Worst military mistakes.

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

Partly inspired by the pathetic characters thread, What are the biggest mistakes made in the theatre of war throughout the ages. I will start with just a few. However if you have an insignificant yet random/funny mistake like the one I'm including, I wanna hear it.

Charge of the light Brigade - 'you see that fortified valley with artillery at the end? Charge at it lads.'

A minor action in the Korean war - A british unit was under intensive attack and taking heavy fire and casualty and when asked how heavy the fighting was, he told the american radio operater that it was "getting a bit sticky". Unfortunatly, the American didn't understand typical British Understatement and the unit suffered heavy casualty when no reinforcements or support was sent to them. Always remember the language barrier in war when dealing with multinational armies.

On a side note which you shouldn't discuss here. And I'm WARNING YOU! This Website is the funniest thing I Have EVER READ! Not this specific blog, but it's general themes I find hilarious as they are A) Completly Juxtaposed to my own, and B) Mainly mad. http://depleteduranium.blogspot.com/2006/08/boycott-bbc.html

[||Lz3||]

operation barbarosa... WWII ... ,that war front anhihilated the german army
Teutoberg forest... surely there were ways to avoid it...
Carrhae
Cannae

the list goes on and on...

[Majd il-Romani]

Carrhae
Cannae
Phyrrus war with Romans
Iraq War
USSR war in Finland
WW1 period
1967 war between Israel and Arabs

[Poulp']

WWI war of position period.

We're stalled ? Alright, time for another offensive. Machine guns and artillery ? Nothing that can't be dealt with a bit of bravery...
Or, in more general terms, applying 19th century warfare in the first 20th c. war.

[Megas Methuselah]

War in general?
:beam:

[Zarax]

Metaurus aka: why using fabian tactics doesn't work in Italy if you aren't the romans.

[QuintusSertorius]

The Charge of the Light Brigade was so crazy it almost worked. If they'd stopped to spike the Russian guns, history might have remembered them a little differently.

[kambiz]

Carrhae Carrhae Carrhae Bah :angry: ... Yes it was a mistake ,But still no matter what path crassus or any other roman general (Even your beloved Caesar) would have been chose ,The outcome still would be the same. Do you really think EranSpahbad Suren would let the romans to take iran's soil easily?
Romans would be doomed at last ,As they did in their later campaigns.

[Tartaros]

French invasion of Russia 1812

Aleutian Islands Campaign in WWII

Peloponnesian War - Sicilian Expedition

[tapanojum]

Don't remember the name of the battle, hopefully someone here knows what I'm talking about and can help me.

During WWI. British positions were taking cover in a trench, their goal was to advance onto a german fortified position, provided with stationary machine guns etc. The british officer in charge thought it would be a good idea to charge head on, all out infantry, on this fortified position.

The Germans were so shocked by this, they eventually stopped firing their guns and allowed the survivors to escape.

[Tartaros]

Don't remember the name of the battle, hopefully someone here knows what I'm talking about and can help me.


possible the battles of Ypres

german nickname for such battles "Die Knochenmühle" something like "the bonegrinder"

[Zarax]

Wasn't that the one where they used the gases?

[Tartaros]

Wasn't that the one where they used the gases?

yupp, at the second battle 1915 i think,
after the french tested gas 1914...

[Watchman]

As the gas warfare goes, it's perhaps one of the finer examples of the phenomenom of escalation. What it started out as was the French using simple tear gas grenades against bunkers; what it developed into was kilometer after kilometer of the battlefront being wrapped up in clouds of whatever nasty shit the chemists had managed to come up with, and civilians *kilometers* behind the front having to be issued masks during the worst saturation attacks...
Seriously nasty stuff, and not even particularly militarily effective actually.

[Fiddler]

yep, but the french used tear gas from police supplies, the germans went the whole way and used chloride.

One of the all time highs probably is azincourt.
Don't wait for your crossbowmen to do their part, charge across a muddy field, get bogged down, cut to pieces and let a third of the army flee before getting involved.

[Tartaros]

As the gas warfare goes, it's perhaps one of the finer examples of the phenomenom of escalation. ...
Seriously nasty stuff, and not even particularly militarily effective actually.
Absolute!

War is made by peopel how know, but don´t kill each other and fought by peopel how don´t know but have to kill each other.

[Watchman]

One of the all time highs probably is azincourt.
Don't wait for your crossbowmen to do their part, charge across a muddy field, get bogged down, cut to pieces and let a third of the army flee before getting involved.The crossbowmen had kind of already lost the arrow-fight, but anyway that's the limitations of the feudal chain of command and period methods of communication (ie. shouting loudly) for you. C^2 issues were actually the main reason the French armied seemingly paradoxically tended to perform way better when they were small, and blundered disastrously when they were large.

As far as military mistakes go... if Operation Barbarossa was heavy on the desperate gambling, wistful thinking and pure blinkered superiority complex on the part of the Germans, their initial success was most certainly greatly assisted by the blunt fact that when it came to the disposition, deployement etc. of the Red Army in Poland Stalin had picked up the Idiot Ball (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotBall) and hung on to it quite stubbornly. Massing the divisions densely right at the border just meant the German assault promptly overran through both lines before the reserves had any time to react, nevermind now being something of a textbook example of How Not To Deploy Your Forces Period anyway. Putting an incompetent sycophant in charge of the whole front for the better part of the peace period, and then pretty much panicking and issuing idiotic orders to the commanders when the Germans attacked, weren't exactly Uncle Joe's brighter moments either.

End result was that the Soviets had to fight a desperate rearguard action all the way to the gates of Moscow with shattered remnants and hastily raised conscripts until the massively overstretched German logistics finally keeled over...

[Tyrfingr]

Allied invasion of Gallipoli (WWI) - Yeah, like attacking entrenched turks is a good idea.

Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (1990) - "Nobody will care if we just walk in there, right?" (Saddam Hussein to his advisors, august 1990)

USSR invasion of Finland 1939 - How to get your ass handed to yourself by knife-wielding alcoholics.

All marches towards Russia (Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler) - ...becausing learning from history is boring

[Watchman]

All marches towards Russia (Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler) - ...becausing learning from history is boringThe funny thing is, Napie and Adolf failed because aiming for Moscow terminally overstretched their lines of communication; Charlex XII failed because he didn't aim for St. Petersburg (which would've forced Peter to stand and fight or lose his pet new city) but instead rather pointlessly chased the Russian field army down into the Ukraine, terminally overstretching his lines of communication to the Baltic littoral.

Dumb kid got his priorities wrong, basically. :beam:

[Che Roriniho]

Don't remember the name of the battle, hopefully someone here knows what I'm talking about and can help me.

During WWI. British positions were taking cover in a trench, their goal was to advance onto a german fortified position, provided with stationary machine guns etc. The british officer in charge thought it would be a good idea to charge head on, all out infantry, on this fortified position.

The Germans were so shocked by this, they eventually stopped firing their guns and allowed the survivors to escape.

Pretty much any battle in WW1. The whole thing was bloody stupid.

BOT, I would say that Arnham in WW2 was pretty bad, likewise was Charge of the light Brigade. Mind you, the latter was just misunderstood instructions, the commander sent the message 'Charge those guns', but the LBV got the wrong ones.

[General Appo]

Any and all military decisions made by the Carthaginian Senate throughout its history.

Gotta agree with the USSR invasion of Finland, poorly planned invasions by poorly equiped untrained soldiers with incompetent commanders seldom works.

[Frodge]

Speaking of the USSR I feel compelled to mention Afghanistan. By all rights the USSR should have steamrolled but they got their arses handed to them.

[Che Roriniho]

Any and all military decisions made by the Carthaginian Senate throughout its history.

Gotta agree with the USSR invasion of Finland, poorly planned invasions by poorly equiped untrained soldiers with incompetent commanders seldom works.

Plus, Finland were damned good at artic warfare:

https://img76.imageshack.us/img76/3926/adrhfdgfgfgey9.png (https://imageshack.us)
https://img76.imageshack.us/img76/3926/adrhfdgfgfgey9.117bb198f2.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=76&i=adrhfdgfgfgey9.png)

[Fiddler]

The crossbowmen had kind of already lost the arrow-fight, but anyway that's the limitations of the feudal chain of command and period methods of communication (ie. shouting loudly) for you. C^2 issues were actually the main reason the French armied seemingly paradoxically tended to perform way better when they were small, and blundered disastrously when they were large.

I would go as far as to say the problem was the character of the french army in the first part of the second half of the war (:dizzy2:). Large armies could only be assembled by calling up the feudal levies (i.e. knights) and they where a independent-minded, unruly mob, going as far as to squable the night before the battle about who would get a place in the vangaurd.
The english army of Henry of the other hand was a professional force, and henry was the undisputed leader, so c2 (or c3, for a closed loop) where much easier to attain.
Whenever the french got a commander who could get things done in his way (DuGuesclin, Dunois etc) and weren't burdened with a swath of overzealous nobles, the english faced a much steeper task.


The funny thing is, Napie and Adolf failed because aiming for Moscow terminally overstretched their lines of communication; Charlex XII failed because he didn't aim for St. Petersburg (which would've forced Peter to stand and fight or lose his pet new city) but instead rather pointlessly chased the Russian field army down into the Ukraine, terminally overstretching his lines of communication to the Baltic littoral.
Hitler was rather erratic in his decisions, i.e. the german armored forces were suddenly reassigned to the south to get the "wheatbasket" of the ukraine, spent 4 weeks destroying the russians around kiew and then had to restart the drive to moscow, getting bogged down in mud and later snow.
Stands to questions what would have happened if Army Group Centre had 4 more weeks to get moscow.
Luckily, the world never had to find out.

Maybe the rule "never wage a land war in asia" should be ammended with "without having a clear, reachable objective. No, conquering the world is not a clear reachable objective."

[Watchman]

Plus, Finland were damned good at artic warfare:While it's certainly quite frosty around here in the winter, the arctics proper only start at the northern part of the country. The issue was really simply that the Finnish army was fighting according to how it was trained and equipped for, ie. as a light-infantry army oriented for forest warfare. Even without their absurd lack of reconnaissance and proper preparations the initial Soviet thrusts made the cardinal mistake of trying to operate like the force oriented for mobile warfare on the Eurasian plain that the Red Army primarily was, and were duly completely out of their depth in the endless forests of the Northern Coniferous Belt. (The Germans would have the selfsame problem against the Soviets in northern Finland - and forested lands in general - later on; their fancy Blitzkrieg stuff just didn't work there.)

That IIRC the formations used hailed from the steppe regions and duly didn't know the first thing about forests in general of course didn't help one bit.

Something of a modern re-enactement of the infamous Braddock Expedition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braddock_expedition) really, when you think about it.


Speaking of the USSR I feel compelled to mention Afghanistan. By all rights the USSR should have steamrolled but they got their arses handed to them.Oh the Russkies could steamroll all right. But just like the British a century earlier, that didn't avail them much because the local opposition just didn't fight in those terms.

Persistent guerilla warfare is like that. There's no question that in anything approaching a straight fight the Soviets and the British could reliably enough pulverize whoever was foolish enough to expose himself as a target that way. It was the endless ambushes, raids and the sheer inability to actually establish a secure hold on the land that sent them packing. (The Brits back in the day had more or less made like the Romans in Germania, largely staying the hell out save for punitive expeditions and settling for securing the border of their actually valuable lands.)


Maybe the rule "never wage a land war in asia" should be ammended with "without having a clear, reachable objective. No, conquering the world is not a clear reachable objective."It's actually just "don't wage war in general unless you actually know what you're doing". The Russian climate and geography was after all never much of an obstacle to invaders who actually prepared accordingly and knew the score (eg. the Polish-Lithuanians and Swedes in the 1500s), or hailed from the selfsame environment and were duly up to the task by default (eg. the steppe nomads).

The ones who floundered were those who came half cocked and/or failed to appreciate the sheer scale of the Eurasian interior.

[Che Roriniho]

Speaking of the USSR I feel compelled to mention Afghanistan. By all rights the USSR should have steamrolled but they got their arses handed to them.

That, and the fact that they destroyed a fair amount of the Ruins of Baktra. Bastards. But yeh, I think Afghanistan is one of those places that is almost impossible to conquer, we failed back in C19, the Russians failed pre-USSR, and in the '80s, and I believe the chinese Unsuccesfuly attempted an invasion at one point, don't quote me about that though.

[Watchman]

Weren't the Chinese just rustling horses though ? (Albeit with an army...)

[Hooahguy]

my list-
umm.... cant think of any that havent been said.

[The Persian Cataphract]

Carrhae Carrhae Carrhae Bah :angry: ... Yes it was a mistake ,But still no matter what path crassus or any other roman general (Even your beloved Caesar) would have been chose ,The outcome still would be the same. Do you really think EranSpahbad Suren would let the romans to take iran's soil easily?
Romans would be doomed at last ,As they did in their later campaigns.

I agree.

And before anyone attempts to argue:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2551978&postcount=6
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2552095&postcount=8
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2553577&postcount=14
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2553980&postcount=20
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2554183&postcount=27
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2555445&postcount=43
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2555658&postcount=45
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2555699&postcount=47
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2557908&postcount=64
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2558242&postcount=67
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2558877&postcount=70
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2559040&postcount=75
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2559124&postcount=77
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2579262&postcount=90
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2580234&postcount=95
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2582665&postcount=102
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2588717&postcount=105
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2620058&postcount=113

In this thread:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=140078

I doubt anyone has the energy to read all of this.

Carrhaë was a brilliant Parthian victory. A smaller Eastern cavalry force decisively defeats a significantly larger body of Romans, through an excellent strategical plan and thanks to swift interception. The Romans could barely pass Zeugma before they went in circles in the desert until the Parthians had mounted their move of defence. To just declare the Roman defeat as a moment of incompetence is to completely overlook the brilliance of Surena.

Hey, let's use the same fallacious reasoning and declare Alexander III The Great as someone who just picked his victories from an incompetent Achaemenid King of Kings who couldn't get anything right. Read a book for once, you dolts. Crassus did what he could, and worst of all, Marcus Antonius who did pick the "Armenian route" marched to Atropatene with a force of approximately 100,000 men, and fled with his tails between the legs. The Parthian King of Kings then was not the shrewd and cunning Orodes II, but it was the crazy lunatic fratricide Phraates IV.

*cue some Roman fanboy who is going to mention Trajan or Septimius Severus as a "response"*

[TWFanatic]

I must admit that I've always especially enjoyed Watchman's posts for their lack of bias and nationalism (something far too prevalent on internet forums). Very informative.

I would have to disagree with some of the previous posters on Cannae being a military mistake--at least tactically. Strategically, it never should have happened. If I may indulge in hindsight here, ol' Fabius the Cunctator was right. Of course, Varro did not have the advantage of hindsight and lacked Paullus' caution.

Having said that, Varro did not do anything wrong. At least, he did not do anything any other mediocre general would have seen as out of the ordinary. He deployed his cohorts in the standard triplex acies with the Roman legions in the center and the allies on the flanks. He positioned about a third of his cavalry (the citizens) river-side and the rest (the allies) on the left. Hannibal’s Balearic slingers dominated the skirmish, and so Varro, making his last mistake, chose to advance.

That Hannibal was able to encircle the legions is not do to any shortcoming on Varro’s part or that of his men, it is do the genius and cunning of Hannibal. AFAIK, the double envelopment was never used before in history--Varro had no way of knowing what his foe had in store for his legionaries. Which is my next point--the tenacious Romans were highly successful in breaking Hannibal’s center. The latter, as he so often did, merely used his opponents' own strengths against them. The principle of Judo comes to mind. Use your opponents momentum against him--e.g., you push, I pull; you pull, I push. Hannibal also played mind games with them, tempting them to do exactly what he wanted and expected. That is one reason why I believe that Hannibal was a better general than Alexander (on the battlefield, at least). The former would tempt the latter into doing something rash and would have no trouble capitalizing on it.

