[SoCal Pubbie]

I am being serious. I agree with the thesis that "the German Army in the west, facing superior forces, overwhelming logistics, and ever increasing IS control of the skies....fighting basically a moving defensive battle..did exceptionally well.." That was not the statement you wrote in the earlier post. If you are restating Liddle-Hart's writings correctly, then is he's not as good a historian as people think he is. I gave two quick examples that disprove the thesis, and you gave me excuses why those don't count.

Furthermore, even if the statement was accurate, it would have no meaning. If you were to examine German operations in WWII the only example you could find of their army defeating a similar sized opponent, at least on paper, would be the Battle of France, which is misleading since the forces that actually clashed in the German breakout through the Ardennes were not evenly matched. The Germans were not on equal footing defeating the Poles, the Dutch, Belgians, Norwegians, nor British before the battle of France. They overwhelmed the Russians during the early stages of Barbarossa and when the numbers were evened out they lost big. The German military lost the Battle of Britain despite having superiority in numbers for Pete's sake!

[ken5050]

Good morning....thank for your post...I'me listening to MTP after church...and you've "saved" me from Bagdad Bob.

I wasn't seriously suggesting that you weren't being "serious"..

I need to dig out LH book and reread it..or at least reskim through it..possibly I didn't state his ENTIRE thesis accurately..

Battles are never equal...there are always advantages and disadvantages, and the great commanders exploit them. Also,"size" isn't perhaps the right term to use....the training, battle experience, and equipment of troops is FAR more important than mere troop strength..