Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Who was history's greatest admiral?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rollo



Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dozens of Russian ships unloading cargo at Haiphong harbor mostly weapons and there would be dozens more waiting to to unload, Daily!!. Railroads bring thousand of tons of soviet and Chinese weapons into the North. Three hundred thousand Chinese troops provided training and logistical support.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think I've read about as much of this thread as I can, and I'm fairly interested in naval military history.

I, too, have decided that Yi Sun Shin is the greatest admiral in history.

Many people have discussed the relative fame of various admirals. The first time I heard of Yi Sun Shin and his greatest feat, I thought, "Huh, the Korean Themistocles." Weirdly enough, Themistocles has not featured prominently in this thread. But Themistocles achieved much the same thing for the Greeks against the Persians in the Battle of Salamis as Yi Sun Shin achieved for the Koreans against the Japanese.

Quote:
Salamis was the turning point in the second Persian invasion, and indeed the Greco-Persian Wars in general. Whilst the battle did not end the Persian invasion, it effectively ensured that all Greece would not be conquered, and allowed the Allies to go on the offensive in 479 BC. A significant number of historians have stated that Salamis is one of the most significant battles in human history.


Not significant enough for Dave's, I suppose.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
young_clinton



Joined: 09 Sep 2009

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
Quote:
Salamis was the turning point in the second Persian invasion, and indeed the Greco-Persian Wars in general. Whilst the battle did not end the Persian invasion, it effectively ensured that all Greece would not be conquered, and allowed the Allies to go on the offensive in 479 BC. A significant number of historians have stated that Salamis is one of the most significant battles in human history.


Not significant enough for Dave's, I suppose.


They're too busy rambling on about this and that, attempting to build themselves up on Dave's Laughing Salamis probably is the most important naval battle in history, probably along with a few others that they haven't even heard of.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 6:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

young_clinton wrote:
Kuros wrote:
Quote:
Salamis was the turning point in the second Persian invasion, and indeed the Greco-Persian Wars in general. Whilst the battle did not end the Persian invasion, it effectively ensured that all Greece would not be conquered, and allowed the Allies to go on the offensive in 479 BC. A significant number of historians have stated that Salamis is one of the most significant battles in human history.


Not significant enough for Dave's, I suppose.


They're too busy rambling on about this and that, attempting to build themselves up on Dave's Laughing Salamis probably is the most important naval battle in history, probably along with a few others that they haven't even heard of.


Salamis wasn't the most important naval battle in history. On what basis are you making that claim?

What were the others you were thinking of?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

robbie_davies wrote:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IA20xVTl-nEC&pg=PA346&lpg=PA346&dq=supply+and+logistics
+us+forces+vietnam+war&source=bl&ots=
OBSIeRxT8O&sig=0optQx1bPk5IDOKHNcskSJYzTv8&h
l=en&sa=X&ei=vJHtUbrYL_
Ts0gWaw4CIAQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwADgK#v=
onepage&q=supply%20and%20logistics%20us%20forces
%20vietnam%20war&f=false

Very interesting book here called 'The Logistics of War - a historical perspective' Seems like the logistical problem regarding SEATO forces in Vietnam was the lack of decent ports in South Vietnam, two was the overburden of the supply chain on items that were sent in to keep up morale and luxury food items that were easily perishable which was a great burden on the supply chain. It is said that the logistics system in Vietnam wasn't designed for a long drawn out conflict and by the end of 1968, ammunition, petroleum and other vital items were starting to decrease in number and by the beginning of 1974. The Americans had ceased to supply the South Vietnamese forces which led to their ultimate defeat.


You have confused two different things. The inability to cut off the Viet Cong and prevent infiltration into SV was indeed a major reason as to why the US lost. However, that has no relevance to what we were discussing.
The N Viet supply system was robust and ingenious (because it had to be in the face of US air power), but the US forces were able to supply their forces with much, much more than their adversaries. The Ho Chi Minh trail wouldn't be able to supply a single US division. Obviously the average NV unit consumed far, far less so this wasn't an issue and you could say the over consumption by US forces was a major problem, as your second source makes clear.

That being said despite the troubles outlined in your second source the sheer size of the supplies the US were able to get to their forces were many leagues greater than the NVs were able to get to their forces.

According to the figures in your second source in 1967 the US were moving a greater tonnage of munitions a month alone than the entire total estimated tonnage of all supplies that the NVs had prepared for the Tet Offensive through the Ho Chi Minh trail. The annual estimated tonnage of supplies moved through the trail were significantly lower than what the US forces were getting.

Moreover, the importance and amount of supplies the NVs and their supporters were able to get in SV itself is testament to the sheer size of supplies flowing into SV from the US and its allies.

