Worst military mistakes.

[Hooahguy]

nah. the big mistake was only having thier main defenses at the beaches....

[Fiddler]

nah. the big mistake was only having thier main defenses at the beaches....

A defense in depth is not practical when
A) you lack the ressources to build a defense in depth
B) your reserves intended to wipe out the enemy who has broken into the defense can't move in the day.

Sorry, but the building of the wall was the result of a sound military analysis, not a "mistake".
I have trouble calling something a mistake when there is no other alternative.

[Hooahguy]

no. they had the resources, or at least most of them. the problem was that he spended them all at the beaches, and not spread them out more inland. after a mile or so, the german defenses were only the troops, many of which were low-grade.

[Celtic_Punk]

I am sorry but "sarcasm" you are [wrong] if you thought the war was unwinnable for the axis in june of 1944. Had Hitler pulled the 6th army out of Stalingrad when he should have (well he shouldn't have engaged Stalin in Stalingrad anyway, it was a blunder and a half, he should have blitzed to the oilfields instead which was the reason he invaded Russia anyway) it would have been a different story. the reason the war became unwinnable was because Hitler insisted that the invasion was coming at Calais.

The biggest mistake of the war the way Hitler invaded Russia... (remember he said Rome was 1st Reich, Napoleon the 2nd.) he should have taken a lesson from the 2nd Reich, and taken the invasion of Russia slow in the North, but Blitzed to the Oil fields in the south. At this point in the war the 3rd Reich was running low on oil reserves, and since the biggest part of their tactics was their reliance on vehicle support. no fuel, no vehicles, shitty defeat. Hitler should also never have gone to North Africa, there was little to no benefit at such an early stage in the war. Hitler could have easily won the war if he did not spread his forces so much and waste them on pointless campaigns. Reforming their tactics should have been key. You cannot blitz when you are defending. (where are you going to take your tanks? into the channel?) however... the 2nd or well its a close tie with the biggest mistake.... Goering's bullshit idea of mass daylight bombing of London. outnumbered pilots (including my own Gramps) fought off wave after wave of bombers and ME109's. Goering was wayyyy too convinced that his planes were invincible. Quite frankly i couldn't have picked a worse man for the job of head of the Luftwaffe. his failure to establish air superiority resulted in the complete destruction of the Luftwaffe. soooo many experienced aircrew died (and when it comes to air combat, if you have no veterans... you are ******! ) This allowed the turn of events and switched the allies onto the offencive. since your number one priority when invading a country, and especially when you are embarking on an amphibious invasion, air superiority... without it, you cannot advance or even hold. and since the ME109 and FW190 is a very low range fighter, and the spitfire is quite up to the match to face even a fully fuelled 190 or 109 they stood no chance.

the war was winnable for the axis in 1944... it was a long shot, and what sealed their fate was Hitler losing his mind and the failure of Barbarossa.
The war was lost after the battle of Britain, but as you should know, you can still pull a victory from defeat.
the war was won and lost in the skies, as they are even today.

but that doesn't mean infantry and armour can't turn the tide.



I also agree that WW1 in general was a big mistake... so many lives lost just cause some pompous rich arse got his head blown off by some bloody Serbs... such a waste

but by the same token we could say WW2 was a pointless war... it accomplished nothing, and started all this nuclear weapon bullshit we have to deal with today. what ever happend to the good old days when if someone pissed you off you'd walk out into the forest and have a good old fashioned sword fight to the death? it takes a right old pansy to bring his friends into a fight they have nothing to do with.

[Foot]

I also agree that WW1 in general was a big mistake... so many lives lost just cause some pompous rich arse got his head blown off by some bloody Serbs... such a waste

Please, that was just the excuse. Where do you think the first british regiment was deployed in WWI? Basra. Why? Because the orient express was being extended to Baghdad which, once completed, would allow german business men to jump on a train and buy Iraqi oil, pure and black. A problem? Yes, because only recently the British Navy had converted from coal to oil to run their ships. The Germans had no oil-producing colonies and couldn't supply their ships with the black stuff. But if they could get a railway from Germany to Baghdad, nothing could stop them from refitting their ships to once again equal the British Navy.

It was an arms race, the death of an aristocrat was an excuse not a reason. It would have happened any way.

Watch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...40865741878159

Foot

[machinor]

The biggest mistake of the war the way Hitler invaded Russia... (remember he said Rome was 1st Reich, Napoleon the 2nd.)

I have to correct you in this. The 1st Reich was the German Empire of Medieval times going back to the Roman Empire of Charlemagne (the later so called "Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation" or "Holy Roman Empire of German Nation"). The 2nd Reich was the reunified German Empire of 1872 through Bismarck (sometimes called "Willhelminisches Reich" or "Willhelminic Empire" due to Willhelm II being its Emperor for the most time of its existence). Nazi-Germany thus was the 3rd "Deutsches Reich" or "German Empire". Hitler would never have put himself in the tradition of ze dirtee French.

[Celtic_Punk]

hmmm thanks machinor, I remember reading somewhere otherwise, but i will look into this

And foot i do know about the arms race and alliances. there was going to be a war, it was just a question of when, and "why". I just think they could have found a better reason then ferdi...