Did Varro fall for it? Most certainly. But I believe that few commanders would have done any better. Any armchair general who claims he would have seen the pincer coming is abusing the objective study of history by injecting the usage of hindsight into it. Regardless, Varro's countrymen certainly forgave him, and we should as well.

[TWFanatic]

I agree.

And before anyone attempts to argue:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2551978&postcount=6
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2552095&postcount=8
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2553577&postcount=14
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2553980&postcount=20
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2554183&postcount=27
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2555445&postcount=43
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2555658&postcount=45
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2555699&postcount=47
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2557908&postcount=64
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2558242&postcount=67
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2558877&postcount=70
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2559040&postcount=75
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2559124&postcount=77
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2579262&postcount=90
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2580234&postcount=95
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2582665&postcount=102
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2588717&postcount=105
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2620058&postcount=113

In this thread:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=140078

I doubt anyone has the energy to read all of this.

Carrhaë was a brilliant Parthian victory. A smaller Eastern cavalry force decisively defeats a significantly larger body of Romans, through an excellent strategical plan and thanks to swift interception. The Romans could barely pass Zeugma before they went in circles in the desert until the Parthians had mounted their move of defence. To just declare the Roman defeat as a moment of incompetence is to completely overlook the brilliance of Surena.

Hey, let's use the same fallacious reasoning and declare Alexander III The Great as someone who just picked his victories from an incompetent Achaemenid King of Kings who couldn't get anything right. Read a book for once, you dolts. Crassus did what he could, and worst of all, Marcus Antonius who did pick the "Armenian route" marched to Atropatene with a force of approximately 100,000 men, and fled with his tails between the legs. The Parthian King of Kings then was not the shrewd and cunning Orodes II, but it was the crazy lunatic fratricide Phraates IV.

*cue some Roman fanboy who is going to mention Trajan or Septimius Severus as a "response"*

I have long ago stopped attributing the success of a people or nation in war as due to their greatness as individuals. In other words, that the Persians repeatedly defeated Romans throughout history is not due to an inherent superiority as a people, just as Caesar’s success in Gaul is not due to the inherent greatness of his legionaries in being Roman. Cue the ideas of social Darwinism and nationalism. I am not saying you are doing this, I just want to be careful.

My opinion (and it is nothing more than that) is that the Parthians were able to inflict such crushing defeats on the Romans due to their respective methods of warfare. The "Parthian shot" was virtually impossible for an army based entirely around heavy infantry to counter. The testudo was worthless as the horse archers could ride right up to the legionaries and target their vulnerable limbs and faces. Even worse for the legionaries, they would quickly grow exhausted. Then the Parthians’ could pick them off almost at will (with the assistance of heavy cavalry of course). Cue Saladin at the Battle of Hattin--you don't need to inflict casualties on a heavily armored foe in the desert. Just forcing them to wear their full armor (or, in our case, remain in the immobile testudo) is enough, and horse archers are of course a most valuable tool for this purpose. Once the heavily armored troops are tired and broken the real slaughter may commence.

That is not to discount the genius of Surena. I merely wanted to point out the tactical superiority of the Persian armament on their home terrain as equally consequential in their repeated victories of Roman legions. So I agree with you, I just wanted to extend your argument further--Carrhae was not solely the result of a fleeting moment of Roman incompetence or Persian genius, but a culmination of many factors (including third party variables we haven’t discussed such as traitorous guides).

[Watchman]

Eh, just to nitpick, but Hattin was plenty rife with ferocious hand-to-hand combat. The Middle Eastern armies used Turkic nomads as skirmishers and light cavalry for all they were worth, certainly, but their "main strength" decisive component was shock troops.

And as the armour went, the locals often enough sported more of it than the Europeans. Old cataphract country, recall.

[Hooahguy]

my general opinion is that all these pathetic defeats can go both ways-
"one mans shameful defeat is anothers heroic victory" -hooahguy

[The Persian Cataphract]

Yet we must also give credit where it is due. "Fighting on equal terms" is an illusion that we must evict. Little of it pertains to nationalism, but regardless of view of point (Whether we want to attribute brilliance or incompetence) we must be consistent. I have personally had it with the academical dogmas of western historiography. I am saying that to every coin there are two sides, and when you watch crappy History Channel shows like "Decisive battles", all we get is "Crassus did not listen, Crassus was not a general but a Roman mortgage broker, Parthians used Parthian Shot, boo-hoo here, boo-hoo there, his soldiers were mercilessly butchered, more boo-hoo, cue scene from Greek theater". And that's it.

The traitorous guide in question was depending on which source you refer to (Ariaramnes or Abgar) a client ruler, who probably remained in close affiliation to Orodes II. When you think about it, it wasn't the first time that the Romans had transgressed a treaty. Pompey had likewise his own adventures in the western reaches of the Parthian empire. Additionally, we can hardly blame the Parthians for having enough clairvoyance to know where they could count upon loyalties to their work. What we get ultimately is not so much a Parthian tactical victory but a complete strategical showcase.

To the contrary, until recent scrutiny, Orientals of antiquity have continuously been projected as back-water nations of weaklings while Graeco-Roman culture mirrors today's "Western society". Don't believe me? Recently I stumbled upon yet another one of those crazy Judeo-Christian sites that argued about the historical inspiration of the biblical "Four Horsemen" and while it is known that the first of the four may have been inspired by the Parthians, the article went as far as projecting the Romans as today's coalition forces in Iraq while the Parthians were mirrored as "Iraqi insurgents".

It is only healthy and not least, fair, to mirror the rationale by flipping the coin, just to make a point. Crassus' plan of invading the Parthians was not some random anomaly. Lucullus had his double-dealings in Armenia (Scrutinized by Cyril Toumanoff), Pompey evicting Parthian governors, Crassus leading a "private" expedition (Supported by Julius Caesar), and finally Julius Caesar himself prepares to embark an expedition against the Parthians, before he got murdered; Marcus Antonius picks up the torch, reinforces the army, chooses "the other route", and still faces defeat, not once, but twice. You know what all of this rings to my ears? Escapism.

[General Appo]

That Hannibal was able to encircle the legions is not do to any shortcoming on Varro’s part or that of his men, it is do the genius and cunning of Hannibal. AFAIK, the double envelopment was never used before in history--Varro had no way of knowing what his foe had in store for his legionaries. Which is my next point--the tenacious Romans were highly successful in breaking Hannibal’s center. The latter, as he so often did, merely used his opponents' own strengths against them. The principle of Judo comes to mind. Use your opponents momentum against him--e.g., you push, I pull; you pull, I push. Hannibal also played mind games with them, tempting them to do exactly what he wanted and expected. That is one reason why I believe that Hannibal was a better general than Alexander (on the battlefield, at least). The former would tempt the latter into doing something rash and would have no trouble capitalizing on it.

Did Varro fall for it? Most certainly. But I believe that few commanders would have done any better. Any armchair general who claims he would have seen the pincer coming is abusing the objective study of history by injecting the usage of hindsight into it. Regardless, Varro's countrymen certainly forgave him, and we should as well.

Indeed, and in fact there is nothing to say that even Fabius Maximus would have acted differently, when he used his Cunctator tactics Rome did not have the army that fought at Cannae, and it´s quite possible that Fabius only tried to delay Hannibal long enough for such an army to be assembled, which would then destroy Hannibal. After all, I doubt that Fabius plan was to play mouse-and-cat with Hannibal until his army died of old age.

[Constantius III]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2551978&postcount=6
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2552095&postcount=8
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2553577&postcount=14
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2553980&postcount=20
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2554183&postcount=27
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2555445&postcount=43
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2555658&postcount=45
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2555699&postcount=47
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2557908&postcount=64
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2558242&postcount=67
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2558877&postcount=70
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2559040&postcount=75
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2559124&postcount=77
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2579262&postcount=90
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2580234&postcount=95
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2582665&postcount=102
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2588717&postcount=105
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2620058&postcount=113

In this thread:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=140078

I doubt anyone has the energy to read all of this.
That is one of the most amusing and enlightening series of posts I've ever read, and highlights how little I really know about the Parthians. Seems that both Romans and Persians were awfully good at exploiting each others' little civil wars and internecine conflicts, and for every Herakleios (who, IMHO, was a total freakin' genius who really oughtn't have gotten dropsy in his later years) there was a Surena or a Pacorus. You mentioned the late Professor Shahbazi a lot; do you think there would be any English translations of any of his works that I could pick up?

Frankly I haven't a clue as to why it's so impossible to credit the Parthians with genius at Carrhae; it means that the Romans look better too, and that the engagement was more of a clash between an extremely skilled opponent and a competent one as opposed to a blundering farce on both sides.

As for real terrible military mistakes, I'd probably go with Demetrios' pursuit of Antiokhos off the field at Ipsos as opposed to keeping his cavalry where it could actually make a difference. While Antigonos still might not have been able to win the battle, he would have had a much better chance of things that way.

[DeathEmperor]

Don't mean to add fuel to a potential fire but I agree with TPC. Most historians and armchair generals today are too quick to say that " (insert name) won because they faced a stupid opponent or (insert name) lost because they were outnumbered/ambushed/etc." rather than look at battles, events and people from a sober and unbiased view. Was Crassus arrogant? Yes. Was he an incompetant and stupid general? Hardly, unless you believe the propaganda of the past 2000 years. True he did make mistakes in his campaign against Parthia, but this should not give historians and people in general the right to write him off as an idiot. It also disgusts me when people judge a person's actions 2000+ years ago by our "modern" standards such as when certain "historians" call Alexander 'A spoiled teenager who inherited his father's army and used it to satisfy his adolescent yearning for adventure.'.

I'll get off this topic for now as I'm getting irritated just thinking about those people. Not any of you guys, but certain individuals I know in real life.

Now back to the topic of Worst Military Mistakes, I would have to say the formation that Antiochus the Great used for his army at Magnesia. Stationing elephants in-between the divisions of his phalanx may have helped give the phalanx stability, but it was a catastrophe when they rampaged through the phalangites after being bombarded by pila and other missiles. The use of the obsolete war chariot in the battle is a mistake in itself, which led to them turning back from their failed charge against the Roman right and instead wreaking chaos on the Seleucid left. If Antiochus had used conventional Hellenistic tactics against the Romans (phalanx and heavy infantry in the center, elephants and cavalry on the wings, screw the chariots) he would've most likely won a solid victory in my opinion. He might've tried the knew formation after remembering Philip V's defeat, but the plains of the Hermos were near-perfect for phalanx warfare compared to the hills of Cynoscephalae where Philip met with disaster. :shame:

[QuintusSertorius]

There's a book I have on this very topic which is quite amusing and shocking: Military Blunders: The How and Why of Military Failure (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Military-Blunders-How-Why-Failure/dp/1854879189/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217003839&sr=8-4) by Saul David.

Featuring such highlights as British Retreat from Kabul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Elphinstone%27s_army); the Battle of Dien Bien Phu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu); the Fall of Singapore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Singapore); the Siege of Kut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_kut); Mussolini's Invasion of Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_Egypt); the Battle of Colenso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Colenso) and many more.

[TWFanatic]

It is only healthy and not least, fair, to mirror the rationale by flipping the coin, just to make a point.
Ah, I see what you were doing now. I just wanted to ensure that you were not a reactionist to what you aptly termed “the academical dogmas of western historiography.” Believe me, I had to wade through all that bull with my professors and brainwashed fellow students as well. I happened to study with a large number of Persian immigrants who challenged the system, so thankfully I was not allowed to grow dogmatic.

That said, there are also many academics who put political correctness above the objective study of history, injecting their beliefs that all things western are bad into the classroom. However they are vastly outnumbered by the other extreme from my experience. There are people from all sides who would rather inject subjectives into the debate, and it would help if objective academics from all backgrounds condemned all forms of dogmatic historiography.

[Sarcasm]

Carrhae Carrhae Carrhae Bah :angry: ... Yes it was a mistake ,But still no matter what path crassus or any other roman general (Even your beloved Caesar) would have been chose ,The outcome still would be the same. Do you really think EranSpahbad Suren would let the romans to take iran's soil easily?
Romans would be doomed at last ,As they did in their later campaigns.

So that's why you joined the team. You can view alternate timelines.



I've had been wondering about that. :book:

[TWFanatic]

As always Sarcasm, your posts make my day.:balloon2:

[||Lz3||]

carrhae was a military mistake not entirely cause crassus' tactical mistakes but also cause... well they shouldn't have even tried to invade parthia :sweatdrop:



I have one no one has mentioned yet! :smash:

Dunkirk! "hey our british lads are tired... let them rest a day or two..."
"what!?? they escaped?! .... damn :shifty:"


seriosly if hitler had finished what he started he would have destroyed completely the british expeditionary force

[Watchman]

Well there were little things like logistics and the fact the BEF and French were being rather obstructive limiting what exactly the Germans could achieve.

'Sides, given how hideously high stakes they'd gambled at and, to no small surprise to even themselves, won in that campaign, large parts of the BEF and the French northern forces getting away was a minor inconvenience.

[Ludens]

In addition, Hitler was given an inflated damage report, where someone had represented the tanks that had broken down as "destroyed". So Hitler thought his Panzer divisions were in far worse shape then they really were.

[Chris1959]

Pearl Harbor 7/12/41 !!!!!!

[abou]

My problem with Magnesia wasn't the formation of Antiochos, it was the chariots. Antiochos didn't need the chariots to overwhelm the Roman cavalry as his own was perfectly suitable for the job. Furthermore, once the cavalry were in the rear the Romans would have been lost as even the spear-armed triarii could not stand against the xyston-equipped Seleukid cavalry.

As far as Parthia is concerned - they weren't invincible or some unstoppable juggernaut. The allusions to Caesar planning a campaign was mentioned in, I believe, Suetonius and either a Parthian or Dacian campaign. I think that he could have done it, but it would hardly be a foregone conclusion either way and would likely have been tedious, taking several years to do it successfully. In turn, Crassus' biggest problem was initiating a conflict with Parthia at all.

Probably one that is lesser known is Antiochos VII's decision to winter in recently conquered territory. Rather than fall back to safer Seleukeia, which was also recently retaken, he split up his massive army into smaller garrisons and made his way to Ekbatana. Well, we all know what happened there and the world said goodbye to the last show of Seleukid strength.

[Zarax]

Abou, any chance for a link about that last seleukid offensive? Sounds like an interesting story...

[abou]

It's split up between Justin and Diodotus and discussed in Bevan as well as in Grainger's The Cities of Seleukid Syria. The idea of moving back to Seleukeia as a better alternative is my own since we see it a lot with other generals. Antiochos III, for example, would winter at Ephesos during his Thraikian campaign and Caesar would move back south rather than stay in Celtic Gaul.

[Tyrfingr]

Pearl Harbor 7/12/41 !!!!!!

Ah, there we have the mother of all mistakes...along with the german subwarine warfare waged against merchantships in the atlantic during WWI and the World Trade Center Attack, this must be the most military mistakes and stupid calculations. Attacking the US and praying for no retaliation is like putting your fingers into the fire and expect not to be burned....

[Che Roriniho]

my general opinion is that all these pathetic defeats can go both ways-
"one mans shameful defeat is anothers heroic victory" -hooahguy

Look! A really big Distraction! *Steals Motto*


Ah, there we have the mother of all mistakes...along with the german subwarine warfare waged against merchantships in the atlantic during WWI and the World Trade Center Attack, this must be the most military mistakes and stupid calculations. Attacking the US and praying for no retaliation is like putting your fingers into the fire and expect not to be burned....

They were expecting retaliation, but the whole point of this attack was to destroy the Entire US Navy in one swift blow. No navy-no problem.

Also, it wasn't the Submarine Attacks, it was partly the Zimmerman Telegram, and partly because of the sinking of the Lusitania, which was a civilian Ship, but German Intelligence indicatred that it was transporting arms to Europe.

And can you honestly say that the war on Terror is a success? More Americans have died from the 'Peacekeeping', than could have died in any reasonable amount of terrorist attacks on the US.


