Most Pointless Battle [Archive]

Kagemusha

03-29-2006, 22:10

Quote from Samurai-archives.com:

NAGASHINO
28 June 1575 / Mikawa / Siege and Battle

Takeda Katsuyori (12,000)
VS
Oda Nobunaga (30,000)/Tokugawa Ieyasu (8,000)

In the summer of 1575, Takeda Katsuyori led his army into the Tokugawa domain and laid siege to Nagashino Castle, a locally important strongpoint that had changed hands a number of times in the past few years. The castle's defenders managed to resist the initial Takeda attacks and, thanks to the heroic efforts of a certain Torii Sune'emon, managed to alert Tokugawa Ieyasu of their plight, and the latter convinced Oda Nobunaga to commit to an all-out battle with the Takeda. When faced with the appearance of a numerically superior enemy force, Katsuyori, over the objections of his veteran commanders, opted to attack. Thanks to superior firepower (as many as 3,000 arquebuses were used in the battle) and good positon, Oda Nobunaga and Tokugawa Ieyasu crushed the Takeda attack and relieved Nagashino Castle. Most of the famous Takeda generals present were killed in the battle and the offensive power of the Takeda was severly crippled (having lost around 10,000 men). Oda was now free to fully turn his attentions elsewhere, leaving Ieyasu to contain the battered Takeda. /Quote

I think this battle that lead in the downfall of the Takeda Clan was complete foolishness from Takeda Katsuyori.He could never fit in his great fathers Takeda Shingens shoes and in the end that resulted into destruction of the Takeda clan.:bow:

Rosacrux redux

03-30-2006, 11:57

matteus the inbred

03-30-2006, 12:39

Almost all battles during WWI in the estern front, after the stabilization of the front in 1914. Pointless bloodbaths for virtually no gain (tactical, strategical or at least considerable land gains).

I would definitely not call Nagashino "pointless" at all... on the contrary, it was a battle of incredibly high stakes and the outcome pretty much determined the future of not only the Taked clan, but also a significant part of the subsequent events in Japan.

Also, I wouldn't call any of the "last stand" battles as 'pointless', as they are valuable for strategical reasons (boost of morale, delay of enemy force, political reasons, motivation etc. etc.).

I agree, Nagashino, while a battle that the Takeda needn't have fought, was probably one of the more significant battles of the period, strategically and technologically.

I nominate Fredericksburg, ACW 1862. Gen. Burnside is put under pressure to pursue the retreating Confederates following Antietam, and attacks them in entrenched positions while getting his army across the Rappahannock. His troops are duly slaughtered in large numbers (some 12,000 casualties, compared to only around 5,000 Confederates) in a futile series of assaults. End result, Lee's army kept the field and Burnside withdrew to his former position and was replaced by the equally disastrous Joe Hooker. It basically achieved nothing except bloodshed.

(A similar example of this would be New Orleans 1812, fought after the peace treaty was signed!)

Kagemusha

03-30-2006, 13:44

Almost all battles during WWI in the estern front, after the stabilization of the front in 1914. Pointless bloodbaths for virtually no gain (tactical, strategical or at least considerable land gains).

I would definitely not call Nagashino "pointless" at all... on the contrary, it was a battle of incredibly high stakes and the outcome pretty much determined the future of not only the Taked clan, but also a significant part of the subsequent events in Japan.

Also, I wouldn't call any of the "last stand" battles as 'pointless', as they are valuable for strategical reasons (boost of morale, delay of enemy force, political reasons, motivation etc. etc.).

I disagree.It was pointless and stupid from Katsuyori he wasted Takedas army on an insignificant battle.Over an castle that wasnt even necessary to take to move further in the Togukawa domain.Also all of Senior Takeda retainers were against attacking the prepared and outnumbering Oda/Togukawa forces. Ofcourse it wasnt pointless for Oda or Tokugawa becouse it allowed To Oda to launch their forces on fully to Take over The Central Kinai region of the Country and also for Togukawa to take most of the Takedas eastern Domains. But as a last stand it wasnt Takedas last stand.The last stand of Takeda was at Temmokuzan 1581.Where Katsyori finally took his own life.

Scurvy

03-30-2006, 14:35

the somme? huge losses on both sides and changed very little

matteus the inbred

03-30-2006, 14:59

the somme? huge losses on both sides and changed very little

maybe, but had it worked, the Allies would have broken through decisively? actually, I withdraw that comment, had Burnside won at Fredericksburg (however impossible it was for him to do so) the ACW might have ended!
So yeah, I agree with Scurvy, the Somme is a good example. One eminent German WWII tactician called WWI trench warfare an 'tactical and strategic aberration from warfare theory' or something similar...

I think Nagashino is disputed here because it had consequences that changed the balance of power in a fairly short-term way and brought about the downfall (albeit delayed) of a major clan. Perhaps 4th Kawanakajima, for all its interest as a tactical battle, might be a good choice? I don't recall that it had any significant consequences for either side, despite massive casualties. What do you think, Kagemusha?

Rosacrux redux

03-30-2006, 15:16

Kagemusha

03-30-2006, 15:35

Kagemusha

My take on the significance of a battle - as matteus' - considers also the consequences. And Nagashino, although a battle Katsuyori didn't have to fight at that point of time and space (he had to eventually confront Tokugawa and Oda at some point though, that was pretty inevitable) had major consequences for the history of Japan. So, it cannot be called "pointless". Had Takeda clan won, the gain would be enormous (as was the loss in the defeat).

