The finnish army during the Winter War against the Soviet union from November 30th 1939 to March 13th 1940 when Stalin decided to come and free us from I don't know what. When compered to the massive red army it was almost non-existing. Still they we were able to prevent the russians from invading our country. The war lasted for 105 days and during those 105 days of glory 25 000 finnish soldiers lost their lives in the fight for their fatherland. The soviets lost 1 000 000 men out of their 1 500 000 man invading force. After the war a russian general is known to have said "We gained 22 000 square miles of land. Just enough to bury our dead."
Thanks to those men and women I am here today living in this model of democracy. Thanks to these men and women Finland has been an independent country for over 80 years and didn't end up to be a part of the Soviet Union like so many other countries after the WWII.
War does not determine who is right, but who is remaining ~an old finnish proverb
Well, it's not very often I'm right, but I'm wrong again.Originally Posted by Royal
Lieutenant Colonel Colin "Mad Mitch" Mitchell, Commanding Officer of the 1st Battalion the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders when they retook the Crater in Aden in the summer of 1967.
Mitchell's subsequant lobbying of the press saved the Battalion from disbandment or amalgamation in one of the many rounds defence cuts we've suffered. He retired as a Lieutenant Colonel and became an MP.
Loco>>> I am aware that the American Revolution was a global effort and that Spain as well as France gave a considerable amount of support to the effort. Without this it wouldn't have been a successful war. I read a book about The Revolution a few years back. Although I forget the title, but it agrees with you assertions. So, I think you are right!Actually, may be it was an exception in USA armed forces, but in America continent was rather frequent, I don´t mean all races had the same rights, but it´s a fact in spanish american provinces there were local militias with both white, indians, black and mixed people, and mixed people usually weren´t born as and "accident", interracial marriages were tolerated even they were promoted in many cases at the height of the late XVIII century. In the case of USA Revolution, I´m afraid is badly know the role played by spanish forces and supplies in powder, ammunition of every kind, uniforms, cash in gold currency, and a long etc.
Regarding the combatants, the war in what today is USA soil was held mainly by the strike force created by the governor of Nueva Orelans, Bernardo Gálvez, although the revolution war actually was a global war involving both the 13 colonies, GBritain, France and Spain with battles in the Mediterranean sea, all the Atlantic Ocean and all America, North and South, it wasn´t a local war in the east coast of USA. The figure of Bernardo Gálvez deserves a good study about him and being more reknown in USA. He was a tipical militar of the enlightment century, although he was of high class, he was a good student and had his baptism of fire very young in North Africa, risking his life without privileges, asecending because of his merits. The true interracial force in American revolution was built by Bernardo Gálvez, and it was really succesful, that force was filled with spanish from peninsula of regular infantry and from américa(the creoles) that had usually indians and spanish parents(the future mexicans), frenchs, indians, a big group of cubans and a group of american revolutionaries, true yankees, that descended the Mississippi to join that force in New Orleans, it´s said many of them were from Kentucky. The Gálvez column was very small at first and his first goal was gaining all control of Mississippi valley, capturing the british forts up along the river in fast atacks with light forces, being the most important ones Baton Rouge and Natchez, thus he could supply rebels safety throught the river. After that, he pulled to the east, along the Mexico Gulf coast, towards Mobile and Pensacola, and so he expelled all british forces of mexican gulf, because he controlled the continental shore and the gate to the gulf, that was Cuba being the island the main spanish base in west Atlantic, and a rich and well populated island too, many traders could send supplies from Cuba to rebels forces, and it was a safe spanish rearguard for both Gálvez column and reinforcements since the peninsula. Gálvez was a great leader in the battlefield, but the column he built was a skillful, bold and very well trained force, which could do long and fast walks, many times they surprised british soldiers who thought Gálvez´s soldiers still were very far from them, and I think this is more significant if we look at the different origins of his soldiers.
