Lord Stark...Operation Overlord had virtually as many British, Commonwealth and Free French forces as it did American. It was an allied invasion, not a 'US' one. As far as I know the vast majority of the ships there were British as well.

Battle of Imjin River - Gloucestershire Regiment (along with a small contingent of Belgians and Northumberland Fusiliers) holds off 6,000 Chinese soldiers for three days, buying time for UN forces to establish a defensive line.

617 squadron: The Dambusters. Their raid on the German dams using bouncing bombs was an amazing feat of skill and courage. The bombs had to be released at 220 mph from a height of only 60 feet at exactly 475 yards from the dams. Remarkable even in daylight, these raids were carried out at night, while under fire, The raid occured in the early hours of 17th May 1943. Eight of the nineteen Lancasters were lost. Flying so low, the crews of the lost aircraft had little chance to bail-out. Only 3 of the 56 crewmen survived.

Battle of Chancellorsville - 1863. Has it all. Numerically superior force defeated by wily general by means of a heroic night march that tragically (at least for the CSA) ends in death of Stonewall Jackson.

The Battle of Thermopylae was certainly cool, but it was the Athenian Navy's battle against the Persian fleet at that same time that was REALLY important.

@Jack_Klein - Just finished reading about the USS Barb. That's awesome! What am amazing service record!

Battle of Cartagena de Indias, by far.

The Siege of Constantinople (1453) is also interesting.

1918 Western Front Campaign the last gamble of Germany and the crushing counterattack

Joshua Chamberlain's "swinging gate" bayonet charge, which defended Little Round Top and in turn won the battle of Gettysburg. at least in my opinion it did.

@Rare Eagle. also one of my favorites

That's a lie. Linebacker II bombed the commie sons of bitches to the conference table. The operation was actually called off early because there weren't any targets left worth attacking. And we would have won Vietnam if it wasn't for the pussies controlling Congress in 1975.

Oops. I may have just hijacked my own thread. Back to battles. I'd have to agree, Battle of Berlin in terms of numbers. 2 million armour-backed Soviet soldiers vs. 100,000 Germans. Who's going to win? Hmmm...... I wonder.......

"Operation Linebacker II, December 1972. More bombs were dropped on North Vietnam in one week then during ALL SIX YEARS of WWII by ALL BELLIGERENTS."

I just thought you should read that again. So, in other words, more tons of bombs were dropped in one week in a minor regional conflict than during the largest war in recorded human history. So, the US Air Force matched and exceeded every WWII bombing raid in one week.

I totally agree with akilies on this one, Chamberlain is my favorite CW General by far. And to the brit who mentioned the war of 1812, I'd like to remind you (even though this technically happened after the war) Andrew Jackson powned the British sons of bitches with a barracade made out of cotton barrels with the help of a few volunteers. Suck it!!! (I don't care if this was like the only American highlight in the war, we still kicked British ass here)

Hereward77: Yes that may be true, but the plans for that invasion WERE American (read: Eisenhower). Therefore, for simplicity's sake, I dubbed it an American invasion. It was not a slight towards the French or English. Relax a bit.

Another military feat that should be mentioned is the skill of the Mongols under Genghis Khan (during that period in general). Brilliant tactically, and individually incredibly skilled. Conquering from China to Hungary is no easy feat. And lets face it, no one else has ever managed to control the Russians like the Mongols did.

I really like the battle of Belleau wood, more for being a touching story then anything else..

Okay, can't believe this hasn't been put foreward yet: Stonewall Jackson's Valley Campaign anyone? 1862, 17,000 confederate's versus 52,000 Union soldiers, Jackson pwned them all, and sent them crying back to Washington.

Battle of Stamford Bridge, 1066.

On the one side, one of the largest Viking forces ever assembled (almost 300 ships), though their forces were divided. On the other, the English army under Harold (the same guy who met his Waterloo at Hastings three weeks later). In between them, the afore-mentioned Stamford Bridge. It is said that a lone Viking berserker on the bridge kept the entire English army at bay for many hours, until an English soldier went under the bridge and 'pierced his innards terribly' (i.e. skewered him with a spear-thrust through the lats of the bridge). A move to be appreciated by any player of Diplomacy. The battle marked the decline of the Vikings as a power, and also led to many armies looking closely under bridges in future engagements.