Rosacrux,I believe we only have a different wiev point,when you have taken the strategig point of wiev i took more of the tactical approach.From different wiews good conversations tend to start.:2thumbsup:

Matteus about the 5 Battles of Kawakanajima.(The 4th was the biggest one).I believe that the battles were not pointless but the opposing armies and Daimyos were so even matched in their capabilities that neither Kenshin or Shingen could gain the upper hand.The Shinano province as a major crossroad between the Northern, Eastern and Western provinces was strategically so important that the war was almost constant in that province.
Now that i think more i think infact its pretty hard to find totally pointless battles becouse when one looks deeper on the reasons that provoked those battles things start to show up.
WWI is not the strongest point of my knowledge but wasnt the battle of Gallipol a pretty useless slaughtering of commonwealth troops?

matteus the inbred

03-30-2006, 16:00

Matteus about the 5 Battles of Kawakanajima.(The 4th was the biggest one).I believe that the battles were not pointless but the opposing armies and Daimyos were so even matched in their capabilities that neither Kenshin or Shingen could gain the upper hand.The Shinano province as a major crossroad between the Northern, Eastern and Western provinces was strategically so important that the war was almost constant in that province. Now that i think more i think infact its pretty hard to find totally pointless battles becouse when one looks deeper on the reasons that provoked those battles things start to show up.

yes, that's fair enough. It is very hard to find a pointless battle because the potential total annihilation of one side's army could always have had consequences.

WWI is not the strongest point of my knowledge but wasnt the battle of Gallipol a pretty useless slaughtering of commonwealth troops?

True, it was a massive failure of command, but had it succeeded it would have knocked Turkey out of the war and enabled the Allies to strike at Germany and Austro-Hungary from the south by gaining help from Greece and Bulgaria. Particularly, it was aimed at freeing up Russia's Black Sea fleet to operate better supply lines.

It's a difficult question really; it has to be an operation that would have been useless to both sides even if it had totally succeeded. Even the apparently good example of New Orleans defies this, because had the British crushed Jackson's army and taken the city they could have re-opened negotiations with America (the treay had been signed but the war did not officially end until after the battle)

Incidentally, I originally stated this battle to have occurred in 1812...in fact it occurred on 8th Jan 1815 but was part of the war which started in 1812! :oops:

King Henry V

03-30-2006, 16:06

New Orleans and Toulouse were both pointless battles, as they were fought after the peace treaties had been signed.

Kommodus

03-30-2006, 16:18

Right, the dispute over Nagashino stems from a certain someone's *ahem*Kag*ahem* failure to read or understand the following part of the initial post:

NOT what battle should not have been fought because of the great risk of defeat or that was lost despite holding the advantage, but the battle that -- regardless of outcome -- could not/did not change the course of events, but was fought anyway.

Anyway, I also nominate the battle of New Orleans - although its outcome did put the Americans in a slightly better position. It's true that no truly pointless battle will be found - only some battles that are more pointless than others.

matteus the inbred

03-30-2006, 16:19

New Orleans and Toulouse were both pointless battles, as they were fought after the peace treaties had been signed.

yes, Toulouse, that's a good one! forgotten that one.

Perhaps Grouchy's pointlessly successful engagement on 19th June 1815 with the Prussian rearguard at Wavre (the day after Waterloo had been lost) would be appropriate too; the 'last battle' of the Napoleonic wars.

Kagemusha

03-30-2006, 16:23

Right, the dispute over Nagashino stems from a certain someone's *ahem*Kag*ahem* failure to read or understand the following part of the initial post:

Anyway, I also nominate the battle of New Orleans - although its outcome did put the Americans in a slightly better position. It's true that no truly pointless battle will be found - only some battles that are more pointless than others.

Dont blame poor old Kage.Seamus just asks too damn hard questions always.~;)

yesdachi

03-30-2006, 16:44

I think the battle for the Nagashino Castle was stupid on Takeda’s side but it was not pointless, it had serious repercussions as it took Takeda out of the “major player” lineup.

I’d say the most pointless battles I can think of were the take a hill, give up a hill battles in Viet Nam.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-30-2006, 17:01

Sorry about the Q's, but I am a recovering professor....

My vote is -- Brits hold on to your spats -- the Battle of Britain.

Aside from the valor displayed by both sides, what was the point?

Germany launches an air assault on an island nation that ends up decimating their experienced air crews PRIOR to what Hitler had always intended -- an invasion of Russia.

The Germans were quite aware that "Sea Lion" was impossible. Even with air SUPREMACY, the weapons of the era would not have inflicted enough damage on the British battleships etc. to keep them from sinking any invasion barges. The Royal Navy would, quite literally, have paid any price necessary to stop it. Moreover, the Germans had specifically chosen NOT to develop a strategic role for their luftwaffe, and -- despite some stupid orders from der Fuhrer -- were aware that no bombing campaign they could launch would make the British quit.

So why in heavens did they bother? Some scrapping over the channel, mining harbors etc., making the Brits (and the Russkis) THINK they were building an invasion fleet -- sure. But they sent the most experienced fliers in their luftwaffe on high casualty sorties pursuing inconsequential missions in support of a strategic operation that was impossible. Lunacy. Even The Somme -- for all its limitations and cock-ups -- had a better chance of strategic success.

On the British side, things were more understandable -- its pretty hard not to fight back when someone is bombing your homeland -- but what was the strategic value of risking their entire fighter force on forward bases PRIOR to a direct invasion effort by the Germans (they certainly hadn't pulle out all the stops to defend France). Defend those areas out of range of the BF 109s and hammer any unescorted bombers sure, but the portion of Britain being threatened by single-engine fighters and bombers operating together was relatively small and held limited strategic value compared to the indutrialized North and West. Moreover, without the Navy, the RAF had little chance of stopping an invasion anyway (as their performance against the Eugen Scharnhorst & Gneisnau suggests). Why didn't they do the rational thing and hang back, buld experience hunting the weaker targets, and preserve their force to smash any German ground effort that did reach Blighty?

Since 1585, the answer to beating England was always the same. Develop a force capable of exterminating the Royal Navy as they defend the Channel. If you can't or don't, then any other plan for conquest is moot. The only value the Battle of Britain held was the propaganda value Winnie milked it for.

matteus the inbred

03-30-2006, 17:14

Sorry about the Q's, but I am a recovering professor....
My vote is -- Brits hold on to your spats -- the Battle of Britain.

woo, hello Mr Controversy! Actually, you make many very good points, most of them sustainable in my view. I suppose the Luftwaffe had to be doing something, and the RAF weren't going to sit tight in Yorkshire and drink tea while they did it.
One could argue that if the Luftwaffe established complete bombing superiority over southern and mid-England the morale and industrial effect would have been catastrophic after a year of unopposed bombing. And it might render any Fleet operations impossible south of Tyneside, including anti U-Boat and commerce raider operations...after all, the Royal Navy (as the Prince of Wales/Repulse incident shows) needed some air cover to do their job. They couldn't have opposed a landing whilst being bombed to bits.
But all this supposes no RAF activity at all, rather than no RAF activity against German bombing of land targets and needlessly exposed foward airbases.