None of the sources makes the claim that the NV logistics were superior to that of the US logistics system. Although if you are able to find a source that does I will yield as I have no time to do the research myself.
Also I am glad that your sources vindicate the claim that the US enjoyed superior equipment and technology as well reaffirming the importance of the US helicopter fleet.

Back to the main point, figures from minor powers and weaker countries are well remembered Sitting Bull, Bolivar and Giap to name a few. Not as famous as Napoleon or Caesar, but on par with Patton and Rommel. Also this idea of ‘popularity’ is coloured by national bias, where in Korea Yi is more well known than Eisenhower and where in America Patton is more known than Tipu Sultan.

The use of the average person on the street standard who a) doesn't know that much about history anyway and b) couldn't tell you anything of substance about even a figure like Napoleon is meaningless.

MacArthur is very much a part of Korean history and so that is why he is well known in Korea.

To dismiss an example because they at the time of their conflict did not represent a Westphalian defined sovereign state is again meaningless. We are talking about the manner in which someone is remembered. There are no justifiable reasons for dismissing my examples.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robbie_davies



Joined: 16 Jun 2013

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aq8knyus wrote:


You have confused two different things. The inability to cut off the Viet Cong and prevent infiltration into SV was indeed a major reason as to why the US lost. However, that has no relevance to what we were discussing.
The N Viet supply system was robust and ingenious (because it had to be in the face of US air power), but the US forces were able to supply their forces with much, much more than their adversaries. The Ho Chi Minh trail wouldn't be able to supply a single US division. Obviously the average NV unit consumed far, far less so this wasn't an issue and you could say the over consumption by US forces was a major problem, as your second source makes clear.


It is about the effectiveness of the supply and logistic systems the Viet Cong had in place - far more effective in the jungle fighting a war against an enemy that was barely acclimatised.


Quote:
That being said despite the troubles outlined in your second source the sheer size of the supplies the US were able to get to their forces were many leagues greater than the NVs were able to get to their forces.


Despite that. Not all that effective in the end was it?

Quote:
According to the figures in your second source in 1967 the US were moving a greater tonnage of munitions a month alone than the entire total estimated tonnage of all supplies that the NVs had prepared for the Tet Offensive through the Ho Chi Minh trail. The annual estimated tonnage of supplies moved through the trail were significantly lower than what the US forces were getting.


And in the figures provided in the book, the numbers started going down after 1968-69. Meaning that the logistics system in place wasn't designed for a long term war of attrition - not very effective in my opinion. Just because the Americans were moving more stuff through, doesn't mean it was done in an effective manner therefore was superior - it wasn't, even American experts on this subject admit it so I don't know why you are saying otherwise.

Quote:
Moreover, the importance and amount of supplies the NVs and their supporters were able to get in SV itself is testament to the sheer size of supplies flowing into SV from the US and its allies.


It ground down to nothing by 1973-74 - the sheer size of supplies was for a very limited period of time, why? Because SEATO thought the war would be over in 18 months and when they found out it was for the long run, they ran and left the South to their fate. If logistics weren't a problem - why didn't they just kept supplying the South with weapons - far too expensive an far too impractical - that is why?

Quote:
None of the sources makes the claim that the NV logistics were superior to that of the US logistics system. Although if you are able to find a source that does I will yield as I have no time to do the research myself.
Also I am glad that your sources vindicate the claim that the US enjoyed superior equipment and technology as well reaffirming the importance of the US helicopter fleet.


Well, they were superior because they won out in the end as they were workable in the field of battle they were in - the Americans couldn't sustain the war for very long and thus was ineffective. Between 1965-68, the Americans (mainly) threw everything they had at the problem, failed miserably, started an intense bombing campaign and failed at that and ended up by ceasing to supply the South by the end of 1973. If that is not the sign of an ineffective supply system then I don't know what is.

The North Vietnamese forces found a way of dealing with the US helicopters and shot many of them down.

Quote:
Back to the main point, figures from minor powers and weaker countries are well remembered Sitting Bull, Bolivar and Giap to name a few.


Again, none of them were actually fighting as a country. Boliviar and Giap were fighting colonialist rule to create a nation and Sitting Bull was a leader of his people. Again - minor power - related to - regional, major and superpower - stop confusing the two.


Quote:
Not as famous as Napoleon or Caesar, but on par with Patton and Rommel.


Giap is not as famous as Rommel or Patton - don't be so ridiculous.


Quote:
Also this idea of ‘popularity’ is coloured by national bias, where in Korea Yi is more well known than Eisenhower and where in America Patton is more known than Tipu Sultan.


It is not. It is to do with the fact most major military figures took part in global war and conflict. I would say Patton is known more in 99% of the planet than Tipu Sultan.

Quote:

The use of the average person on the street standard who a) doesn't know that much about history anyway and b) couldn't tell you anything of substance about even a figure like Napoleon is meaningless.



