Most Pointless Battle

[Kagemusha]

Right, the dispute over Nagashino stems from a certain someone's *ahem*Kag*ahem* failure to read or understand the following part of the initial post:



Anyway, I also nominate the battle of New Orleans - although its outcome did put the Americans in a slightly better position. It's true that no truly pointless battle will be found - only some battles that are more pointless than others.

Dont blame poor old Kage.Seamus just asks too damn hard questions always.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sorry about the Q's, but I am a recovering professor....

My vote is -- Brits hold on to your spats -- the Battle of Britain.

Aside from the valor displayed by both sides, what was the point?

Germany launches an air assault on an island nation that ends up decimating their experienced air crews PRIOR to what Hitler had always intended -- an invasion of Russia.

The Germans were quite aware that "Sea Lion" was impossible. Even with air SUPREMACY, the weapons of the era would not have inflicted enough damage on the British battleships etc. to keep them from sinking any invasion barges. The Royal Navy would, quite literally, have paid any price necessary to stop it. Moreover, the Germans had specifically chosen NOT to develop a strategic role for their luftwaffe, and -- despite some stupid orders from der Fuhrer -- were aware that no bombing campaign they could launch would make the British quit.

So why in heavens did they bother? Some scrapping over the channel, mining harbors etc., making the Brits (and the Russkis) THINK they were building an invasion fleet -- sure. But they sent the most experienced fliers in their luftwaffe on high casualty sorties pursuing inconsequential missions in support of a strategic operation that was impossible. Lunacy. Even The Somme -- for all its limitations and cock-ups -- had a better chance of strategic success.

On the British side, things were more understandable -- its pretty hard not to fight back when someone is bombing your homeland -- but what was the strategic value of risking their entire fighter force on forward bases PRIOR to a direct invasion effort by the Germans (they certainly hadn't pulle out all the stops to defend France). Defend those areas out of range of the BF 109s and hammer any unescorted bombers sure, but the portion of Britain being threatened by single-engine fighters and bombers operating together was relatively small and held limited strategic value compared to the indutrialized North and West. Moreover, without the Navy, the RAF had little chance of stopping an invasion anyway (as their performance against the Eugen Scharnhorst & Gneisnau suggests). Why didn't they do the rational thing and hang back, buld experience hunting the weaker targets, and preserve their force to smash any German ground effort that did reach Blighty?

Since 1585, the answer to beating England was always the same. Develop a force capable of exterminating the Royal Navy as they defend the Channel. If you can't or don't, then any other plan for conquest is moot. The only value the Battle of Britain held was the propaganda value Winnie milked it for.

[matteus the inbred]

Sorry about the Q's, but I am a recovering professor....
My vote is -- Brits hold on to your spats -- the Battle of Britain.

woo, hello Mr Controversy! Actually, you make many very good points, most of them sustainable in my view. I suppose the Luftwaffe had to be doing something, and the RAF weren't going to sit tight in Yorkshire and drink tea while they did it.
One could argue that if the Luftwaffe established complete bombing superiority over southern and mid-England the morale and industrial effect would have been catastrophic after a year of unopposed bombing. And it might render any Fleet operations impossible south of Tyneside, including anti U-Boat and commerce raider operations...after all, the Royal Navy (as the Prince of Wales/Repulse incident shows) needed some air cover to do their job. They couldn't have opposed a landing whilst being bombed to bits.
But all this supposes no RAF activity at all, rather than no RAF activity against German bombing of land targets and needlessly exposed foward airbases.

If the Royal Navy had been destroyed stopping a landing, Germany could've then pulled out its own navy from the bases where quite a lot of it spent the war hiding (including the Tirpitz), and forced a landing, or completely destroyed any US aid convoys to the UK and Russia. I agree that the Battle of Britain itself was a waste of aircraft and bad strategy by both sides in many ways, but I don't belive Britain could have gotten away with surrendering air superiority over northern-western Europe...dunno, this one could run and run!!

