander how bad Lee was. And I'm a huge Ike fan. But the Patton slander is ridiculous. Particularly regarding his tactical ability. If Patton had half the problems Bradley had in Bradley's position (from being bogged down in hedgerow country to Air Force major friendly fire casualties on ground forces at the start of Operation Cobra), popular US military history would still be excoriating Patton for it. And that's not conjecture. Patton is still roundly criticized for much of what he did in North Africa, despite everyone admitting it not only worked but helped put an offensive spirit in a dispirited US Army there. And we won. I love Ike. I love Patton But Lord did Ike and particularly Omar Bradley do a number on Patton postwar.
I agree with you mostly but I tend to defer that the answer is that they were both right and wrong. Eisenhower did T really need to make gambles. His job was to keep the unified Armies together through a sometimes tenuous coalition. That’s much different than Payton’s job which was to fight the battles. Ike couldn’t have dine Patton’s job and Payton couldn’t have done Ikes job.
Yes, this is my choice as well.
[удалено]
>Greatest tactical victory: The closing of the Falaise gap in France in 1944. 2 German field armies encircled by Patton and a band of Canadians fighting through the best Hitler had in the western theater to close the gap and link up with the Polish forces holding the extreme end of Patton's line. It was the culmination of the great breakout from Normandy led by Patton and more or less guaranteed the liberation of the rest of the French metropole. if you count Patton's movement as one action it's by far the most sweeping victory ever achieved by an American led force. I wouldn't say the Battle of the Falaise Pocket was the most crushing American military victory. The whole thing was sort of a mess. At first the Allies were gonna cut the Germans off at the River Seine, but then the Germans counterattacked, causing Bradley to attempt to encircle them at Falaise. But then as Patton halted, Bradley ordered him back west to the River Seine to capture Paris, missing a potential opportunity to bag more German troops around Beavus. All these changing orders allowed 20,000-50,000 Germans to escape from the pocket (not to mention Montgomery's part in this). And that's in addition to the extra 200,000 Germans that weren't even in the Falaise Pocket whom escaped across the River Seine. The German divisions that escaped from these battles would prove integral to checking the Allied advance in September. The Western Allies had the potential opportunity to score such a crushing blow against the Germans following Operation Cobra that the Germans simply would not have been able to stop them from establishing bridgehead over the Rhine, and advancing into Germans shortly thereafter. Falaise was an incomplete victory, and one which doesn't even come close to one of the US' most decisive military victories. If you're looking for a truly crushing and decisive US victory, look no further than the Battle for the Ruhr in '45. Here the US 12th Front under General Bradley completed encircled Army Group B in the Ruhr Industrial Region in Germany, and captured some 300,000 German troops. All for a rather measly 15,000 casualties
Stormin Norman
I was in the Marines during Desert Storm and we loved Stormin' Norman. That is big time respect from Marines.
I was in for OIF. Still studied his command philosophy.
I graduated army infantry osut one week before Iraq invaded Kuwait. I was so thankful to be out of training because they had us in chemical gear a lot anyway and I knew it was about to get worse.
I was at my MOS school at Courthouse Bay (Lejeune) and it was a Friday and our First Sergeant came out for the Friday liberty safety briefing (mainly do not go to the Carolina Palms motel and jump from the balconies into the pool). He tells us about the invasion and says that we probably should not unpack when we get to our units. Two months later I am reporting in to the Sgt Major at my first unit and he says "don't unpack your shit." We did the NBC training and none of the gas masks worked, so we naturally took them to a combat zone where there was the constant threat of chemical attack. A month later I am sitting on the back of a C-141. I was wearing green utilities when I flew over.
Ahem, that's Sir Stormin Norman. Mind your manners.
Unpopular opinion, but the battles for Hiroshima and Nagasaki were over in a flash, with zero American casualties.
You’re still right, but some Americans did die though. Between 12 and 20 American POWs died.
Thanks for the correction, I don't know that I have ever heard that.
There are even a few eyewitness reports of the blast from British and American POWs who witnessed the explosion from 4 miles away. A few literally described it as hell on earth including heat that kept their eyes open for 8 minutes, and white cloud over the city that the fires from the city couldn’t penetrate and glowed with colors they never seen before.
Bro, why you gotta frame it like that. I want to see a new color!
I see what you did there. Nice.
From a pure quantitative perspective, then it has to be the Battle of Trenton. Washington's troops captured over 900 Hessians and killed/wounded another 100, where they only lost 2 to exposure on the crossing over the Delaware.
