Worst military mistakes.

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

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

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

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

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

the list goes on and on...

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

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.

War in general?
:beam:

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

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

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

French invasion of Russia 1812

Aleutian Islands Campaign in WWII

Peloponnesian War - Sicilian Expedition

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tapanojum

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

---

possible the battles of Ypres

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zarax

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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

---

Absolute!

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiddler

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaertecken

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

---

The funny thing is, Napie and Adolf failed because aiming for Moscow terminally overstretched their lines of communication; Charlex XII failed because he didn't aim for St. Petersburg (which would've forced Peter to stand and fight or lose his pet new city) but instead rather pointlessly chased the Russian field army down into the Ukraine, terminally overstretching his lines of communication to the Baltic littoral.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tapanojum

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General Appo

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

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

---

Plus, Finland were damned good at artic warfare:

https://img76.imageshack.us/img76/39...fdgfgfgey9.png
https://img76.imageshack.us/img76/39...117bb198f2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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

---

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

Quote:

---

The funny thing is, Napie and Adolf failed because aiming for Moscow terminally overstretched their lines of communication; Charlex XII failed because he didn't aim for St. Petersburg (which would've forced Peter to stand and fight or lose his pet new city) but instead rather pointlessly chased the Russian field army down into the Ukraine, terminally overstretching his lines of communication to the Baltic littoral.

---

Hitler was rather erratic in his decisions, i.e. the german armored forces were suddenly reassigned to the south to get the "wheatbasket" of the ukraine, spent 4 weeks destroying the russians around kiew and then had to restart the drive to moscow, getting bogged down in mud and later snow.
Stands to questions what would have happened if Army Group Centre had 4 more weeks to get moscow.
Luckily, the world never had to find out.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

Plus, Finland were damned good at artic warfare:

---

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

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

Something of a modern re-enactement of the infamous Braddock Expedition really, when you think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frodge

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

---

Oh the Russkies could steamroll all right. But just like the British a century earlier, that didn't avail them much because the local opposition just didn't fight in those terms.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiddler

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

---

It's actually just "don't wage war in general unless you actually know what you're doing". The Russian climate and geography was after all never much of an obstacle to invaders who actually prepared accordingly and knew the score (eg. the Polish-Lithuanians and Swedes in the 1500s), or hailed from the selfsame environment and were duly up to the task by default (eg. the steppe nomads).

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frodge

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kambiz

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

---

I agree.

And before anyone attempts to argue:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...78&postcount=6
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...95&postcount=8
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...7&postcount=14
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...0&postcount=20
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...3&postcount=27
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...5&postcount=43
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...8&postcount=45
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...9&postcount=47
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...8&postcount=64
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...2&postcount=67
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...7&postcount=70
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...0&postcount=75
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...4&postcount=77
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...2&postcount=90
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...4&postcount=95
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=102
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=105
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...&postcount=113

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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