Siege of Jadotville

concussion

"The Battle of Jadotville - Irish Soldiers in Combat in the Congo 1961" is available to download here http://source.southdublinlibraries.ie/bitstream/10599/4927/2/The%20battle%20of%20Jadotville.pdf


On the subject of the Fouga, it was hit by machinegun fire early in the battle and from that point conducted its attacks from a much higher altitude, considerably reducing it's accuracy. A perfect example of how all arms air defence can be effective without actually destroying the aircraft.

Utrinque Paratus

Perhaps someone could post a comparable battle in the history of modern warfare ?


............I bet they cant.


I dont belive it because the casualties dont reflect the claims of the battle.

Utrinque Paratus

concussion wrote: »

"The Battle of Jadotville - Irish Soldiers in Combat in the Congo 1961" is available to download here http://source.southdublinlibraries.ie/bitstream/10599/4927/2/The%20battle%20of%20Jadotville.pdf


On the subject of the Fouga, it was hit by machinegun fire early in the battle and from that point conducted its attacks from a much higher altitude, considerably reducing it's accuracy. A perfect example of how all arms air defence can be effective without actually destroying the aircraft.

It would have still had 2 x .50 calibre mounted machine guns. Which could outrange anything the Irish had.

concussion

That's an interesting claim to make, as both Vickers MG and HMG have comparable ranges. Plus I believe the Fouga was armed with two 7.xx mm MG's, not 0.5".

Wicklowrider

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

Because its BS.

The Irish were not prepared for an attack, it states they left their support weapons behind. Although they had dug trenches.


5 wounded after 6 days of heavy fighting from a 3-5000 strong enemy, led of ex Foreign Legion mercenaries who had FN assault rifles and belt fed machine guns.

Did every mortar miss ? Did the jets ordnance miss its target. Only five bullets from the enemy struck in 6 days of heavy fighting ?

How the f.... do you destroy enemy artillery without fwd observers telling you its position to zero in ?


"How do you expect a jet (flying at speed) to effectively engage an enemy thats properly dug in?"

.................:rolleyes: Its what ground attack aircraft do.
Fouga Magister
Armament

* 2x 7.5 mm or 7.62 mm machine guns, 200 rounds/gun
* Up to 140 kg (310 lb) of weapons on two underwing hardpoints, including 50 kg (110 lb) bombs, unguided rockets, and Nord Aviation SS.11 anti-tank missiles.


Its total bs.

Hence why the army never like to speak about it and the CO never went abroad again.



"I doubt the lads who fought care.BTW do you think the Gurkas and Swedes spoofed their reports?"

...They lost men and had alot more logistical support and there was 500 of them and could still not break through.


As I said the claim of a 6 day fierce battle does not tally with the evidence.

There were forward observers as well as patrols that left Irish lines but if you knew anything about preparing defensive positions you'd know weapons are zeroed in and aiming posts used so that accurate fire can be brought to bear - even at night.
You seem to rate the mercenaries very highly despite the fact that they were little better than an armed criminal gang- how come their commander was captured from their midst by a lightly armed fighting patrol?( interviews with him are recorded, he was treated well and speaks highly of the Irish...) Also I believe less than one quarter of the enemy were armed with modern rifles - don't forget the enemy numbers were greatly swelled by tribesmen.
The Fouga present was not armed with the ordinance you mention according to the books I've read but even if it had been it would need direct hit on a six foot long entrenchment to make a difference - how hard do you think that would be when they were well dug in and camoflaged? If you are travelling at 400 plus mph ( a guess) and relying on machine guns to hit entrenched targets how effective do you expect it to be?
Even after its been clearly explained to you that the approachs, into machine gun and mortar fire, was over open ground you don't want to believe that the irish held the advantage?

Wicklowrider

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

Perhaps someone could post a comparable battle in the history of modern warfare ?


............I bet they cant.


I dont belive it because the casualties dont reflect the claims of the battle.

Much as it pains me to glorify the SAS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mirbat

OS119

Poccington wrote: »

You mean the evidence that books have agreed with and used? That the DF commissioned a report on? That survivors spoke and still speak of? That Col Jonas Waern, who was Bde Commander in Katanga at the time, confirms?

Or the evidence that you personally, just don't think it happened?

not being ****ty, but if there was heavy fighting for 6 days, then it is simply inconceivable that there were only 5 slight casualties.

inconceivable. bollocks. horse-****.

