Worst military mistakes.

[ServiliusAhala]

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

[Tellos Athenaios]

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?

[||Lz3||]

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

[panosha]

Antiochus having Hannibal and not using him properly

[ServiliusAhala]

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...

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.

[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

[||Lz3||]

ze frenchies like cavalry charges way to much

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

[Moros]

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.

[Che Roriniho]

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.

[Maerlen]

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!!

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..

[Che Roriniho]

We have a winner!!

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?

[Bovarius]

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.

[AntiTank]

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

[Maerlen]

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

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

[Moros]

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...

[QuintusSertorius]

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.

[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."

[ServiliusAhala]

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!

[J.Alco]

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.

[Parallel Pain]

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).

[Romano-Dacis]

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.

[Fiddler]

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".

[Tartaros]

... 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

[Che Roriniho]

hmm, ok, take a cookie

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*

[AntiTank]

I have one no one has mentioned yet!

Dunkirk! "hey our british lads are tired... let them rest a day or two..."
"what!?? they escaped?! .... damn "


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.

[Ibrahim]

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.

seconded.

[-Praetor-]

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.

[AntiTank]

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.

[Perturabo]

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.