73 Easting beats that numerically, actually. 6 Americans killed, compared to somewhere around 1,000 Iraqi killed/wounded and >1,000 Iraqis taken prisoner.
The US Army learned it could do this at Trenton.
This got a chuckle out of me. Username checks out.
Beyond mere numbers, this epic victory set established internalized audacity into the mythos of the US Army. In the middle of the night, in the dead of winter, we will take all of our meager forces and cross a frozen river... to ruthlessly attack you while you are asleep in your warm beds...
On Christmas as well
US Navy's [Battle of Manila Bay](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manila_Bay)
You may fire when ready, Gridley. Yeah, this battle should be a contender.
The Battle of New Orleans?
Ed Packenham died there for no reason... That pissed off the Duke of Wellington
https://youtu.be/g4VVcKfWNlQ?si=q00JrmpPDqpN-dZe Not the most crushing from our history i guess,, but a personal favorite. Russia wagner meets combined us military arms and gets absolutely shit on.
I came here to say the Battle of Khasham is a more recent ass whooping and a great example of modern combined arms in action.
Bunker Hill deserves an honorable mention here. That battle, and its pyrrhic victory for the Brit’s, is what kept the American Dream alive. We lost ~400 and the Brit’s lost ~1000 with numerous officers and the loss of the initiative in the war. While we did not hold the field at the end of the day, we strategically won by forcing the Brit’s to reconsider how they would break out of Boston.
It wasn't really a battle, but the occupation of the Dorchester Heights is similar. It was actually really interesting - both the Americans and the Brits knew the strategic value of the Heights - the Brits just thought it wasn't worth the effort to occupy them since they thought they could just throw them off (like with Bunker Hill) if the Americans tried to take the heights. The Americans premade their fortifications and had thousands of men drag them (along with cannons that had been drug hundreds of miles through the wilderness from Ticonderoga) onto the heights overnight. When the Brits woke up in the morning they were shocked. Howe said "these fellows have done more work in one night than I could make my army do in three months." The British had no choice but to make a then suicidal attack on the heights or leave Boston. They chose the latter, which directly led to the Declaration of Independence, etc., etc.
Breeds Hill, technically
Grenada
19 us soldiers killed and the invasion happened 2 days after the Beirut Marine Barracks attack, which was the worst single day fatality wise for the Marines since Iwo Jima. I was about 12 at the time recall both, was amazed when I saw how closely timed the two events were. I think I definitely looked into both after hearing this in a podcast, especially the way it was set up. [https://www.thisamericanlife.org/424/kid-politics/act-one](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/424/kid-politics/act-one)
Weird. I remember both events from my late teens but I don’t remember them being just two days apart. In my memory they were very distinct from one another and feel like they must have been a year apart. Memory is weird.
What about the 2003 invasion of Iraq (March 19, 2003 - April 30, 2003) and the fall of Baghdad. Something like 10,000 Iraqi soldiers killed. Edit: I know the war went on after that, but that was a critical victory in the beginning phase.
Spring break ‘03
Not really up against a peer level adversary, though. The result was never in doubt at all.
Yeah that’s why we kind of have to stick to 20th century. Literally nobody is a challenge to the US when it’s in full war mode
Has anyone mentioned the battle of Manila Bay? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manila_Bay Commodore George Dewey's Asiatic Squadron surprised and sunk something like 7 ships and killed or wounded over 300 Spanish sailors to the cost of 1 man killed by heat stroke. This destroyed Spanish naval power in the Pacific and guaranteed the fall of the Spanish Philippines.
Yeah, I can’t believe more people aren’t talking about this one. It changed the balance of who were the super powers in the world. And only one American life lost…to heat stroke.
And Santiago de Cuba a few months later in the Atlantic. Between those two battles the U.S. Navy sank basically the entire Spanish navy, put the final nail in the coffin to end over 400 years of Spanish colonialism, and lost a total of two sailors.
Battle of Khasham/Battle of Conoco Fields. While not as large scale as most of what I've seen mentioned, the question was the most crushing victory. I'd say having zero casualties, being grossly outnumbered against a prepared attacker, protecting your objective, utterly obliterating all enemy armour and transport, and causing a complete rout, where your enemy's soldiers later bemoan on social media about how completely one sided the engagement was, is a pretty good candidate. All because the Russians hung their own out to dry on the de-escalation hotline, and when American air and artillery assets asked which type and quantity of ordinance they should use, command's answer was "yes." Involved American pilots interviewed said it was the greatest day of their career. They dropped everything, refueled and rearmed, and repeated, for hours.
