Which Is the battle that you find the most interesting?

I like, uh, I like, uhhh, there is too many awesome fights to choose from!

Choose your favourite.

I can't, I just simply can't.

Well ok, write the three of them or five and the best one out of all of them describe it.

Eh, Tobruk. Aussies fight like devils.

Singapore. The Commonwealth were lions were led by a rabbit and the Japs were sheep led by a tiger.

The Anglo-Zanzibar war(it was only one naval landing). The Zanzi's surrendered as soon as they could.

Kursk, the biggest tank battle in history and the last of Hitler's great panzer offensives in the East.

Thank you the two that got my interest were the Kursk battle and the Anglo-Zanzibar war.

The Zanzibar war didn't last an hour.

Yaw, I know. 40 minutes.

There's a good documentary about Kursk. It's part of the "Greatest tank battle" series.

Ok thanks. lol 40 mins, why did they surrender so fast?

It was Act Like An Italian Day.

I like the Battle for Stalingrad where the lines broke down and things went back and forth until the surprise USSR counter attack that trapped the German army in the city.

But generally my favorite battles in history are mostly in WW2, the classics like D-Day, Stalingrad as I mentioned, The Battle of the Bulge, I also really like Operation Torch in the North Africa, and US/UK invasion of Anzio in Italy in WW2. But there is soo much more.

Anzio is particularly interesting, while the surprise landing was partly successful it did fail to meet its goals but did draw German forces from France prior to D-day, both sides were testing some new tech in the battle such as the US deploying a airborne oil screen *same concept as smoke screen but different method of concealment* to keep German aircraft from being able to see and hit ground/sea targets *which also stuck to people's skin and was really uncomfortable. The Germans deployed some of their prototype wire controlled mini tanks bombs called Goliaths I think *basically they guide it to an enemy position with a wire linked remote control and detonate it when in blast range*, but they all got stuck in the mud or were shot up and failed to work. But to keep it simple, it was a minor battle that brought in a few cool elements.

My personal favorite battle hail from the Napoleonic Wars. Austerlitz was the pinnacle of Napoleon's strategy in use, drawing the enemy in with their own impulsiveness and then outmaneuvering them with your more elite and high-morale soldiers. He sacrificed the surrounding heights which seemed to be the most strategically valuable positions in the area to feign chaos in his ranks, as well as weakened his right flank to further cement this idea. The result in a battle where the enemy outnumbered him by 25,000+ and double the artillery? 9,000 casualties compared to the Allies' 36,000, and the dissolution of the Third Coalition.

Chipping in here

1: Bismarck battle, you gotta love the story of the lone wolf having to fight the entire navy of the opponent - and eventually scuttling their own ship out of pride

2: Battle of Britain. It could be a movie the way it played out (ok, there is a movie about it)

3: Midway Battle. The first 'modern day' naval battle between carriers (or does Corel Sea count here?)

4: D-day, the logistical and strategical approach is impressive. Still dont understand why they didnt enter through Netherlands - was much easier. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me why?

5: Stalingrad, the Russians did an excellent job in the classic encircling tactic. Poor German 6th - they had a chance to retreat, only to be denied by ehm, that guy.

Honorable mentions

- The whole Fall Gelb plan and its execution. Why attack Maginot line if you can just....go around it

- Dutch defense at The Hague. Army was perhaps the poorest of all European nations with any semblance of power/history, yet they held back elite paratroopers until Rotterdam bombing forced the surrender.

I believe the Battle of Assaye during the second anglo-maratha war to be one of the finest in history. This battle proves that a small and determined force of well trained and well led men can defeat one nearly ten times its size through the foresight and knowledge of its commander.

British colonial campaigns can be recognised as successful, even if the opposition were hordes of angry farmers.

comrade dave wrote:

British colonial campaigns can be recognised as successful, even if the opposition were hordes of angry farmers.

I was talking of post-conquered rebellions set up by farmers, I have studied the Indian sub continent and it's various empires, I've also studied both Opium wars t the extent I despise the name profusely.

comrade dave wrote:

I was talking of post-conquered rebellions set up by farmers, I have studied the Indian sub continent and it's various empires, I've also studied both Opium wars t the extent I despise the name profusely.

A question was asked, i simply stated my view, which just happened to not include well documented battles of WW2.