Most Pointless Battle

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...!

[screwtype]

edit......

[Trajanus]

What about Paschaendale?

It was pretty pointless based on the fact that they didn't learn from the mistake of the Somme.

[doc_bean]

The entire Falklands war

The entire struggle for independence of Eritrea

[Kraxis]

The entire struggle for independence of Eritrea

Are we back at the 'all battles are pointless'? Elaborate...

[rotorgun]

On the tactical/operational level, I have always thought that the battle of Mortain, fought by the Germans in 1944 in Normandy to be particularly useless. It failed to obtain any of it's objectives, severly weakened an already depleted 7th Army, and made it possible for the allies to cut them off and destroy them in the Falaise gap. What a monumental waste of a fine army that had fought so heroically to prevent the allied breakout. A much better use of the, still intact, 7th would have been to fall back in stages behind the Seine River. I still can't believe it when I read about the appalling losses that Hitler inflicted upon his soldiers for no gain at all.

[Kraxis]

Ok useless isn't always pointless...

The counteroffensive at Mortain had a point, and a good one. It was meant to cut off the Allied formation that had broken out. Had it succeeded then the Allies would have been in trouble. So it was more a failure than a pointless battle.

[edyzmedieval]

Many pointless battles were in history.

Look at the Kawanakajima battles in the Sengoku Jidai period in Japan. 5 battles, totally useless and pointless slaughter, because both sides were very equal.

[rotorgun]

Ok useless isn't always pointless...

The counteroffensive at Mortain had a point, and a good one. It was meant to cut off the Allied formation that had broken out. Had it succeeded then the Allies would have been in trouble. So it was more a failure than a pointless battle.

While I agree with your point, I was speaking in terms of the chances of its success. Any temporary stalling of the American advance on Avranches did not justify exposing the 7th Army to annihilation. All OKH had to do was look at the map and see that with the fall of Caen, the situation was untenable and did not support a counter offensive in Brittany. I agree that it was a good objective- but rather out of reach considering the reality on the ground.

[Redleg]

My nomination comes from a battle fought in WW2 by the Americans, Hurtgen Forest.

What a utter waste of time, resources and lives to drive the Germans from a forest that was easily defended and difficult to attack into.

No tactical value in destroying the German Division in the forest. No Tactical value, minumial stragetic value in gaining the forest. The German unit in the forest did not have the ability to pose much of a threat to allied lines - the terrian would have made it just as difficult for them to attack with the limited resources available to them.

Completely pointless and one of the only command mistakes ever made by General Bradley.

[Kraxis]

My nomination comes from a battle fought in WW2 by the Americans, Hurtgen Forest.

What a utter waste of time, resources and lives to drive the Germans from a forest that was easily defended and difficult to attack into.

No tactical value in destroying the German Division in the forest. No Tactical value, minumial stragetic value in gaining the forest. The German unit in the forest did not have the ability to pose much of a threat to allied lines - the terrian would have made it just as difficult for them to attack with the limited resources available to them.

Completely pointless and one of the only command mistakes ever made by General Bradley.

Very good nominee! I would agree with you, it was very pointless, and bloody for it.

And you are right that the div posed no thread as it was one of the later Volkgrenadier units (the early units were infantry units that had earned the title). Basically the Germans didn't hold the 'usual edge in experience, training and small scale leadership. And they were even worse than usual in terms of equipment and quality of men.
It was a purely defensive unit in a defensive position. You want to leave those alone.

rotor- you make a good point. But the Allies won becasue they had intel, not because the Germans couldn't have pulled it off. Had the Allies not gotten the intel as they did, the attack would perhaps not have been a supreme surprise, but the strength would have surprised them. And given the limited advance they would have needed to make, it wouldn't have been that far out to see them actually pull it off.
Remember, that was the only way the Germans could have seen it. Of course then it is arguable how much of a chance they had and if it was worth the risk of failure, and that was why the German commanders weren't too sure about this. But that only underline that some at least considered it possible.

So the plan was sound, the meaning of the battle was correct and the position of the Germans was that it could be done from what they knew. Not pointless in my eyes. Had they known what the Allies knew, then it would have been pointless.

Remember one thing of the battle. It is the alltime highest scoring battle for 'Jabos'... says the 'Jabos' themselves. They claimed 126 tank kills. Actual German losses were somewhere around 60, and total amont of tanks were just less than 120, and after the battle it was confirmed that the AT-guns knocked about 50 tanks out. So either the pilots inflated their kills so badly that it begs a questioning of their entire record, or the Germans had many many more tanks than they let on.