But the article is talking about the average person in the street, why is their opinion meaningless in the context of ESL adverts and teachers? Do you think the context regarding the advert and the point within the advert had nothing to do with the 'average person'?


Quote:
MacArthur is very much a part of Korean history and so that is why he is well known in Korea.


There you go, a western militay leader that is known to Koreans. And they all know who he is.

Quote:
To dismiss an example because they at the time of their conflict did not represent a Westphalian defined sovereign state is again meaningless. We are talking about the manner in which someone is remembered. There are no justifiable reasons for dismissing my examples.


It isn't because we were talking about 'Minor Powers' that is how the argument was defined and for some reason, you started banging on about tribal leaders and revolutionaries, for some reason, you don't equate the IRA with various (albiet successful) revolutionary armies - you have a very skewed perspective yourself when it comes down to all this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aq8knyus



Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

robbie_davies wrote:
aq8knyus wrote:


You have confused two different things. The inability to cut off the Viet Cong and prevent infiltration into SV was indeed a major reason as to why the US lost. However, that has no relevance to what we were discussing.
The N Viet supply system was robust and ingenious (because it had to be in the face of US air power), but the US forces were able to supply their forces with much, much more than their adversaries. The Ho Chi Minh trail wouldn't be able to supply a single US division. Obviously the average NV unit consumed far, far less so this wasn't an issue and you could say the over consumption by US forces was a major problem, as your second source makes clear.


It is about the effectiveness of the supply and logistic systems the Viet Cong had in place - far more effective in the jungle fighting a war against an enemy that was barely acclimatised.


Quote:
That being said despite the troubles outlined in your second source the sheer size of the supplies the US were able to get to their forces were many leagues greater than the NVs were able to get to their forces.


Despite that. Not all that effective in the end was it?

Quote:
According to the figures in your second source in 1967 the US were moving a greater tonnage of munitions a month alone than the entire total estimated tonnage of all supplies that the NVs had prepared for the Tet Offensive through the Ho Chi Minh trail. The annual estimated tonnage of supplies moved through the trail were significantly lower than what the US forces were getting.


And in the figures provided in the book, the numbers started going down after 1968-69. Meaning that the logistics system in place wasn't designed for a long term war of attrition - not very effective in my opinion. Just because the Americans were moving more stuff through, doesn't mean it was done in an effective manner therefore was superior - it wasn't, even American experts on this subject admit it so I don't know why you are saying otherwise.

Quote:
Moreover, the importance and amount of supplies the NVs and their supporters were able to get in SV itself is testament to the sheer size of supplies flowing into SV from the US and its allies.


It ground down to nothing by 1973-74 - the sheer size of supplies was for a very limited period of time, why? Because SEATO thought the war would be over in 18 months and when they found out it was for the long run, they ran and left the South to their fate. If logistics weren't a problem - why didn't they just kept supplying the South with weapons - far too expensive an far too impractical - that is why?

Quote:
None of the sources makes the claim that the NV logistics were superior to that of the US logistics system. Although if you are able to find a source that does I will yield as I have no time to do the research myself.
Also I am glad that your sources vindicate the claim that the US enjoyed superior equipment and technology as well reaffirming the importance of the US helicopter fleet.


Well, they were superior because they won out in the end as they were workable in the field of battle they were in - the Americans couldn't sustain the war for very long and thus was ineffective. Between 1965-68, the Americans (mainly) threw everything they had at the problem, failed miserably, started an intense bombing campaign and failed at that and ended up by ceasing to supply the South by the end of 1973. If that is not the sign of an ineffective supply system then I don't know what is.

The North Vietnamese forces found a way of dealing with the US helicopters and shot many of them down.

Quote:
Back to the main point, figures from minor powers and weaker countries are well remembered Sitting Bull, Bolivar and Giap to name a few.


Again, none of them were actually fighting as a country. Boliviar and Giap were fighting colonialist rule to create a nation and Sitting Bull was a leader of his people. Again - minor power - related to - regional, major and superpower - stop confusing the two.


Quote:
Not as famous as Napoleon or Caesar, but on par with Patton and Rommel.


Giap is not as famous as Rommel or Patton - don't be so ridiculous.


Quote:
Also this idea of ‘popularity’ is coloured by national bias, where in Korea Yi is more well known than Eisenhower and where in America Patton is more known than Tipu Sultan.


It is not. It is to do with the fact most major military figures took part in global war and conflict. I would say Patton is known more in 99% of the planet than Tipu Sultan.

Quote:

The use of the average person on the street standard who a) doesn't know that much about history anyway and b) couldn't tell you anything of substance about even a figure like Napoleon is meaningless.



But the article is talking about the average person in the street, why is their opinion meaningless in the context of ESL adverts and teachers? Do you think the context regarding the advert and the point within the advert had nothing to do with the 'average person'?