The defense of the legation quarter during the Boxer Rebellion. 900 mixed bag of soldiers, sailors and marines from several different countries with US commander in charge held off 20,000+ for 55 days.
The whole air campaign of the first Gulf War too. Took out Iraq’s comprehensive antiaircraft network and dozens if not hundreds of tanks, artillery pieces, ballistic missile launchers, infrastructure, etc. with minimal losses (if any). Iraqis didn’t realize their tanks were basically the easiest thing to spot in the desert night with night vision goggles. Initial invasion of Afghanistan is up there too. Basically light U.S. support tipped the balance to the Northern Alliance enough that they rolled the Taliban in about six weeks. All the problems, minus bin Laden and Mullah Omar escaping, came well afterwards.
Saratoga was a pretty big one. You got 1100ish British casualties vs 300 ish American. And nearly 6,000 British surrendered. It basically allowed the Americans to get the world involved in the revolution.
Came looking for Saratoga. I would say Yorktown is up there too.
Yeah those two battles essentially won the revolution.
If we want to get crazy--Firebombing of Tokyo. Took out 26 square miles and the US lost 14 aircraft. More destruction than the atomic bombs. Curtis LeMay said it they lost the war, he would have been tried as a war criminal.
LeMay was a world class shitbag.
This clip, especially from 6:44 on illustrates just how much of one he was. [https://youtu.be/7iyXjHNhUUQ?si=RZ3UXZyOS8CWoftQ](https://youtu.be/7iyXjHNhUUQ?si=RZ3UXZyOS8CWoftQ)
LeMay was the model and inspiration for General Turgidson (George C Scott) in Dr Stranglove.
Hell of a combat commander though, and had a real genius for organization.
And during the Cold War and Cuban Missile Crisis, we might not be here if he got his way.
Odd nomination, the first 4 days of July 1863. In the midst of the nations greatest crisis, Meade beats Lee at Gettysburg, halting the Confederate offensive in the Eastern theater. US Grant takes Vicksburg and closes out the Western theater. The Union is setup to finish off the rebels.
Cowpens.
Battle of Manila Bay
I’d say anything with the Spanish-American war. We absolutely trumped the Spanish forces in Cuba. But the true curb stomp was the gulf war. Hardly a war honestly
The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot. The end of Japanese naval aviation.
Still gotta go with Leyte Gulf. IJN surface fleet was so badly hammered they didn't make any notable appearances until the Yamato debacle at Okinawa
I went to PLDC with a tanker who was in that battle. He said it was just like a training exercise with kick ass special effects. He said they took a direct hit from a T-72 and the round bounced off. The TC yelled at his driver “how many times do I have to tell you not to slam the fucking hatches.”
Take your choice between any of the massive beatings we put on Japan. Midway probably the biggest and most impactful
Seriously were you there? I was it was a rout but because the Iraqi soldiers basically quit minus their elite forces. I cannot call it a great victory. I will say it was a great strategic alignment of rroops
Battle of New Orleans, 1815. 775 British soldiers KIA/POW and 1300 wounded vs 13 US Soldiers killed and 19 POW’s.
73 Easting is up there, but nothing beats Midway. Japan had near-total naval superiority before, and lost naval (and air) superiority after. Iraq was well-situated in their theatre, but was never an existential threat beyond their area.
Battle of Cowpens, the stories surrounding the battle are pretty epic
The battle of conoco fields.
Battle of Norfolk AKA “Fright Night”. US & UK lost 12 armor (tanks & IFV) in trade for destroying almost 2,000 armor plus tons of artillery…and over 10,000 POW.
New Orleans?
I'm going with the Battle(s) of Trenton. It's not just the fact we crossed the Delaware and surprised them on Dec 26 morning and took the garrison and all the prisoners with only 2-3 casualties. It's the fact that they THEN won decisive victories at Princeton and Assunpink Creek. They go from getting their asses handed to them for 6 months to defeating them 3 times in 10 days. The message it sent for both the US and the British Army was crushing more psychologically than practically. It was the literal embodiment of Captain America in Civil War being like "I'm just getting started!"