The Battle of Manzikert; While I view the outcome as a tragedy it also showed why a division of power amongst too many self serving idiots can lead to the fall of great Empires in virtually a day. The US Congress needs to take the message here. (By the way I'm a US citizen)

@pauldel - I just read about that on cracked.com the other day - The 7 most badass last stands in history. Not that I recommend using cracked.com as a reliable historical reference, but still, it was a good read :-)

http://www.cracked.com/article/197_the-7-most-badass-last-stands-in-history-battle/

Both World Wars, all of them, from pre-war to the peace treaties, are fascinating... although as a Jew (and I'd hope ANYONE) would find the six million lost to the Camps more horrifying than fascinating... and The Armenian Genocide (who agrees Turkey should jsut fess up already, that's terrible to deny such a thing), let's not forget those poor souls... :/

I am a GREAT fan of Napoleon... fascinating man, brilliant tactician, beloved by his men, welcomed back by his country after exile (ANYTHING was better than their decadent monarchy), and one of the few conquerors who was kind to the Jews- he got them out of the ghettoes of France and much of Western Europe... many Jews were so thankful they named their kids after him... great man.

And so, as much as I love him, I must make the following claim:

Waterloo was the single most important battle of the Age of European Empires (going from mid 1500's-1914.)

The OUTCOME... Napoleon broken was HUGE. Think of all it did... and DIDN'T DO:

+England, now without its main nemesis, grew to the greatest naval empire ever, and so powerful she might've controlled the world more than any other empire ever, at least for her time (Alexander and the Romans controlled their "world" as they knew it, and America today might entr into that discussion... there's a side question: Alexander, Rome, the Victorian English, America today- who most dominated their "world" in their time?) That led to so much... her power in the World Wars, and then when her empire fractured, the mess it left in the Middle East and in Asia as well...

+France had to take a step back and has NEVER regained the prominance it had around, say, Austerlitz, where Napoleon was on top of his game and defeated three enemy nations at once. This has had large reprecussions, both on and off the battlefield... French Existentialism might have gaine greater exposure and recognition before WWII had the country been stronger, and perhaps Sartre and Camus would not have lost out as often as they did to Russell and Wittgenstein and analytic philosophy... a strong France (perhaps, to be fair, a STRONGER France) in 1914 might've changed the outcome of WWI- had it even occured, bringing me to....

-Had Napoleon won Waterloo, the world would undoubtedly be a much different place, because all of Europe would have changed. Even if after Waterloo Napoleon stopped, and decided to just play it safe, even for a while, and consolidate his empire, the fact is Napoleonic France might've survived. The monarchy wouldn't returned and put France in such a mess. Germany might not be what it was in 1914, or today- defeating Napoleon really brought the Prussian states together (I should say it was ONE thing that brought them together, but undeniably a big thing.) Had Napoleon's France survived, Bismark's Germany may never have risen, at least not that powerfully with such a dominating neighbor... the writings of Nietzsche might never have taken plae, or if they did, might not have had a large audience, and a 20th Century with a weaker Germany and stronger France could have changed so much... it's simply insane how much could have been different...

-With Napoleon around, the Middle East might've been handled differently. England would likely have still had a large share of it, even the lion's share, but France most definitely would've had a bit more with strong Napoleonic leadership. But what's more strinking is how the region might've been handled after the (probably inevitable) breakup of empires in that region. Napoleon said at least once he wanted to create a Jewish state there; whether it was to serve him as an outpost, a genuine feeling of kindness towards the Jews, or simply a means to get some of them out of France (his real motives were likely a mixture of the three) HAD he done such a thing, the impact, needless to say, on what we think of in terms of the region today, would have been enormous. An "Israel" created by Napoleon would likely have been far different than the one the UN set up, because Napoleon would have had different motives and likely have made it somewhat of a vassal state to France; in any case, Napoleon would likely have either set up an Israel that was smaller than what now exists and did not encroach on then-English held Palestine or, if he was in the mood for a fight, could perhaps have taken Palestine itself. In either event, Israel today and the region today could be far more secure- if the first option was to have happened, Israel and Palestine might have co-existed peacefully, and the region might have at least that settled today; if the second one was the case, an Israel that survived to this day and had been around for such a period of time would likely be more firm and not in danger, as it is unlikely it would've been wiped off the map had Napoleon established it, as no great explosives or WMDs existed in those days. And to throw one more "what if?" in there- consider tha mass emmigration from Russia and the East the Jews had around the turn of the 20th Century... many went to AMERICA or GERMANY. If an Israel existed then... could Einstein, the Three Stooges, the Marx Brothers, David Ben Gurion... could all of them have been born in Israel? The Middle East, the WORLD would be VERY different...