If the Royal Navy had been destroyed stopping a landing, Germany could've then pulled out its own navy from the bases where quite a lot of it spent the war hiding (including the Tirpitz), and forced a landing, or completely destroyed any US aid convoys to the UK and Russia. I agree that the Battle of Britain itself was a waste of aircraft and bad strategy by both sides in many ways, but I don't belive Britain could have gotten away with surrendering air superiority over northern-western Europe...dunno, this one could run and run!!

Kraxis

03-30-2006, 20:04

The mentioned battles are indeed rather pointless, or at least can be considered a waste.

But one battle stands out as not only wasteful, but pointless and damaging to both factions.

Copenhagen 1801.
The Armed Neutrality Union of Denmark, Prussia, Russia and Sweden would protect their trade with arms if British or French forces interferred. Denmark in particular made great gains on this, and Britain couldn't just stand idly by.
But the union was lead by the Russian Czar who had strong anti-British feelings, and he was moving to get the Union to be more aggressive and more positive to Napoleon.
Of course the British couldn't allow that and sent Nelson to clean up the mess.
The first target was Copenhagen and the Danish fleet. And the battle was a horrible event of two lines pounding each other to smithereens. And the only linebattle ever where the loser suffer fewer human losses than the victor.

But at the time of the battle the Russian Czar had died and the Union was being dissolved. No need for the battle, but not only that but it also swayed the formerly pro-British Danes to be significantly more negative. Prior to 1801 English was commonly known and used in Copenhagen, afterwards it was basically gone.
In the extreme it resulted in the Robbery of the Fleet (as the Siege of Copenhagen is called), and a very expensive and needless war. Britain did not need another enemy at that time, and Denmark most certainly didn't need such a strong foe.

Taurus

03-30-2006, 20:23

Seamus Fermanagh

03-30-2006, 21:16

woo, hello Mr Controversy! Actually, you make many very good points, most of them sustainable in my view. I suppose the Luftwaffe had to be doing something, and the RAF weren't going to sit tight in Yorkshire and drink tea while they did it.
One could argue that if the Luftwaffe established complete bombing superiority over southern and mid-England the morale and industrial effect would have been catastrophic after a year of unopposed bombing. And it might render any Fleet operations impossible south of Tyneside, including anti U-Boat and commerce raider operations...after all, the Royal Navy (as the Prince of Wales/Repulse incident shows) needed some air cover to do their job. They couldn't have opposed a landing whilst being bombed to bits.
But all this supposes no RAF activity at all, rather than no RAF activity against German bombing of land targets and needlessly exposed foward airbases.

I agree with your first point whole-heartedly. It would have been a touch difficult (a little quasi-English understatement here) to keep the fighter-boys stood down whilst Canterbury was flattened.

On the other hand, the threat to mid-England would have been countered. No problems facing Bf-110's and the bombers, with the 109's having 5 min or less of fight time North of the Thames. This means that an air umbrella for the fleet would go as far south as the Thames Estuary and as far South as Bristol on the West (and Devon/Cornwall is at the extreme range of the 109 and there's no way the krauts could've established air superiority at that range). Even if the SE was conceded, only a very few industrial sites would have truly been at risk.

POW/Repulse incident not a good analogy. Zero aircover (couldn't resist :laugh4: ) is a far cry different from some fighter cover. The Japanese took numerous hits to sink both ships, even though they faced limited AAA (by Pacific theater standards at least) and a significant number of the Japanese air groups involved were specifically trained as ship hunters. The Germans had neither the doctrine nor the tools to hammer ships as well as the Japanese -- look at their generally sub-par record during the convoy attack phase of the Battle of Britain.

And yes, I do adore such debates.:2thumbsup:

Kraxis -- NICE nominee. Nelson's proof to history that a man who refuses to be beaten (even when he plainly was) won't be beaten. I've gamed that one using AH's old WS&IM game. Any realistic version of likely events is a bloodbath for both sides. A good pointless waste example.

Brenus

03-30-2006, 21:39

“La Suffel”, last battle of the Napoleonic Wars, won by the French General Rapp, the 10 days after Waterloo, 6 after Napoleon’s abdication...

econ21

03-30-2006, 21:45

Perhaps Grouchy's pointlessly successful engagement on 19th June 1815 with the Prussian rearguard at Wavre (the day after Waterloo had been lost) would be appropriate too; the 'last battle' of the Napoleonic wars.

It was the same day as Waterloo. But may be that makes it more pointless (for the French). If Grouchy had marched hard to join Napoleon, as some French at Waterloo mistakenly believed was happening when they first saw the Prussians arriving, things might have been different.

Rodion Romanovich

03-30-2006, 22:02

Most battles in offensive wars were pointless, even when the wars were won, because most offensive wars have led to counter-wars where the expansionist culture has lost pretty much everything they conquered. There I find it more difficult to find battles that did have a point, tbh. But quite often the decision to fight in a war that begins defensively can have pretty good points. On the other hand, victories can create hybris, turning a peaceful nation that was attacked into an expansionist nation after it successfully held back and invader... No, I might be a pessimist but I think it's more difficult to find a battle that had a point that finding a battle that didn't. Sometimes not fighting at all until the conqueror overextends, then timing an own rebellion to when that happens, can be more effective. Maybe the least pointless battles that still give an impression of being pointless are the battles of rebels in rebellions, even if they get slaughtered while inflicting little casualties, they can teach us that fighting spirit and prudence never makes a man stop fighting no matter which losses he takes, while those who conquer for power and control eventually lose interest, and their dynasties let their military fall apart. Unfortunately, it's however the belief that your cause is prudence, not necessarily that it is so, that has this effect. It happens seldom that people can be convinced that their cause is unjust when it is just, but often that people convince themselves that their cause is just when it is unjust.