[Prince Cobra]

I have a brilliant example of a pointless war ( not only a battle). I always praise the achievements of Balkan states in Middle ages (when they deserve it of course) but in XIV century their rulers were surprisingly blind, blind, blind...if not stupid Of course I mean their attitude to the Ottoman Turks.
So here is my example- the Bulgarian tsar Ivan(John)-Alexander and his byzantine colleague emp. John V started one of the numerous wars between byz and bulgars. Why? Because they wanted to rule some rich but small ports on the Black sea. No problem they wanted them- everyone wants to extend his kingdom. BUT THERE WAS A SMALL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS WAR AND THE OTHERS- BEFORE THESE WERE POWERFUL EMPIRES NOT STATES IN A CRISIS AND WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT- THE OTTOMANS HAD ALREADY CONQUERED A SOUTHEASTERN THRACIA. And because of the tradition they wanted to fight for these small ports. So between 1364 and 1369 the two states were fighting. The result- no corrections of the territory (sarcastic). Furthermore the Turks conquered Adrianople and our two rivals saw the real danger (too late ). We know how the story ends- Ottomans conquered the Balkan peninsula and put it in a long isolation from European culture ( end of the Balkan glory ) .
I hope somebody will give better example of a pointless battle although I doubt that is possible.

[rotorgun]

So here is my example- the Bulgarian tsar Ivan(John)-Alexander and his byzantine colleague emp. John V started one of the numerous wars between byz and bulgars. Why? Because they wanted to rule some rich but small ports on the Black sea. No problem they wanted them- everyone wants to extend his kingdom. BUT THERE WAS A SMALL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS WAR AND THE OTHERS- BEFORE THESE WERE POWERFUL EMPIRES NOT STATES IN A CRISIS AND WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT- THE OTTOMANS HAD ALREADY CONQUERED A SOUTHEASTERN THRACIA. And because of the tradition they wanted to fight for these small ports. So between 1364 and 1369 the two states were fighting. The result- no corrections of the territory (sarcastic). Furthermore the Turks conquered Adrianople and our two rivals saw the real danger (too late ). We know how the story ends- Ottomans conquered the Balkan peninsula and put it in a long isolation from European culture ( end of the Balkan glory ) .
I hope somebody will give better example of a pointless battle although I doubt that is possible.

A very good example, and well presented. It reminds me, although you speak of a pointless war rather than a battle, of the battle for Pork Chop hill, in the Korean War. This battle was fought entirely by both sides just to save face at the bargaining table during the peace talks leading up to the cease fire. Both sides sent men to their deaths for control of a worthless point on the map for nothing more than pure national pride. It was never meant to be anything than a test of resolve. That worthless hill was not worth the lives of anyone and yet....there you have it.

As a soldier myself, I resent any casual throwing away of good people for no gain. It happens so often in war, that I don't wonder why the worlds soldiery doesn't rise up in protest over it. Battles like this are a stain upon the honor of nations. Generals who think this way should be forced to participate with their so called plans by leading the first rank up the hill. Er......sorry, I do tend to get a li'l riled up about some things.

[Kraxis]

Ahh yes.. Porkchop Hill... repeated under a new name in Vietnam, namely the infamous 'Hamburger Hill'.

How can it get more pointless than to force the troops to attack an entrenched position on a step hill in the rainingseason, and after they take it abandon it to be retaken by the enemy, becasue it really has no strategic value, thus forcing another bout of the summit.

A whole lot of "GAH!"

[rotorgun]

Ahh yes.. Porkchop Hill... repeated under a new name in Vietnam, namely the infamous 'Hamburger Hill'.

How can it get more pointless than to force the troops to attack an entrenched position on a step hill in the rainingseason, and after they take it abandon it to be retaken by the enemy, becasue it really has no strategic value, thus forcing another bout of the summit.

A whole lot of "GAH!"

Thanks for reminding us about Hamburger Hill. I had forgoten that one myself. I served, for a time, in the 101st Airborne Division. There is a detailed diorama of the battle in the division's museum, showing the 502nd's regimental attack to take it. Although hailed by the gnerals as a victory, it was about as Pyrric (not sure of the spelling) an outcome as a victory could be. The regiment suffered about 50-60% casualties and taking it, only for the brass to give it up!
If you ask me(no offense to the brave soldiers who fought it), that whole war was a bunch of "Gah!".

