Comments by "Bullet-Tooth Tony" (@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-) on "Biographics"
channel.
-
@bnm0883 Blucher was most certainly not better. Blucher was untalented and got his ass handed to him in the 1814 campaign and the Battle of Ligny, would Blucher have successfully pinned his army to the ridge at Mont St. Jean and repelled Napoleon’s attacks all day?
Wellington had the foresight that he already knew where he could successfully engage and trap Napoleon’s army before the campaign had even begun. The advance of the Imperial guard at Wellington's centre was stopped before Blucher's army had broken through at plancenoit.
Wellington NEVER lost a field battle, and beat EVERY single French general sent against him.... Jourdan, Victor, Massena, Clauzel, Ney, Soult... And Wellington really won everywhere he fought India, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, France and Belgium, showing a diverse range of battles in defence and attack.
He is definitely the most successful land commander of the age besides Napoleon and possibly Suvorov. There's a reason that Wellington's campaigns are still studied in military academies world wide and not Blucher. Blucher is overrated.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fredbarker9201 Most of the 1796-1797 campaign was pedisterian, around Mantua was the brilliance, the rest apart from the 3rd coalition and six days campaign were nothing special. That Wellington would be able to comprehensively defeat an Austrian Army of about the same size as his forces does not seem a large stretch.
The Vittoria Campaign was as aggressive, and daring as anything Napoleon ever did. Wellington would not have committed the horrible blunders Napoleon did..Wellington unlike Napoleon knew when to retreat and was able to do so without the wholesale destruction of his army. Napoleon's ego tended to make his defeats disastrous.
When it comes down to it.
Wellington, tactical, strategical, logistics, discipline, no horrible blunders
Napoleon - Operations, morale, Grand vision (though very two edged), some really really horrible blunders,
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fredbarker9201 The reason for this is Marlboroughs career in my opinion is a lot more impressive than Wellingtons, despite having less victories than Wellington.
One of the few aggressive military geniuses, who was also gifted in diplomacy and he was undefeated in battle a feat which only a few generals have managed to achieve. When you read about Marlboroughs life, his diplomatic and political schemes are just as impressive as his military victories. Just have a read about his march over the Danube to relieve Vienna whilst being tailed by French armies theres a picture on google of his operations and just how much risk he took. One great example is where Marlborough's army advanced 40 miles in just 18 hours bypassing the French Ne Plus Ultra lines in 1711 and not losing a single soldier.
Marlborough was excellent in all aspects whether that's strategy, tactics, operations, politics. Even Napoleon respected him for his prowess. Marlborough came VERY close to seizing all of France, but was unfortunately let down by some lack of support.
He controlled the flow of the battlefield. He kept himself in a position where he could scope the entire battlefield. In all of his battles, Marlborough would create a numerical advantage at a point of his own choosing where he could deliver a strike that would crush his enemy.
To achieve this whilst he was outnumbered, which he often was, Marlborough sought to fix the attention of the opposing generals on another part of the field by making ferocious but controlled attacks. As the enemy redeployed his forces to meet these attacks, Marlborough would switch the weight of his attack to the chosen point and strike with overwhelming strength.
Many generals have tried to adopt such tactics, but few have been able to maintain such complete control over their own soldiers as to be able to mount such forceful attacks whilst restraining their men from launching all out assaults.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bigwoody4704 "On GOODWOOD the British Army lost 500 tanks and killed fewer than 50 German tanks.30 destroyed by air power."
Sigh ....
No they didn't. WHY are you using over exaggerated German figures of the battle?
The fundamental problem with how Operation Goodwood has been studied is tank losses and the fact it's been calculated differently for the two sides.
The losses for Allied tanks have normally been counted by the number of tanks still operational at the end of each day of the operation, even though a large number of those counted as lost will be operational within a couple of days. While the German tank losses only count those tanks which are completely lost and unrecoverable after the end of the operation. So you end up with Allied losses of nearly 500 tanks against German losses of around 100 tanks, but if you use the same type of calculation for both sides, in this case the German system, Allied losses fall to 150-200 while German losses remain the same at 100.
