"Greatests" Military Blunders

[Herrmannek]

All greates losses consequential not from strenght or actions of opfor but from irrational, insane, unlucky, unready, impetuous, quarrelsome, foolhardy, and cowardly commanders or other fellow reasons.

From small in amount or old in date to bigest & newest.
Please, try to cover yours country history if you can.

Starting to search for myself
...
Strange, can't recall any blunder with Poland involved in ;)
...
USA:: Operation EAGLE CLAW::1980
http://www.specwarnet.com/miscinfo/eagleclaw.htm
...
Still serching for polish blunder, polish memebers help wanted
...

[Gringo]

The GREATEST military blunder ever is World War One

[Seraphim]

How about relying too much on afghan forces to stop bin laden through the mountains.

What was that one where they didnt issue the guards ammo and some guy in a truck full of explosives drove through and killed a bunch of marines...I think.

[ShotOver]

How about the Allied landings at Gallipoli?

British commanders sent the boats to the wrong position, caused alot of casualties.

[budanski]

The Frog's Maginot Line: Trench warfare was SO yesterday.

[hoganshero]

in Britain channel 4 books publishes a book by geoffrey regan with this exact title. Interesting read... For my part I think the greatest military blunder which (thankfully) didn't happen, was Gen. Wesley Clark deciding to seize Pristina airport from the Russians in Kosovo. thankfully Gen. Jackson told Clark to get stuffed. Maybe it was more of a political blunder though...

[Trigger]

Not continuing on to Baghdad in Gulf War I. :|

[Fargin]

I vote for the Trojan horse.

[Argyll]

Are we talking blunders involving large scale Ops or smaller unit Ops?

Large scale=Gallipoli
Arnhem

Small scale=Bravo 20
=SEAL attack on the airport during Op Just cause.

[Seiyuuki]

Why the Trojan Horse?

[Argyll]

cause it causes major problems with your PC!!!!! rofl

I agree,I thought the Trojan horse was a stroke of Military Genius!!

[Schiller]

*****sburg. Quite a bloodshed that was.

[usa320]

"Not continuing on to Baghdad in Gulf War I"

yepper...but at the time, that wasnt the objective- had we known it would bite us in the ass 11 years later, im sure we would have.

As for Operation Eagle Claw, things got very messy, but had they pulled it off, it probably would have been one of the GREATEST military operations in history, at least the greatest hostage rescue mission... It was a great plan, unfortunately it failed because of technical troubles that probably could have been avoided. Thankfully we have learned from that, and have improved the RH-53 to the MH-53J.

[Fargin]

My city is under siege,

Come dawn then enemy has vanished,

Tall before me stands a giant horse,

I'd set it on fire, maybe it's hindside talking.

j/k

[Seiyuuki]

Oh... rofl ...I guess from the Trojan's perspective, it was a blunder.

The Arabs in the coalition forces in the Gulf War wouldn't allow us to proceed onto Badghad.

[budanski]

Well, at least we got the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment out of that.

[James]

*****sburg. Quite a bloodshed that was.

Bloodshed, yes. Blunder for who? Pickett?

[Herrmannek]

Operation Market Garden, like Eagle Claw to ambitious, to many unknows, to optimistic & lack of luck.

Poland was involved ;)
http://www.pointvista.com/WW2GliderPilots/Holland/GraveDropPolishParatroopers23Sept1944.jpg

Broken glider
http://www.polska-zbrojna.pl/img/artykul/912.jpg

[budanski]

Greatest Military Blunder?
The Air Forces' Secret Weapon:
http://www.noisedesignlab.com/buddy/secretweapon.jpg

[Trigger]

Wow! the ultra-secret and never before seen 'J-DUMB' rofl

[a. enders]

rofl

[Gringo]

Operation Market Garden, like Eagle Claw to ambitious, to many unknows, to optimistic & lack of luck.

Poland was involved ;)
http://www.polska-zbrojna.pl/img/artykul/912.jpg

It could've been worse. All but one bridge (Arnhem Bridge) was captured.