PS: What is "Gah!" anyway? I don't know, but I sure like the phrase.

[InsaneApache]

PS: What is "Gah!" anyway? I don't know, but I sure like the phrase.

GAH! is an old .org tradition. It means 'none of the above' or 'this is pants'.

[allfathersgodi]

The Entire Crusades, especially the Third under King Richard of England. He achieved none of his goals, and ended with a political settlement that practically returned the Socio-Political-Economic situation in the Holy Lands to the original conditions before the original Crusades.

On another side, the Siege of Jerusalem by Saladin in 1187. The Jerusalem defenders attritted Saladin's forces to a dangerous level, for a city with negligble strategic advantage and was little more then a pile of rock after the Siege. The terms of Jerusalem's surrender was the same as the one Saladin first offered (perhaps he should've offered better terms the first time)...

So, Saladin lost a crap load of men for a city in the middle of now where and Balian of Ibelin bled the city dry for the exact same terms offered on Day One of the Siege...

Here is another one for you, Hitler's struggle for Stalingrad. Classic military cluster-fuque when he had a large force prepared to assault Moscow. And if the Moscow assaulters had the Stalingrad Army, perhaps Moscow could've been taken and the capital of a centrally controllled government would've been cut out. Like a spider web, cut out the center and the spider-web will not last much longer...

[Keba]

Here is another one for you, Hitler's struggle for Stalingrad. Classic military cluster-fuque when he had a large force prepared to assault Moscow. And if the Moscow assaulters had the Stalingrad Army, perhaps Moscow could've been taken and the capital of a centrally controllled government would've been cut out. Like a spider web, cut out the center and the spider-web will not last much longer...

Stalingrad was not exactly pointless, and a strike at Moscow, and that was what German generals wanted and advised, would have met with fierce resistance, as the Russians had, in essence, nearly emptied all the other fronts, expecting a strike at Moscow. It was a repeat of the previous year, the Russians had expected a strike at the Caucaus and Stalingrad, reinforcing it, leaving themselves open for the strike at Moscow.

Stalingrad itself held a vital location, and, had it not been for General Chuikov (who later led the offensive on the Reichstag) the city would have fallen. Chuikov, the nut, held his troops so close to the enemy that German artillery and air attacks were useless, as they would only hit their own men.

The fall of the city would also have been a major moral victory for the Germans, as it bore the name of Stalin himself, also, it would have further demoralized Russain troops, and they were already in a precarious position.

Stalingrad was most definitely not pointless. Now, wasting valuable panzer divisions for the attack on Leningrad was quite pointless.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Stalingrad was not pointless. It was simply a failure. It controlled access to Baku and the oil fields. Not taking Stalingrad would have made anyone in the oil fields vulnerable to a flanking move, as you can see in this map. Though I do agree though that only diversionary assaults on Stalingrad and Leningrad would have been better, with a large main attack on Moscow.

[Turin]

Pointless:

Strategically so...

The Japanese invasion of China in 1937 was one of those few wars in history that would have been worse off for the invader even if he WON!

China has few resources to exploit, lots of partisans and gives Japan bad international rep. The Japanese, had they won would have had to give up more to keep China than they could get from it.

If Japan had not invaded China, the US would not have done the oil embargo, Pearl Harbor would have never happened, and even today there would be an "Imperial" Japan, not this American puppet we have now.

[Prince Cobra]

The Entire Crusades, especially the Third under King Richard of England. He achieved none of his goals, and ended with a political settlement that practically returned the Socio-Political-Economic situation in the Holy Lands to the original conditions before the original Crusades.

On another side, the Siege of Jerusalem by Saladin in 1187. The Jerusalem defenders attritted Saladin's forces to a dangerous level, for a city with negligble strategic advantage and was little more then a pile of rock after the Siege. The terms of Jerusalem's surrender was the same as the one Saladin first offered (perhaps he should've offered better terms the first time)...

So, Saladin lost a crap load of men for a city in the middle of now where and Balian of Ibelin bled the city dry for the exact same terms offered on Day One of the Siege...

Here is another one for you, Hitler's struggle for Stalingrad. Classic military cluster-fuque when he had a large force prepared to assault Moscow. And if the Moscow assaulters had the Stalingrad Army, perhaps Moscow could've been taken and the capital of a centrally controllled government would've been cut out. Like a spider web, cut out the center and the spider-web will not last much longer...