British tanks knocked out and recovered, but then written-off were -correctly - classed as combat losses, but in the German Army every recovered tank was automatically listed as 'Under repair' even it it was a CTL and was being cannibalised for spares.
Then when the Germans were routed and fled, leaving the hulks behind, they were reclassified as 'Abandoned' - which was a non-combat category. Thus for Goodwood both the British and the Germans appear to have lost about 140-150 tanks destroyed, though at least 17 of the German tanks were Tigers and over 30 were Panthers, and each of these was much more of a loss to the German army than the loss of a Sherman or Cromwell was to the British.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chrisbradshaw6135 So your blaming Falaise on Montgomery now? It was as much Omar Bradley's fault as anyone else. He and his Chief of Staff ordered Patton to halt and pull back XVth Corps in several phone calls on Aug 13. He did not contact Montgomery to ask that the Army Group boundary be shifted, and discouraged Eisenhower's offer to do so. Patton was so upset he ordered a stenographic record of the conversation with Bradley's Chief of Staff be included in the 3rd Army History.
And furthermore between 135,000 and 200,000 Germans were killed; and 20,000 to 50,000 Germans were captured. 1,300 tanks, 20,000 vehicles, 2,000 guns. Five panzer divisions destroyed and 20 infantry divisions destroyed. That is a good result, the majority of those troops who escaped left all of their heavy equipment behind anyway. You would think that this was an Allied defeat rather than than an utter DISASTER for the German army according to some accounts. Eisenhower noted every hundred miles he walked there were German bodies and material strewn everywhere.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fredbarker9201 At Bautzen he had 200,000 men. He also outnumbered the Austrians at Ulm by 80,000. and had more than the Russians at Borodino and Smolensk. Then theres Lodi, Brienne, Somosierra, Montereau, Montenotte, Landshut, Czarnowo, Mormant, Champaubert, Saint-Dizier, Shubra Khit. So while Napoleon did win some battles against the odds, he also won some very favourable battles as well.
Alexander started off in a small city state, Caeser had the might of the Senate against him, Napoleon was born into a nation that had over 30 million people and the largest army on the continent with hundreds of thousands of troops to conscript. So tell me how Napoleon faced harder odds?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ronaldmcdonald2817 Wellington is easily the superior in my mind. Wellington's Peninsula Campaign was key to undermining France's control over Europe, and he performed very well at Waterloo. Wellington's plan worked out EXACTLY as he wished, more or less. He fought a tenacious and effective defence against Napoleon's (or rather, Ney's) ham-fisted tactics. Your statement makes exactly as much sense as saying Robert E. Lee deserves no credit for Chancellorsville because he wouldn't have won without Jackson's flank attack.
The best Charles ever really did was a bloody tactical defeat at Aspern-Essling in which he only won thanks to overwhelming numbers, any real general would have wiped out a substantial portion of Napoleon's vulnerable army following Aspern-Essling, whereas Charles simply sat and waited for Napoleon to try the same thing again.
Wellington won more victories against the French than Blucher and Charles combined. Bluchers only claim to fame is getting embarassed by the French in multiple battles in Germany and arriving late at Waterloo to a victory against a French army that had already been smashed by Wellington for 6 hours. Pfft some record that is .
There's a reason that Wellington's campaigns are still studied in military academies world wide and not Charles and Blucher. Blucher is overrated and Charles was nothing special. The only great generals were Napoleon, Wellington, Suvorov, Davout, Lannes, Soult and Massena.
2
-
@ronaldmcdonald2817 That's not about the same at all. That's a 2 to 1 advantage Charles possessed, including 292 guns against Napoleons 154. Arch Duke Charles was really poor at taken his chances, had a lack of ruthless , killer instinct.. His shifting of the axis attack at the start of 1809 was just wasting time at critical point. At Aspern Essling why smash the bridges before the French cross? Waiting till half the French army was across would have so much better. Acre is arguably worse than Aspern, as acre ended a war/campaign in french defeat, where as aspern ended only a battle in French defeat.