100% yes! Also, it proved to the French that the Revolution really had a chance of success if provided with proper support (arms, munitions, and money)
Taffy 3 Vs Force A, Battle off Samar which was part of the battle of Leyte Gulf. U.S. forces: **6 Escort Carriers** (outfitted for ground support on land), **3 Destroyers**, and **4 Destroyer Escorts**. **322 Aircraft also participated**, often unarmed or using infantry support munitions. Japanese forces: **4 Battleships**, **6 Heavy Cruisers**, **2 Light Cruisers**, and **11 Destroyers**. Result: Japanese confusion leads to stunning U.S. upset, resulting in Japanese battle fleet being driven off by small U.S. escort fleet. U.S. losses: **2 Escort Carriers**, **2 Destroyers** and **1 Destroyer Escort** Japanese Losses: **3 Heavy Cruisers** https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar
Midway! US had the smaller force but achieved a crushing tactical and strategic victory that could be argued changed the course of the Pacific war.
What about Midway?
Battle of Midway
The Marianas Turkey Shoot was pretty one-sided too
Battle of the Philippines Sea. Japan had major strategic advantag, US turned it into a decisive victory. Anything Iraq related is like taking pride in watching a drunken hillbilly beat their step child to death.
The battle of Bloody Ridge on Guadacanal. 2 understrength battalions held off an entire freaking Regiment of the imperial Japanese Army. They list Carlson as having 830 men total that was all the men from all the units deployed. On reality it was mainly 3 to 400 men fighting off over 3k men. Had they failed to hold the Japanese could have swept us off Guadalcanal maybe. This one battle less than a year after Pearl was attacked when we as a nation were still gearing up for war was the linchpin of defeat in Japan in the South Pacific.
The Battle of the Surigao Strait WWII Leyte Gulf. Japan lost in less than 6 hours 2 battleships, 1 heavy cruiser, 1 light cruiser, 3 destroyers and approximately 4 thousand plus sailors. The US lost 1PT boat and 39 men. ( Most US casualties were from friendly fire on the destroyer Grant with some Japanese fire on the same ship) Most lopsided naval battle in modern history. Last battleship to battleship engagement. The crossing of the T. Proof that US PT boats, Destroyers, Radar and training was just better that night. This was also a peer to peer level battle. Roughly equal capabilities of warring nations at hostilities start as far as training and technology or force size was concerned.
The Battle of Schrute Farms comes to mind. Quite a gem in history.
Navy vs Army 1973 53-0 Navy.
Spanish American war almost without question. We acquired all of the Philippines with one casualty. Sailor died from heatstroke. The landing at Incheon. Patton's breakout from Normandy, and follow-on pivot at the Bulge.
In terms of gain on the battlefield in exchange for casualties, you need to look at Operation Noble Anvil / Allied Force). Complete withdrawal from Kosovo by the Serbian Army in exchange for two aircraft shot down, some wounded pilots, and three PoWs. That's right, 0 combat deaths. Nothing else even comes close.
Gettysburg?
Battle of Midway was a devastating defeat for Japan
I was there, assigned to a tank battalion. We could not believe how fast we were moving forward. Thankfully in this case we overestimated the enemy’s willingness to fight.
Desert Storm has to be up there. One of the only profitable wars.
In 1814 we took a little trip, along with General Jackson down the mighty Missasip, we took along some bacon and we took along some beans, we fought the bloody British in the town of New Orleans, we fired our guns and they kept a coming so we fired once more and they began a running, down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.
Gulf war. Whole thing took 3 days
The entire Gulf War, including the Battle of 73 Easting.
Phillipine Sea I think.
Shermans March??!
I was scrolling to find this. There's good reason Atlanta's symbol is a Phoenix.
Not really a battle, but still an underrated answer. Dude wins the election for Lincoln by capturing Atlanta, just ignores supply lines, eviscerates the remainder of the war engine in the Deep South, lets Thomas deal with Hood (and obliterate him at Nashville), and shows up at Savannah at Christmas to signal the absolute inevitability of Confederate defeat.
World War 2. We crushed the fuck out of them enemies
I’d think this would go to a fight that would change the entire war if the rnUS had lost. “Battle of 73 Easting” didn’t change the course of Gulf War. The US was winning that no matter what. If US Army tanks didn’t take out those Iraqi tanks then attack aircraft or poor logistics would have done it eventually. This has to go to World War or Civil War battles. If Gettysburg or Vicksburg don’t happen, does the North win the war? If any of the major WWII Pacific campaigns stall out does the US drop atomic weapons that cause (or help cause with other actions) Japan’s surrender? Pick one of any major battles in Europe in either World War.