The Crusades were not pointless they had to help to the pope to unit Europe under his tiara and bec of many other reasons. Well, Richard participation in the Crusade was pointless to England, true, but he helped to the kingdom of Jerusalem ( actually without Jerusalem). And I don't agree that conquering of Jerusalem was pointless. The city was a religiuos centre both profitable and prestiguous. And the kingdom of Jerusalem was always a thorn in the Egyptian side ( too close to its centre ; in addition the Christian states in the Holy land endangered the Egyptian territories of Syria).

[Gealai]

Some very pointless battles have been already mentioned. I especially despise generals which force good to high-quality troops with the advantages in pratically every sector to attack well-entrenched defensive infantry in very difficult territory with no obvious gain. Hurtgen forest and Hamburger Hill are very good examples....

About Stalingrad: I really wonder if it would not have been possible to go around the city without taking it. The german troops had in 1941 the edge in training, mobility and tactics - why didn't they try to fight the Soviets in conditons in which they proved to excel against the very same enemy?


Wouldn't have it been possible to attack or to at least close the Wolga for shipping and Transport in the south? It wouldn't have proved to be more difficult in confront of the fight for Stalingrad for sure.



By the way Stalingrad proved decisive for the failure of the battle of the Caucasus, by taking 3 Alpini divisions away from the mountains. Most people don't rate the italian performance in WWII high, however the Alpini were fine troops which could perform very well - if led by good leaders; Sadly the italians generals and high officers must rank among the worst and most WWI minded kind of commander.

[Brenus]

“why didn't they try to fight the Soviets in conditons in which they proved to excel against the very same enemy?” : Because the Soviets learned their lessons and imposed THEIR way on Germans. And I am not sure than in the end of 1941, the Germans still had the upper hand in. In front on Moscow, the German lost their advantage of their mobility and were saved by the snow, so deep than even a T34 couldn’t cross it. So, only the superior quality of the crews saved Germany from a total disaster, and the order of Hitler to stay and fight on the spot. This success will cost to the Germans Army many soldiers afterwards.

“Most people don't rate the Italian performance in WWII high”. Especially the Germans generals who were quick to put responsibility of their failures on their allies (Romanians, Bulgarians, Italians) and/or Hitler after the war. The under equipped and under trained Italians fought bravely to keep their positions in Stalingrad. They were equipped with T35, and PZ III, in front of T34.

The Italian 8th Army settled on the Don River bend as the German 6th Army commenced assault on Stalingrad. The sector became relatively quiet as available Russian troops concentrated on the even decreasing bridgehead on the west side of the Volga River. The flanks of the entire 6th Army, almost exclusively concentrated in the ruins of Stalingrad, were held by Axis allied forces. On the immediate flanks of the 6th Army were the Rumanian 3rd and 4th Armies. Neighbouring to the immediate west of the Rumanian 3rd Army was the Italian 8th Army, and to the west of the Italians was the Hungarian 2nd Army
All of these allied armies were spread thinly and had comparatively weak anti-tank weaponry, which would prove disastrous in the coming months.

12 infantry divisions, 3 tank corps, 2 cavalry corps, and 3,500 artillery pieces hit the 3rd Rumanian Army. By the end of the second day the entire army was smashed.
16th of December the Soviet forces consisting of the 1st and 3rd Guards Armies and the Soviet 6th Army all struck the Italian 8th Army still defending the Don bend. The Italians fought bravely, but with inadequate anti-tank weaponry and a shortage of supplies, they were overwhelmed within days. The Alpini Corps was at one point surrounded, but managed to retreat back to new defensive lines.

Stalingrad wasn’t just a battle for prestige: On the banks of the Volga, it was an important centre arms production (Red October Factory, for example), distribution, and was the collecting centre and clearing house for raw materials. Without it, all that would be left to the Soviets was retreat to and long-term recuperation behind the distant Ural Mountains. As such, the city represented the last major obstacle to victory on the Eastern Front. For Hitler, the real goal of the campaign was taking the Baku oil fields in the Caucasus, as part of the Stalingrad operation. With their capture, the Red Army would have been unable to continue fighting much longer.
So, it was important to take it. Not only because it was named after Stalin.