[FallenAngel]

Tane: my understanding of Pickett's charge was planned by Lee to take place just before sunrise, giving Pickett's brigades at least SOME cover of morning fog/darkness. However, Longstreet (Pickett's corps commander) insisted that the Confederates attack AFTER (instead of with, as Lee wanted) an artillery strike on the union center. It took Colonel Alexander all morning to muster the necessary guns and the barage itself lasted over an hour. Thus the charge took place after noon and with a hell of a warning shot. But again, it was Lee's fault to let Longstreet have his way.

But if you REALLY want to place blame, blame Gen. Stuart for taking his cavalry on raids and boosting his ego instead of doing his job and scouting ahead of the Army of Northern Virginia, then the Confederates could have avoided the chance meeting at *****sburg on the first day and continued to march on Philidelphia which was the origional plan I believe. :)

[morlick]

Bay of pigs.

[Fargin]

- Bay of pigs.

- Iran-contra.

- Maginot line.

- Iran Air shoot down.

- Peder Skram.

[Kitsune]

@Herrmanek:
A Polish military blunder? What about the defense of Poland in September 1939? rofl


Frome the German perspective: WWI and WWII were pretty bad blunders... :(

[usa320]

While Eagle Claw was a failure, it wasnt all bad- it made us look closely at the operation in hindsight, and that led to a specialized unit, the 160th and made us realize we needed better all-weather, night capable helicopters equipped with TFR, NVG's and FLIR...hence the MH-60G and MH-53J.

[XASA]

Stalingrad

[Herrmannek]

Herrmanek:
A Polish military blunder? What about the defense of Poland in September 1939?

This wasn't blunder. Nazis & Ruskies were beter at the time. Just brute force, we didn't help them ;)

[vryhpyammoadded]

US Civil War: Burnsides assault on the crater in Petersburg VA

[California Joe]

The assault on Mayre's Heights at Fredericksburg, over, and over, and over...

Lee was in command at *****sburg. Blame rest squarely on his shoulders, but at the time he had every reason to believe that his men could break the Union center. They had done it before.

Stalingrad was all on Hitler. Not allowing the army to retreat before the Russians closed the circle was fatal. They couldn't be ressuplied fast enough by air. That was retarded.

[Vance]

Hitler invading Russia in the first place was a blunder..

[Herrmannek]

Hitler invading Russia in the first place was a blunder..
He didn't invade soviet union in first place, First was Poland then western europe, and then ruskies, with also were preparing to hit nazis so the germans didn't have real choice in that mater.

[Ratamacue]

I'd definitely say Pickett's Charge was a great military blunder.

[richardben23]

Disbanding the Canadian Airborne Regiment.

http://www.commando.org

[He219]

http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/graphics/lettow.jpghttp://www.deutsche-schutzgebiete.de/webpages/Postkarte_DOA_Englisch_Indische_Regimenter_machen_einen_Landungsversuch.jpg

Colonel, later General, Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1373/11_49/57748067/p1/article.jhtml) defeated a force Eight times the size of his own at the Battle of Tanga Bay in German East Africa. British General Atiken launched an amphibious attack by 8,000 British and Indian forces to capture East Africa's busiest sea port as well as the site of the crucial Usambara railway.

Lettow-Vorbeck launched his counter-attack backed by around 1,000 troops trained in the Prussian tradition. Rapidly overrunning the hastily (and badly) prepared British positions, Lettow-Vorbeck's forces obliged the British force to retreat back to their boats. His men used knowledge of the local terrain to rout the British forces. They manipulated prevalent East African Brush Bees with careful gunfire into swarms of angry defending allies that earned the action the title 'The Battle of the Bees' (http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/tanga.htm).

By the end of the four-year campaign, over 300,000 British troops had fought against him, commanded at different times by 137 generals. He was undefeated and is considered the 20th century's most cunning Guerilla Warfare tactician.

[Vance]

Hitler invading Russia in the first place was a blunder..
He didn't invade soviet union in first place, First was Poland then western europe, and then ruskies, with also were preparing to hit nazis so the germans didn't have real choice in that mater.
Huh? No, I meant Hitler never should of invaded Russia at all.

[James]

The invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

What?