My problem with Magnesia wasn't the formation of Antiochos, it was the chariots. Antiochos didn't need the chariots to overwhelm the Roman cavalry as his own was perfectly suitable for the job. Furthermore, once the cavalry were in the rear the Romans would have been lost as even the spear-armed triarii could not stand against the xyston-equipped Seleukid cavalry.

As far as Parthia is concerned - they weren't invincible or some unstoppable juggernaut. The allusions to Caesar planning a campaign was mentioned in, I believe, Suetonius and either a Parthian or Dacian campaign. I think that he could have done it, but it would hardly be a foregone conclusion either way and would likely have been tedious, taking several years to do it successfully. In turn, Crassus' biggest problem was initiating a conflict with Parthia at all.

Probably one that is lesser known is Antiochos III's decision to winter in recently conquered territory. Rather than fall back to safer Seleukeia, which was also recently retaken, he split up his massive army into smaller garrisons and made his way to Ekbatana. Well, we all know what happened there and the world said goodbye to the last show of Seleukid strength.

Wasn't Antiochos III Antiochos Megas? He was utterly useless wasn't he? Truly one of the great destroyers of the Selucid Empire.

[Krusader]

Battle of Karánsebes

Maybe not a military mistake or maybe it is. Hilarious all the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karansebes

[TWFanatic]

Just to nitpick:


Caesar would move back south rather than stay in Celtic Gaul.
True, but that was mostly for political reasons (so he could be closer to Rome). Cato was doubtless causing Caesar a considerable headache during and after the second thanksgiving celebration of the latter's victories. Caesar's legions generally wintered in Transalpine Gaul under their respective legates, who were not expected to show much initiative. They needn't have anyway, Caesar had no problem traveling at phenomenal speeds. His forces were kept together, however, not separated like Antiochus'.

[Hegix]

Battle of Dyrrhachium, you should always click "Continue Battle" after winning to chase down the fleeing enemy.

[QuintusSertorius]

I have one no one has mentioned yet! :smash:

Dunkirk! "hey our british lads are tired... let them rest a day or two..."
"what!?? they escaped?! .... damn :shifty:"


seriosly if hitler had finished what he started he would have destroyed completely the british expeditionary force

My grandfather was a Royal Marine at Dunkirk with the BEF. They survived for a week on boiled sweets. He was underage too, just 15 when he ran away to join up.

[Constantius III]

partly because of the sinking of the Lusitania, which was a civilian Ship, but German Intelligence indicatred that it was transporting arms to Europe.
It was transporting small arms to Europe. Didn't make it legal or cricket for the Germans to fire without a warning (by the rules of naval warfare of the day, anyway), but it did make the Lusitania a legitimate target.

Wasn't Antiochos III Antiochos Megas? He was utterly useless wasn't he? Truly one of the great destroyers of the Selucid Empire.
:inquisitive: Uh...there is an excellent reason he merited the epithet 'Megas'.

Battle of Dyrrhachium, you should always click "Continue Battle" after winning to chase down the fleeing enemy.
:laugh4:

[Hax]

Wasn't Antiochos III Antiochos Megas? He was utterly useless wasn't he? Truly one of the great destroyers of the Selucid Empire.

What? Antiochos' campaign against the Romans was indeed unsuccesful, but in earlier years he had stretched the Seleucid empire all the way back to Bactria again. He also (temporarily) stopped the Parthians from taking more Seleucid lands. I'm no expert on the subject, but this is what I know. I bet abou or Krusader could tell you more.

[DeathEmperor]

Wasn't Antiochos III Antiochos Megas? He was utterly useless wasn't he? Truly one of the great destroyers of the Selucid Empire.

I mean no offence to you when I say this Che Roriniho, but in all honesty I laughed when I read that.

Antiochos III the Great was the greatest and most successful of the Seleukid kings second only to Seleukos I Nicator himself. When he ascended the throne he ruled the bare heartlands of the empire namely Syria, Assyria and most of Mesopotamia. From the moment he was crowned he was at war with every kingdom in the East, and by the time he went to war with Rome he had successfully defeated the Armenian(Hayasdan), Parthian(Pahlava) and Baktrian kings in battle and brought them back into the empire as subservient vassal states. There are many other things he did worthy of note, but I don't want to make such a post when my fellow Seleukid supporters *winks at abou* can make one much more eloquent and understandable.

Antiochos Megas has an undeserved reputation as incompetent or foolish mainly because he was portrayed as such by Roman historians. The Battle of Magnesia and the number of troops the Romans had are greatly distorted as are the losses they recieved. Antiochus routed the entire left wing of the Romans leading a charge made up of Agema, Kataphracts and Hetairoi and yet Livy and Appian say the Romans suffered only 300 casualties? :inquisitive:

[||Lz3||]

My grandfather was a Royal Marine at Dunkirk with the BEF. They survived for a week on boiled sweets. He was underage too, just 15 when he ran away to join up.

yes it was tough for the BEF... and well thanks god that hitler was a military idiot (he had his moments...but... not that many...)

"hey, we have those super jets ME 262, I have an idea lets transform them into useless bombers instead of actual fighters! :idea2:"

[kambiz]

So that's why you joined the team. You can view alternate timelines.

I've had been wondering about that. You had been wondering for long that why I've joined (And actually I have been invited not joined by myself) the team? lol Poor Sarcasm what a great pain you had :laugh4: Now I hope you feel better after disclosing this mystery :wink:

@The Persian Cataphract
Thank you for very informative posts :yes: I have PMed you.

[Justinian II]

Battle of Dyrrhachium, you should always click "Continue Battle" after winning to chase down the fleeing enemy.

*SNORT*

So true.

I'd also add Manzikert to this list--that was a bungled campaign if there ever was one.

[Che Roriniho]

I mean no offence to you when I say this Che Roriniho, but in all honesty I laughed when I read that.

Antiochos III the Great was the greatest and most successful of the Seleukid kings second only to Seleukos I Nicator himself. When he ascended the throne he ruled the bare heartlands of the empire namely Syria, Assyria and most of Mesopotamia. From the moment he was crowned he was at war with every kingdom in the East, and by the time he went to war with Rome he had successfully defeated the Armenian(Hayasdan), Parthian(Pahlava) and Baktrian kings in battle and brought them back into the empire as subservient vassal states. There are many other things he did worthy of note, but I don't want to make such a post when my fellow Seleukid supporters *winks at abou* can make one much more eloquent and understandable.

Antiochos Megas has an undeserved reputation as incompetent or foolish mainly because he was portrayed as such by Roman historians. The Battle of Magnesia and the number of troops the Romans had are greatly distorted as are the losses they recieved. Antiochus routed the entire left wing of the Romans leading a charge made up of Agema, Kataphracts and Hetairoi and yet Livy and Appian say the Romans suffered only 300 casualties? :inquisitive:

Ooops... That'll be my bad then. Sorry, Antiochos Megas!

*Runs, accidently leaving a Fig Leaf behind*

[tapanojum]

Not exactly military mistake, but more like a major mistake in general.

King Fu-Ch'ai of the state of WU being overrun by the state of Yueh.

Fu-Ch'ai had defeated Yueh and instead of exterminating the leading power in charge, he allowed Kou-Chien of Yueh to live. (Of course, great gifts and bribes were given for the survival). Then Fu-Cha'ai allowed his former enemy to influence his actions. Ultimately he ignored the advice from one of his best advisors/generals yet allowed Kou-Chien's propoganda to enter his mind.

The advice of course was to NOT invade the northern state. To finish taking over Yueh because they will eventually cause the destruction of Wu.

Long story short, Wu ended up invading another great state to their north while the Yueh broke alliance and invaded from the south and taking Wu for themselves just as was predicted.

[Ludens]

Battle of Karánsebes

Maybe not a military mistake or maybe it is. Hilarious all the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karansebes

:laugh4:

About Pearl Harbour, back in my childhood I possessed a series of old Reader's Digest books containing war stories of WWII. It was practically entirely American propaganda. For example, they claimed that Japan's attack was inspired by an US navy war simulation in which exactly the same scenario was played out. Attacking US planes sneaking up on the battleships stationed in Pearl Harbour could get a very clear shot, especially if the anti-aircraft defences were caught unprepared. Even at time, I wondered that, if it were true, didn't it mean that the Americans had made the same mistake twice?

I am not sure if it was true, however. For all I know, the attack was inspired by the British raid on Taranto.

[Victor1234]

Battle of Karánsebes

Maybe not a military mistake or maybe it is. Hilarious all the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karansebes

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=360467&page=1&pp=20

Not that I like the Austrians or anything, but this is one case where they didn't screw up. :book:

[Che Roriniho]

It was transporting small arms to Europe.

This is a common misconception, partially fuelled by a fact that exploded violently after sinking. This wasn't because it wasd carrying arms, but because of the tightly packed coal-dust (it was a steam ship, and a reasonably often-used one, so there was lots of compacted fuel), which, like any tightly packed flammable dust, exploded violently. I don't know exactly where the rumour of it carrying explosives started, but possibly It was German, to justify it's destruction, which would make sense, as their Intel was indicating this, even though it was false.

[Sarcasm]

You had been wondering for long that why I've joined (And actually I have been invited not joined by myself) the team? lol Poor Sarcasm what a great pain you had :laugh4: Now I hope you feel better after disclosing this mystery :wink:

Huh?

[Che Roriniho]

Huh?

So it wasn't just me going completely mental then? *whew* Also, Double-You Tee Eff?

[The Persian Cataphract]

Back to the topic :whip:

[Che Roriniho]

Back to the topic :whip:

Agreed. Arnhem.

[Constantius III]

I'd also add Manzikert to this list--that was a bungled campaign if there ever was one.
Uh...Romanos Diogenes did just fine for most of the campaign. What lost the battle for the Romans wasn't their own mistakes or inherent inferiority (both myths) but the treachery of Andronikos Doukas, who pulled back most of the army so that the emperor and a small detachment were able to be surrounded by the Seljuqs. And really, the battle wouldn't have been such a disaster were it not for the revolt in Bulgaria that diverted Emperor Mikhael VI's and strategos Nikephoros Bryennios' attention. They were only able to send a relatively small detachment to fight the Seljuqs under Isaakios Komnenos, which was defeated. They probably should've sent Bryennios to fight the Seljuqs and Komnenos to quash the Bulgars. Anatolia was more important.

As for the Lusitania carrying arms: listed on its manifest (on the first page) were 4.2 million rounds of Remington ammo and over a thousand 3-inch shells, and (I think) some fuses too. These, being small arms, would not have contributed to any explosion (they didn't explode when shipped in bulk). Has nothing to do with the famous 'second explosion', but they were there all the same.

[Justinian II]

Uh...Romanos Diogenes did just fine for most of the campaign. What lost the battle for the Romans wasn't their own mistakes or inherent inferiority (both myths) but the treachery of Andronikos Doukas, who pulled back most of the army so that the emperor and a small detachment were able to be surrounded by the Seljuqs.

That's the bungled part, IMO. I'm not sure it was quite a good idea to bring your enemy on campaign with you, AND HAVE HIM IN CHARGE of a contingent.

But yeah, Manzikert needn't have had the effect it DID have in the long run. Or even, if Romanos managed to keep the throne. It was the resulting cascade of civil war that really did Anatolia in, IMO.

[Constantius III]

That's the bungled part, IMO. I'm not sure it was quite a good idea to bring your enemy on campaign with you, AND HAVE HIM IN CHARGE of a contingent.
Yeah, it did kind of seem out of character for Romanos to leave Botaneiates at home and bring along Doukas. Kinda like Boney bringing Grouchy to Waterloo and leaving Davout behind, except Grouchy wasn't about to try to kill Napoleon (only ruin his chances of smashing the Prussians). Taking 'keep your friends close and enemies closer' to a whole new level. Normally, for roleplaying purposes in EB, I bring along generals with the 'Disloyal' trait with a 'Loyal' general on campaign, so they're not in control of a city and they don't have an army to themselves...guess this was the repercussion...

But yeah, Manzikert needn't have had the effect it DID have in the long run. Or even, if Romanos managed to keep the throne. It was the resulting cascade of civil war that really did Anatolia in, IMO.
Yup. Romanos' story after losing Manzikert is awfully sad. Depressing, even. Gets captured by Alp Arslan, ransoms his way out by promising to pay him when he retakes the throne, but the forces of the betrayers are too much for him, so he surrenders and promises to enter a monastery, but then gets blinded anyway and exiled. The blinding is done so badly he gets an infection and starts to die, but before he does, he collects all the money he can get to send to Alp Arslan as a gesture of good faith. Tragedy.

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

9/11 - how is that a military mistake?

1) You couldn't say that it helped America very much or that the terrorists are dead or ever will be.

2) You could argue that they don't represent a military force and was purely civilians attacking a civilian target.

3) and the option it wasn't terrorists but the government in which case it was a mistake because they are now stuck in Iraq.

PS: No talk about conspiracy theories are a load of crap or that the American government is evil and did it. It isn't relevent. Understood?

[Skandinav]

Regarding Pearl Harbour,
U.S embargoes against the imported oil dependent Japan were important triggers for the japanese "surprise" attack, for whom, as with the rest of the worlds political spectators, the war in the pacific was inevitable; Roosevelt desired it and the stage was set with, despite the obvious threat of a vengeful Imperial Japanese Navy, a completely unprepared american garrison on an island with a strategical advantage for a U.S attack thought more than likely by the Supreme War Council.
This could by some be considered historical revisionism but I fail to believe that any would argue against the fact ( and historical evidence ) that the attack was not as unexpected as it is often made to be.

[teh1337tim]

actually ive gone to the national archives and read declassified documents of roosevelts contact with his secretary of state about pearl harbor

i believe it was at start of november or middle that the US intel detected the 4 fleet carriers and 2 battleships +-12 destroyers were gone from there northern japan harbor area
after that another doc said that roosevelt got intel of troop movement in southeast asia

well tbh US was preparing 4 war by 1940 starting with lend lease
(what better, hey lets make free tanks for allies! get those factories started)
bam 1942-- more shermans more shermans!!!!!4 years later
50,000 variants produced... epic! ... not rly

my worst i would say would be in the american revolution
general cornwallas? (SP)
barracaded himself and was surrounded by french/american force on land and sea and surrendered
thus ending the revolution and effectively saying the United states of America was borned...US of A!!

[Ibrahim]

anyone mentioned the eastern font in 1941? that was the bggest blunder anyone ever made in the 20th century.

[||Lz3||]

anyone mentioned the eastern font in 1941? that was the bggest blunder anyone ever made in the 20th century.

at the first page :2thumbsup:

Operation barbarossa

[Ibrahim]

oh, i thought that read assorabrab or something..mustbe the headache.

as for that battle in romania, that was retarded: 10,000 casualties because some stupid Hussars didn't feel like sharing?? well, at least the ottoman turks had a free victory. nice to see them actually having anything after 1683 going right for them.:book::book:

[Shigawire]

My vote would go with Krusader. For "Battle of Karansebes" :laugh4:

[Teutobod II]

Russian invasion of East Prussia 1914 + their further action the following 3 years

British/Indian landing attempt of Tanga 1914 with halftrained Indian troops and no recon of the area

British defence of Hong Kong 1941

[Fiddler]

Why was the russian invasion such a huge mistake?

They got beaten, yeah, but the russians brought two armies to eastern prussia much faster than the german general staff deemed it possible and this lead to the decision to relocate two corps from the west to the east, which missed both the battles in the east and the first battle of the marne in the west, maybe even tipping the scales in favor of the french and british.

Maybe we should provide a definition of a "grave military mistake", and where blame for "worst mistake" is due and where the defeat was rather a result of bad luck, fog of war or a decision which seemed reasonable at the time but has been declared wrong by hindsight.

[V.T. Marvin]

Battle of al-Hattin (wiki here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hattin) and especially basically anything that Raymond of Tripoli has done before it might easily qualify as one of the biggest blunders in military history.:skull:

[Victor1234]

My vote would go with Krusader. For "Battle of Karansebes" :laugh4:

Well, since you guys don't seem to like reading links, I might as well paste the stuff here. :beam:



Sounds made up, to be honest.