As for the War in the southeast and its racial composition, I think that it was largely due to manpower issues that led to the multi-racial character of the militias. True whites were (and still are) an extreme minority in the area I hale from. So, allowing mixed raced soldiers was neccesary. I myself am of mixed ancestry. (Scotch-Irish/Waccamaw Indian/Jewish/English) So I am quite similar to the Mexicans you spoke of in that regard.
Me, I'd nominate every units from WW1 that fought 4 years of trench warfare. Going through what they suffered is beyond normal human resilience to me. And I don't give a damn whose side they fought it, they all went through nine sorts of hell and came out fighting.
Gotta be some german or russian units.
Compared to the sheer amount of death and destruction on the eastern front, everything else seems like a walk in the park - no other armies fought at such a large scale.
I'm for:
The Jeni Ceri;
Philippine Scouts (Uncle Sam's equivalent of Gurkhas);
THE Gurkhas;
The Takasago Raiders;
and
The Montagnards, Hmong included.
SOG, and Recon men of the Vietnam war, The brave boys at rourkes drift, All the commando operators during WW2, Spartans at thermopolaye(sp)
The only american unit to achive over 100% casualty rate was sog, for every man SOG lost they claimed 200 enemy dead.
Give me the Gurkha's any day. Great guys, always cheerful an don't know what defeat is.
There is no such thing as a tough unit. Men are tough. Standards of a units training may be high or difficult, but tough men make the unit history. If you went to war, you are in a tough unit. I don't care if you are in the water reclamation bn or you are in the lead landing craft heading in to Omaha Beach.
Hundreds (maybe even thousands) of units over the 300 year span have distinguished themselves. What sized units? Army level? Division level? Reg't level? The US 28th Infantry Division that fought the Battle of the Hurtgen Forest is less tough than the 101st at Bastogne? Are either of those units tougher than the US 36th ID slugging it out in Italy? Why? Suppose you have a horrible Reg't, Bde, Bn, Co, Plt Cdr, does that mean that the squad isn't tough?
Who's biggest/baddest/best/coolest? It's all just d*#k measuring.
I's say the various army, navy and marine corp units that fought through out the pacific during the opening days of America's involvement in WW2.
Reading the exploits of the SOG men in John PLasters books just make me realize the great men that served this nation in one of its most "disrespectful/Rebelious" modern times. The conditions and odds they fought against was amazing. How they sometimes hadd to lay in one place for almost a week straight in the pooring rain not able to move is one that strikes me as one of hardships they delt with. Muhc respect for such a crazy group of volunteers
Yup SOG members were tough bunch, much respect to them
All the famous ones have been taken. Here are some more obscure units:
The 57th Regiment of Foot at the Battle of Albuhera (May 1811)
The term "Die-Hard" was coined in the smoke of war during the Battle of Albuhera, fought on 16th May 1811 which was the bloodiest battle of the Peninsula War.
At this battle the 57th were out numbered four to one. The Commanding Officer of the 57th, Colonel Inglis, took his position in front of his "Fighting Villains", a term used by him when referring to his regiment and a term used by the illustrious Picton. When the fighting was at its heaviest he was struck down by a charge of grape shot in his neck and left breast. He refused to be carried to the rear for treatment, but lay in front of his men calling on them to hold their position and when the fight reached its fiercest cried, "Die hard the 57th, die hard!", and die hard they did. The casualties were 420 out of the 570 men in the ranks and 20 out of the 30 officers. Marshal Beresford wrote in his dispatch, "our dead, particularly the 57th Regiment, were lying as they fought in the ranks, every wound in front".
Even after this savage fight and such appalling casualties, the regiment were eager to advance with the remainder but Beresford called out, "Stop, stop the 57th, it would be a sin to let them go on!"
Later when the battlefield was viewed it was seen that the dead of the 57th were lying like a pack of cards that had toppled over.
Oman, the historian, said of the honour "Albuhera" "this, the most honourable of all Peninsular Blazons on a regimental flag......", but it was the soldiers of Wellington's army themselves that dubbed the regiment the "Diehards" after the exhortation of their Commanding Officer. This indeed is a compliment as the British soldier is wary when giving praise to fighting men.
Last 300 years? Man, there would be too many to name.
Posting Permissions