Angels protected by the very countenance of God himself would suffer a higher casualty rate than that - anyone else would suffer that many casualties caused by 6 days of sleep deprivation and stress, let alone having their bed space being used as a two way range.

they may have been in pre-dug defensive positions, but you have to move food, water and ammunition around - especially during a six day battle, and especially during a six day battle in the middle of equitorial Africa.

i don't doubt that a well trained, well lead and well dug in force facing a not-that-well-organised or trained enemy means that you can fight off what appears to be ridiculous statistics, but you can't do it indefinately, and you can't do it without cost. i'm sorry, i have significant respect for Irish soldiers, i have worked with them on UN PK ops, and i know what Irish soldiers in the BA can acheive in the most frightening and intense battles, but i simply do not believe that the published casualty figures in anyway tally with the claimed circumstances of the battle. one of them is wrong.

BlaasForRafa

OS119 wrote: »

if they had the mighty Vickers .303 water-cooled machine gun (and thats what it sounds like), then you'd be surprised.

the SASC did a staged (ish) test with a Vickers gun in the 60's - they formed the worlds longest belt of .303 and fired one weapon continuously for seven days and seven nights. the barrels were changed every hour our so and this one weapon fired just short of five million rounds without a stoppage.

when the test was complete the weapon was taken apart and found to have sustained no damage.

allegations of Bn's going to Afghanistan rumaging though their Regimental Museums are entirely unsubstansiated...

That reminds me of story i read years ago about an action in WW1 where the british had to neutralise an area of ground

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_machine_gun

Perhaps the most incredible was the action by the 100th Company of the Machine Gun Corps at High Wood on 24 August 1916. This company had ten Vickers guns, and it was ordered to give sustained covering fire for 12 hours onto a selected area 2,000 yards away in order to prevent German troops forming up there for a counter-attack while a British attack was in progress. Two whole companies of infantrymen were allocated as carriers of ammunition, rations and water for the machine-gunners. Two men worked a belt-filling machine non-stop for 12 hours keeping up a supply of 250-round belts. One hundred new barrels were used up, and every drop of water in the neighbourhood, including the men’s drinking water and contents of the latrine buckets, went up in steam to keep the guns cool. And in that 12-hour period the ten guns fired a million rounds between them. One team fired 120,000 from one gun to win a five-franc prize offered to the highest-scoring gun. And at the end of that 12 hours, every gun was working perfectly and not one gun had broken down during the whole period. It was this absolute foolproof reliability which endeared the Vickers to every British soldier who ever fired one. It never broke down; it just kept on firing and came back for more. And that was why the Mark 1 Vickers gun was to remain the standard medium machine-gun from 1912 to 1968."

BlaasForRafa

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Much as it pains me to glorify the SAS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mirbat

Aye I posted the same battle until I saw that you already had and deleted the post.

concussion

They weren't shooting and chucking hand grenades 24 hours a day, but I think the fact they killed over 300, and wounded hundreds more, in their defence shows that a considerable amount of fighting took place.

Utrinque Paratus

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Much as it pains me to glorify the SAS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mirbat

A 7 hour battle, 12 SAS backed by about 20 milita, the rest deserted, in which they lost two men and many wounded against 250 enemy. They also had a fort as a defensive position.

Not 6 days, they would have been wiped out. They also had a 25 pounder, called in air support etc.

Utrinque Paratus

Wicklowrider wrote: »

There were forward observers as well as patrols that left Irish lines but if you knew anything about preparing defensive positions you'd know weapons are zeroed in and aiming posts used so that accurate fire can be brought to bear - even at night.
You seem to rate the mercenaries very highly despite the fact that they were little better than an armed criminal gang- how come their commander was captured from their midst by a lightly armed fighting patrol?( interviews with him are recorded, he was treated well and speaks highly of the Irish...) Also I believe less than one quarter of the enemy were armed with modern rifles - don't forget the enemy numbers were greatly swelled by tribesmen.
The Fouga present was not armed with the ordinance you mention according to the books I've read but even if it had been it would need direct hit on a six foot long entrenchment to make a difference - how hard do you think that would be when they were well dug in and camoflaged? If you are travelling at 400 plus mph ( a guess) and relying on machine guns to hit entrenched targets how effective do you expect it to be?
Even after its been clearly explained to you that the approachs, into machine gun and mortar fire, was over open ground you don't want to believe that the irish held the advantage?

quoteYou seem to rate the mercenaries very highly despite the fact that they were little better than an armed criminal gang

.................Many would have been WWII vets and ex French Foreign Legion. They would have had alot of combat experience. They also had FN assault rifles.



quoteThere were forward observers as well as patrols that left Irish lines but if you knew anything about preparing defensive positions you'd know weapons are zeroed in and aiming posts used so that accurate fire can be brought to bear - even at night.