-The only translation is in the Spanish wiki
-The German wiki article on Joseph II and the Austro-Turkish war doesn't even mention it
-There were no Romanian infantry regiments in the Austrian army (granted, I only looked at the Austrian army during the Napoleonic Wars, but close enough), which means there'd only be few Romanians here and there and not enough to put a whole army to flight by shouting 'The Turks'.
-The hussar regiments were all composed mostly of Hungarians (as is the name of the town), although there is no reference to the battle on the Hungarian wiki and no reference to Hungarians in the English article itself.
-It sounds idiotic to begin with and the inclusion of gypsies selling schnapps to travelling soldiers only further heightens this pretension. No self-respecting Hungarian hussar would drink anything but red wine or palinka.

Edit: Also, the inclusion of idiotic parts like that it was gypsies selling alcohol, Austrians shooting at shadows in the night with artillery, the soldiers who could not understand each other mistaking Halt for Allah, the drunken party and all, makes it sound like it was written by someone with no knowledge of the area in general or the Austrian army in particular, who wanted to make it seem like he knew what he was talking about by throwing in the words: gypsies, Slavs, minorities, etc.


This is the description given by Joseph II himself in a letter (from M.Z.Mayer monography on the campaign)

"Everythïng was proceeding in the greatest order and we would have arrived
in Caransebes without the enemy's knowledge for it was night All of a
sudden a group of Wallachians.. became alarmed and fired their rifles
which threw a unit of hussars and dragoons into confusion .... They
answered this fire before finally attacking the infantry.... The column in
which I found myself was completely dispersed. Cannons, wagons and all
the tents were turned over, it was horrible; [my] soldiers shooting at each
other! Eventually calm was restored, and we were luckyethat the Turks
were not on our trail otherwise the whole army would have been
destroyed. Nevertheless, we lost not only the pots and tents with
considerable damage to other baggage but also three pieces of artillery."

The loss of 3 pieces is a long way from losing 10.000 men, that is traced back to P. Bernard article on Joseph II, but as he doesn´t mention sources it is probably made up.


Yeah. I really wondered what happened. It seems to be that articles on Caransebes in Wikipedia offer more information about that battle than just articles about the battle of Caransebes. English, French, Hungarian and Italian wiki webpages on city of Karansebes mention the date of that battle shortly if I translated them correctly. I am certain that something happened there in that date, September 17, 1788.


Not really. The English article says "during the wars" and "in 1788". Not exactly specific on either account. The Hungarian article also seems to have been copied directly from the English (especially as on the Hungarian pages for Joseph II and the Austro-Turkish war, there's no reference, as well as no specific article for this battle).

Here's what the reference is on the Hungarian wiki that you mentioned:

1788-ban itt zajlott le a karánsebesi csata a császári hadak különböző alakulatai között, amelyek egymást török csapatoknak hitték. Ezután a törökök akadálytalanul törtek be a városba és felégették.

"In 1788, the battle of Karánsebes took place here, between the various elements of the Imperial army, which believed each other to be the Turkish army. After this, the Turks broke into the town and burned it without any opposition."

No mention of the actual battle, the losses, the exact date or anything.
Plus, the Hungarian wiki has a nasty habit of borrowing material, references and all from the English wiki, just translating it.

The German article just mentions how it was part of the Austrian military frontier with no reference to the battle.

The French article mentions the battle as the only bit of history associated with the town. A copying job is most likely the case if that's the only bit of history they have for it.

I think if the battle did happen (which is dubious in the first place), it certainly wasn't 10,000 dead and wounded.


Geoffrey Regan´s book The Brassey's Book of Military Blunders. Washington, D.C.: Brassey's. ISBN 157488252X. mentions that battle and it was the primary source. I wonder what sources Mr. Regan used in Karansebes issue.


According to Matthew Z. Mayer, Joseph II and the campaign of 1788 against the Ottoman Turks (a thesis submited in the McGill University in 1997), the history is traced to an article by Bernard, Paul P. 'Austria's Last Turkish War.' Austran History Yearbook. VOL 19-20, 1983-1984, pp. 15-31, where he says that "before order could be restored over 10,000 men had been lost" but he also fails to give any source. In contrast the letter by Joseph II himslef paints a very different picture. Mind that it was a private letter to Archduke Leopold, and in other private letters written in the campaign Joseph II saved no criticism, so in all probability his tale of "3 guns lost" if no other primary source is found should be considered the right one.


Personally, I find the idea of infantry firing, spooking the calvary and then causing a bit of a ruckus more believable than a drunken party where the calvary erect fortifications (!) around the alcohol and the army misunderstands halt as allah, leading to 10% losses for the army.

One thing that bothers me about the account though.....the infantry became alarmed and fired their rifles. Is it a translation error from German or what? The Austrian infantry used muskets in 1788 and there are seperate words in German for rifle and musket.


Yes, that also surprised me, could be the translation, or maybe rifled muskets? those were used by light infantry at the time


I thought about that too, but going by the Napoleonic Wars Austrian army, the only units equipped with rifles were the Tyrolian Jaegars. Apparantely, they accepted only Germans (and later due to the demands for manpower during the wars with Napoleon, Czechs as well) but no Romanians. Considering there were no Romanians in the calvary and no Romanian-specific infantry regiments either, it seems to me the Austrians used them mostly as replacements for the regular line infantry regiments.


I don't know about others languages but in french we also have a different word for musket and rifle, but as the etymology isn't the same than the english one, the meaning of the french "fusil" is less precise (as it's not necessarilly a "rifled" gun...).

That means, for exemple, that in napoleonic times french soldiers used what we would call "muskets" in the modern english terminology, but those "muskets" were called "fusils" (rifles) in french at the time and even to this day.

So, don't let yourself be overly confused about terminology and translation, that may be the same or something similar in others languages too.

It's a fact i've noticed,that usually english (or maybe just modern english) is very precise about weaponry names while in french and especially in primary sources (modern french try to be more precise too), the names for weapons are used for a wide variety of sometimes quite different weapons (a poleaxe is just an "axe" in french for exemple (that may be because creating composed word is far more difficult in french, or for others reasons linked to the logic of the language).




Sorry guys, but this seems like a prime reason why we shouldn't trust Wikipedia......

[Atraphoenix]

chanakkale amphibious assoult WW I,
dardannels war that both armies casulties passed 500 000 ... appr. 10 -15 soldiers died for one square of meter......

[Ibrahim]

oh.. I see. so basically the battle of krasanbes was actually a minor accident, with few losses and 3 wrecked guns? oh well.:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

that story in wikipedia was darn amusing though. false, but still amusing.

wait, victor: why not rewrite the wikipeda article, that way no one else gets screwed by this? 9just a suggestion)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Carrhae is really an example of everything going right for one side and wrong for the other. As far as Crassus is concerned I can see several failures, which are not the same as the mistakes.

1. Failure to support his cavalry with his infantry and vice versa.

2. Failure to fight on prepared ground of his chosing.

3. Failure to eliminate the Parthian supplies (as I recall the archers were dropping out and trotting off to reload.)

4. Failure to appreciate that a horse archer is both an archer and a horseman and therefore represents two of the three components of an army.

As far as I can see Crassus needed either more archers or more cavalry. While he was not an incompetant he was used to fighting other Romans and he failed to appreciate the nature of Parthian arms. That would seem to be exactly the same mistake that Darius, Xerxes and Mardonius made regarding the Greeks.

Lesson One, Know your enemy and yourself.

[Lusitani]

Well this one was a military mistake...for some anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alc%C3%A1cer_Quibir

(Dont start bashing me for using wikipédia...dont have time for too much research :P lol)

[Celtic_Punk]

Hitler's biggest mistake was engaging stalingrad... he should have spearheaded for the oil fields like he planned in the firstplace... if he took stalingrad he would have just made the russian resolve stronger. his second biggest mistake was allowing the 6th army to be surrounded, and not letting them retreat. Of course he was completely barmy by this point in the war (YES there was a time when he wasnt such a raving lunatic!)

also i thought i might aswell say it, being a soldier n all...

"Our's is not to reason why, but to do and die."

[Meneldil]

La "drôle de guerre" in 1939-40 was an horrendous mistake. France and UK had the resources and the manpower to crush Germany early on, thus ending the not-yet-worldwide-WWII, yet the inapt military leaders decided to wait for the opponent after launching a few attacks there and there.

[Gaivs]

Alexander crossing Gedrosia.

[ServiliusAhala]

Anyone posted battle of Salamis? Yes trust GREEK slaves...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Actually there is a *lot* more to that story (unless you talk about a different battle of Salamis?), but to cut it short:

A) The Persians had until then no reason not to believe Greek 'traitors'/subjects/w/ever; so far they had proven themselve to be both loyal and rather useful.
B) The Persian fleet didn't really have much of a choice; because it plainly could not winter as no Greek harbour would be quite large & protected enough to weather storms. (You know; a sizeable portion had already been lost to storms; and we're talking autumn. The real tough season had yet to start...)
C) Without the fleet close by to guard the already precarious supply lines; the army would be utterly doomed. Winters in Greece don't really make for a pleasant camping season, certainly not in some of the more 'strategical' positions (most notably mountain passes); or so I heard anyway?

[||Lz3||]

What about Phyrros when he left a city completely under his gallic mercenaries and they revolted...

[panosha]

Antiochus having Hannibal and not using him properly

[ServiliusAhala]

Hadn't the persians captured the Harbour at Athens, Piraeus or something? Or did they burn that with it? But my knowledge of the subject isn't extreme...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Piraeus by itself wouldn't have been large enough; especially not because:

1) The famed great military harbour is actually more of a past Persian War thing;
2) Even then, the harbour was designed with an active navy in mind - it would have been too small to accomodate the entire Athenian navy in her heyday, but it never was that much of a problem as only those ships which needed servicing would dock there. Plainly, that's something quite different from harbouring what is more or less the/an entire navy in force.

[Maerlen]

My favourites would be:

1302, Flemish cities rebelled against the French.

At the following "battle of the golden spurs", the Flemish army was made of mostly Guilds and masons and militias while being outnumbered roughly 3 to 1 by the French army wich was made of mostly French Knights...

Instead of letting the infantry do their job the Knights decide to cross a shallow creek/river, to attack those "peasants", in those typical heavy armors, got bogged down and they were slaughtered. Also thanks to the special Flemish weapon a Goedendag..

Cookies to the first who can write a correct description of it :)


For the rest im know not enough about specific battle reports

[||Lz3||]

ze frenchies like cavalry charges way to much

I'm not sure if someone said this before , but it's a classic, Agincourt :charge:

[Moros]

My favourites would be:

1302, Flemish cities rebelled against the French.

At the following "battle of the golden spurs", the Flemish army was made of mostly Guilds and masons and militias while being outnumbered roughly 3 to 1 by the French army wich was made of mostly French Knights...

Instead of letting the infantry do their job the Knights decide to cross a shallow creek/river, to attack those "peasants", in those typical heavy armors, got bogged down and they were slaughtered. Also thanks to the special Flemish weapon a Goedendag..

Cookies to the first who can write a correct description of it :)


Description of a Goedendag or the battle? I can do both if you really want me to.

Also it was mainly the good combination of a goedendag with a pike. They fought in groups of two men. One with a pike, to counter the cavalry, one wit a goedendag, to finish the job. Cause though a goedendag is a good anti armour weapon, and decent against cavalry, a pike remained the best weapon against cavalry.

[Che Roriniho]

My favourites would be:

1302, Flemish cities rebelled against the French.

At the following "battle of the golden spurs", the Flemish army was made of mostly Guilds and masons and militias while being outnumbered roughly 3 to 1 by the French army wich was made of mostly French Knights...

Instead of letting the infantry do their job the Knights decide to cross a shallow creek/river, to attack those "peasants", in those typical heavy armors, got bogged down and they were slaughtered. Also thanks to the special Flemish weapon a Goedendag..

Cookies to the first who can write a correct description of it :)


For the rest im know not enough about specific battle reports

A great big dirty Club with a spike coming out the end of it, for sticking in French people.

[Maerlen]

Description of a Goedendag or the battle? I can do both if you really want me to.

Also it was mainly the good combination of a goedendag with a pike. They fought in groups of two men. One with a pike, to counter the cavalry, one wit a goedendag, to finish the job. Cause though a goedendag is a good anti armour weapon, and decent against cavalry, a pike remained the best weapon against cavalry.

We have a winner!! :2thumbsup:

what suprised me actually is that when after the battle, the weapon still remained only used by People in Flanders..

It was proven to realy act as a "can opener" againts Knights in heavy armor but still..

[Che Roriniho]

We have a winner!! :2thumbsup:

what suprised me actually is that when after the battle, the weapon still remained only used by People in Flanders..

It was proven to realy act as a "can opener" againts Knights in heavy armor but still..

Wha? HE DIDN'T EVEN SAY WHAT IT WAS! *Points to own post* I DID!

But anyway, I think the Morning Star served the function better, partially because you didn't have to stab with a Club, which, mbecause they're heavy buggers, isn't easy when you have about 15 other french knights wanting to turn you into pate. Morning star meant you could crush and impale in one go, making it exactly 100% more efficient.

Can I have a cookie now?

[Bovarius]

what i like most of the "goedendag" is the name. Its "good day" in dutch/flemish

i think it belongs in the category of most original weapon names.

[AntiTank]

WWI war of position period.

We're stalled ? Alright, time for another offensive. Machine guns and artillery ? Nothing that can't be dealt with a bit of bravery...
Or, in more general terms, applying 19th century warfare in the first 20th c. war.

For the Allies quite true. Not so for the Germans who used small unit tactics and infiltration.

See John Mosier's "Myth of the Great War" for a true account of the first World War :book:

[Maerlen]

Wha? HE DIDN'T EVEN SAY WHAT IT WAS! *Points to own post* I DID!

But anyway, I think the Morning Star served the function better, partially because you didn't have to stab with a Club, which, mbecause they're heavy buggers, isn't easy when you have about 15 other french knights wanting to turn you into pate. Morning star meant you could crush and impale in one go, making it exactly 100% more efficient.

Can I have a cookie now?

hmm, ok, take a cookie :yes:

thing about goedendag is, they were used in pairs, meaning:

2 soldiers teamed up, one with a spear to stop the horse and the other used the goedendag to kill the knight.

was a fair simple weapon like a shaft 150 cm long with a iron head and a spike on top of it.

Extremely efficient against charging knights

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:Goedendag_flamenco.jpg

[Moros]

Wha? HE DIDN'T EVEN SAY WHAT IT WAS! *Points to own post* I DID!

Can I have a cookie now?

sorry my freind but this is not entirely true I posted pics and discriptions of Goedendag more than two years ago! Be it in a different topic, and in another mod's subforum...

[QuintusSertorius]

I mentioned it in another thread about worst generals, but the Battle of Arausio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arausio) definitely deserves to be in this thread. Idiotic consul refuses to co-operate with the forces of his colleague, leading unsurprisingly to a crushing Roman defeat.

[Cimon]

Not sure if it has been said yet (apologies if it has), but how about Pickett's Charge from the Battle of Gettysburg in the American Civil War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickett%27s_Charge Marching an infantry division across 3/4 of a mile of open ground under heavy artillery and musket/rifle fire doesn't seem like a good idea. The closest it came to success was when one very small part of the attack reached the stone wall behind which the Union soldiers were entrenched and engaged in hand-to-hand fighting before being beaten back. That moment is often called "The High Water-Mark of the Confederacy."

Afterward, when General Lee told Pickett to look to his division, Pickett responded, "General Lee, I have no division."

[ServiliusAhala]

The battle of Arausio was indeed retarded, shows that Rome favoured lineage and money in favour of skill. It was like 80.000 ordinary legionaires in casualties on Roman behalf, not counting cavalry and stuff. Cimbri ftw!