[Chris1959]

CelticPunk, for Britain I think a couple of million Germans waltzing unprovoked into Belgium was a fairly strong arguement! Also kinda proved France's paranoia.

[Sarcasm]

I am sorry but "sarcasm" you are [wrong] if you thought the war was unwinnable for the axis in june of 1944. Had Hitler pulled the 6th army out of Stalingrad when he should have (well he shouldn't have engaged Stalin in Stalingrad anyway, it was a blunder and a half, he should have blitzed to the oilfields instead which was the reason he invaded Russia anyway) it would have been a different story. the reason the war became unwinnable was because Hitler insisted that the invasion was coming at Calais.

The biggest mistake of the war the way Hitler invaded Russia... (remember he said Rome was 1st Reich, Napoleon the 2nd.) he should have taken a lesson from the 2nd Reich, and taken the invasion of Russia slow in the North, but Blitzed to the Oil fields in the south. At this point in the war the 3rd Reich was running low on oil reserves, and since the biggest part of their tactics was their reliance on vehicle support. no fuel, no vehicles, shitty defeat. Hitler should also never have gone to North Africa, there was little to no benefit at such an early stage in the war. Hitler could have easily won the war if he did not spread his forces so much and waste them on pointless campaigns. Reforming their tactics should have been key. You cannot blitz when you are defending. (where are you going to take your tanks? into the channel?) however... the 2nd or well its a close tie with the biggest mistake.... Goering's bullshit idea of mass daylight bombing of London. outnumbered pilots (including my own Gramps) fought off wave after wave of bombers and ME109's. Goering was wayyyy too convinced that his planes were invincible. Quite frankly i couldn't have picked a worse man for the job of head of the Luftwaffe. his failure to establish air superiority resulted in the complete destruction of the Luftwaffe. soooo many experienced aircrew died (and when it comes to air combat, if you have no veterans... you are ******! ) This allowed the turn of events and switched the allies onto the offencive. since your number one priority when invading a country, and especially when you are embarking on an amphibious invasion, air superiority... without it, you cannot advance or even hold. and since the ME109 and FW190 is a very low range fighter, and the spitfire is quite up to the match to face even a fully fuelled 190 or 109 they stood no chance.

the war was winnable for the axis in 1944... it was a long shot, and what sealed their fate was Hitler losing his mind and the failure of Barbarossa.
The war was lost after the battle of Britain, but as you should know, you can still pull a victory from defeat.
the war was won and lost in the skies, as they are even today.

but that doesn't mean infantry and armour can't turn the tide.

Quite the view on various subjects.

We were talking about the invasion of Europe in 1944, the battle of Stalingrad had been lost at the start of the previous year, so I don't really get what you're saying here. The damage had been done, everything else you wrote was something that was a distant memory of what should have been by June, 1944. BTW, *everyone* was reliant on fuel by this point, not the just the Germans - they just happened not to have enough compared to the other sides.

You give the battle of Britain waaaay to much credit. It was a massive victory for the English yes, in that it prevented the British mainland from being invaded, but it was not that much of a defeat for Germany, in the sense that it was still more than able to continue the war (and indeed they did!). Most, and the best, German aces were created in the war in the East, so loss of veteran pilots was not significant. One can even argue that Seelöwe was a sham - it is highly doubtable that the Germans would ever have had the ability to conduct an amphibious assault with no adequate type or number of landing craft and a much weaker navy than that of the British, even with massive air superiority over the Channel. *Even* if initially successful (and it's doubtful), there would be no chance of maintaining the bridgehead if the Royal Navy happened to launch a major operation against Axis shipping in the Channel...even with heavy casualties, they would most likely be able to jeopardize the entire of operation, effectively trapping 10 divisions in Britain, and probably destroying what was left of the Kriegsmarine after Norway (if they ever dared to oppose the Brits with more than just mines and subs). If you ask me, the German landing would have given the Brits their greatest chance for inflicting a massive defeat early on in the war.

I disagree with you on North Africa. The only mistake there was not supplying enough forces in the first place, not seizing the French navy and not investing upon Malta. This was a superb battlefield for the Germans, one that maximized their advantages, and a great chance to cut the Commonwealth in two, if they had captured the Suez Canal. Also it would rob the Royal fleet of its bases in the East Med and at the same time, secure Europe's "soft underbelly". And if you think oil fields were a primary target for the Germans (and I agree with you), shit man, take Egypt, and the whole Middle East is yours for the taking.

Post Battle of Britain, the allies had proved equally incapable of mounting large scale amphibious operations against the Germans. They were facing the very same difficulties that the Germans had had when attacking, in that their fighters - Spitfires and Hurricanes - were ill suited to provide cover over a potential bridgehead. Their range was inadequate, and early warning systems and AA guns were now on the side of the Germans. It also didn't help that at that time, the Fw-190 A-2 was just being introduced, an aircraft which I'm sorry to break it to you, was markedly superior to the Spitfire V. Dieppe is of course the prime example of what I'm saying...a single understrength regiment kept 6000 men, 250 ships and 40 air-squadrons at bay.

On air-power winning battles alone, may I remind you of Vietnam, Afghanistan, the various Colonial Wars that the European powers fought?

No, my friend, I don't think so. The Germans would have to have a miracle to win the war on their terms at that point.