Anyway, choosing the most pointless battle also involves another complicated aspect, namely that the battles are differently pointless depending on from which side you look at it. If it's allowed to in this matter consider both sides of the battles as "different battles", then I would say that Thermopylae from the persian point of view, and Somme (and other major ww1 offensives seen from the attacker's perspective), count among the most pointless battles I can think of.

Kraxis

03-31-2006, 00:11

Guys... You are confusing wasteful and pointless. A battle can be very wasteful but still have a point. Perhaps not a good one, but most often there is a point to the battle.

The one I mentioned lost the point of the battle prior to it being fought, just Nelson and Hyde-Parker didn't know that.

Pointless = lack of reason, not wasteful.

It was pointless of Paraguay to go to war against Brazil and Argentina at the same time for instance. But it was not pointless to fight the battles of WWI, however wasteful they were. Those battles were just badly constructed, but had a point.

Of course some would argue that the loss of life made them pointless, but then it could also be argued that all battles are pointless as they include loss of life.
We have to be cynical when looking at this.

Papewaio

03-31-2006, 04:08

Or in short:

Wasteful = poor tactics.

Pointless = poor strategy.

Csargo

03-31-2006, 05:00

the somme? huge losses on both sides and changed very little

Well most of the battles in the WWI were pretty pointless huge loss of life with almost no ground taken horrible:book:

Papewaio

03-31-2006, 05:16

Well most of the battles in the WWI were pretty pointless huge loss of life with almost no ground taken horrible:book:

Except when Aussies where in charge! :charge: :wink:

screwtype

03-31-2006, 09:19

Verdun would have to be the one I think. A million casualties in total, distributed equally between the two sides, and hardly a yard of territory gained or lost either way. And all for the capture of a bunch of old forts which had little more than sentimental value.

screwtype

03-31-2006, 09:30

Stalingrad would have to be another. An entirely pointless battle at every stage but the last (when holding out ironically became vital to the escape of troops in the Caucasus), fought mainly to assuage Hitler's ego, which chewed up an entire army of 300,000 men which the Germans were never able to replace.

Some of Hitler's late war offensives would also fit the perfectly pointless category, since they were made against impossible odds and only managed to hasten the end for Germany.

Banquo's Ghost

03-31-2006, 10:16

Sorry about the Q's, but I am a recovering professor....

My vote is -- Brits hold on to your spats -- the Battle of Britain.

Aside from the valor displayed by both sides, what was the point?

Fascinating nominee, and you make some intriguing points.

I wonder, would it have been politically possible for Churchill to have sat back as you suggest and let the capital burn? After so many defeats, would the nation have been able to suffer without any sense of fighting back?

And my impression (possibly very wrongly) was that Hitler believed the British were ready for a deal at that time - he held back at Dunkirk partly through that belief. Was the air assault motivated by a desire to give them a hard push in the direction of the negotiating table? If so, to remove that front ready for an invasion of Russia might have been a good reason to launch the attack - underestimating Churchill's character and resolve would make the continuation of the attacks pointless?

Kraxis

03-31-2006, 10:29

And my impression (possibly very wrongly) was that Hitler believed the British were ready for a deal at that time - he held back at Dunkirk partly through that belief.
Now why would Hitler think that letting the Brits escape home rather than be captured would induce them to come to the table? Even Hitler wouldn't be that warped.

No the reason Hitler held back was because he had been lead to believe the combined numbers of damaged, broken down and knocked out tanks were knocked out. So the loses to his precious tankforces seemed to him to be absolutely debilitating.
And unlike later he seemed to understand that tanks in urban areas would suffer a lot of losses. Hence he held the panzers back (but not the infantry thoguh). After all where could the Brits go? They couldn't possibly rescue more than 30-40,000 troops, could they?

screwtype

03-31-2006, 10:35

Actually, I think it was more like 300,000 troops rescued at Dunkirk, IIRC.

Banquo's Ghost

03-31-2006, 10:43

Now why would Hitler think that letting the Brits escape home rather than be captured would induce them to come to the table? Even Hitler wouldn't be that warped.

You may well be right, but I don't think the idea is warped. Hitler always seemed to consider the British to be natural allies, and my understanding was that he believed that the British didn't want to be at war, and that once France was lost, they would see there was no point in continuing. The BEF was beaten - allowing them to go home would give a British government a sort of 'peace with honour'. Annihilating the BEF would simply provoke more hostility in Britain to a peace deal.

There is certainly a lot of evidence that this option was being actively considered by the British government, and that most people wanted to accept German overtures for peace, and in many ways this would have been the sensible option. Think how bleak things must have looked at that time. Churchill took a different view, but had Lord Halifax become PM, things may have been different.

Kraxis

03-31-2006, 11:00

Actually, I think it was more like 300,000 troops rescued at Dunkirk, IIRC.
Hitler's thoughts... As well as those of the commadners of Dynamo. That it ended up being that many surprised everyone.

If Germany had captured and treated the BEF nicely, then promissed to send them home at once, I think a peace treaty would be more likely.
With no army left there would be few options, also a proper defeat that didn't involve humiliation would likely generate a sigh but hardly more. If anything the Brits have throughout war always considered honour to be very important (honourable defeats are celebrated like victories and such).

In any case Hitler didn't hold back his infantry. So it wasn't as if he believed in the 'live and let be' of the situation. He just didn't want to waste his tanks, in what should have been a foregone conclusion anyway.

matteus the inbred

03-31-2006, 11:00

I wonder, would it have been politically possible for Churchill to have sat back as you suggest and let the capital burn? After so many defeats, would the nation have been able to suffer without any sense of fighting back?

Yes, I agree, that would be my main argument. Mostly psychological, particularly with a view to the Americans getting involved. Had we not had Churchill (and those who supported his stance) in charge, quite possibly we would have come to terms.