[J.Alco]

Not sure if it has been said yet (apologies if it has), but how about Pickett's Charge from the Battle of Gettysburg in the American Civil War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickett%27s_Charge Marching an infantry division across 3/4 of a mile of open ground under heavy artillery and musket/rifle fire doesn't seem like a good idea. The closest it came to success was when one very small part of the attack reached the stone wall behind which the Union soldiers were entrenched and engaged in hand-to-hand fighting before being beaten back. That moment is often called "The High Water-Mark of the Confederacy."

Afterward, when General Lee told Pickett to look to his division, Pickett responded, "General Lee, I have no division."

Somebody beat me to the punch! I was thinking that little mistake had to be mentioned.

And it is a terrible and kind of stupid tactical decision, because its essentially a massed long-range infantry charge unsupported by artillery against a heavily-entrenched artillery-supported enemy position which, by the way, also enjoys the benefit of greater manpower. All in all it's a no-no situation for any commander. Surprising why Lee, who had until then proved to be very capable and skilled, would commit such an ultimately crippling blunder.

[Parallel Pain]

It wasn't the first time Lee made that mistake. It was the last though.

The reason why Lee attacked was of course
1) He was the one on offensive, and has been unwilling to disengage since day 1 because he has won the prilimaries and
2) He has yet to taste a significant defeat (especially tactically) so was overconfident
3) He had attacked on both flanks and failed. He naturally assumed then that the enemy force was reinforced on both flanks, and would be weak in the center, estimating the amount of troops he is targetting would be no more than 5000. That is true as of the end of day 2, but Meade guessed correctly Lee's intentions.
4) Elements of Anderson's division broke through the Union center on day 2 and made it as far as the top of cemetary ridge, so Lee thought it was doable.

Rather than blaming the battle on Lee (who does need to be blamed), I blame most of the battle on Stuart's abensence (which Lee allowed).

[Romano-Dacis]

Romania's WWI battleplan stands as one of the dumbest things ever done. The plan was based on political rather than strategic factors and set Romania up as fighting against four other countries which were on 3/4 of its borders. The military disaster threatened to knock Romania out of the war in less than 3 months, but stiff resistance around Moldavia stabilized the front and kept Romania in the war until 1918. In those disasterous three months the Romanian army suffered 300,000 casualties (POW's included), considerably higher than the enemy.

[Fiddler]

Somebody beat me to the punch! I was thinking that little mistake had to be mentioned.

And it is a terrible and kind of stupid tactical decision, because its essentially a massed long-range infantry charge unsupported by artillery against a heavily-entrenched artillery-supported enemy position which, by the way, also enjoys the benefit of greater manpower. All in all it's a no-no situation for any commander. Surprising why Lee, who had until then proved to be very capable and skilled, would commit such an ultimately crippling blunder.
Actually, Lee concentrated over 170 guns to soften up the enemy line, drive away the artillery and secure the advance of the infantry. The officer in charge, porter alexander, even assembled a dozen or so short ranged howitzers to accompany the infantry and support them in the charge, only to have them reassigned by Pendleton, Lee's Chief of artillery (IMO completely underqualified for this position). In addition, Lee envisioned attacks on the flank in support of the main thrust, but bad battlefield communication meant that Ewell attacked and was beaten back before Longstreet gave the signal to attack.
I love to quote Picket, who, after the war, replied to the question why the attack had failed "why, I always thougth the Yankees had something to do with it".

[Tartaros]

... 2 soldiers teamed up, one with a spear to stop the horse and the other used the goedendag to kill the knight.

was a fair simple weapon like a shaft 150 cm long with a iron head and a spike on top of it.
...

Hello, i´ve got a question to the goedendag.
is this battlestyle similar to the helvetian "gewalthaufen" tactic? they also combinated diffrent types of weapons (helebarden ,twohanders, pike and crossbows) in a special order to support each other.
greetings

[Che Roriniho]

hmm, ok, take a cookie :yes:

thing about goedendag is, they were used in pairs, meaning:

2 soldiers teamed up, one with a spear to stop the horse and the other used the goedendag to kill the knight.

was a fair simple weapon like a shaft 150 cm long with a iron head and a spike on top of it.

Extremely efficient against charging knights

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:Goedendag_flamenco.jpg

Woo! Cookie! *Devours*

[AntiTank]

I have one no one has mentioned yet! :smash:

Dunkirk! "hey our british lads are tired... let them rest a day or two..."
"what!?? they escaped?! .... damn :shifty:"


seriosly if hitler had finished what he started he would have destroyed completely the british expeditionary force

Actually there was no way for Hitler to close it any faster than he did. Take a look at the terrain and you'll see why.

It is bisected by the Aa Canal and the French and British had already flooded the area. The Royal Navy had brought up a lot of BBs and ACs and the French added their own BBs and ACs to cover the pocket.

Hitler himself had fought in this area in WW1 and specifically had ordered that the area be ignored. His original plan called for containing the pocket while his forces drove into France itself. The evacuation took him completely by surprise. Not only was the evacuation a cowardly move after the British had already pulled out of line without telling the Belgians, it doomed France.

If anything the British should never had evacuated and used it to launch a counter attack. Hitler's armor forces were on the ropes and more importantly its logistics was spasming and dying. The evacuation gave the Germans so many trucks it enabled them to paper over their supply problems. :shame:

[Ibrahim]

Actually there was no way for Hitler to close it any faster than he did. Take a look at the terrain and you'll see why.

It is bisected by the Aa Canal and the French and British had already flooded the area. The Royal Navy had brought up a lot of BBs and ACs and the French added their own BBs and ACs to cover the pocket.

Hitler himself had fought in this area in WW1 and specifically had ordered that the area be ignored. His original plan called for containing the pocket while his forces drove into France itself. The evacuation took him completely by surprise. Not only was the evacuation a cowardly move after the British had already pulled out of line without telling the Belgians, it doomed France.

If anything the British should never had evacuated and used it to launch a counter attack. Hitler's armor forces were on the ropes and more importantly its logistics was spasming and dying. The evacuation gave the Germans so many trucks it enabled them to paper over their supply problems. :shame:

seconded.

[-Praetor-]

Haven`t anyone mentioned it?

Midway, the overconfidence of the japanese crews, that led them to leave ammo and fuel on the flight deck of the carriers, which made them floating matches.

Result: 4 of 4 carriers sunk. It was the beginning of the end for the japs.

[AntiTank]

Haven`t anyone mentioned it?

Midway, the overconfidence of the japanese crews, that led them to leave ammo and fuel on the flight deck of the carriers, which made them floating matches.

Result: 4 of 4 carriers sunk. It was the beginning of the end for the japs.

No, the Japanese planes were well within the Carrier itself as per standard operating procedure and the guncam footage from the SBC Dive Bombers confirm this fact.

[Perturabo]

Haven`t anyone mentioned it?

Midway, the overconfidence of the japanese crews, that led them to leave ammo and fuel on the flight deck of the carriers, which made them floating matches.

Result: 4 of 4 carriers sunk. It was the beginning of the end for the japs.


No, the big mistake at Midway was for the admiral to order the strike force to be composed of 50% of the force of each carrier.. rather than 100% of two carriers. As a result, when the need to defend them arose the flight crews had to deal with returning aircraft from the raid, rearming fighters for defence and setting up torpedo bombers for attacking ships (many had been setup for land attack initially).
If the reserve force had comprised of 2 entire carriers, the strike force to attack the US fleet would have been assembled much faster, and air defence may well have been inpenetrable.. as it was, a near run thing...

Carriers always burnt well, all the fuel and ammo beneath decks guaranteed than anything penetrating the flight deck resulted in horrific fires - look at almost any carrier damaged during the war by aerial strikes.

[teh1337tim]

actaully it wouldnt had done anything due to the torpedo bombers going in first and luring all defending zeroes to sea level leaving the prime dive bomber altitute of 8-10k without defense and all AA aimed low for torpedo runs.

the admiral ordered the land attack ordnance changed to ship and back when he heard aircraft carriers were sighted but swapped back when aircraft began to return but the torpedo runs came and the ordnance were improperly stored leaving the 500lb bombs from SBD dive bombers making them good toaster ovens
btw
only 3 were killed outright by the first attacks, the last one Hiryu survived and managed to damage Yorktown so bad it was abandoned but bought into tow if repairs could be done by a jap sub i65? sunk it with 2 torpedoes

[tls5669]

The Japanese bombing of pearl harbor.

Gallipoli

[Intranetusa]

Any battle a nation has ever fought with the Mongols hordes. (maybe except the Mameluks)

[Ludens]

Any battle a nation has ever fought with the Mongols hordes. (maybe except the Mameluks)

The Chinese and Japanese did pretty well against them, too.

[Intranetusa]

The Chinese and Japanese did pretty well against them, too.

The Japanese got lucky because of 2 typhoons, over use of non-ocean going ships, and sabotage of Mongol ships by Chinese and Korean shipbuilders.

The Chinese Song Dynasty...well, they still lost in the end.

[||Lz3||]

The Japanese bombing of pearl harbor.


military speaking it did its job quite well... stragically... em not so much

BUT if the carriers had been there AND if a 3rd wave had been launch to destroy the port's support buildings as it was intended... they would have crippled the US naval power...

[White_eyes:D]

military speaking it did its job quite well... stragically... em not so much

BUT if the carriers had been there AND if a 3rd wave had been launch to destroy the port's support buildings as it was intended... they would have crippled the US naval power...

Yeah, it would have made the Pacific war a hell of a lot harder for the America's.:sweatdrop:
The victory for the Japanese goes to show that saying about Winning a battle but losing the war.....:skull:

[Ludens]

The Japanese got lucky because of 2 typhoons, over use of non-ocean going ships, and sabotage of Mongol ships by Chinese and Korean shipbuilders.

The Japanese were lucky the first time, but the second time they managed to contain the invasion force even before the typhoon struck. Off course, it helped that the Mongols were out of their element, and many of their men didn't feel strongly about the Mongol cause. As for the Song, yes they lost, but given that they gave the Mongols a hard time as well it may not have been a mistake on their part.

[russia almighty]

It's actually believed if the harbor had been put on high alert that week, it could have totally wrecked Japan's early war effort.


Honestly, I don't believe in the conspiracy theorists opinions on it (mainly due to many having fringe political beliefs). I seriously do believe we knew there would be an attack, but we miscalculated where it was going to be. The army and the navy believed the Philippines would be the first American holding to be attacked. Not Hawaii due to the sheer distance away from Japan.


Lets think here, even using a carrier based attack force, how far away is the Philippines from the nearest Japanese holding vs. the Hawaiian islands? Letting the Japanese attempt to attack Hawaii and messing up the attacking force would still work into Roosevelt's want for us to get into the war. If anything, it would be better due to the sheer morale boost of thrashing the Japanese navy, and possible subsequent successful defense of the Philippines.

[Intranetusa]

The Japanese were lucky the first time, but the second time they managed to contain the invasion force even before the typhoon struck. Off course, it helped that the Mongols were out of their element, and many of their men didn't feel strongly about the Mongol cause. As for the Song, yes they lost, but given that they gave the Mongols a hard time as well it may not have been a mistake on their part.

True, but the force they 'contained' was an expeditionary force. For some reason, the Mongols decide to camp out in their ships and not deploy the majority of their army. sucks for 'em when the typhoon came

[Dogukan]

invading Russia
1. Napoleon lost his army during napoleonic wars
2.Ottomans lost the Caucasian army 90 000(frozen) in 1.WW
3.The German invasion of USSR or at east the 3rd assault resulting Germans to lose many things they could have spared.

[Intranetusa]

invading Russia
1. Napoleon lost his army during napoleonic wars
2.Ottomans lost the Caucasian army 90 000(frozen) in 1.WW
3.The German invasion of USSR or at east the 3rd assault resulting Germans to lose many things they could have spared.

The Mongols had no problems blitzing and invading Russia.
They would laugh in the face of the Siberian blizzards. XD

[||Lz3||]

some people in the island knew there was going to be an inminent attack but the telegraph got delayed ... wich according to the discovery channel was... a bit of a good luck in a sense... cause according to them IF the naval force had been alerted they would have tried to escape the harbor and go to high seas ... but the japanese had way more military power in their hands so if the battleships did actually escape the harbopr they would had been eliminated in the high seas increasing the losses.

the fact that the attack was made in a shallow harbor allowed many survivors to swim to the shores and even many ships were restored to a fighting position , if they had been attacked at sea ,those ships would had been lost forever, same goes to the sailors.



another one I remember and I think someone mentioned earlier was Ottawa 4th carrier division
(I think that's the name...) , the japs lost all their naval power in there... , not entirely cause it was a bad decision but cause their pilots had no experience , and they didn't know that the IJN code had been discovered :thinking:


The Mongols had no problems blitzing and invading Russia.
They would laugh in the face of the Siberian blizzards. XD
well ... we all agree that the mongols were freaks :P

[Tiberius Aurelius Cotta]

as far as ancient Rome is concerned, anything concerning Hannibal Barca (i loled when reading through the prequels to the EB historical battles, esp the one where they were afraid of going to see the seleukid chap because hannibal was in the city, lol)

hitler invading russia, and also stopping bombing everywhere in britain and focusing only on london

[Ibrahim]

actually, I think one of the worst military mistake was the fact that the German high command thought it could pull off the shiefflen plan; the whole idea that you can knock out one of 2 countries (France) before the other(Russia),in light of the logistical, tactical, and technological ability of the german empire in 1914. also equally terrible was the militaries of Europe thinking that the war would be over by autumn of 1914, again in liht of the logistical and other situatons mentioned above.


when khosrow II decided he wanted to dispose of an-nu3man ibn al-mundhir..
actually the above mentioned one is far worse than this paticular one.

[Emperor of Graal]

What would have happened if the romans had guns?

[Che Roriniho]

actually, I think one of the worst military mistake was the fact that the German high command thought it could pull off the shiefflen plan; the whole idea that you can knock out one of 2 countries (France) before the other(Russia),in light of the logistical, tactical, and technological ability of the german empire in 1914. also equally terrible was the militaries of Europe thinking that the war would be over by autumn of 1914, again in liht of the logistical and other situatons mentioned above.


when khosrow II decided he wanted to dispose of an-nu3man ibn al-mundhir..
actually the above mentioned one is far worse than this paticular one.

I think that they could have done the shieffen plan, but for 2 things: If Belgium hadn't flooded itself, and if Britain hadn't got involved in the battle of the Marne.

[Tollheit]

It's Schlieffen plan, after Alfred Graf von Schlieffen

[Recoil]

Battle(s) of the Iconzo (and the general Italian front in WW1)- wouldn't it be fun if Austrians and Germans fought Italians over just about the largest mountains in Europe whilst pulling their artillery up with pulleys, froze to death and had most of their casualties being discovered 80 years after the war? They all knew what they were on about, clearly.

Battles(s) of Monte Casino- Despite being advised to take a different route by Italians a US company tried to advance through what was, in essence, a flooded forest, and were simply picked off by the German snipers, who eventually stopped firing to let them gather their wounded and retreat.

On a less serious note

That battle in the third lord of the rings where they don't expect the rohan riders to arse rape them at the siege. I mean come on, if that army in the second film got rinsed by a couple thousand knights surely those orcs would get steamrolled by the entire army? No, apparently not :wall:

[AntiTank]

military speaking it did its job quite well... stragically... em not so much

BUT if the carriers had been there AND if a 3rd wave had been launch to destroy the port's support buildings as it was intended... they would have crippled the US naval power...

The Raid was a colossal failure. Instead of concentrating on the support ships and submarines plus the Harbor Facilities, they hit old Battleships.

Hitting the Support Ships and Harbor Facilities would have crippled American Fighting ability for over a year and would have required much investment to rebuild.

Also the Japanese could not launch a third wave. They were too low on ammo and AVGas to do so and a Third Wave would have to wait till morning, but their destroyer escorts couldn't wait till morning as they would be too low on fuel.