-America... how much different would WE BE? Think about it- America had a love/hate relationship with France, but got along with Napoleon reasonably well (due in no small part to the fact he kept the then-hostile English at bay and sold us the Louisiana Purchase.) Had that continued... could we be great friends with the French today and have a profoundly French influence and see the English as stuffed up and irritating today, instead of the other way around? But even larger... think of the World Wars- THAT's where America became what it is today. Theodore Roosevelt, from winning at San Jaun Hill to his great presidency, certainly started it going and created modern America to a great extent, but we weren't the world power and then superpower we have been for nearly a century now before the World Wars. With Napoleon controlling Western Europe, England at bay, and Germany weak or never formed, who's to say America would ever become more than a country fixed inward and isolationist, not a bug to be squashed but not a great world-layer either?

Waterloo- had it gone the other way, who knows...

Other "what-if" battles ( I LOVE those):

-Pompeii vs. Caesar: I don't even have to mention how THAT might've altered history...
-Attila the Hun in 451: If the Romans and Goths didn't stop him crushing the West...
-Charlemegne vs. the Muslims: Again, pretty self explanatory...
-Washington Crossing the Delware: Would the US of A never have come about?
-Trafalgar: I'm sure the English still get teary-eyed over this one...
-D-Day: WOW...

Discuss? ;)

Sam Houston's retreat to San Jacinto after losing The Alamo, La Bahia and San Patricio....defeating the Mexican army in 18 minutes, capturing Santa Ana and won the war of Texas Independence with inferior numbers. 1200 Mexicans killed or captured. 9 Texians killed. Awesome.

yeah that had a rather embarrassing end to it didn't it? the army was caught off-guard during mid-day (siesta) wasn't it? still... pretty impressive

@ Macrado: They have it on cracked.com? Well then it must be true... :)

Actually, I'm pissed off it's there: I was going to write a similiar article. Ah well, back to the drawing board.

"The Battle of Manzikert"

My favorite historical dialogue of all time, after the Byzantine emperor had been captured at Manzikert:
Turkish Sultan: "What would you have done to me if you'd captured me in this battle?"
Byzantine Emperor: "Oh, I don't know. Probably I'd torture you, strip you naked, and march you through the streets of Constantinople in chains and then have you quartered as the crowd cheered."
Turkish Sultan: "My punishment is far greater. I forgive you, and set you free."

(The Byzantine Emperor was assassinated shortly thereafter)

The only deaths on U.S. soil in WWII:
Japanese are starting to get desperate, and have recently discovered the jet stream. Japanese school children make balloons, which are then fitted with explosives. 10,000 of these are then released above Japan.
About 300 reach the U.S. one of which manages to kill 7 people picnicking in the woods. Sad, but the Japanese get credit for shear audacity.

Not sure if it was a siesta or not, but the Mexican army was demoralized after early success and then were forced to chase the Texian army across Texas to find scorched earth everywhere they advanced. The battle took the Mexicans by surprise and found their only retreat (a bridge) burned behind them by a Texian sortie.

Don Corleone is that actually true?

"Waterloo was the single most important battle of the Age of European Empires"

Obiwan, I have to disagree with you there. Napoleon's fate had already been settled; the coalition was amassing a great force that would've defeated him eventually no matter what. If he'd won Waterloo, he just would've had another massive Russo-Austrian army to face, and eventually he would've been defeated. Napoleon was undoubtedly one of the greatest generals of all time, but he wouldn't've been able to hold out against the coalition forever and the end result would've been the same. I think the decision to invade Russia was the decisive decision of Napoleon's career and France's future, not Waterloo.

"although as a Jew (and I'd hope ANYONE) would find the six million lost to the Camps more horrifying than fascinating"
but let's not forget the other 8 million civilians killed in the Holocaust. (Everyone does because they aren't Jews). The Nazis also killed Catholics, Poles, Soviets, Romani, People with disabilities, Jehovah's witnesses, and anyone else who disagreed with them.

That and the 24 million Soviets who died, both soldiers and civilians (14% of the population)

And of course the 10 to 20 million Chinese civilians brutally murdered by the Japanese.

The Shoah (Jewish Holocaust) was terrible, but 80 million people died because of WWII, and those 6 million seem to be the only ones anyone knows about.

"Don Corleone is that actually true?"

Absolutely. Here is one source - though I'm not sure it's reliable. But I've heard it before and found good sources in the past, you can look if you'd like.
http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/balloon_1/