Certainly Operation Sealion was unfeasible as it stood...in fact, the Battle itself was quite badly fought and planned on both sides in many ways!
I still think that ceding air superiority by not attacking the Luftwaffe over Britain and establishing psychological advantage over the Luftwaffe would have made fleet operations difficult (I think that of they had control of the air the Luftwaffe could have developed a programme to go after naval or commercial shipping targets). It's also important to point out that had the Luftwaffe not lost something in the region of 1,800 planes and crews over Britain, they would have been able to divert resources to the Eastern Front, the Med, and against Allied bombing raids.

Ultimately though, I do think Seamus is right in that it was a battle the Germans did not really need to start, and had little chance of winning.

It was the same day as Waterloo

I thought Wavre took place over two days, with Grouchy 'winning' on the 19th having been held up on the 18th? Bleh. Doesn't matter, as you say, the point is still good...!

screwtype

03-31-2006, 12:14

edit......

Trajanus

04-06-2006, 07:56

What about Paschaendale?

It was pretty pointless based on the fact that they didn't learn from the mistake of the Somme.

doc_bean

04-06-2006, 18:03

The entire Falklands war

The entire struggle for independence of Eritrea

Kraxis

04-06-2006, 22:50

The entire struggle for independence of Eritrea
Are we back at the 'all battles are pointless'? Elaborate...

rotorgun

04-09-2006, 19:03

On the tactical/operational level, I have always thought that the battle of Mortain, fought by the Germans in 1944 in Normandy to be particularly useless. It failed to obtain any of it's objectives, severly weakened an already depleted 7th Army, and made it possible for the allies to cut them off and destroy them in the Falaise gap. What a monumental waste of a fine army that had fought so heroically to prevent the allied breakout. A much better use of the, still intact, 7th would have been to fall back in stages behind the Seine River. I still can't believe it when I read about the appalling losses that Hitler inflicted upon his soldiers for no gain at all.:skull:

Kraxis

04-09-2006, 20:54

edyzmedieval

04-10-2006, 17:46

Many pointless battles were in history.

Look at the Kawanakajima battles in the Sengoku Jidai period in Japan. 5 battles, totally useless and pointless slaughter, because both sides were very equal. :balloon2:

rotorgun

04-10-2006, 21:21

Ok useless isn't always pointless...

The counteroffensive at Mortain had a point, and a good one. It was meant to cut off the Allied formation that had broken out. Had it succeeded then the Allies would have been in trouble. So it was more a failure than a pointless battle.

While I agree with your point, I was speaking in terms of the chances of its success. Any temporary stalling of the American advance on Avranches did not justify exposing the 7th Army to annihilation. All OKH had to do was look at the map and see that with the fall of Caen, the situation was untenable and did not support a counter offensive in Brittany. I agree that it was a good objective- but rather out of reach considering the reality on the ground.

Redleg

04-10-2006, 22:58

Kraxis

04-10-2006, 23:16

My nomination comes from a battle fought in WW2 by the Americans, Hurtgen Forest.

What a utter waste of time, resources and lives to drive the Germans from a forest that was easily defended and difficult to attack into.

No tactical value in destroying the German Division in the forest. No Tactical value, minumial stragetic value in gaining the forest. The German unit in the forest did not have the ability to pose much of a threat to allied lines - the terrian would have made it just as difficult for them to attack with the limited resources available to them.

Completely pointless and one of the only command mistakes ever made by General Bradley.
Very good nominee! I would agree with you, it was very pointless, and bloody for it.

And you are right that the div posed no thread as it was one of the later Volkgrenadier units (the early units were infantry units that had earned the title). Basically the Germans didn't hold the 'usual edge in experience, training and small scale leadership. And they were even worse than usual in terms of equipment and quality of men.
It was a purely defensive unit in a defensive position. You want to leave those alone.

rotor- you make a good point. But the Allies won becasue they had intel, not because the Germans couldn't have pulled it off. Had the Allies not gotten the intel as they did, the attack would perhaps not have been a supreme surprise, but the strength would have surprised them. And given the limited advance they would have needed to make, it wouldn't have been that far out to see them actually pull it off.
Remember, that was the only way the Germans could have seen it. Of course then it is arguable how much of a chance they had and if it was worth the risk of failure, and that was why the German commanders weren't too sure about this. But that only underline that some at least considered it possible.

So the plan was sound, the meaning of the battle was correct and the position of the Germans was that it could be done from what they knew. Not pointless in my eyes. Had they known what the Allies knew, then it would have been pointless.

Remember one thing of the battle. It is the alltime highest scoring battle for 'Jabos'... says the 'Jabos' themselves. They claimed 126 tank kills. Actual German losses were somewhere around 60, and total amont of tanks were just less than 120, and after the battle it was confirmed that the AT-guns knocked about 50 tanks out. So either the pilots inflated their kills so badly that it begs a questioning of their entire record, or the Germans had many many more tanks than they let on.

Prince Cobra

04-14-2006, 15:33

I have a brilliant example of a pointless war ( not only a battle). I always praise the achievements of Balkan states in Middle ages (when they deserve it of course) but in XIV century their rulers were surprisingly blind, blind, blind...if not stupid :furious3: Of course I mean their attitude to the Ottoman Turks.
So here is my example- the Bulgarian tsar Ivan(John)-Alexander and his byzantine colleague emp. John V started one of the numerous wars between byz and bulgars. Why? Because they wanted to rule some rich but small ports on the Black sea. No problem they wanted them- everyone wants to extend his kingdom. BUT THERE WAS A SMALL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS WAR AND THE OTHERS- BEFORE THESE WERE POWERFUL EMPIRES NOT STATES IN A CRISIS AND WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT- THE OTTOMANS HAD ALREADY CONQUERED A SOUTHEASTERN THRACIA. And because of the tradition they wanted to fight for these small ports. So between 1364 and 1369 the two states were fighting. The result- no corrections of the territory :laugh4: (sarcastic). Furthermore the Turks conquered Adrianople and our two rivals saw the real danger (too late :skull: ). We know how the story ends- Ottomans conquered the Balkan peninsula and put it in a long isolation from European culture ( end of the Balkan glory ):wall: .
I hope somebody will give better example of a pointless battle although I doubt that is possible.:no:

rotorgun

04-16-2006, 03:35

So here is my example- the Bulgarian tsar Ivan(John)-Alexander and his byzantine colleague emp. John V started one of the numerous wars between byz and bulgars. Why? Because they wanted to rule some rich but small ports on the Black sea. No problem they wanted them- everyone wants to extend his kingdom. BUT THERE WAS A SMALL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS WAR AND THE OTHERS- BEFORE THESE WERE POWERFUL EMPIRES NOT STATES IN A CRISIS AND WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT- THE OTTOMANS HAD ALREADY CONQUERED A SOUTHEASTERN THRACIA. And because of the tradition they wanted to fight for these small ports. So between 1364 and 1369 the two states were fighting. The result- no corrections of the territory :laugh4: (sarcastic). Furthermore the Turks conquered Adrianople and our two rivals saw the real danger (too late :skull: ). We know how the story ends- Ottomans conquered the Balkan peninsula and put it in a long isolation from European culture ( end of the Balkan glory ):wall: .
I hope somebody will give better example of a pointless battle although I doubt that is possible.:no:

A very good example, and well presented. It reminds me, although you speak of a pointless war rather than a battle, of the battle for Pork Chop hill, in the Korean War. This battle was fought entirely by both sides just to save face at the bargaining table during the peace talks leading up to the cease fire. Both sides sent men to their deaths for control of a worthless point on the map for nothing more than pure national pride. It was never meant to be anything than a test of resolve. That worthless hill was not worth the lives of anyone and yet....there you have it. :wall: :furious3:

As a soldier myself, I resent any casual throwing away of good people for no gain. It happens so often in war, that I don't wonder why the worlds soldiery doesn't rise up in protest over it. Battles like this are a stain upon the honor of nations. Generals who think this way should be forced to participate with their so called plans by leading the first rank up the hill. Er......sorry, I do tend to get a li'l riled up about some things. :embarassed:

Kraxis

04-16-2006, 05:08

rotorgun

04-16-2006, 18:39

Ahh yes.. Porkchop Hill... repeated under a new name in Vietnam, namely the infamous 'Hamburger Hill'.

How can it get more pointless than to force the troops to attack an entrenched position on a step hill in the rainingseason, and after they take it abandon it to be retaken by the enemy, becasue it really has no strategic value, thus forcing another bout of the summit.

A whole lot of "GAH!"

Thanks for reminding us about Hamburger Hill. I had forgoten that one myself. I served, for a time, in the 101st Airborne Division. There is a detailed diorama of the battle in the division's museum, showing the 502nd's regimental attack to take it. Although hailed by the gnerals as a victory, it was about as Pyrric (not sure of the spelling) an outcome as a victory could be. The regiment suffered about 50-60% casualties and taking it, only for the brass to give it up!
If you ask me(no offense to the brave soldiers who fought it), that whole war was a bunch of "Gah!".

PS: What is "Gah!" anyway? I don't know, but I sure like the phrase.

InsaneApache

04-17-2006, 10:08

PS: What is "Gah!" anyway? I don't know, but I sure like the phrase.

GAH! is an old .org tradition. It means 'none of the above' or 'this is pants'.

allfathersgodi

04-18-2006, 20:06

Keba

04-18-2006, 22:10

Here is another one for you, Hitler's struggle for Stalingrad. Classic military cluster-fuque when he had a large force prepared to assault Moscow. And if the Moscow assaulters had the Stalingrad Army, perhaps Moscow could've been taken and the capital of a centrally controllled government would've been cut out. Like a spider web, cut out the center and the spider-web will not last much longer...

Stalingrad was not exactly pointless, and a strike at Moscow, and that was what German generals wanted and advised, would have met with fierce resistance, as the Russians had, in essence, nearly emptied all the other fronts, expecting a strike at Moscow. It was a repeat of the previous year, the Russians had expected a strike at the Caucaus and Stalingrad, reinforcing it, leaving themselves open for the strike at Moscow.

Stalingrad itself held a vital location, and, had it not been for General Chuikov (who later led the offensive on the Reichstag) the city would have fallen. Chuikov, the nut, held his troops so close to the enemy that German artillery and air attacks were useless, as they would only hit their own men.

The fall of the city would also have been a major moral victory for the Germans, as it bore the name of Stalin himself, also, it would have further demoralized Russain troops, and they were already in a precarious position.

Stalingrad was most definitely not pointless. Now, wasting valuable panzer divisions for the attack on Leningrad was quite pointless.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-18-2006, 22:27

Stalingrad was not pointless. It was simply a failure. It controlled access to Baku and the oil fields. Not taking Stalingrad would have made anyone in the oil fields vulnerable to a flanking move, as you can see in this map. Though I do agree though that only diversionary assaults on Stalingrad and Leningrad would have been better, with a large main attack on Moscow.

https://img380.imageshack.us/img380/9672/russiamapcauscas3ng.gif

Turin

04-20-2006, 03:49

Pointless:

Strategically so...

The Japanese invasion of China in 1937 was one of those few wars in history that would have been worse off for the invader even if he WON!

China has few resources to exploit, lots of partisans and gives Japan bad international rep. The Japanese, had they won would have had to give up more to keep China than they could get from it.

If Japan had not invaded China, the US would not have done the oil embargo, Pearl Harbor would have never happened, and even today there would be an "Imperial" Japan, not this American puppet we have now.

Prince Cobra

04-20-2006, 15:52

The Entire Crusades, especially the Third under King Richard of England. He achieved none of his goals, and ended with a political settlement that practically returned the Socio-Political-Economic situation in the Holy Lands to the original conditions before the original Crusades.

On another side, the Siege of Jerusalem by Saladin in 1187. The Jerusalem defenders attritted Saladin's forces to a dangerous level, for a city with negligble strategic advantage and was little more then a pile of rock after the Siege. The terms of Jerusalem's surrender was the same as the one Saladin first offered (perhaps he should've offered better terms the first time)...