[Che Roriniho]

It's Schlieffen plan, after Alfred Graf von Schlieffen

How did I mispell that? I wrote a 3-page essay on it a few months back!

[AntiTank]

the battle of the Marne.

There was no battle of the Marne, it was actually five separate battles fought simultaneously nowhere near the Marne River.

[Che Roriniho]

There was no battle of the Marne, it was actually five separate battles fought simultaneously nowhere near the Marne River.

The ffirst one, with the French and the taxis.

[QuintusSertorius]

as far as ancient Rome is concerned, anything concerning Hannibal Barca (i loled when reading through the prequels to the EB historical battles, esp the one where they were afraid of going to see the seleukid chap because hannibal was in the city, lol)

I don't think they're fair to include, because they detract from the genuine brilliance of Hannibal. Few of the generals who faced him did anything "wrong" from the perspective of what any competent Roman commander would do. They were simply outclassed by the man facing them.

[Zeibek]

The Aleutian Islands is and other similar events. I mean you can hardly believe any army to be as incompetent as that.

[TWFanatic]

I don't think they're fair to include, because they detract from the genuine brilliance of Hannibal. Few of the generals who faced him did anything "wrong" from the perspective of what any competent Roman commander would do. They were simply outclassed by the man facing them.

Hmm, where have I heard that before...

:idea2:


I would have to disagree with some of the previous posters on Cannae being a military mistake--at least tactically. Strategically, it never should have happened. If I may indulge in hindsight here, ol' Fabius the Cunctator was right. Of course, Varro did not have the advantage of hindsight and lacked Paullus' caution.

Having said that, Varro did not do anything wrong. At least, he did not do anything any other mediocre general would have seen as out of the ordinary. He deployed his cohorts in the standard triplex acies with the Roman legions in the center and the allies on the flanks. He positioned about a third of his cavalry (the citizens) river-side and the rest (the allies) on the left. Hannibal’s Balearic slingers dominated the skirmish, and so Varro, making his last mistake, chose to advance.

That Hannibal was able to encircle the legions is not do to any shortcoming on Varro’s part or that of his men, it is do the genius and cunning of Hannibal. AFAIK, the double envelopment was never used before in history--Varro had no way of knowing what his foe had in store for his legionaries. Which is my next point--the tenacious Romans were highly successful in breaking Hannibal’s center. The latter, as he so often did, merely used his opponents' own strengths against them. The principle of Judo comes to mind. Use your opponents momentum against him--e.g., you push, I pull; you pull, I push. Hannibal also played mind games with them, tempting them to do exactly what he wanted and expected. That is one reason why I believe that Hannibal was a better general than Alexander (on the battlefield, at least). The former would tempt the latter into doing something rash and would have no trouble capitalizing on it.

Did Varro fall for it? Most certainly. But I believe that few commanders would have done any better. Any armchair general who claims he would have seen the pincer coming is abusing the objective study of history by injecting the usage of hindsight into it. Regardless, Varro's countrymen certainly forgave him, and we should as well.

[AntiTank]

The ffirst one, with the French and the taxis.

Axis Alliance did not exist in 1914. Also First Marne again was five separate battles well past the Marne River.

[Hooahguy]

sorry for necroposting-
i have another military mistake:
the atlantic wall

[teh1337tim]

ahahh true
encomposed of badly mauled units from eastern front sprinkled with a few vets here and there and plenty of ost battalions (POWs who aggreed to fight for hitler against stalin)but were first to run
+ the hitler youth who were fanatic but just cant aim or do anything tactical

+ what added to there disastrous start was hitler insisting nobody wake him up during the night of DDay and reports of a 5000+ allied fleet and the splitting of the panzer SS corps
with 3 crack divisions deployed around calais with no order to move to normandy and rommels panzers all under attack from aircraft during the day

i wonder what would happen if as many soldiers lost in the beach landings were to happen in 1 battle today? i wonder what would civilians be like? :P:juggle2:

[Sarcasm]

Ok, so put yourself in the German High Command's shoes. How would you handle a war that could not be won at this point? You'd probably follow von Rundstedt advice.

[Hooahguy]

nah. the big mistake was only having thier main defenses at the beaches....

[Bovarius]

Axis Alliance did not exist in 1914. Also First Marne again was five separate battles well past the Marne River.

I think he really meant taxi's and not the Axis. During the battles of the Marne the French, in a wave of patriotism, used all cars in Paris to move the soldiers to the front.

[Fiddler]

nah. the big mistake was only having thier main defenses at the beaches....

A defense in depth is not practical when
A) you lack the ressources to build a defense in depth
B) your reserves intended to wipe out the enemy who has broken into the defense can't move in the day.

Sorry, but the building of the wall was the result of a sound military analysis, not a "mistake".
I have trouble calling something a mistake when there is no other alternative.

[Hooahguy]

no. they had the resources, or at least most of them. the problem was that he spended them all at the beaches, and not spread them out more inland. after a mile or so, the german defenses were only the troops, many of which were low-grade.

[Celtic_Punk]

I am sorry but "sarcasm" you are [wrong] if you thought the war was unwinnable for the axis in june of 1944. Had Hitler pulled the 6th army out of Stalingrad when he should have (well he shouldn't have engaged Stalin in Stalingrad anyway, it was a blunder and a half, he should have blitzed to the oilfields instead which was the reason he invaded Russia anyway) it would have been a different story. the reason the war became unwinnable was because Hitler insisted that the invasion was coming at Calais.

The biggest mistake of the war the way Hitler invaded Russia... (remember he said Rome was 1st Reich, Napoleon the 2nd.) he should have taken a lesson from the 2nd Reich, and taken the invasion of Russia slow in the North, but Blitzed to the Oil fields in the south. At this point in the war the 3rd Reich was running low on oil reserves, and since the biggest part of their tactics was their reliance on vehicle support. no fuel, no vehicles, shitty defeat. Hitler should also never have gone to North Africa, there was little to no benefit at such an early stage in the war. Hitler could have easily won the war if he did not spread his forces so much and waste them on pointless campaigns. Reforming their tactics should have been key. You cannot blitz when you are defending. (where are you going to take your tanks? into the channel?) however... the 2nd or well its a close tie with the biggest mistake.... Goering's bullshit idea of mass daylight bombing of London. outnumbered pilots (including my own Gramps) fought off wave after wave of bombers and ME109's. Goering was wayyyy too convinced that his planes were invincible. Quite frankly i couldn't have picked a worse man for the job of head of the Luftwaffe. his failure to establish air superiority resulted in the complete destruction of the Luftwaffe. soooo many experienced aircrew died (and when it comes to air combat, if you have no veterans... you are ******! :hanged: ) This allowed the turn of events and switched the allies onto the offencive. since your number one priority when invading a country, and especially when you are embarking on an amphibious invasion, air superiority... without it, you cannot advance or even hold. and since the ME109 and FW190 is a very low range fighter, and the spitfire is quite up to the match to face even a fully fuelled 190 or 109 they stood no chance.

the war was winnable for the axis in 1944... it was a long shot, and what sealed their fate was Hitler losing his mind and the failure of Barbarossa.
The war was lost after the battle of Britain, but as you should know, you can still pull a victory from defeat.
the war was won and lost in the skies, as they are even today.

but that doesn't mean infantry and armour can't turn the tide.



I also agree that WW1 in general was a big mistake... so many lives lost just cause some pompous rich arse got his head blown off by some bloody Serbs... such a waste

but by the same token we could say WW2 was a pointless war... it accomplished nothing, and started all this nuclear weapon bullshit we have to deal with today. what ever happend to the good old days when if someone pissed you off you'd walk out into the forest and have a good old fashioned sword fight to the death? it takes a right old pansy to bring his friends into a fight they have nothing to do with.

[Foot]

I also agree that WW1 in general was a big mistake... so many lives lost just cause some pompous rich arse got his head blown off by some bloody Serbs... such a waste

Please, that was just the excuse. Where do you think the first british regiment was deployed in WWI? Basra. Why? Because the orient express was being extended to Baghdad which, once completed, would allow german business men to jump on a train and buy Iraqi oil, pure and black. A problem? Yes, because only recently the British Navy had converted from coal to oil to run their ships. The Germans had no oil-producing colonies and couldn't supply their ships with the black stuff. But if they could get a railway from Germany to Baghdad, nothing could stop them from refitting their ships to once again equal the British Navy.

It was an arms race, the death of an aristocrat was an excuse not a reason. It would have happened any way.

Watch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159

Foot

[machinor]

The biggest mistake of the war the way Hitler invaded Russia... (remember he said Rome was 1st Reich, Napoleon the 2nd.)
I have to correct you in this. The 1st Reich was the German Empire of Medieval times going back to the Roman Empire of Charlemagne (the later so called "Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation" or "Holy Roman Empire of German Nation"). The 2nd Reich was the reunified German Empire of 1872 through Bismarck (sometimes called "Willhelminisches Reich" or "Willhelminic Empire" due to Willhelm II being its Emperor for the most time of its existence). Nazi-Germany thus was the 3rd "Deutsches Reich" or "German Empire". Hitler would never have put himself in the tradition of ze dirtee French.

[Celtic_Punk]

hmmm thanks machinor, I remember reading somewhere otherwise, but i will look into this :chinese:

And foot i do know about the arms race and alliances. there was going to be a war, it was just a question of when, and "why". I just think they could have found a better reason then ferdi...

[Chris1959]

CelticPunk, for Britain I think a couple of million Germans waltzing unprovoked into Belgium was a fairly strong arguement! Also kinda proved France's paranoia.

[Sarcasm]

I am sorry but "sarcasm" you are [wrong] if you thought the war was unwinnable for the axis in june of 1944. Had Hitler pulled the 6th army out of Stalingrad when he should have (well he shouldn't have engaged Stalin in Stalingrad anyway, it was a blunder and a half, he should have blitzed to the oilfields instead which was the reason he invaded Russia anyway) it would have been a different story. the reason the war became unwinnable was because Hitler insisted that the invasion was coming at Calais.

The biggest mistake of the war the way Hitler invaded Russia... (remember he said Rome was 1st Reich, Napoleon the 2nd.) he should have taken a lesson from the 2nd Reich, and taken the invasion of Russia slow in the North, but Blitzed to the Oil fields in the south. At this point in the war the 3rd Reich was running low on oil reserves, and since the biggest part of their tactics was their reliance on vehicle support. no fuel, no vehicles, shitty defeat. Hitler should also never have gone to North Africa, there was little to no benefit at such an early stage in the war. Hitler could have easily won the war if he did not spread his forces so much and waste them on pointless campaigns. Reforming their tactics should have been key. You cannot blitz when you are defending. (where are you going to take your tanks? into the channel?) however... the 2nd or well its a close tie with the biggest mistake.... Goering's bullshit idea of mass daylight bombing of London. outnumbered pilots (including my own Gramps) fought off wave after wave of bombers and ME109's. Goering was wayyyy too convinced that his planes were invincible. Quite frankly i couldn't have picked a worse man for the job of head of the Luftwaffe. his failure to establish air superiority resulted in the complete destruction of the Luftwaffe. soooo many experienced aircrew died (and when it comes to air combat, if you have no veterans... you are ******! :hanged: ) This allowed the turn of events and switched the allies onto the offencive. since your number one priority when invading a country, and especially when you are embarking on an amphibious invasion, air superiority... without it, you cannot advance or even hold. and since the ME109 and FW190 is a very low range fighter, and the spitfire is quite up to the match to face even a fully fuelled 190 or 109 they stood no chance.

the war was winnable for the axis in 1944... it was a long shot, and what sealed their fate was Hitler losing his mind and the failure of Barbarossa.
The war was lost after the battle of Britain, but as you should know, you can still pull a victory from defeat.
the war was won and lost in the skies, as they are even today.

but that doesn't mean infantry and armour can't turn the tide.

Quite the view on various subjects.

We were talking about the invasion of Europe in 1944, the battle of Stalingrad had been lost at the start of the previous year, so I don't really get what you're saying here. The damage had been done, everything else you wrote was something that was a distant memory of what should have been by June, 1944. BTW, *everyone* was reliant on fuel by this point, not the just the Germans - they just happened not to have enough compared to the other sides.

You give the battle of Britain waaaay to much credit. It was a massive victory for the English yes, in that it prevented the British mainland from being invaded, but it was not that much of a defeat for Germany, in the sense that it was still more than able to continue the war (and indeed they did!). Most, and the best, German aces were created in the war in the East, so loss of veteran pilots was not significant. One can even argue that Seelöwe was a sham - it is highly doubtable that the Germans would ever have had the ability to conduct an amphibious assault with no adequate type or number of landing craft and a much weaker navy than that of the British, even with massive air superiority over the Channel. *Even* if initially successful (and it's doubtful), there would be no chance of maintaining the bridgehead if the Royal Navy happened to launch a major operation against Axis shipping in the Channel...even with heavy casualties, they would most likely be able to jeopardize the entire of operation, effectively trapping 10 divisions in Britain, and probably destroying what was left of the Kriegsmarine after Norway (if they ever dared to oppose the Brits with more than just mines and subs). If you ask me, the German landing would have given the Brits their greatest chance for inflicting a massive defeat early on in the war.

I disagree with you on North Africa. The only mistake there was not supplying enough forces in the first place, not seizing the French navy and not investing upon Malta. This was a superb battlefield for the Germans, one that maximized their advantages, and a great chance to cut the Commonwealth in two, if they had captured the Suez Canal. Also it would rob the Royal fleet of its bases in the East Med and at the same time, secure Europe's "soft underbelly". And if you think oil fields were a primary target for the Germans (and I agree with you), shit man, take Egypt, and the whole Middle East is yours for the taking.

Post Battle of Britain, the allies had proved equally incapable of mounting large scale amphibious operations against the Germans. They were facing the very same difficulties that the Germans had had when attacking, in that their fighters - Spitfires and Hurricanes - were ill suited to provide cover over a potential bridgehead. Their range was inadequate, and early warning systems and AA guns were now on the side of the Germans. It also didn't help that at that time, the Fw-190 A-2 was just being introduced, an aircraft which I'm sorry to break it to you, was markedly superior to the Spitfire V. Dieppe is of course the prime example of what I'm saying...a single understrength regiment kept 6000 men, 250 ships and 40 air-squadrons at bay.

On air-power winning battles alone, may I remind you of Vietnam, Afghanistan, the various Colonial Wars that the European powers fought?

No, my friend, I don't think so. The Germans would have to have a miracle to win the war on their terms at that point.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Cannae was a military mistake. First of all Hannibal deployed his weaker troops in the center and the stronger ones in the sides and in one flank hannibal cavalary outnumberd the romans in 3 to 1 while in the other flank was 1 to 1. What happened is as folow, the 3 to 1 flank hannibal cavalary beat the romans an then they cross all the field and beat the romans in the other flank. At this moment the legions had already pulled hannibal center but the cavalary charged them in the rear and circle them.
A brillant victory nevertheless.

[bovi]

Not so much a military mistake as a great innovation by Hannibal. The double envelopment had not been used before, and the Romani had all reason to believe that the center was buckling due to their own strength rather than deceit. The engagement itself was sound, the Romani had the upper hand in numbers and should come out of it on top in a conventional battle.

[||Lz3||]

agreed cannae wasn't a military mistake but rather a brilliant victory by hannibal

[The General]

Winter War

~D

http://chickencrap.com/images/1472.jpg

Old as the internets, I know.

[Ibrahim]

Winter War

~D

http://chickencrap.com/images/1472.jpg

Old as the internets, I know.

that's legend nowadays-:bow: of respct. but IIRC, the soviets got what they wanted, so it can't be the the worst military mistake. you might actually have to open a new thread: "most dumbassed military mistakes", or "most extraordinary feats of valour". either way, you finns put up a helluva fight..:yes:

moral: don't mess with the little guy.

[Ludens]

I disagree with you on North Africa. The only mistake there was not supplying enough forces in the first place, not seizing the French navy and not investing upon Malta.