Charles didn't even have to risk a single infantryman in order to obstruct Napoleon. He could have simply bombarded the island of Lobau with artillery, or more daringly, assaulted it, as it was vulnerable following the battle, and thus secure his position. After the battle, Charles actually pulled back, and seemed content to merely watch Napoleon while he waited for Archduke John. For a entire month, he simply did nothing of consequence.
Blucher also had a 5 to 1 advantage in many of his victories, btw the Prussian army's movement and tactics were mostly planned by Von Gneisenau, not Blucher. They are mediocre generals at best, who won thanks to an abundance of manpower. None of them took on Napoleon at a disadvantage.
In contrast Wellington at Bussaco, Torres Vedras and Fuentes De Onoro, he defeats one of Napoleon's best marshalls Massena outnumbered and in the Pyrenees campaign he beats another in Soult outnumbered, and also held out against Napoleon for 6 hours (outnumbered with a 5,000 men disadvantage). In all honesty Wellington could (and probably should) have been well beaten before the arrival of Bulow's IV Corps. Instead Napoleon spent 6 hours hurling columns at an unbreakable line and cavalry at unbreakable squares, as well as tying up thousands of men trying to occupy well defended redoubts. Wellington never fell back at all, the fact his elite Guards men repulsed the Imperial Guard without the Prussians is evidence of that.
Wellington NEVER lost a field battle, and beat EVERY single French general sent against him.... Jourdan, Victor, Massena, Ney, Soult... And Wellington really won everywhere he fought India, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, France and Belgium, showing a diverse range of battles in defence and attack. He is definitely the most successful land commander of the age besides Napoleon and possibly Suvorov. Blucher and Archduke are third rate generals in comparison to what Wellington achieved in his career. That's why no one studies them.
2
-
@ronaldmcdonald2817 Again if i have nearly 100,000 troops and my opponent has 80,000, that's not an even fight whatsoever 🤦♂ that's about the same odds as Montgomery had at El Alamein against Rommel.
Much of Napoleon's army was vulnerable near Lobau. Artillery could certainly have done some serious damage. For over a month after the battle, Charles sat there and watched Napoleon grow stronger, while elements of Napoleon's army defeated Archduke John elsewhere. In fact, he didn't even do a very good job of watching Napoleon; he got so distracted with relatively distant concerns, that he was caught completely off guard by Napoleon's second crossing, leading to Charles' decisive defeat at Wagram. Chandler's classic work on Napoleon notes that Charles' failure to exploit his victory was nearly as astonishing as the way Napoleon handled this stage of the campaign.
Errm yes he did, Blucher had an abundance of troops at his disposal in virtually every battle he fought. And even then he still got beaten at least 8 times which is embarassing, he should be called Marshall Blunder, he was nothing more than a morale booster, he was no real tactician or strategist like Wellington. Wellington NEVER suffered a major defeat. Ask yourself why military academies still study Wellington to this day and not Blucher 😜
Stop lying. By the late afternoon, D'erlons Corps no longer existed, the French heavy cavalry were destroyed, the Corps in and around Hugoumont were done, as well as the one that had taken La Haye Saint. All due to Wellington's efforts. Napoleon basically had his Imperial guard left and we both know what happened to them when they were finally committed to attack Wellington's centre, totally routed. in the words of Wellington "They came on in the same way and we beat them in the same way"
Finally, Quatre Bras was a draw, as it denied both sides what they wanted. Wellington could not join up with Blucher, but also the French could not stop Wellington from setting himself up at Waterloo. Initially it may appear that the French had gained the greater benefit, but in hindsight it ultimately led to the French losing the campaign. Nevertheless a battle where the opposition retreat is not a defeat.
2
-
2