Worst military mistakes.

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

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

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

Winter War

~D

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

Old as the internets, I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The General

Winter War

~D

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

Old as the internets, I know.

---

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

moral: don't mess with the little guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

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

---

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

I agree completely about Seelowe, by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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

I agree completely about Seelowe, by the way.

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k_raso

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, I recommend googling better sites.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

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

---

I see, thanks for the answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

I see, thanks for the answer.

---

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

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

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

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


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

i say this all in jest :chinese:

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

Not turning over the Shah to a vengeful people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinkkiller

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

---

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

Once Hitler did that, Germany was doomed.

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mindaros

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

---

But not as a Belligerent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiTank

But not as a Belligerent.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mindaros

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiTank

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

Once Hitler did that, Germany was doomed.

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

---

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

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

worst series of military mistakes: wars the french fought

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kuzduck

worst series of military mistakes: wars the french fought

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hegix

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

---

I think it is a reference to this joke.

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiTank

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ironanvil1

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

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

---

"sigh"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bovarius

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

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

---

The point seems to fly right past you.

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

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

American by any chance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiTank

The point seems to fly right past you.

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

American by any chance?

---

Irrelevant if I am.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bovarius

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

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

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

---

:inquisitive:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiTank

Russia didn't exist.

---

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

@ Antitank

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meothar

@ Antitank

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiTank

Irrelevant if I am.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiTank

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meothar

WW1 was one big military mistake.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meothar

Without intervention of the USA, Germany would perhaps been able to delay the end of the war until 1920 or such, but no chance for winning.
But I think it's not the right place to discuss this. WW1 was one big military mistake.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by machinor

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meothar

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

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

---

:inquisitive:

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

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

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

Also I suggest actually reading the Sources provide by Mosier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiTank

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Also:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

---

Funny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

---

?

Quote:

---

Funny

---

Yeah, isn't it vaguely hypocritical?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiTank

:inquisitive:

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

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

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

Also I suggest actually reading the Sources provide by Mosier.

---

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

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

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

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

Foot