Gotta run :P :P :P

[Andyman]

How about Dieppe the boys were supposed to be testing the new LCT (Landing Craft Tank) I think something like more than half that were sent died. Something like 5600 were sent and close to 3000 died thats pretty bad. Germany's biggest mistake in WW2 was the battle for Britain and declaring war on Russia far to Early.

[James]

I think Germany's biggest mistake in World War Two was declaring war on the United States. If they hadn't done that, public opinion here would have tied the hands of FDR - it would have been us vs. the Japanese, period. There might not have been Lend-Lease aid to the USSR. There might not have been have been landings in North Africa in November 1942, Sicily in July 1943, Italy in September 1943, or France in June 1944. Britain would (I think) have been left fighting in Egypt to hold onto the Suez canal. No offense to my cousins across the water, but I don't think that Britain could have undertaken an invasion of France alone (neither could the U.S.).

It's hard to say what would've happened. We might have defeated Japan in 1944, w/o using the atomic bomb.

This is disconcerting. :( I am comfortable with history the way it is.

[Ratamacue]

The only reason they declared war on us was because of the alliance between the Axis powers. Unfortunate for them, too.

But you're right, with the power of the entire Army, Navy, and Marine Corps focused on Japan, the Pacific campaigns would have been much easier (of course, the military most likely wouldn't have been as large if we didn't declare war on Germany/Italy).

[a. enders]

That one that happened during that thing that time....

I'd agree with Hitler/Russia,but did anyone think of Russia and Afghanistan?Talk about a war you could never win,eh?

[oldsoak]

Arnhem was a close run thing. I remember seeing a program on it on telly and it came across as one of those operations where the Allies almost did it. The paras did very well despite the landing grounds being further away than they could have been as well as holding the bridge as long as they did. Bad weather played a part because it reduced air support and tactical recce which would have vital in supporting XXX corps advance and harassing the Germans. If the weather had been good, the story might have been "the greatest airborne victory of all time". I dont think it was a blunder in the sense of incompetence. Dieppe showed bad planning and the loss of a lot of loyal Canadians, just as the Gallipoli debacle cost a lot of British and Empire troops despite the best efforts of the rank and file. Blunders ? - bad planning always proceeds a blunder.
IMHO I'd put the British campain in North America during the Revolutionary war as a blunder - no one in charge in the UK had much idea of the difficulty involved . It was carried out at a great distance with few troops, very poor communications and extended supply lines in a vast country with a population that initially didnt want a war and who tried to get an amicable agreement. To top it all, the war was unpopular at home , their being a great deal of sympathy with people who were considered kith and kin. One British officer said that they "had as much chance of conquering the moon " and yet they were directed to carry out something they knew they could not win. That makes a blunder. Hey ho.
rgds

[Andyman]

Napolean attacking Russia :bash: need I say more. That whole scorched earth policy seemed to work more than once. Unfortunate for hitler he was not a fan of French military history, he may have realized what he was getting into by sending his boys to Russia. Just think in Russia having poors roads and little developement actually proved useful while they were being invaded ha ha rofl

[Haiw]

dieppe wans't a total 'blunder'...i mean, ok, a lotta folks died, but also a LOT of lessons were learned, and the failure and misery of dieppe played a big role in the succes of the normandy landings...

[Seiyuuki]

You can say that with most faiures, after all, we all learned from our mistakes.

[ogukuo72]

Try the Fall of Singapore. When a 300,000 well equipped British Commonwealth Army (UK, Aus, and India) surrenders to a half-starving 70,000 Japanese army running out of ammunition, something must have gone very very wrong!

The defeat broke all kinds of record: the entire Malayan peninsular was lost in 63 days, and Singapore in another 7. If you want to compare it to the Six Day War or the recent War in Iraq, remember that the Japanese moved on foot and by bicycle, not by trucks!

Total air and naval superiority helped, of course. But you can add that to the blunder - the best British fighter turned out to be the Brewster Buffalo - which was judged to be good enough to handle the 'inferior' fighters of the Japanese. And the great fleet that the British always promised to send to Singapore in the event of war was made up of exactly one battleship and one cruiser, which was promptly sunk on the third day of war.