So, Saladin lost a crap load of men for a city in the middle of now where and Balian of Ibelin bled the city dry for the exact same terms offered on Day One of the Siege...

Here is another one for you, Hitler's struggle for Stalingrad. Classic military cluster-fuque when he had a large force prepared to assault Moscow. And if the Moscow assaulters had the Stalingrad Army, perhaps Moscow could've been taken and the capital of a centrally controllled government would've been cut out. Like a spider web, cut out the center and the spider-web will not last much longer...

The Crusades were not pointless they had to help to the pope to unit Europe under his tiara and bec of many other reasons. Well, Richard participation in the Crusade was pointless to England, true, but he helped to the kingdom of Jerusalem ( actually without Jerusalem). And I don't agree that conquering of Jerusalem was pointless. The city was a religiuos centre both profitable and prestiguous. And the kingdom of Jerusalem was always a thorn in the Egyptian side ( too close to its centre ; in addition the Christian states in the Holy land endangered the Egyptian territories of Syria).

Gealai

04-20-2006, 18:10

Some very pointless battles have been already mentioned. I especially despise generals which force good to high-quality troops with the advantages in pratically every sector to attack well-entrenched defensive infantry in very difficult territory with no obvious gain. Hurtgen forest and Hamburger Hill are very good examples....

About Stalingrad: I really wonder if it would not have been possible to go around the city without taking it. The german troops had in 1941 the edge in training, mobility and tactics - why didn't they try to fight the Soviets in conditons in which they proved to excel against the very same enemy?

Wouldn't have it been possible to attack or to at least close the Wolga for shipping and Transport in the south? It wouldn't have proved to be more difficult in confront of the fight for Stalingrad for sure.

By the way Stalingrad proved decisive for the failure of the battle of the Caucasus, by taking 3 Alpini divisions away from the mountains. Most people don't rate the italian performance in WWII high, however the Alpini were fine troops which could perform very well - if led by good leaders; Sadly the italians generals and high officers must rank among the worst and most WWI minded kind of commander.

Brenus

04-20-2006, 19:29

“why didn't they try to fight the Soviets in conditons in which they proved to excel against the very same enemy?” : Because the Soviets learned their lessons and imposed THEIR way on Germans. And I am not sure than in the end of 1941, the Germans still had the upper hand in. In front on Moscow, the German lost their advantage of their mobility and were saved by the snow, so deep than even a T34 couldn’t cross it. So, only the superior quality of the crews saved Germany from a total disaster, and the order of Hitler to stay and fight on the spot. This success will cost to the Germans Army many soldiers afterwards.

“Most people don't rate the Italian performance in WWII high”. Especially the Germans generals who were quick to put responsibility of their failures on their allies (Romanians, Bulgarians, Italians) and/or Hitler after the war. The under equipped and under trained Italians fought bravely to keep their positions in Stalingrad. They were equipped with T35, and PZ III, in front of T34.

The Italian 8th Army settled on the Don River bend as the German 6th Army commenced assault on Stalingrad. The sector became relatively quiet as available Russian troops concentrated on the even decreasing bridgehead on the west side of the Volga River. The flanks of the entire 6th Army, almost exclusively concentrated in the ruins of Stalingrad, were held by Axis allied forces. On the immediate flanks of the 6th Army were the Rumanian 3rd and 4th Armies. Neighbouring to the immediate west of the Rumanian 3rd Army was the Italian 8th Army, and to the west of the Italians was the Hungarian 2nd Army
All of these allied armies were spread thinly and had comparatively weak anti-tank weaponry, which would prove disastrous in the coming months.

12 infantry divisions, 3 tank corps, 2 cavalry corps, and 3,500 artillery pieces hit the 3rd Rumanian Army. By the end of the second day the entire army was smashed.
16th of December the Soviet forces consisting of the 1st and 3rd Guards Armies and the Soviet 6th Army all struck the Italian 8th Army still defending the Don bend. The Italians fought bravely, but with inadequate anti-tank weaponry and a shortage of supplies, they were overwhelmed within days. The Alpini Corps was at one point surrounded, but managed to retreat back to new defensive lines.

Stalingrad wasn’t just a battle for prestige: On the banks of the Volga, it was an important centre arms production (Red October Factory, for example), distribution, and was the collecting centre and clearing house for raw materials. Without it, all that would be left to the Soviets was retreat to and long-term recuperation behind the distant Ural Mountains. As such, the city represented the last major obstacle to victory on the Eastern Front. For Hitler, the real goal of the campaign was taking the Baku oil fields in the Caucasus, as part of the Stalingrad operation. With their capture, the Red Army would have been unable to continue fighting much longer.
So, it was important to take it. Not only because it was named after Stalin.

Gealai

04-21-2006, 18:39

“why didn't they try to fight the Soviets in conditons in which they proved to excel against the very same enemy?” : Because the Soviets learned their lessons and imposed THEIR way on Germans. And I am not sure than in the end of 1941, the Germans still had the upper hand in. In front on Moscow, the German lost their advantage of their mobility and were saved by the snow, so deep than even a T34 couldn’t cross it. So, only the superior quality of the crews saved Germany from a total disaster, and the order of Hitler to stay and fight on the spot. This success will cost to the Germans Army many soldiers afterwards.

As I made clear in the topic "the great infantry myth" the soviets became better and better tactically and strategically due to various reasons. Still in the end of 1941 the soviet doctrine and army was not up to the german quality. With mobility I'm meaning both mental and physical, and indeed the germans could still defeat under not too uneven conditions the soviet units with great regularity : just see the Southern Front...

Saying that the snow saved the germans is quite new to me, as frankly all authors and knowlegde points towards the fact that the poor winter equipment - tanks no longer working, troops with no snowcamo, no warm cloths and shoes - combined with the long supply lines and the prolonged inability to manouver hampered decisively the german ability to defeat and to destroy the soviet forces as they did before. The order of Hitler to hold ground at all cost enable the german army to hold more soviet ground by sacrificing many good men which could have made the difference afterwards.
All evidence points towards the fact that the soviets couldn't beat the Germans in a liquid battle.

