Worst military mistakes.

**Mindaros** · 09-12-2008, 15:09

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

**Celtic_Punk** · 09-12-2008, 17:20

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.

**Cullhwch** · 09-13-2008, 01:11

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.

**Celtic_Punk** · 09-13-2008, 01:52

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.

**AntiTank** · 09-12-2008, 22:45

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.

**Mindaros** · 09-13-2008, 10:16

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).

**AntiTank** · 09-13-2008, 14:10

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.

**Celtic_Punk** · 09-13-2008, 14:15

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.

**davidtotalwar** · 09-14-2008, 23:03

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.

**AntiTank** · 09-16-2008, 16:20

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.

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.

**Bovarius** · 09-16-2008, 16:33

Originally Posted by AntiTank

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.