....................Yet the fwd patrols never warned of the surprise attack ? Nor spotted their build up.

..................."The initial attack by the Katangese occurred while many of the Irish troops were attending Mass. Expecting that the men would be unarmed during Mass, the first attackers moved in rapidly. They were spotted and a warning shot by Sgt Billy Ready alerted the entire company to the threat"

........You need to know the enemies position to bring artillery and mortars to bear, there is no evidence such information was supplied by fwd observers or that the enemy mortars and fieldguns were in view.

The Fouga present was not armed with the ordinance you mention according to the books I've read but even if it had been it would need direct hit on a six foot long entrenchment to make a difference - how hard do you think that would be when they were well dug in and camoflaged.


............The Fouga carried a paylaod of 300lbs of ordnance. I dont know if this one was armed.


quoteIf you are travelling at 400 plus mph ( a guess) and relying on machine guns to hit entrenched targets how effective do you expect it to be?

..........A jet drive bombing with its machine guns would cause significant damage. It can come in alot slower then that.



you don't want to believe that the irish held the advantage?[/QUOTE]

..................Lol, How did a force mainly armed with bolt action rifles and a few WW1 machine guns and cut off hold the advantage against a force of 3-5000 and much better equipped ?


This is getting even more ridiculous.

concussion

So...what happened? Did they just surrender at the start and fake six days of radio traffic (the transcripts of which are publically available) in order to cover their cowardice? Did they and their captors fake a battle when the UN heli crewed by Norweigan and Swedish officers attempted to land supplies?

Edit - one of their patrols also captured a European mercenary during the fighting, who informed them that many of the mercenaries had previous experience in WW2 and Indochina.


Here's a pretty good article from the Tuam Herald

http://www.tuamherald.ie/?p=2727

Raging_Ninja

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

....................Yet the fwd patrols never warned of the surprise attack ? Nor spotted their build up.

I don't think you know what 'forward observer' means. They direct artillery fire from the front lines. And a 'surprise' attack mean exactly that - it was a surprise. And yet it is still possible for them to fail.

........You need to know the enemies position to bring artillery and mortars to bear, there is no evidence such information was supplied by fwd observers or that the enemy mortars and fieldguns were in view.

They were observed firing. Obviously the enemy didn't do the smart thing and didn't move their guns around, which allowed accurate sustained counter-battery fire to take place and knock out the heavy weapons.

The Fouga present was not armed with the ordinance you mention according to the books I've read but even if it had been it would need direct hit on a six foot long entrenchment to make a difference - how hard do you think that would be when they were well dug in and camoflaged.

............The Fouga carried a paylaod of 300lbs of ordnance. I dont know if this one was armed.

Exactly, you don't know. Just because it can carry the payload, doesn't mean that particular plane was doing so.

If you are travelling at 400 plus mph ( a guess) and relying on machine guns to hit entrenched targets how effective do you expect it to be?

..........A jet drive bombing with its machine guns would cause significant damage. It can come in alot slower then that.

You don't remember Kosovo at all do you. NATO forces bombarded Serbian positions for weeks with high-precision 'smart' bombs, yet it subsequently was discovered that due to excellent camouflage, use of decoys and being heavily dug-in, the Serbs lost only 30 vehicles. In order for ground attack aircraft t be effective, they need to do so from a low-altitude. This aircraft was not able to stay low, but attacked from a high altitude.

Also, a well dug-in position can be extremely hard to take out. An artillery round would have to land in the immediate vicinity of the hole in order to take out the men inside.

..................Lol, How did a force mainly armed with bolt action rifles and a few WW1 machine guns and cut off hold the advantage against a force of 3-5000 and much better equipped ?

Superior training and leadership can make up for many deficits and can more than offset the advantage given by better technology and equipment, especially if the enemy does not know how to use it correctly.

Utrinque Paratus

concussion wrote: »

So...what happened? Did they just surrender at the start and fake six days of radio traffic (the transcripts of which are publically available) in order to cover their cowardice? Did they and their captors fake a battle when the UN heli crewed by Norweigan and Swedish officers attempted to land supplies?