“Most people don't rate the Italian performance in WWII high”. Especially the Germans generals who were quick to put responsibility of their failures on their allies (Romanians, Bulgarians, Italians) and/or Hitler after the war. The under equipped and under trained Italians fought bravely to keep their positions in Stalingrad. They were equipped with T35, and PZ III, in front of T34.

I think we misunderstood ourselves here. I wanted to point out that the Italians are underrated by most people and that they could fight hard and well under decent command, which they sadly often lacked. That's why I said that three Alpini division would have made a difference in the Caucasus, giving the Germans the ability to destroy russian forces there. If one takes into account how thinnly the germans were streched there, just imagine the potential for well-equipped, well-trained mountain troops there....

Sorry I have to go

Brenus

04-21-2006, 21:14

“the snow saved the germans” According Rokossovsky, the Russian General of the 16th Army, when he counter-offensive to Istra, then Volokolamsk, the Panzergruppe 4 is retreating, fast. Because the snow is too thick, the T34 can’t overtake the German in going out of the roads. In this Memories, Rokossovski wrote:” The German Generals, instead blaming the Russian Winter for their defeat, should be more grateful for the very bad weather which allowed them to retreat with less losses than they should got”. And the facts are the Red Air Force had the absolute supremacy but fog, snow and bad weather hampered its effort.

“The order of Hitler to hold ground at all cost enable the german army to hold more soviet ground by sacrificing many good men which could have made the difference afterwards.” Without this order, the Germans would have been cut in piece by the Siberian Troops. Try to run in deep snow, when the guys who ere after you are on skis…
Hitler orders were:
Keep the strategically, tactically and defendable important zones.
To provide to all units of the Wehrmacht better conditions to regrouped and rest.
To establish better conditions to restart a bigger offensive in 1942.
Where is the supposed craziness in these orders?
The Russians are the winners, but they are exhausted. The Germans pockets of resistance will succeeded to resist against an exhausted Russians soldiers. If the Germans had run they would end routing…

“All evidence points towards the fact that the soviets couldn't beat the Germans in a liquid battle”. Can I remind you the date: November 1941- January 1942, 5 months after the start of Barbarossa: Battle of Moskow, the STAVKA will attack with 1,100,000 men, 678 tanks (KV1 and T34), 8,000 pieces of heavy artillery, guns, mortars and katiuskas, and 1,200 planes (800 moderns). That is what the Germans played before. It was their game, and they lost it.:oops:

“we misunderstood ourselves here”, No no: I agreed with you. I just wanted to add that the Germans were the first to blame their allies for their failures. For me, just to climb in a Fiat M45 was a great act of courage…:2thumbsup:

doc_bean

04-21-2006, 21:46

Are we back at the 'all battles are pointless'? Elaborate...

Sorry, I had forgotten about this thread.

War, and its battles can have a point, they are fought for the benefit of those involved. I honestly can't see the benefit of owning the Falklands, besides 'honour', perhaps.

The fight for independence of Eritrea was pretty dumb because the Eritreans were more busy fighting eachother than the Ethiopians, and really, segregating from one of the poorest countries in the world to become an even poorer country ? Doesn't sound like that good a deal to me...

King Kurt

04-26-2006, 11:36

Revisiting this thread I am reminded of Monte Cassino from WW2. Here, the Allies as part of their slog up the Italian Peninsula, slugged it out with a handfull of German defenders - mainly paratroopers from memory. Massive amounts of munitions were dropped on the monastry and the town and monastry were severly damaged. You could argue that the whole Italian campaign was a waste, but why the allies didn't use their air/naval superioity to outflank resistance by landing behind them, I never know.
I visted Monte Cassino about 15 years ago and was really moved - how could such a beautiful place be the centre of a terrible battle and how on earth did the allies even think of attacking it - the monastry is perched upon a sheer mountain - almost impossible to approach, let alone attack. From memory it finally fell when the sledgehammer tactics were replaced by stealth and good quality infantry infiltrated the german lines. I would recommend anybody to go there - it is truely a moving place.:shame:

Kraxis

04-26-2006, 16:47

Revisiting this thread I am reminded of Monte Cassino from WW2. Here, the Allies as part of their slog up the Italian Peninsula, slugged it out with a handfull of German defenders - mainly paratroopers from memory. Massive amounts of munitions were dropped on the monastry and the town and monastry were severly damaged. You could argue that the whole Italian campaign was a waste, but why the allies didn't use their air/naval superioity to outflank resistance by landing behind them, I never know.
German Falschirmjägers indeed. At least they were the most prominent infantry force there.

But abuot that last comment... Can you say Anzio? ~;) Perhaps that one alone could be joined with many of these others, as it ceased to be a battle with a point after it bogged down.

Brenus

04-26-2006, 20:56

Yes, and (hi hi hi), it was the French of Gal Juin, battle of the Carigliano…

Seamus Fermanagh

04-26-2006, 21:37

They did try a naval flanking effort -- Anzio. Stunningly enough, the local commander was not much of a Patton type, and moved slowly when a quick rush would have netted him Rome and the entire western half of the rail nexus -- and probably put the Allies up into the Po valley before an Axis line re-stabilized.

The Italian campaign was of limited value, though it did allow for basing the 15th AF and did tie down some German troops (though never as many as had been hoped for).

King Kurt

04-27-2006, 10:36

matteus the inbred

04-27-2006, 10:49

Yes - I am aware of Anzio and the lost opportunities - the wonder was why they never repeated it. In general my thoughts were more around that Monte Cassino just seems to be a place not to have a battle - a beautiful religious building perched on top of a sheer mountain - a battle over a building that should not be fought over in a place which is virtually unaccessable.:2thumbsup:

That's the problem with pre-gunpowder era strongpoints...they tend to be in as inaccessible a location as possible! Crusader castles got built in some unbelievable locations, halfway up sheer mountains and stuff. What you say about Anzio is true though, so far as I know. Perhaps this might lead to a thread about the most stupidly difficult and inaccessible battlefields in history...!