Printable View
What are the worlds best known battlefield oopses? Either campaign (marching on Russia in the winter), battle, or even just facing movements (Light Brigade), which blunders get the most press? For extra credit, share a mistake which remains largely unheard of, yet make for a great story.
This one is not a battlefield story but a military blunder none the less.
IIRC it was June 7th , 1912. A demonstration was put on at Collage Park, MD using a Write Type B airplane and the newly invented Lewis Gun. The machinegun was mounted on the aircraft and for the first time in history targets were attacked from the air.
The brass attending the demonstration not only disliked the idea of aircraft carrying weapons. They said that planes were only good for spotting and scouting and would never be a gunnery platform, but they also disliked the Lewis Gun. They tested it but neither passed it or failed it. They just refused to adopt it.
Col. Lewis resigned his commission and moved to Europe and had little trouble selling his guns to the British and Belgium and in the meantime also selling it to the US Navy & Marine Corps.
Now the US Army lacked machineguns of any description. The gatling gun had been retired. A large number of officers wanted to know what was wrong with the gun and why they couldn’t have it and with a war going on in Europe, which it looked like could also bring in the US they naturally wanted something.
In typical top brass fashion in Dec. 1916 the Secretary of War forbid US Army Offices to speak of the Lewis Gun.
It was never officially adopted by the Army, even though it was used on all the combat aircraft flown by the Americans in Europe (remember the airplane would never be a gunnery platform). The Army even went as far as to confiscate the Marines brought with them, and replace them with French Machineguns of dubious reliability.
If that doesn’t sound like a Notorious Military Blunder then you need to instruct me with a good example.
wondermous! an R & D foe paw. causing the AEF to get stuck with the awful French Chauchat. definitely a blunder.
New Orleans
When it comes to fail. Karansebes is the word. :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kar%C3%A1nsebes
"They can't possibly hit me from -"
Any invasion of Russia counts as a blunder. The only exception to that is the Mongols' invasion, and they were the frickin' Mongols.
And Russia wasn't Russia really, but a 5% of modern day Russia and even that was split into many states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Populus Romanus
In WW1 when the Ottomans entered the war they tried to attack Russia via the Caucasus while the Russians had their hands tied against the Germans and Austro-Hungarians. They had a decent numerical advantage at the start, too. I do not remember the details; but at some point the Ottomans had to retreat suddenly and the harsh weather conditions (winter in a mountainous region) killed a large number of men through frostbite and starvation.
Maybe it's only me, but I never saw the invasion of Russia as a blunder: marching all those men, in itself was already an achievement, that required quite some planning.
The intended goal was actually obtained: getting to Moscow. Napoleon simply never considered that Alexander wouldn't surrender and probably thought the russian army wasn't disciplined enough to adopt a scorched earth tactic on that scale.
Speaking of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941...I've never seen that as a mistake. The Soviets were in the midst of a massive rebuilding program and at the same time were very weak in leadership due to the Stalin purges of the '30's. If a more consistent and less ambitious plan had been followed, the Soviets would've been in more serious trouble than they were historically. But....
.....let's look at the flip-side of that conflict. Despite the obvious German build-up, and advance warning from numerous sources, Stalin refused to believe that Hitler would attack. The result was one of the major military blunders in history.
The mere fact that supply and general logistics were that difficult implies that the entire project was probably too difficult to be realistically pulled off. Yes, he achieved his goal, but when the peace negotiations didn't go as expected he had no contingency plan. That's what made it so terrible in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
Not to mention the fact that Russia was actually probably a better friend than most of the other European countries at the time and as such from a grand strategic point of view (no personal grudges between the two rulers from memory and certainly note the same history of interminable warfare as someone like Austria or Prussia), it was just a daft move altogether.
Even if he wanted to win the war with a single battle and reaching Moscow, similar to the campaign of 1805, he surely must've planned to winter camp there. So the contingency plan, could've easily been to march on St. Petersburg or something, coming spring.
Who could've foreseen the Fire of Moscow? In my view, it wasn't much of military errors on the french part, but a resolute defense by the Russians, throughout the campaign.
That politically didn't make much sense in the first place, I completely agree...
Germans in WWI managed to fight a war with Russia that they won, even if they weren't going for conquering all of Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Populus Romanus
I'll add two more examples from WW2: the fall of Singapore in 1942, and the Allied invasion of Europe a.k.a "Overlord".
When Singapore fell on 15 Feb 1942, it was the culmination of one of the worst intelligence blunders of the 20th century aided by one of the worst vices in intel gathering: underestimating the enemy. 135,000 British-led forces surrendered to 35,000 Japanese soldiers many of which were malnourished and exhausted after a well-fought and brilliant campaign. One could compare this defeat with the one the Athenians suffered at Syracuse in 415 BC.