[Kraxis]

The mentioned battles are indeed rather pointless, or at least can be considered a waste.

But one battle stands out as not only wasteful, but pointless and damaging to both factions.

Copenhagen 1801.
The Armed Neutrality Union of Denmark, Prussia, Russia and Sweden would protect their trade with arms if British or French forces interferred. Denmark in particular made great gains on this, and Britain couldn't just stand idly by.
But the union was lead by the Russian Czar who had strong anti-British feelings, and he was moving to get the Union to be more aggressive and more positive to Napoleon.
Of course the British couldn't allow that and sent Nelson to clean up the mess.
The first target was Copenhagen and the Danish fleet. And the battle was a horrible event of two lines pounding each other to smithereens. And the only linebattle ever where the loser suffer fewer human losses than the victor.

But at the time of the battle the Russian Czar had died and the Union was being dissolved. No need for the battle, but not only that but it also swayed the formerly pro-British Danes to be significantly more negative. Prior to 1801 English was commonly known and used in Copenhagen, afterwards it was basically gone.
In the extreme it resulted in the Robbery of the Fleet (as the Siege of Copenhagen is called), and a very expensive and needless war. Britain did not need another enemy at that time, and Denmark most certainly didn't need such a strong foe.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

woo, hello Mr Controversy! Actually, you make many very good points, most of them sustainable in my view. I suppose the Luftwaffe had to be doing something, and the RAF weren't going to sit tight in Yorkshire and drink tea while they did it.
One could argue that if the Luftwaffe established complete bombing superiority over southern and mid-England the morale and industrial effect would have been catastrophic after a year of unopposed bombing. And it might render any Fleet operations impossible south of Tyneside, including anti U-Boat and commerce raider operations...after all, the Royal Navy (as the Prince of Wales/Repulse incident shows) needed some air cover to do their job. They couldn't have opposed a landing whilst being bombed to bits.
But all this supposes no RAF activity at all, rather than no RAF activity against German bombing of land targets and needlessly exposed foward airbases.

I agree with your first point whole-heartedly. It would have been a touch difficult (a little quasi-English understatement here) to keep the fighter-boys stood down whilst Canterbury was flattened.

On the other hand, the threat to mid-England would have been countered. No problems facing Bf-110's and the bombers, with the 109's having 5 min or less of fight time North of the Thames. This means that an air umbrella for the fleet would go as far south as the Thames Estuary and as far South as Bristol on the West (and Devon/Cornwall is at the extreme range of the 109 and there's no way the krauts could've established air superiority at that range). Even if the SE was conceded, only a very few industrial sites would have truly been at risk.

POW/Repulse incident not a good analogy. Zero aircover (couldn't resist ) is a far cry different from some fighter cover. The Japanese took numerous hits to sink both ships, even though they faced limited AAA (by Pacific theater standards at least) and a significant number of the Japanese air groups involved were specifically trained as ship hunters. The Germans had neither the doctrine nor the tools to hammer ships as well as the Japanese -- look at their generally sub-par record during the convoy attack phase of the Battle of Britain.

And yes, I do adore such debates.

Kraxis -- NICE nominee. Nelson's proof to history that a man who refuses to be beaten (even when he plainly was) won't be beaten. I've gamed that one using AH's old WS&IM game. Any realistic version of likely events is a bloodbath for both sides. A good pointless waste example.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Sorry about the Q's, but I am a recovering professor....

My vote is -- Brits hold on to your spats -- the Battle of Britain.

Aside from the valor displayed by both sides, what was the point?

Fascinating nominee, and you make some intriguing points.

I wonder, would it have been politically possible for Churchill to have sat back as you suggest and let the capital burn? After so many defeats, would the nation have been able to suffer without any sense of fighting back?