Edit - one of their patrols also captured a European mercenary during the fighting, who informed them that many of the mercenaries had previous experience in WW2 and Indochina.


Here's a pretty good article from the Tuam Herald

http://www.tuamherald.ie/?p=2727

I think obviously there were exchanges, the rest must be an exageration as only 5 were wounded in 6 days of alleged very heavy fighting.

I think the number killed on the enemy side are also vastly exagerated.

I think the Irish surrender came about because they ran out of supplies, hence the "dont mention it" attitude over the yrs from the army.


"In several books on the Jadotville siege written and published in recent years, it’s estimated that the Irish had, for the most part, only light personal weapons as they held off, day after day, a force of between 3,000 and 5,000 attackers, mostly tribal bands of Baluba warriors but also many regular French, Belgian, Rhodesian and South African mercenaries — and one of Ireland’s best known mercenary soldiers, Col. Thomas Michael “Mad Mike” Hoare — armed with a mix of light and heavy armament, supported by a Fouga Magister jet. The Katangan forces’ 300 dead reportedly included 30 white mercenaries, and an indeterminate number wounded, with figures ranging from 300 up to 1,000."

..............Mike Hoare was ex SAS.

ChunkyLover_53

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

..............Mike Hoare was ex SAS.

Is that the same SAS that planned and carried out the Bravo Two Zero patrol?

Everyone has a bad day be it Baluba Tribesmen backed by mercenaries or SAS troopers in the Gulf.

With over 150 witnesses (A lot of them still proping up bar stools in the West of Ireland) the best part of 300 casualties and a couple of shed loads of ordnance expended in the Katanga province. The evidence tends to back up the story.

It would be the greatest hoodwink in Military History if none of it took place.

An outstanding example of textbook company in defence. Of which I'm sure many a lesson could be learned.
I'd be inclined to give credit were credit is due. Especially to survive as POWs for a few months after.

For a comparitable battle in recent times, didn't a British unit defend a CIMIC house in Iraq with minimal casualties?

A small determined force getting the better of an overwhelming aggressor, that story has repeated itself since David took a Gat to Goliaths forhead.

RIP to those who lost there lives & the Veterans gone to there grave without their day in the sun.

concussion

CIMIC House in Al-Amarah. Details contained in two books, "Sniper One" and "Dusty Warriors". I believe they held out a small compound in the centre of town for over 3 weeks, repelling well over 50 ground assaults supported by hundreds of mortars and rockets. Sure, they had some fire support from Warriors, Challengers and aircraft but most of the figting was up close and personal. I think they had less than 10 injuries and one non-battle fatality.

ChunkyLover_53

concussion wrote: »

CIMIC House in Al-Amarah. Details contained in two books, "Sniper One" and "Dusty Warriors". I believe they held out a small compound in the centre of town for over 3 weeks, repelling well over 50 ground assaults supported by hundreds of mortars and rockets. Sure, they had some fire support from Warriors, Challengers and aircraft but most of the figting was up close and personal. I think they had less than 10 injuries and one non-battle fatality.

Thats the one.

A young lad died when a traffic barrier pole fell on him.

Utrinque Paratus

concussion wrote: »

CIMIC House in Al-Amarah. Details contained in two books, "Sniper One" and "Dusty Warriors". I believe they held out a small compound in the centre of town for over 3 weeks, repelling well over 50 ground assaults supported by hundreds of mortars and rockets. Sure, they had some fire support from Warriors, Challengers and aircraft but most of the figting was up close and personal. I think they had less than 10 injuries and one non-battle fatality.

They were in a fortified reinforced compound and called in air strikes, they also had snipers on the roof.

Utrinque Paratus

ChunkyLover_53 wrote: »

Is that the same SAS that planned and carried out the Bravo Two Zero patrol?

Everyone has a bad day be it Baluba Tribesmen backed by mercenaries or SAS troopers in the Gulf.

With over 150 witnesses (A lot of them still proping up bar stools in the West of Ireland) the best part of 300 casualties and a couple of shed loads of ordnance expended in the Katanga province. The evidence tends to back up the story.

It would be the greatest hoodwink in Military History if none of it took place.

An outstanding example of textbook company in defence. Of which I'm sure many a lesson could be learned.
I'd be inclined to give credit were credit is due. Especially to survive as POWs for a few months after.