The second, D-Day, was another major intelligence blunder, this time by the Germans. Hitler knew the attack was coming but not when or where or in what strength. Unfortunately for Germany, they only got the first one right. If the Allied deception plan had not been so good, and the German intel group so poor at interpreting the data they did have, Overlord might well have ended as a major Allied defeat.
When Peter the "great" was fighting against turkey, he got himself surrounded with his whole army and not enough food or water. His wife was even with him IIRC. He would have had to surrender but the Turkish vizier signed an extremely lenient peace and let him go. So, two big blunders.
In 1610 Poles captured Moscow and held it for about 2 years. Poland won war with Russia nad polish units "visited" practically whole country.
Yes. I believe the third partition of Poland counts as a blunder.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
I suspect I know what the Japanese did to these captives. The failed Syracuse campaign is one of my favorite stories from antiquity and the reason I choose Greece in the Rome vs. Greece thread. Bad business to be on the losing end of a blunder as bad as these examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
"When Peter the "great" was fighting against turkey, he got himself surrounded with his whole army and not enough food or water. His wife was even with him IIRC. He would have had to surrender but the Turkish vizier signed an extremely lenient peace and let him go. So, two big blunders. "
Sounds like a great story. I GM a pnp RPG group and this setup sounds like a starting point for an interesting campaign.
Operation Market Garden
There is a reason why airborne assaults like that hasn't been tried afterwards.
How about the Battle of Tsushima?
Market Garden was overly ambitious, but I have every bit of respect for the men who undertook it. Those (British e.a.) paratroopers who managed to hold onto Arnhem Bridge for days without any support fought a desperate yet incredible battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Well, as do I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conradus
One of the paratroopers when interviewed (watched it yesterday on nat geo) talked about the grievous errors on the commanding side, but adding that they would still have jumped with the information they had today. Quite though guys.
With that said, that's what you get when you create a hero general for public morale, and then actually let the idiot plan major operations.
Isn't that a bit too harsh on Montey?
Not really... The Desert Fox got his behind handed to him by Rommel until the balance of forces were what? 10-1 or so in Montey's favour, before he could win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conradus
After that "strategical victory" he went off to plan this disaster.
Even later he went on to become a complete social pariah and was more or less hidden in a corner.
Montey always was careful in his attacks (except Market Garden of course). The odds were more like 2-1 for Montey in North Africa initially, but that hadn't stopped Rommel from advancing that much. So some credit is due to Monteys handling of the Eight Army. Later on he played his part in the Battle of the Bulge even after the failure of Market Garden.
And that failure was like anything not entirely the fault of the planners, miscommunication, sheer luck amongst other things played its parts.
He wasn't "careful in his attacks", he was a blabbering fool. The epitome of the ill effects when you go for character not wits in the search for officers. The very idea that you dare to call him careful when he dropped thousands of troops on AA guns and elite regiments are evidence enough of carefulness not being the main characteristic of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conradus
He got his behind handed to him repeatedly in the desert until the power balance were WAY away from 2-1.
His desert victory only came when they had complete air superiority and 3-1 to 10-1 superiority on the ground.
And pretty please do not talk about luck... The more you train, the more luck you have. At least that is what I got taught in the army.
I do believe you've got it backwards, there [the part about who was called the Desert Fox~;)]Quote:
The Desert Fox got his behind handed to him by Rommel
Do you know who was responsible for the operational planning for "Overlord"?Quote:
With that said, that's what you get when you create a hero general for public morale, and then actually let the idiot plan major operations.
Rather an over the top comment, don't you think?Quote:
He wasn't "careful in his attacks", he was a blabbering fool.
Monty was certainly cautious but he was no 'blabbering fool'. One only has to look at the condition of the British 8th Army in North Africa before Monty's arrival to see that he was no fool. And I don't believe Rommel took him for a fool either~;)
I find it rather odd that Monty, to this day, still takes the heat for 'Market Garden' but Patton gets multiple kudos for being the dashing commander in Sicily and Operation Cobra, yet overlooking the fiasco of 3rd Army's assault on Metz.
But...there will always be 'Monty haters' as long as there is discussions about ww2:shrug:
OMG, I blame weed and caffeine. Of course you are right, and oh what a fool I look! Yes indeed, Rommel = Desert Fox.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
I know General Dwight Eisenhower was in command, but some of the beach landings I can see Monety's hands on ;)
And about NA... He got supplies and supplies and supplies and supplies...
Don't get me wrong, blabbering fool is of course an overstatement. However, his heroic role is, in my eyes, MUCH propaganda. A mediocre strategist, at best.
With that said, I will freely admit that my already displayed error would be enough to question me. I can't believe I wrote that.