And my impression (possibly very wrongly) was that Hitler believed the British were ready for a deal at that time - he held back at Dunkirk partly through that belief. Was the air assault motivated by a desire to give them a hard push in the direction of the negotiating table? If so, to remove that front ready for an invasion of Russia might have been a good reason to launch the attack - underestimating Churchill's character and resolve would make the continuation of the attacks pointless?

[Kraxis]

And my impression (possibly very wrongly) was that Hitler believed the British were ready for a deal at that time - he held back at Dunkirk partly through that belief.

Now why would Hitler think that letting the Brits escape home rather than be captured would induce them to come to the table? Even Hitler wouldn't be that warped.

No the reason Hitler held back was because he had been lead to believe the combined numbers of damaged, broken down and knocked out tanks were knocked out. So the loses to his precious tankforces seemed to him to be absolutely debilitating.
And unlike later he seemed to understand that tanks in urban areas would suffer a lot of losses. Hence he held the panzers back (but not the infantry thoguh). After all where could the Brits go? They couldn't possibly rescue more than 30-40,000 troops, could they?

[screwtype]

Actually, I think it was more like 300,000 troops rescued at Dunkirk, IIRC.

[Kraxis]

Actually, I think it was more like 300,000 troops rescued at Dunkirk, IIRC.

Hitler's thoughts... As well as those of the commadners of Dynamo. That it ended up being that many surprised everyone.

If Germany had captured and treated the BEF nicely, then promissed to send them home at once, I think a peace treaty would be more likely.
With no army left there would be few options, also a proper defeat that didn't involve humiliation would likely generate a sigh but hardly more. If anything the Brits have throughout war always considered honour to be very important (honourable defeats are celebrated like victories and such).

In any case Hitler didn't hold back his infantry. So it wasn't as if he believed in the 'live and let be' of the situation. He just didn't want to waste his tanks, in what should have been a foregone conclusion anyway.

[screwtype]

edit......

[Banquo's Ghost]

Now why would Hitler think that letting the Brits escape home rather than be captured would induce them to come to the table? Even Hitler wouldn't be that warped.

You may well be right, but I don't think the idea is warped. Hitler always seemed to consider the British to be natural allies, and my understanding was that he believed that the British didn't want to be at war, and that once France was lost, they would see there was no point in continuing. The BEF was beaten - allowing them to go home would give a British government a sort of 'peace with honour'. Annihilating the BEF would simply provoke more hostility in Britain to a peace deal.

There is certainly a lot of evidence that this option was being actively considered by the British government, and that most people wanted to accept German overtures for peace, and in many ways this would have been the sensible option. Think how bleak things must have looked at that time. Churchill took a different view, but had Lord Halifax become PM, things may have been different.

[matteus the inbred]

I wonder, would it have been politically possible for Churchill to have sat back as you suggest and let the capital burn? After so many defeats, would the nation have been able to suffer without any sense of fighting back?

Yes, I agree, that would be my main argument. Mostly psychological, particularly with a view to the Americans getting involved. Had we not had Churchill (and those who supported his stance) in charge, quite possibly we would have come to terms.

Certainly Operation Sealion was unfeasible as it stood...in fact, the Battle itself was quite badly fought and planned on both sides in many ways!
I still think that ceding air superiority by not attacking the Luftwaffe over Britain and establishing psychological advantage over the Luftwaffe would have made fleet operations difficult (I think that of they had control of the air the Luftwaffe could have developed a programme to go after naval or commercial shipping targets). It's also important to point out that had the Luftwaffe not lost something in the region of 1,800 planes and crews over Britain, they would have been able to divert resources to the Eastern Front, the Med, and against Allied bombing raids.

Ultimately though, I do think Seamus is right in that it was a battle the Germans did not really need to start, and had little chance of winning.

It was the same day as Waterloo

I thought Wavre took place over two days, with Grouchy 'winning' on the 19th having been held up on the 18th? Bleh. Doesn't matter, as you say, the point is still good...!