Quote:
MacArthur is very much a part of Korean history and so that is why he is well known in Korea.


There you go, a western militay leader that is known to Koreans. And they all know who he is.

Quote:
To dismiss an example because they at the time of their conflict did not represent a Westphalian defined sovereign state is again meaningless. We are talking about the manner in which someone is remembered. There are no justifiable reasons for dismissing my examples.


It isn't because we were talking about 'Minor Powers' that is how the argument was defined and for some reason, you started banging on about tribal leaders and revolutionaries, for some reason, you don't equate the IRA with various (albiet successful) revolutionary armies - you have a very skewed perspective yourself when it comes down to all this.


Again you seem to be misunderstanding, just because NV won doesn't mean their supply system was better. They won for many reasons and the incontrovertible truth is that US logistics was able to supply far greater quantities to their forces than the enemy were to theirs. It didn't lead to victory, but that is not what we were discussing.

Also the decision whether or not to supply SV also doesn't say anything about the ability to do so, just the will. In the making of a decision there were more factors at play than just the logistics system.

Although again if you are able to provide sources to the contrary then please do, the last ones were very interesting. In your response you said american experts have said that the NV system was superior, where can I find these experts?

Of course MacArthur is known in Korea because he is a part of Korean history. Nelson isn't really known because he is so separate from their national history. Mannheim is well known in Finland and Russia, but will not be very well known in Kenya. Is this really a controversial point.

National bias has a huge impact on how well some are remembered. Napoleon and Caesar do indeed buck the trend, but Patton and Rommel will not be as well known as you think. Plus there are plenty of very famous commanders fighting very large wars that will not be remembered.

Do you think Patton would be as recognizable to an average man on the street in Chengdu? If you do fair enough. I bet I could go around with a picture of Patton and thousands of ESL teachers in Korea wouldn't know he is either.

As for skewed perspectives, I am fine with including the IRA as an example. However, I am not fine with you likening the style, method and goals of Bolivar to the IRA. They are different, very different.

Also Giap was C-in-C of the PAVN during the Vietnam war and has been mentioned in news reels, documentaries, commercial movies, tv series etc in the US and internationally. Very famous, or at least as famous as Patton.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robbie_davies



Joined: 16 Jun 2013

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aq8knyus wrote:

Again you seem to be misunderstanding, just because NV won doesn't mean their supply system was better. They won for many reasons and the incontrovertible truth is that US logistics was able to supply far greater quantities to their forces than the enemy were to theirs. It didn't lead to victory, but that is not what we were discussing.


The NV supply system was by far the more superior and even more so - more suitable for the terrain and the type of war they were figthting, again - experts on the subject all agree on this but for some reason - you - a nobody - is disputing it! Laughing

When a war goes on for as long as the Vietnam war did - they are won or lost on logistical issues, even Eisenhower said so. The Americans, for a very short window of time, was able to supply their troops with supplies, but because it was so impractical - they couldn't do it for very long and thus they couldn't sustain their effort for very long and ended up losing.

And that is what we are discussing, for you to say that the US had far better logistics than the North Vietnamese is a joke. Shows a lack of understanding on a very basic level. Here is something for you to read:


http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/navy/log_quotes_navsup.pdf


Quote:
Also the decision whether or not to supply SV also doesn't say anything about the ability to do so, just the will. In the making of a decision there were more factors at play than just the logistics system.


Course it bloody does! Why would the Americans stop supplying their allies? Because they couldn't! Not because they didn't want to! Give me a break! From 1969 onwards, they couldn't even supply their own armies to the extent that they could from 1965-68.


Quote:
Although again if you are able to provide sources to the contrary then please do, the last ones were very interesting. In your response you said american experts have said that the NV system was superior, where can I find these experts?


"Subsequently the Communist Vietnamese leadership outlasted America's eight-year combat effort in Southeast Asia, and finally reunited Vietnam by force of arms. A major factor contributing to their success was the remarkable logistical support they created in an integrated network of bases, sanctuaries and lines of communication. Indeed the sanctuaries gave them the trump card that enabled them to fight a protracted war and outlast the United States commitment to the Republic of Vietnam."


The BDM Corporation, "A Study of Strategic Lessons learned in Vietnam", (The BDM COrporation: 1979) p. 5-1

Quote:
Of course MacArthur is known in Korea because he is a part of Korean history. Nelson isn't really known because he is so separate from their national history. Mannheim is well known in Finland and Russia, but will not be very well known in Kenya. Is this really a controversial point.


Now we are getting somewhere, if a war is fought on a global scale, the players will be more well known as they will involve more players and bigger battles in more diverse fields. It sinks in at last - why have we been arguing this point for the past 8 pages?


Quote:
National bias has a huge impact on how well some are remembered. Napoleon and Caesar do indeed buck the trend, but Patton and Rommel will not be as wel