Worst military mistakes.

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.

Battle of al-Hattin (wiki here 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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shigawire

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:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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......

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

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)

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.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...3%A1cer_Quibir

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

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."

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.

Alexander crossing Gedrosia.

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

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?

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

Antiochus having Hannibal and not using him properly

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...

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.

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

ze frenchies like cavalry charges way to much

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 :)

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maerlen

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

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/Afbeeld...g_flamenco.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

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...

I mentioned it in another thread about worst generals, but the 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.

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."

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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."

---

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.

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maerlen

... 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maerlen

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/Afbeeld...g_flamenco.jpg

---

Woo! Cookie! *Devours*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiTank

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k_raso

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k_raso

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.

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

The Japanese bombing of pearl harbor.

Gallipoli

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tls5669

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

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

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

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.

What would have happened if the romans had guns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

It's Schlieffen plan, after Alfred Graf von Schlieffen

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tollheit

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiTank

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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)

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWFanatic

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

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.

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

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:

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiTank

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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?do...40865741878159

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

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.

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.