The list continues. Strategic bridges were not blown up in the face of enemy advance. Despite the reports of enemy tanks, no anti-tank defences were prepared. Soldiers were not properly trained or equipped for jungle warfare. Defensive positions were badly placed. Worse of all, the coast of Singapore was not even prepared for an amphibious assault by the Japanese. To add the ultimate insulte, two top quality Australian division were landed just days before the final surrender - effectively being marched from their transports straight into a Japanese POW camp!

[NcDeuce]

Some big blunders...
*****sburg - Pickett's Charge, July 3rd, 1863
Mile of open field...plenty of Union artillery...Army of the Potomac's tough II Corps entrenched and reinforcements nearby...
The Confederate forces do get my respect for having the courage to walk that mile, in the hot summer sun, while being pounded by artillery from all over Cemetary Ridge. They did manage to break the line but only for a short while due to the reinforcements. Imagine if you had just one helicopter during this battle...just one Apache Longbow! Heck, even an AH-6 Little Bird!

Somalia - 1993
Although we won "the battles"...we lost the war. Our Special Ops troops accomplished every task handed to them. Our weak-kneed politicians lost "the war" for our nation by pulling out after the now-famous battle of Mogadishu. If the mission (Operation Restore Hope) in Somalia was pressed on, we would have captured Aidid, the terrorist-like warlords and gangs would have been put down, hope would have been restored to the normal people and families, we would have caught some members of the al-Qaeda cell...perhaps eventually leading to bin Laden. But no, we tucked our tail and ran, can you say BLUNDER?

Iraq - 2003
Invasion was a success. However, as much of a supporter of the military and Republican party, I disagreed with what the President said when he told the Iraqi's to "bring it on" and that "major conflict was over". He used the wrong words. The invasion is over and reconstruction and operations to apprehend key individuals will continue...blah blah blah...would have been much better and caused fewer uproars from the Democrats.

[MARINO]

Annual disaster, in 1921, more than 8 000 spanish were killed, it suposed the began of the end of monarchy an the instauration of republic in 1931
http://usuarios.lycos.es/Belfegor/
is in spanish but is interesting

[warchild1/27scout]

on the russkies in afghanistan i really think it would have to be a total war because the mushadeen(spell?) would hide in pakistan and iran so they would have to close the borders and sweep the mountains in any case it would be hard. in our case (us) we supposedly have help from pakistan and iran does'nt want no trouble so they kinda atleast acted like they shut the border down. just like for us in vietnam we did'nt use total war so the vietcong had unending supplies and hides in the nieghboring countries.

[Tom.G]

I think that at the begining of the war, the Duche exagerated the capabilities of his troops, but after it got on, every one knew of its lack of skill. They were pushed back by a ****ty greek army. They got their asses kicked by the Bits in North Africa (hence the creation of the German Afrika Korps). They basically got creamed every where they fought. No wonder Hitler lost; he had such weak allies!

[redhawk_six]

How about a Canadian one:

The battle for Verrieres Ridge

From The Valour and the Horror: In Desperate Battle: Normandy 1944

http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/CHRON/July_18_25.htm


Summary: Operation Spring, the attack by 2nd Canadian Corps on 25 July, 1944 against Verrières Ridge, south of Caen, in the Normandy bridgehead, was an almost unmitigated disaster of Canadian arms. Six infantry divisions and three tank squadrons attacked separately along an eight-kilometer front against entrenched German positions well sited on commanding high ground. One battalion, the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry, reached its objective and held it against repeated German attempts to drive them off. The others were unsuccessful. When they attempted to take the village of Tilly-la-Campagne, the North Nova Scotia Highlanders were severely mauled by a reinforced half-battalion of 1st SS Division panzer grenadiers. The Cameron Highlanders of Canada, the Calgary Highlanders, and the Le Régiment de Maisonneuve were as severely treated when they tried to secure the connected villages [May-sur-Orne, Verrières village] in the Orne River valley at the other end of the ridge. Following them, the Canadian Black Watch suffered worst of all, taking more than 300 casualties - virtually the battalion's entire rifle strength. It was a Second World War tragedy akin to that experienced by the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, which lost 90 percent of its men in an hour at the Somme, on July 1, 1916. Except for 19 August, 1942 at Dieppe, this was the Canadian Army's costliest single operation of the Second World War, causing about 1500 casualties, almost a third of them killed. Canadian units had suffered another 1600 casualties in the few days proceeding Spring. The Valour and The Horror Revisited, Dr. Bill McAndrew, p. 129.