[Gealai]

“why didn't they try to fight the Soviets in conditons in which they proved to excel against the very same enemy?” : Because the Soviets learned their lessons and imposed THEIR way on Germans. And I am not sure than in the end of 1941, the Germans still had the upper hand in. In front on Moscow, the German lost their advantage of their mobility and were saved by the snow, so deep than even a T34 couldn’t cross it. So, only the superior quality of the crews saved Germany from a total disaster, and the order of Hitler to stay and fight on the spot. This success will cost to the Germans Army many soldiers afterwards.

As I made clear in the topic "the great infantry myth" the soviets became better and better tactically and strategically due to various reasons. Still in the end of 1941 the soviet doctrine and army was not up to the german quality. With mobility I'm meaning both mental and physical, and indeed the germans could still defeat under not too uneven conditions the soviet units with great regularity : just see the Southern Front...

Saying that the snow saved the germans is quite new to me, as frankly all authors and knowlegde points towards the fact that the poor winter equipment - tanks no longer working, troops with no snowcamo, no warm cloths and shoes - combined with the long supply lines and the prolonged inability to manouver hampered decisively the german ability to defeat and to destroy the soviet forces as they did before. The order of Hitler to hold ground at all cost enable the german army to hold more soviet ground by sacrificing many good men which could have made the difference afterwards.
All evidence points towards the fact that the soviets couldn't beat the Germans in a liquid battle.

“Most people don't rate the Italian performance in WWII high”. Especially the Germans generals who were quick to put responsibility of their failures on their allies (Romanians, Bulgarians, Italians) and/or Hitler after the war. The under equipped and under trained Italians fought bravely to keep their positions in Stalingrad. They were equipped with T35, and PZ III, in front of T34.

I think we misunderstood ourselves here. I wanted to point out that the Italians are underrated by most people and that they could fight hard and well under decent command, which they sadly often lacked. That's why I said that three Alpini division would have made a difference in the Caucasus, giving the Germans the ability to destroy russian forces there. If one takes into account how thinnly the germans were streched there, just imagine the potential for well-equipped, well-trained mountain troops there....

Sorry I have to go

[Brenus]

“the snow saved the germans” According Rokossovsky, the Russian General of the 16th Army, when he counter-offensive to Istra, then Volokolamsk, the Panzergruppe 4 is retreating, fast. Because the snow is too thick, the T34 can’t overtake the German in going out of the roads. In this Memories, Rokossovski wrote:” The German Generals, instead blaming the Russian Winter for their defeat, should be more grateful for the very bad weather which allowed them to retreat with less losses than they should got”. And the facts are the Red Air Force had the absolute supremacy but fog, snow and bad weather hampered its effort.

“The order of Hitler to hold ground at all cost enable the german army to hold more soviet ground by sacrificing many good men which could have made the difference afterwards.” Without this order, the Germans would have been cut in piece by the Siberian Troops. Try to run in deep snow, when the guys who ere after you are on skis…
Hitler orders were:
Keep the strategically, tactically and defendable important zones.
To provide to all units of the Wehrmacht better conditions to regrouped and rest.
To establish better conditions to restart a bigger offensive in 1942.
Where is the supposed craziness in these orders?
The Russians are the winners, but they are exhausted. The Germans pockets of resistance will succeeded to resist against an exhausted Russians soldiers. If the Germans had run they would end routing…

“All evidence points towards the fact that the soviets couldn't beat the Germans in a liquid battle”. Can I remind you the date: November 1941- January 1942, 5 months after the start of Barbarossa: Battle of Moskow, the STAVKA will attack with 1,100,000 men, 678 tanks (KV1 and T34), 8,000 pieces of heavy artillery, guns, mortars and katiuskas, and 1,200 planes (800 moderns). That is what the Germans played before. It was their game, and they lost it.

“we misunderstood ourselves here”, No no: I agreed with you. I just wanted to add that the Germans were the first to blame their allies for their failures. For me, just to climb in a Fiat M45 was a great act of courage…

[doc_bean]

Are we back at the 'all battles are pointless'? Elaborate...

Sorry, I had forgotten about this thread.

War, and its battles can have a point, they are fought for the benefit of those involved. I honestly can't see the benefit of owning the Falklands, besides 'honour', perhaps.

The fight for independence of Eritrea was pretty dumb because the Eritreans were more busy fighting eachother than the Ethiopians, and really, segregating from one of the poorest countries in the world to become an even poorer country ? Doesn't sound like that good a deal to me...