For a comparitable battle in recent times, didn't a British unit defend a CIMIC house in Iraq with minimal casualties?

A small determined force getting the better of an overwhelming aggressor, that story has repeated itself since David took a Gat to Goliaths forhead.

RIP to those who lost there lives & the Veterans gone to there grave without their day in the sun.

quote......For a comparitable battle in recent times, didn't a British unit defend a CIMIC house in Iraq with minimal casualties?

Hardly a comparitable battle. The Irish only had trenches as a defence and bolt action rifles and ww1 machine guns, not a refinforced compound with armour and air support.


quoteThe evidence tends to back up the story.

........The hard evidence of only 5 lightly wounded makes it look incredibly far fetched.

Merch

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

I think obviously there were exchanges, the rest must be an exageration as only 5 were wounded in 6 days of alleged very heavy fighting.

I think the number killed on the enemy side are also vastly exagerated.

I think the Irish surrender came about because they ran out of supplies, hence the "dont mention it" attitude over the yrs from the army.


"In several books on the Jadotville siege written and published in recent years, it’s estimated that the Irish had, for the most part, only light personal weapons as they held off, day after day, a force of between 3,000 and 5,000 attackers, mostly tribal bands of Baluba warriors but also many regular French, Belgian, Rhodesian and South African mercenaries — and one of Ireland’s best known mercenary soldiers, Col. Thomas Michael “Mad Mike” Hoare — armed with a mix of light and heavy armament, supported by a Fouga Magister jet. The Katangan forces’ 300 dead reportedly included 30 white mercenaries, and an indeterminate number wounded, with figures ranging from 300 up to 1,000."

..............Mike Hoare was ex SAS.

Support by a fouga jet really amounts to not very much support, unless at best they were armed with rockets, Fouga is a trainer (not designed as ground attack, its an ability, but not a very good one) and you can see bugger all out of one travelling at speed.
Its hard to see objects on the ground at low enough altitude, traveling at speed and with the potential someone might be shooting back.

ChunkyLover_53

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

For a comparitable battle in recent times, didn't a British unit defend a CIMIC house in Iraq with minimal casualties?

Hardly a comparitable battle. The Irish only had trenches as a defence, not a refinforced compound with armour and air support.


quoteThe evidence tends to back up the story.

The evidence makes it look incredibly far fetched.

You're right. The Paddies pulled it off without all those fancy gadgets. Fair play to them.

History can only be seen from the perspective of those who were there.

In hindsight the Battle of Agincourt, The Rout of the BEF at Dunkirk by a German Army supposedly starved of a war machine through economic sanctions, the plight of the 300 Spartans and of course the Battle of Britain all seem like total bollox...but some heroic actions went down on those days.

All achieved by proper use of troops,tactics and terrain in my opinion. No different to what happened in Jadotville.

xflyer

Suggest one of you doubters get your hands on one of the books and judge for yourselves.

What ever way you look at it, a small force of Irish held up a larger force for days, only surrendering when their position became untenable.

You don't have to be a military expert to know that a well dug in and defended position is difficult to overcome. Quinlan is acknowledged to have prepared his positions carefully.

Now arguably the attackers were less than committed, the Katangese in particular. The mercenaries as ever with mercenaries are not in the job to die. You have to think they underestimated the Irish and in the initial assault suffered considerable casualties which would have affected their morale and resolution.

One further factor not mentioned much here was the politics of the situation. The situation was an embarrassment to the UN, particularly after the surrender when the Irish were used as hostages for a time. The whole thing being a propaganda coup for rebels. This coloured the whole issue for the Irish army who were very inexperienced in peace keeping and international affairs.

Read one or other of the books and then come back with your suppositions about what happened. Wikipedia is not a good alternative.

Utrinque Paratus

ChunkyLover_53 wrote: »

You're right. The Paddies pulled it off without all those fancy gadgets. Fair play to them.

History can only be seen from the perspective of those who were there.

In hindsight the Battle of Agincourt, The Rout of the BEF at Dunkirk by a German Army supposedly starved of a war machine through economic sanctions, the plight of the 300 Spartans and of course the Battle of Britain all seem like total bollox...but some heroic actions went down on those days.

All achieved by proper use of troops,tactics and terrain in my opinion. No different to what happened in Jadotville.