This is a very brief summery of what happened on July 25th, 1944. I recommend that you visit the site above and read all the pages for July 25th to get a better understanding of just what happened on that day. Many brave men lost their lives that day, and were never honoured for their true courage.

[ArmoredDov_D9]

The Frog's Maginot Line: Trench warfare was SO yesterday.

And in the end, the German bypassed the line and came from the unprotected Belgian border... AGAIN...

[SlowDog]

Arnhem for sure.... pretending that ss panzer troops are not there was a major military blunder. And by loosing that 1 bridge they lost everything they aimed for, a road to the ruhr. Nonsens to say they won 90%, that area that was left, called the island, didn't speed up the end of the war.

BTW 19 till 21 september we remember the arnhem battle again.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

The winter war

Soviet Union invades Finland

[Tom.G]

The Raid at Dieppe

[PsihoKeke]

Lets see...
Italian defeat at Adova by Ethiopia. Four Italian brigades got lost, and were overrun one after another.
Italian invasion of Greece. They lost one third of Albania and had to be rescued by Germans.
Italian invasion of Egypt. They advanced a few km, stopped and got beaten by ten times smaller Commonwealth forces (the greatest problem they encounterd were great numbers of prisoners). Again they had to be rescued by Germans.
Soviet invasion of Finnland. Attacking one of the coldest ****ries in the world during winter :cantbeli: !?
American invasion of Canada 1813/14. Yes British were busy dealing with Napoleon but Americans could attack little sooner and not when he was going rapidly downhill.
Yugoslav atempt to overthrow Slovenian goverment 1991. They ain't gonna fight :lol: .
France in Madagascar. They forgot about malarya.

[Flagg]

World War I

Battle of the Somme

1,265,000 estimated total casualties suffered in exchange for a measly few kilometres of horror and blood-soaked earth.

The inept military leadership on both sides should have been court-martialed, convicted, and shot......

[aktarian]

Yugoslav atempt to overthrow Slovenian goverment 1991. They ain't gonna fight :lol: .

woot woot woot

Marathon, Platea. Lightly armored troops against bronze carrying Greeks.

What about that time when Russians and Austrian were supposed to meet to fight French together but Austrians were operating on Gregorian and Russians on Julian calendar and Russians came too late?

GW1. What was supposed to be quick blitz turned into 8 years of slaughter.

Hitler's "no retreat" policy.

Delaying Zitadelle until new tanks were available.

[thatguy96]

Although we won "the battles"...we lost the war. Our Special Ops troops accomplished every task handed to them. Our weak-kneed politicians lost "the war" for our nation by pulling out after the now-famous battle of Mogadishu. If the mission (Operation Restore Hope) in Somalia was pressed on, we would have captured Aidid, the terrorist-like warlords and gangs would have been put down, hope would have been restored to the normal people and families, we would have caught some members of the al-Qaeda cell...perhaps eventually leading to bin Laden. But no, we tucked our tail and ran, can you say BLUNDER?
Somalia was a blunder before it became a soley US run affair. The Abdi House Attack, which was planned and authorized by the UN (although it was carried out by US elements of the UN QRF) made victory by a western power impossible. By the point where Task Force Ranger was introduced and the US took it upon themselves to root out Aidid (Operation Restore Hope) anti-US sentiment was the prevelant viewpoint (although the existance of Pro-Western militias should not be forgotten). Capturing or killing Aidid would've solved nothing, providing only a martyr for the cause and provoking a whole new generation to join the anti-US camp. It is a generally accepted theory that peace and stability (although possibly a lack of freedoms) in a place like Somalia can only happen when someone wins, thereby "legitimizing" their rule through suduing all others. We can see all of this quite clearly, simply in the fact that Aidid died soon after TFR was removed and before his goal of consolitdating power was realized. Somalia continues to be a place of warlords and independent militias, because no one is strong enough to win. However, outside involvement would only serve to unite the people against this intrusion, a unity (if history is any judge) that disolves quite quickly after the invader is vanquished. It is hard to go in and either pressure or create a regime change when their is no regime to begin with, and the continued idea that people want freedom and democracy is still a blinding and untrue American ideal (though I wish everybody did want this).