I am not sure of this, but wasn't the French navy knocked out of the war by an sneak-attack of Royal navy shortly after France capitulated?

I agree completely about Seelowe, by the way.

[-Praetor-]

I am not sure of this, but wasn't the French navy knocked out of the war by an sneak-attack of Royal navy shortly after France capitulated?

I agree completely about Seelowe, by the way.

Mers el Kebir, when the french refused to surrender to the british navy, and the british feared their ships would fall into german hands.

Wasn`t totally a blunder, rather a very painful but neccessary move...

[Sarcasm]

You're thinking Mers El Kibir in Algeria. The French fleet at Toulon was still largely intact until 1942.

[Ludens]

Mers el Kebir, when the french refused to surrender to the british navy, and the british feared their ships would fall into german hands.

Wasn`t totally a blunder, rather a very painful but neccessary move...

Oh, I quite agree it was necessary. I asked after it because Sarcasm wrote that Hitler should have seized the French fleet, and I thought it was taken out in that incident.


You're thinking Mers El Kibir in Algeria. The French fleet at Toulon was still largely intact until 1942.

Thanks, I didn't know that. What happened in 1942 to the French fleet, then? And why didn't Hitler use them earlier?

[J.Alco]

In order to give WW2 a break, I'll mention two mistakes from the Spanish Civil War, which in my opinion is often overlooked in context of military history mainly because it's so overshadowed by WW2.

1-Battle of Guadalajara: Here's where all those jokes about useless and cowardly Italian soldiers were proven to be absolutely right (and a few new ones were started!). Deployment-wise, the Italian and Nationalist troops didn't do anything wrong, plus they outnumbered the Republican forces roughly 2 to 1 and they called upon large amounts of mechanized troops to aid in the offensive. Basically everything that could have gone for the Fascists, went wrong: Poor weather that made armoured forces useless, lack of proper air support, and then there was trusting the brunt of the assault to the Italian infantry (plus the fact that Mussolini himself devised the offensive). The result, of course, was a total disaster for the Italian/Nationalist forces. The battle isn't so much a mistake as more a case of, as said before, anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Here's the wiki link, though I recommend googling other sites to read up on the battle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Guadalajara

(Insert 'how many gears does an Italian tank have?' joke here)

2-Charge of the American International Brigades at Jarama: Unlike the previous case, this IS a full-blown mistake, and it belongs to the Republican side this time. The final stage of the basically inconclusive battle of Jarama was the charge of over 400 American volunteers up the rocky, uneven terrain of the Pingarrón hill (and if anyone here has gone trekking over Spain, you can guess how bad that can be) straight into concentrated machine-gun fire, all the while without any real artillery support. Predictably, the American volunteers were slaughtered. A mistake made all the worse by how much of an utter failure the maneouvre was, and by the fact that previous offensives up the hill had met much the same result, so there should not have been any need to repeat the same blunder again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jarama

Again, I recommend googling better sites.

This is a bit of a rant, but perhaps the worst part of it all is the fact that while the American and British soldiers of the WW2 are constantly lauded and loved for their exploits, the volunteers of the International Brigades (British, American, French, German, Czech, Italian, Polish, Russian, etc) are basically passed under the radar. Why? Because those fighters, who carried out feats of heroism that in many ways rivalled and more than equalled actions carried out in WW2, were in their majority communists and socialists, and they fought on the losing side, so for some reason their exploits don't seem to be as worthy of remembering as those who fought the war that was won. Hell, even Americans who fought in the Lincoln and Washington batallions from 36-39 were persecuted during the McCarthy witch hunts for being left-wingers. I personally find this apparent lack of rememberance towards the Internationals frankly disgusting. OK, rant over.

[Sarcasm]

Thanks, I didn't know that. What happened in 1942 to the French fleet, then? And why didn't Hitler use them earlier?

Well essentially this happened at the time when the allied forces had landed in Vichy North Africa in Operation Torch. In a quick move the Germans moved south to secure the French southern coast, and prevent the remaining French state from becoming a potential bridgehead for the Allies. Securing southern France, militarily speaking, is securing Toulon, the best and main Mediterranean naval base of the French (and one that had served their colonial pretensions before the war) along with the entire fleet stationed there. And it was significant - from the top of my head can't remember exact numbers but at the very least 2 modern battleships, 7 cruisers and 30 destroyers (sorely needed after significant losses). Remember, the Royal Navy reigned supreme at this time in the Mediterranean, the Italians having been given a licking at Taranto (1940) and Cape Matapan (1941), essentially ceasing to be an effective force and depriving the Axis powers of its naval assets in the North African theatre.

Why didn't Hitler use them earlier? No idea. I assume it was one of the conditions of the armistice. Was it wise to allow such a valuable resource go to waste? Absolutely not, and it probably lost him North Africa for not doing it earlier. But then again Hitler was never a very wise person.

[Aper]

1-Battle of Guadalajara: Here's where all those jokes about useless and cowardly Italian soldiers were proven to be absolutely right (and a few new ones were started!).

Useless and coward? Say very bad armed and guided instead. When an enemy tank weight is like 2-3 of yours and your officers don't even have a map of the battlefield is difficult for a soldier to prove his valour..
However, only an idiot (Mussolini) could enter war with such an army

[Chris1959]

One can carry that further and say Italy's entry into WWII was a huge mistake, putting Mussolini near the top of military incompetents.
Now I'm defining a mistake as taking a decision contrary to the evidence and advice presented to one BEFORE the event.
Which means I'll go back to the one I first posted 7/12/41, howler!!!!

[Ludens]

Why didn't Hitler use them earlier? No idea. I assume it was one of the conditions of the armistice. Was it wise to allow such a valuable resource go to waste? Absolutely not, and it probably lost him North Africa for not doing it earlier. But then again Hitler was never a very wise person.

I see, thanks for the answer.

[Sarcasm]

I see, thanks for the answer.

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. :sweatdrop:

[Celtic_Punk]

You can't count the Italians as part of the war effort... maybe economically, and providing a buffer so the allies would take more time to close in on germany... but their performance on the battlefield is one to forget.

here's an account I read from a history book when i was a wee lad- ill paraphrase it since its a large paragraph. - When the Allied armies landed in Sicily (10 July 1943) an American dog named Chips was moving up with his company, attacked a concrete machinegun nest, got wounded, and dragged an italian out screaming, the three others surrendered, he also rounded up another 10 of them later in the day. he got a DSC a silver star and a purple heart, but a commander argued "brave men shouldnt have to share their medals with a dog" and he lots his medals.(this is from a kids history book- Horrible Histories, by Terry Deary but its still true.)

as the saying goes, Italian tanks have 16 gears, 15 in reverse, and one really fast one that goes forwards incase of an attack from the rear. (infact the fastest tank in the WW2 part of the Bovington tank museum in Britain is an Italian) ~D


Germany's mistake in all this was trusting Italy to the Italians.

i say this all in jest :chinese:

[Zarax]

Italy had exactly the same problem as France.
While having a semi-decent industry they lacked in natural resources and tactical coordination between army, navy and air force. All in all, Italy would have been much more effective entering war in 1942-43.
Had it been properly supported by the air force the italian navy would have been capable of effectively counter the royal navy in the mediterranean, cutting off british supply lines in Africa. That would have changed the outcome of quite a few things in the war, while starting later would have helped to not send a WWI army into WWII.

[AntiTank]

Not turning over the Shah to a vengeful people.

Several effects, the disastrous rescue attempt, and the Iran Iraq War that saved many Shah Pilots from execution and enabled the development of the Iranian Defense Agency.

Now Iran is beholden to no one, makes its own weapons and has been reverse engineering and expanding on the F-14 which the Russians still have yet to match, which is why the Russians have been unable to sell much in the way of planes to the Iranians. Outside of ACIG, Speartip, and F-14 Sunset, few people realize that Iran's 50 F-14s and AIM-54s are fully operational and will soon be joined by a Super Tomcat known as FB-44 Iranian Lion.

Meanwhile due to McNamara and Rumsfeld's stupid policy decisions, the U.S. Military is just falling apart. Fewer and fewer aircraft are flight worthy, fewer vehicles are able to run, and fewer soldiers are enlisting.

[Pinkkiller]

umm well the big mistake adolf did was starting a war with russia ...wasn't ready for a 3 frontal war should have killed the other ones firstly :laugh4:

[Celtic_Punk]

Pin you must also take into account hitler desperately needed fuel. russia was the best choice hitler could think of... i personally think he could have just gotten it diplomatically. sure he hated commies(if WWII never happend i bet the americans and him woulda been best buds during the cold war lol) but keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer, as the saying goes.

[Ludens]

If oil was the problem, Hitler should have concentrated on North Africa and drive on through the Middle East. However, he didn't trust Stalin, and he had reason. The Soviets had already occupied several border areas that they had agreed were German. Also, the Red army was massing on the German border. It's speculated they were positioned there for an attack that would take place a year or so down the line, but it's still was very provocative. Fortunately for the Germans, the Reds were in attack columns that had been placed way to close together, effectively paralysing them during the first days of operation Barbarossa. The fact that they were commanded by incompetent lackeys didn't make things better either.

[AntiTank]

umm well the big mistake adolf did was starting a war with russia ...wasn't ready for a 3 frontal war should have killed the other ones firstly :laugh4:

Actually his fatal mistake was declaring war on the U.S. in hopes Japan would strike the USSR from behind.

Once Hitler did that, Germany was doomed.

Otherwise Hitler would have won. Remember, Germany took on far more foes in WW1 and nearly won till American Forces arrived and turn the tide.

[Mindaros]

The United States was very much a participant even before that, aiding both Britain and the USSR.

[Celtic_Punk]

the first stages of Barbarossa Stalin ordered his men to let the germans advance, they then surrounded them raped them. (see destruction of the 6th Army after stalingrad) there were just too many ruskies to round up. some prisoners of war were caught several times before they ever saw a camp. millions of troops behind the germans lines causing havok on their supply lines. Russia was (like for napoleon, and still would be, and always will be) a logistical nightmare. As I always say, The only way to take Russia is from the inside. Stalins gamble paid off beautifully. sure he lost milllllllliions of men, but that wasn't really a problem for Russia, given their high population. They had so many people they couldn't even afford to give them all guns. half would get a clip of 5 rounds, and the other half got a rifle. "the one with the rifle shoots, when he dies, the one with the ammo picks up the rifle loads and shoots." Sometimes I thank the Gods I wasn't a wartime Russian.

[AntiTank]

The United States was very much a participant even before that, aiding both Britain and the USSR.

But not as a Belligerent.

[Cullhwch]

the first stages of Barbarossa Stalin ordered his men to let the germans advance, they then surrounded them raped them. (see destruction of the 6th Army after stalingrad) there were just too many ruskies to round up. some prisoners of war were caught several times before they ever saw a camp. millions of troops behind the germans lines causing havok on their supply lines. Russia was (like for napoleon, and still would be, and always will be) a logistical nightmare. As I always say, The only way to take Russia is from the inside. Stalins gamble paid off beautifully. sure he lost milllllllliions of men, but that wasn't really a problem for Russia, given their high population. They had so many people they couldn't even afford to give them all guns. half would get a clip of 5 rounds, and the other half got a rifle. "the one with the rifle shoots, when he dies, the one with the ammo picks up the rifle loads and shoots." Sometimes I thank the Gods I wasn't a wartime Russian.

Eh, that whole "men sent to the frontlines without guns" thing is mostly an exaggeration from WWI. The Russians were actually pretty well-supplied during WWII after the initial German advance. They also largely eschewed rifles in favor of submachine guns. Quantity has a quality of its own.

And Stalin didn't "let" the Germans advance at all. After hearing news of the initial attack, he holed up in a country villa and only ordered his generals to "drive them back with powerful blows." He was too shellshocked to come up with any real strategy and his subjects suffered for it.

[Celtic_Punk]

i've never heard that. I'd like to see a source saying so. if stalin really did do that the germans advance to moscow and stalingrad would not have been so swift. the russians were waiting till the germans were deep into russia and for winter to come, knowing full well they were not prepared for it.

[Mindaros]

But not as a Belligerent.
No, but by the time the Americans were finally driving back the Germans in Normandy and Italy the turning point of the war had already passed - the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad, for instance, had ended (without American armies).

[AntiTank]

No, but by the time the Americans were finally driving back the Germans in Normandy and Italy the turning point of the war had already passed - the battles of Moscow and Stalingrad, for instance, had ended (without American armies).

Which were only possible because, one America supplied the USSR with critical supplies, such as food, boots, reliable telephone wire, trucks, rail and locomotives, avgas, etc.

Also by entering the War America obliged Hitler to send divisions to Norway, Divisions to the Mediterranean Theater, and yet more divisions to Vichy France.

Thats men who could have tipped the scales in Stalingrad. It also pulled Luftwaffe Squadrons from the Ost Front as well along with needed transport planes.

So by just by entering the War, America indirectly won Stalingrad as much as the USSR did.

There is a saying "Victory has many Fathers" and it rings very much true in WW2.

[Celtic_Punk]

I wouldn't say the Americans won Stalingrad as much as the Russians. thats a wee bit disrespectful to the Russians who fought and died in that place. they contributed in a way, but by no means did they equal what the Russians gave in that city.

[davidtotalwar]

I think Napoleon made some pretty massive mistakes in the Napoleonic War. He was a great military commander but a very poor diplomat. France ended up at war with so many nations she just could not cope. Another problem with Napoleon's diplomacy was he could never compromise and give a peace treaty which other nations could except. This lead to situations like when he demanded Austria to surrender he gave them such a harsh peace treaty that they would never except it so Austria would continue the fight meaning that the number of enemies France would have to face would not go down.

The US decision to invade Canada in 1812 was not a particularly bright decision either.

PS AntiTank some of your comments have been a little generalised, and saying US equally won the Battle for Stalingrad is not correct, that victory belongs to the Red Army just as much as the victory in the Battle of Britain belongs to the British Empire and the victory at Midway belongs to the US.

Also in World War 1 the main players where the German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire on one side and British Empire, French Empire and Russian Empire on the other side. It was those 6 nations which would win or lose the war other nations played only a minor role.

the US did not "turn the tide" as America came into the war very late on and the quality of their armies was not partially high, they provided numbers yes but the weren't much good for any thing else.

I am only trying to give you objective criticism nothing offensive.

[ironanvil1]

Actually his fatal mistake was declaring war on the U.S. in hopes Japan would strike the USSR from behind.

Once Hitler did that, Germany was doomed.

Otherwise Hitler would have won. Remember, Germany took on far more foes in WW1 and nearly won till American Forces arrived and turn the tide.

I'd dispute that, WW1 was pretty much over by the time US troops arrived, their presence hastened the end of the war but the writing was already on the wall for the Germans.

In WW2 the Germans over the long haul are still going to lose even sans US involvement as a belligerent, with a long, long bloody struggle on the Eastern front and Germany unable to invade the UK in the West. It'd probably end in mushroom clouds over Germany somewhere down the line.

[kuzduck]

worst series of military mistakes: wars the french fought

[Hegix]

worst series of military mistakes: wars the french fought

Are you just trying to be funny or do you have any type of rationale for that statement?

[Lysimachos]

Are you just trying to be funny or do you have any type of rationale for that statement?

I think it is a reference to this joke (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html).

Of course they were not really that unsuccessful in reality :yes:

[Hax]

Well, it's true that France has never won a war in 200 years.

[Chris1959]

WW1, WW2 eventually, American War of Independence, Crimean War, Algeria 1830's, Franco Austrian War.......
As a Britain I like to take the sap out of the French like the rest but I always think it is wise to remeber every French village has a statue of a Poilu with a hell of a lot of names on it!

[AntiTank]

I wouldn't say the Americans won Stalingrad as much as the Russians. thats a wee bit disrespectful to the Russians who fought and died in that place. they contributed in a way, but by no means did they equal what the Russians gave in that city.

:inquisitive: How does an honest assessment equate an insult?