So in the 6 days of heavy fighting inc attacks by mortars, artillery possibly a ground attack aircraft, from a force which outnumbered them 40-1 and caught them by surprise while they were at church, had modern assault rifles v bolt action and had mercanaries with vast combat experience they only managed to lightly wound 5 Irish troops.

This is jackonary.

Utrinque Paratus

ChunkyLover_53 wrote: »

You're right. The Paddies pulled it off without all those fancy gadgets. Fair play to them.

History can only be seen from the perspective of those who were there.

In hindsight the Battle of Agincourt, The Rout of the BEF at Dunkirk by a German Army supposedly starved of a war machine through economic sanctions, the plight of the 300 Spartans and of course the Battle of Britain all seem like total bollox...but some heroic actions went down on those days.

All achieved by proper use of troops,tactics and terrain in my opinion. No different to what happened in Jadotville.

So in the 6 days of heavy fighting inc attacks by mortars, artillery possibly a ground attack aircraft, from a force which outnumbered them 40-1 and caught them by surprise while they were at church, had modern assault rifles v bolt action and had mercenaries with vast combat experience they only managed to lightly wound 5 Irish troops.

This is jackonary.

concussion

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

quote......For a comparitable battle in recent times, didn't a British unit defend a CIMIC house in Iraq with minimal casualties?

Hardly a comparitable battle. The Irish only had trenches as a defence and bolt action rifles and ww1 machine guns, not a refinforced compound with armour and air support.

So what? The Vickers was in still use in the British Army until the late 60's, several years after Jadotville. Another example of how long weapons stay in service is the Browning 12.7 mm HMG which was designed at the end of WW1 and is still in service all over the world. The MAG 58 is over 50 years old and is also being used by many miltaries.

A Coy. in Jadotville also had FN assault rifles, so you're wrong on that point too.

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

They were in a fortified reinforced compound and called in air strikes, they also had snipers on the roof.

I know, I mentioned they had CAS and used the book 'Sniper One' as one of my sources :rolleyes:

ChunkyLover_53

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

So in the 6 days of heavy fighting inc attacks by mortars, artillery possibly a ground attack aircraft, from a force which outnumbered them 40-1 and caught them by suprise while they were at church, had modern assault rifles v bolt action and had mercanaries with vast combat experience they only managed to lightly wound 5 Irish troops.

This is jackonary.

The initial attack did not catch the Irish unawares.

A direct order by Comdt. Quinlan went out to leave every foward trench manned as he expected the enemy to strike while his boys attended mass. That is textbook Tsun Tsu the Art of War. Read that article that concussion posted from the Tuam Herald, also the book The Heroes of Jadotville by Rose Doyle ( although she is Quinlans Daughter i found the book to be highly informative, I'm sure you'll come to the same conclusion when you read up on it .)

xflyer

I'm sorry Utrinque Paratus what is your problem? Is is impossible for you to imagine that Irish soldiers could have done something like this? Is it only the British who have this ability or indeed Irishmen under British command? Is it impossible for an Irish officer to be good at his job?

Sure the attackers were second rate but the Irish weren't exactly 2 Para either.

What about the lack of casualties, maybe they were damm lucky. The simple reality is that the Irish held off a superior force, a force which repelled a relieving force. They ran out of ammunition. Do you suggest it they were firing at trees.

Read one or other of the books. Then shed your prejudice.

Manic Moran

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

Perhaps someone could post a comparable battle in the history of modern warfare ?

Modern, not offhand to that extent where the defenders survived. (So that puts out The Alamo, for example).

I am reminded, however, of the Battle of Myeongnyang. 13 Korean ships (the survivors of what was basically a Japanese annihilation of most of the Korean Navy) and about 200 sailors against approximately 130 Japanese warships. Final tally was Japanese losses of about 30 ships and 8,000 men, the Koreans suffered 2 killed and eight wounded.

More recently, from the American Civil War, Cold Harbour. The Union forces attempted to assault Confederate positions. Final tally of about 11,000 dead on the Union side, 90 dead on the Confederate side.

At the macro scale the Battle of Kiev in 1941 was ridiculously lopsided in the German favour.

NTM

R.Dub.Fusilier

i dont think Utrinque Paratus is going to change his opinion on the subject no matter what facts or figures he is shown.

but another siege against the odds from 1838 was the battle of blood river in south africa, 470 voortrekkers fought between 10,000 and 15,000 zulu warriors with around 3,000 zulus killed and 3 trekkers injured. not a modern battle but shows how proper defences can win a battle.