[buckeyedoc]

The greatest military blunder of all time:



The Clinton Administration

[NcDeuce]

Hear Hear!

[vetjen]

What about the battle at the somme during the first worldwar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme

The allies lost more than 600 000 soldiers.

Or the third battle of Ypres.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passchendaele

Another 400 000 soldiers got killed.

[Tomahawk]

I fully agree. The Fall of Singapore is considered one of the greatest defeats in the history of the British Army and a humiliation for the British government.

I guess Yama****a must have scared the **** out of Percival when he banged the table infront of him.


Try the Fall of Singapore. When a 300,000 well equipped British Commonwealth Army (UK, Aus, and India) surrenders to a half-starving 70,000 Japanese army running out of ammunition, something must have gone very very wrong!

The defeat broke all kinds of record: the entire Malayan peninsular was lost in 63 days, and Singapore in another 7. If you want to compare it to the Six Day War or the recent War in Iraq, remember that the Japanese moved on foot and by bicycle, not by trucks!

Total air and naval superiority helped, of course. But you can add that to the blunder - the best British fighter turned out to be the Brewster Buffalo - which was judged to be good enough to handle the 'inferior' fighters of the Japanese. And the great fleet that the British always promised to send to Singapore in the event of war was made up of exactly one battleship and one cruiser, which was promptly sunk on the third day of war.

The list continues. Strategic bridges were not blown up in the face of enemy advance. Despite the reports of enemy tanks, no anti-tank defences were prepared. Soldiers were not properly trained or equipped for jungle warfare. Defensive positions were badly placed. Worse of all, the coast of Singapore was not even prepared for an amphibious assault by the Japanese. To add the ultimate insulte, two top quality Australian division were landed just days before the final surrender - effectively being marched from their transports straight into a Japanese POW camp!

[gaijinsamurai]

Yamashi ta was a very giften tactician. It is a shame that MacArthur saw fit to have him executed over an immature personal grudge.

[gaijinsamurai]

Hitler's stupid micromanagement of the 6th Army at Stalingrad, plus Goering's naive and vain assertions that the Luftewaffe could keep them supplied despite Soviet encirclement.

[Labud]

1. Dardanels operation 1915 - Instead of this badly prepared and risky operation, allies should help Serbia to hold Balkan front. In that way they could make Bulgaria stay on alied side.
2. Serbo-Bulgarian war 1885 - Serbian king Milan didn't have any good reason to start this war which was led in totaly wrong way. Long term consequenc was hostility between Serbia and Bulgaria for next 60 years

[Rob1bureau]

Soviet invasion of Finnland. Attacking one of the coldest ****ries in the world during winter :cantbeli: !?

I don't know much about USSR-Finland, but the Red Army proved fitted for winter war some years later against Germans, didn't it ?

[sp2c]

not quite as epic as some of the others mentioned but in 1940 during the may hostilities in the Netherlands, Dutch forces were driven of a section of the Grebbeline by what was assumed to be a small german recce party.
8th infantry regiment commander then went into a rage about leading the regiment of cowards and chickens and ordered a counterattack

second in command major Jacommetti was to lead it but due to german artillerie and pisspoor dutch communications most of the troops participating arrived late and the major decided to take what he had at that point and kick the germans out, he lead the charge from the front with sword and pistol. Little did he know that there were actually more germans in that sector of the line then Dutch and he was among the first to be killed.

he was awarded our second highest award for bravery but he didn't get the highest award because his attempt was somewhat lacking on the leadership department

this is pretty much what happened all over the country, troops showed a lot of bravery but as soon as the plans got too ambitious they failed due to lack of communications and a higher cadre that knew how to deal with this flaw.

in hindsight he should've waited for the rest of his men since the germans were licking their wounds anyways and confirm the rumour that there were only a handfull of germans in the area (could've gotten confirmation from any soldier that fell back to the main (stop) line)

[Pleonasm]

Some blunders from before Christ:

The Sicilian Expedition: Two huge expeditionary forces (with more than two hundred fully manned ships, 10'000 heavily armed hoplites, thousands of peltasts, slingers and archers and hundreds of the already rare cavalrymen) virtually destroyed. The expedition was a turning point of the Peloponnesian War and led ultimately to the Athenian defeat.