I should point out that the Allies captured more Axis soldiers in Tunsia than the USSR did in Stalingrad at nearly the same time.

Please actually study the campaigns as connecting fronts rather than separately and ask yourself, what was sacrificed in one front to fight in another and you'll start to see how all the fronts were interconnected.

[Bovarius]

:inquisitive: How does an honest assessment equate an insult?

I should point out that the Allies captured more Axis soldiers in Tunsia than the USSR did in Stalingrad at nearly the same time.

Please actually study the campaigns as connecting fronts rather than separately and ask yourself, what was sacrificed in one front to fight in another and you'll start to see how all the fronts were interconnected.

Their is a big difference in the number of captives and the total loss of soldiers for the Germans.
The Germans lost more men and materials in Stalingrad then in Tunisia, because the situation was very different. Tunisia was a side-show and the weather was way better then Stalingrad.

And another note on the captives: Germans surrendered much more willing to the western allies then to the Russians.

[AntiTank]

I'd dispute that, WW1 was pretty much over by the time US troops arrived, their presence hastened the end of the war but the writing was already on the wall for the Germans.

In WW2 the Germans over the long haul are still going to lose even sans US involvement as a belligerent, with a long, long bloody struggle on the Eastern front and Germany unable to invade the UK in the West. It'd probably end in mushroom clouds over Germany somewhere down the line.

"sigh"

1) I hate to break it to you, but the Germans would have won if America had not entered.

One: The French and British were too incompetent and utterly demoralized by years of defeats at the hands of the Germans. Neither the French or British had much to show for their efforts, while the German consistently beat the crap out of them and took a fifth less causalities than those two powers. The Russians did far better, but still had their problems.

Two: If America hadn't floated loans and weapons to the British and French once the war started France and Britain would have been unable to continue it as the Germans took over the main French Manufacturing areas and the Germans held most of Europe's explosives industry.

Three: The AEF by staying separate from Allied Command was able to gain intelligence of the German Offensives that the other Allies ignored and thus were able to position units to block the German thrusts.

Four: The AEF with its Argonne Offensive, cut the German's main rail supply line and made their hold in France untenable, thus pushing the Germans into surrender.

2) Without America's intervention in WW2, the USSR is doomed.

One: America supplied the USSR with 59% of its Aviation Fuel, 2.5% of all automotive fuel, 92.7% of its railroad tracks, 81.6% of all locomotives, 80.7% of all railcars, 33% of all explosives, 45.2% of all copper ore, 55.5% of all aluminum, 30.1% of all tires (considering the inferiority of USSR tires, this is an affect all out of proportion to its numerical value, also the UK also delivered 103,500 tons of natural rubber), 27.9% of all machine tools (again these were far more advanced than USSR machine tools and had a far greater impact than the numerical value indicates), 29.5% of all sugar, 15.1% of all meat. This is in addition to 14,795 Aircraft, 7,056 Tanks, 51,503 Jeeps, 375,883 Trucks, 35,170 motorcycles, 8,071 Tractors, 90 Cargo ships, 105 Submarine Hunters, 197 Torpedo Boats, 7,784 Ship Engines, and 15,417,001 pairs of Army boots.

If the USSR doesn't receive these shipments, then they are looking at 2.5 million men who have to be taken out of combat to work in the factories, several million men out of combat due to malnutrition or disease. Plus a supply network that isn't supplying much of anything.

Two: The Germans are averaging a five to one kill ratio against Soviet Forces, so the Soviets are losing the war of attrition. Also the Germans captured a large percentage of Soviet Manpower in early 1941 along with the USSR's breadbasket and coal basket. Many areas that Stalin controls are prone to rebellion and he has to station assets there to keep them in line.

Three: Without America in the war, Germany can send an additional 100 divisions to the Ost front, not all are necessarily Wehrmact divisions, but they will add the necessary punch to knock Stalin out in 1942-43.

[AntiTank]

Their is a big difference in the number of captives and the total loss of soldiers for the Germans.
The Germans lost more men and materials in Stalingrad then in Tunisia, because the situation was very different. Tunisia was a side-show and the weather was way better then Stalingrad.

And another note on the captives: Germans surrendered much more willing to the western allies then to the Russians.

The point seems to fly right past you.

The Torch Landings pulled a large number of Axis forces and Aircraft into Africa when they were needed in Stalingrad, it also had Hitler sending even more desperately needed men into Vichy France.

Had Torch been delay just two weeks(which it nearly was), the Soviet Offensive would have been less successful as desperately needed Transport Aircraft would have been available along with several divisions to bust Paulus out.

[Sarcasm]

American by any chance?

[Bovarius]

The point seems to fly right past you.

The Torch Landings pulled a large number of Axis forces and Aircraft into Africa when they were needed in Stalingrad, it also had Hitler sending even more desperately needed men into Vichy France.

Had Torch been delay just two weeks(which it nearly was), the Soviet Offensive would have been less successful as desperately needed Transport Aircraft would have been available along with several divisions to bust Paulus out.

Hitler never would have busted Paulus out. He had given him strict orders not to surrender.
The trap would have closed anyway. With few reinforcements and the flanks secured by inferior Romanian and Hungarian troops (no offense to those countries, they just didn't have the same equipment as the Germans) the Russians would have trapped the 6th army. Even the Russians where surprised that they did it so easy.

And about torch, by the time the American's landed, the British had pushed the Rommel out of Libya and into Tunisia. By then even Hitler knew that is was a lost cause and he merly wanted to stall the British as much as possible. But he wouldn't send extra materials and men to that front, he never had and never would.

Operation Torch definatly speeded up things in Africa but to say that thanks to Operation Torch the Russians could capture the 6th army is exaggerating the effect of that operation and taking away credits for the Russians who plotted and executed the trap.

[AntiTank]

American by any chance?

Irrelevant if I am.

[AntiTank]

Hitler never would have busted Paulus out. He had given him strict orders not to surrender.
The trap would have closed anyway. With few reinforcements and the flanks secured by inferior Romanian and Hungarian troops (no offense to those countries, they just didn't have the same equipment as the Germans) the Russians would have trapped the 6th army. Even the Russians where surprised that they did it so easy.

And about torch, by the time the American's landed, the British had pushed the Rommel out of Libya and into Tunisia. By then even Hitler knew that is was a lost cause and he merly wanted to stall the British as much as possible. But he wouldn't send extra materials and men to that front, he never had and never would.

Operation Torch definatly speeded up things in Africa but to say that thanks to Operation Torch the Russians could capture the 6th army is exaggerating the effect of that operation and taking away credits for the Russians who plotted and executed the trap.

:inquisitive:

Does the point still fly past you or do you have an inability to read German Deployments and the effects of lend lease?

Once again all the Fronts of WW2 are interconnected. Also for God's sake its the USSR, not Russia. Russia didn't exist.

As with regards to Paulus, Hitler did finally authorize Paulus to break out when Manstein made his relief attempt. All Paulus had to do was just put up a picket screen and link up with Manstein. Instead he just sat and let his army die.

Though to tell you the truth, I won't shed a tear over Sixth Army's demise. The Wehrmact was just as guilty as the SS in Warcrimes when one considers that the Wehrmact, not the SS ran the POW camps in which millions of USSR POWs died, the Wehrmact on several occasions told its soldiers not to fire on POWs as it wasted ammo, not to volunteer for SS clearing actions as it robbed men from the front, and not to rape women due to venerable disease outside of approved brothels.

[bovi]

Russia didn't exist.
Certainly it did. It was the Soviet Union, so this statement is the same as saying California or Germany doesn't exist as they're part of unions. But indeed the warring entity was USSR and not only Russians.

[Meothar]

@ Antitank

Situation in Germany 1917 was desperate, even without the USA. Germany had fewer losses than France and Britain but also had a lower population (In 1914 Germany+Austria-Hungary: 121 Mio. France+GB+Italy: 121 Mio. Russia: 160 Mio). The offensive at Verdun was lost in 1916 and German forces retreated to the Siegfried-line.
Germany suffered from the British blockade, there was starvation in winter 1916/17 and in the "Coal-crisis" the industry was not able to produce enough supplies for the army. Inflation accelerated and war exhaustion was high.

So the USA were not the heroic saviour but just another enemy against a country that was already close to losing the war.

[AntiTank]

@ Antitank

Situation in Germany 1917 was desperate, even without the USA. Germany had fewer losses than France and Britain but also had a lower population (In 1914 Germany+Austria-Hungary: 121 Mio. France+GB+Italy: 121 Mio. Russia: 160 Mio). The offensive at Verdun was lost in 1916 and German forces retreated to the Siegfried-line.
Germany suffered from the British blockade, there was starvation in winter 1916/17 and in the "Coal-crisis" the industry was not able to produce enough supplies for the army. Inflation accelerated and war exhaustion was high.

So the USA were not the heroic saviour but just another enemy against a country that was already close to losing the war.

Utterly false. In late 1917, the Germans had won the Ukraine Breadbasket, so their food situation was stable. Verdun had no effect on the German Army, as a matter of fact the Germans did win Verdun. They reduced the French to a few fortifications while they took all the Strategically vital ground and accomplished their objectives.

I suggest reading Myth of the Great War by John Mosier and follow it up with the sources he provides.

[Sarcasm]

Irrelevant if I am.

No more than when asking if Livy was Roman at least.

[Hax]

Hey, check this out. John Mosier was an American as well! Coincidence..?

[Meothar]

Utterly false. In late 1917, the Germans had won the Ukraine Breadbasket, so their food situation was stable. Verdun had no effect on the German Army, as a matter of fact the Germans did win Verdun. They reduced the French to a few fortifications while they took all the Strategically vital ground and accomplished their objectives.

I suggest reading Myth of the Great War by John Mosier and follow it up with the sources he provides.

The book you mention is not unchallenged because of the onesided position the author takes. And sources in wartime are always filled with propaganda.

Verdun was not a victory for Germany but an offensive that failed to reach the goal (Verdun) and was repelled. In the end, both sides have lost an equal number of soldiers and no advantage. Without intervention of the USA, Germany would perhaps been able to delay the end of the war until 1920 or such, but no chance for winning.
But I think it's not the right place to discuss this. WW1 was one big military mistake.

[Cbvani]

WW1 was one big military mistake.
From a military perspective, yes. The tech on the western front was such that a well established defense was nearly impenetrable.
Also on a diplomatic level. But then, war is the failure of diplomacy.

[Chris1959]

It seems strange that most people see WW1 as a "static" war and this was the cause of the "heavy" casualties sustained by combatants when some of the highest loss rate were during the periods of intense manouvres at the start and end of the war, The Battles of Lorraine, Grand Couronne, Michael Offensive etc.
WW1 is probably a period whose history will be greatly re-written in the future as generations become more detatched from the setimentality of "1914 when the world as it should be ended and the world as it is began".

[machinor]

Without intervention of the USA, Germany would perhaps been able to delay the end of the war until 1920 or such, but no chance for winning.
But I think it's not the right place to discuss this. WW1 was one big military mistake.
I don't think so. In 1917/18 the British gained one decisive military advantage over the Germans: tanks. The British already had them in mass production while the Germans were still only having a handful prototypes of useless designs. The ability to literally just roll through and over enemy lines is a major turning point in military doctrine. This experience led the German military to focus their attention on tank warfare much more intensively in the decades between the World Wars than the Allies, thus enabling Nazi-Germany to effectively blitz all of western Europe, not with better tanks but with a better understanding of the possibilities and necessities of tank warfare.

[AntiTank]

I don't think so. In 1917/18 the British gained one decisive military advantage over the Germans: tanks. The British already had them in mass production while the Germans were still only having a handful prototypes of useless designs. The ability to literally just roll through and over enemy lines is a major turning point in military doctrine. This experience led the German military to focus their attention on tank warfare much more intensively in the decades between the World Wars than the Allies, thus enabling Nazi-Germany to effectively blitz all of western Europe, not with better tanks but with a better understanding of the possibilities and necessities of tank warfare.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Tanks were utterly useless in WW1, they had no suspension system, regular bullets produced by the Germans were able to penetrate the hull, and most broke down before even reaching the starting line.

They made great propaganda tools, but had little impact on the fighting.

[AntiTank]

The book you mention is not unchallenged because of the onesided position the author takes. And sources in wartime are always filled with propaganda.

Verdun was not a victory for Germany but an offensive that failed to reach the goal (Verdun) and was repelled. In the end, both sides have lost an equal number of soldiers and no advantage. Without intervention of the USA, Germany would perhaps been able to delay the end of the war until 1920 or such, but no chance for winning.
But I think it's not the right place to discuss this. WW1 was one big military mistake.

:inquisitive:

I suggest you look at a terrain map of Verdun from that time and then say that with a straight face.

Also I suggest looking closely at German Casulities by region and you'll find that the German Casulities reports that they printed came from all fronts. End result, the Allies thought they were doing better than they were.

The reality was different, Germany was wining the war of Attrition.

Also I suggest actually reading the Sources provide by Mosier.

[AntiTank]

Hey, check this out. John Mosier was an American as well! Coincidence..?

Irrelevant, address his points or concede. Same as you address my points. This is about ideals, not who we are. I don't ask who you are and I really don't care as it is irrelevant to the subject matter at hand.

[Barry Soteiro]

Well, it's true that France has never won a war in 200 years.

Coming from our Dutch-Algerian resident this is pretty funny. Dutch never conquered anything since 400 years. And Algeria ? Do these guys have even an army ?

[Tollheit]

Utterly false. In late 1917, the Germans had won the Ukraine Breadbasket, so their food situation was stable.

Hunger continued all through 1917, 1918 and even beyond. German mortality during the influenza epidemic of 1918 was 250% greater than in Great Britain, thanks to malnutrition. A stable diet of turnips and tree bark.

[Hax]

Coming from our Dutch-Algerian resident this is pretty funny. Dutch never conquered anything since 400 years. And Algeria ? Do these guys have even an army ?

Dutch: In-do-ne-si-a. Don't forget the Dutch controlled it for almost 250 years. Hey, guess what, we still own a part of Saint Martin, or Sint Maarten in Dutch. Look for the Netherlands Antilles while you're at it.

Algeria: Look for the Algerian-Morocco war. Oh, and the resistance vs the French? ;)

Also:


Coming from our Dutch-Algerian resident this is pretty funny. Dutch never conquered anything since 400 years. And Algeria ? Do these guys have even an army ?

Coming from a guy who actually suggested, what was it again, "those blue celtiberian guys" over at the EB2 forum, this is pretty funny. Not to mention "Ptolemaic Felt Cataphracts"..?

But seriously, let's not get into nationalist bashing here. Please.

[Spendios]

Well, it's true that France has never won a war in 200 years.



But seriously, let's not get into nationalist bashing here. Please.

Funny


Algeria: Look for the Algerian-Morocco war.Oh, and the resistance vs the French? ;)



?

[Hax]

Funny

Yeah, isn't it vaguely hypocritical?

Anyways, I apologize for the statement concerning the French. :bow:

[Meothar]

:inquisitive:

I suggest you look at a terrain map of Verdun from that time and then say that with a straight face.

Also I suggest looking closely at German Casulities by region and you'll find that the German Casulities reports that they printed came from all fronts. End result, the Allies thought they were doing better than they were.

The reality was different, Germany was wining the war of Attrition.

Also I suggest actually reading the Sources provide by Mosier.

The library of the local university doesn't have that book, so I just have to follow the argumentation of others refering to Mosier (is he your single source?). And they seem to criticise his sources, although I don't know if they have done better research.

Verdun itself was not conquered by the German army, just some forts in front of it.
Casualties are always hard to estimate because both sides tend to understate their own and exaggerate those of the enemy.

However, I won't say you are completely wrong with your opinion, I am no expert for WW1 or history in general, just criticising the "German army was uber and only beaten by nearly divine Americans" (figuratively spoken) point.

[Foot]

This is so off course. This thread has had its time, but french-bashing and generally having nothing to do with our mod has forced me to close it. I'm sure your discussion will be welcome in the backroom however.

Foot