Arausio: Fine Servilius Caepio thought to be too good to pass the chief command over to the actual Consul Mallius Maximus, because this was only a novus homo and not a nobleman. As a result up to 12 legions (Livy said that 80'000 Legionaries died, Mommsen claimed another 40'000 auxillary troops and camp-followers as casualties) got annihilated.

Battle of Dyrrhacium: After rooting Caesar's army, Pompey did not seize the oppurtunity to kill or captivate his rival fearing a trap. History could have been dramatically changed.

Marcus Antonius' war against Parthia: Kind of a napoleonic defeat. After he had assembled a huge army consisting 16 (!) legions, 10'000 auxillary cavalry from Gaul and Hispania and, last but not least, strong troops from client kingdoms, he didn't achieve anything except a catastrophic retreat over the Armenian mountains during the winter. Result: Around 40% of the invasion army ended up dead or as Parthian prisoners.

[TheBelgian]

Maginot Line

[James]

What about the battle at the somme during the first worldwar.

If you'd read earlier posts you'd know that it had been mentioned about 4 years ago.

[Major_Ass]

WW1 again..

Battle of the "Nek"

3 waves sent over the top even tho the first two never made it close to the 27m distance between the two trenches. utter stupidity on the commanding generals part.


The attack was scheduled to commence at 5:30 a.m. on 7 August (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_7). It was to be preceded by a naval bombardment. The 8th and 10th Light Horse regiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regiment) were to advance on a front 80 metres wide in a total of four waves of 150 men each, two waves per regiment. Each wave would advance two minutes apart. The distance they would have to travel to reach the Turkish line was a mere 27 metres. Coloured marker flags were carried, to be shown from the captured trenches to indicate success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Nek

[marktigger]

The American mission creep in Somalia

Arnhem
Op Varsity
The Battle of the Hurtigen Forest

[Hauser]

British officer Patrick Ferguson being too honourable to shoot George Washington in the back in 1777.

[baboon6]

Try the Fall of Singapore. When a 300,000 well equipped British Commonwealth Army (UK, Aus, and India) surrenders to a half-starving 70,000 Japanese army running out of ammunition, something must have gone very very wrong!

The defeat broke all kinds of record: the entire Malayan peninsular was lost in 63 days, and Singapore in another 7. If you want to compare it to the Six Day War or the recent War in Iraq, remember that the Japanese moved on foot and by bicycle, not by trucks!

Total air and naval superiority helped, of course. But you can add that to the blunder - the best British fighter turned out to be the Brewster Buffalo - which was judged to be good enough to handle the 'inferior' fighters of the Japanese. And the great fleet that the British always promised to send to Singapore in the event of war was made up of exactly one battleship and one cruiser, which was promptly sunk on the third day of war.

The list continues. Strategic bridges were not blown up in the face of enemy advance. Despite the reports of enemy tanks, no anti-tank defences were prepared. Soldiers were not properly trained or equipped for jungle warfare. Defensive positions were badly placed. Worse of all, the coast of Singapore was not even prepared for an amphibious assault by the Japanese. To add the ultimate insulte, two top quality Australian division were landed just days before the final surrender - effectively being marched from their transports straight into a Japanese POW camp!

It was the British 18th Division that went almost straight from " the boat to the bag." The 8th Australian Division (which only had two brigades) had fought on the Malay peninsula. Some of the Aussies fought well but it wasn't exactly a top-quality division. The actions of General Bennett during/after the surrender were disgraceful.

[clean]

The raid at Son Tay POW camp. Executed well, faulty intel.

This might just qualify as an unsuccessful mission.

[Timmy!]

My search function isn't working properly for some reason and I didn't want to start a new thread, so here I am, posting in this one. :)

I remeber reading about an ambush that was set up somewhere in Iraq - insurgents had RPG-7 with many shots for it, and there were more of Iraqies, than Americans, and yet Americans not only managed to repel the attack, but also suffered none or very small casualties (don't remember, which one).
Any ideas where and when this had happened?

[Hilbert]

Battle of Actium

[Anomander]

Battle of Karansebes. An Austrian army defeats itself. :|

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kar%C3%A1nsebes

[Manc]

Cannae 216 BC.
Hannibal (the punic, not the cannibal) managed to surround in a double envelope, and destroy, two whole roman legions.

On the other side, Vercingetorix stubborness in locking himself and the Gauls warrior in the fortress town of Alesia (52 BC), allowed Caesar troops to dig in and build several layers of defending positions around the city itself.
Caesar defeated both the Gauls inside Alesia, and those who came to help them.

Montecassino, and the whole run for Rome after the Sicily camapign and the landings in Salerno and Anzio, was rather a futile political excercise, rather than a strategically relevant option.

[sp2c]

Battle of Karansebes. An Austrian army defeats itself. :|

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kar%C3%A1nsebes

wow ... just wow

epic fail :D

[derf]

Teutoberg Wald.

[Manc]

wow ... just wow

epic fail :D

Say NO to alchool!

[Rugal09]

1962 Sino-Indian border war

1987 IPKF operation

The defeat of Bodicea

UNIFIL (1978-1982)

6 day war (blunder for Arabs)

[Stainless Steel Rat]

Couple that haven't been mentioned: Grouchy's action during Waterloo, when he failed to either keep Blucher from reinforcing Wellington or "March to the sound of the guns" and reinforce Napoleon. Either action might have changed the course of the battle (and perhaps history), but instead Grouchy did neither, rendering his corps inconsequential in this most written-about battle.

Another American Civil War, this one Chancellorsville--MG Hooker, who had outflanked and compromised Lee's Army and had a solid 2-1 advantage in manpower, first gave up the open ground to Lee, then left his flank open for Jackson's attack, did not attack to support his relief (Sedgewick) despite have 70,000 men being held by no more than 15,000, and finally, as Lee was preparing to attack an entrenched and fortified position with half the number of men that held the position (a tactic that might have echoed Cold Harbor later on, which was Grant's biggest blunder), he retreated without offering battle, even though nearly half his forces had hardly been engaged.

Few generals have had the opportunity that Hooker did, or mis-handled it so badly.

IMHO as always.

[Sootan]

Battle of Karansebes. An Austrian army defeats itself. :|

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kar%C3%A1nsebes

Now THAT is the mother of all military f*ckups.

[Mastermind]

I suggest the Communist North Korean attack against South Korea, 1950.

I think the U.S. involvement in South vietnam was probably one of the all time most expensive military and political blunders in history.

As an outright act of military stupidity, Napoleon striking Russia and going after Moscow.

Likewise, Hitler's attack on Russia...that just boggles my mind it was so idiotic.

Here is one that might rank up there with the very biggest military blunders of all time; Hitler declares war on the US, Dec 9, 1941. But, c'mon...it was Hitler. So, it's not really fair. The guy was a complete moron militarily...and those types are pretty rare.

In the same vein, Stalin's attack on his own military officer corps...and his refusal to allow a defense build up out of fear of piss'n off Hitler.

I think Ludendorff's refusal to obey the Kaisers order to stand down in the west at the beginning of WWI...that act of insubordination is really what destroyed the last hope of avoiding the war.

For the US,, in Europe three: 1) major goof in WWII...Arnold and the High Command in charge of the US air force refusing to admit unescorted bombers could win the war.

2) the stubborn, and utterly idiotic Hurtgen Forest campaign.

3) The low level, unescorted B-24 raid on Ploesti

Two for US in Pacific, WWII: The invasion of the Philippines and the Invasion of Guam.

[goat89]

Yamashi ta was a very giften tactician. It is a shame that MacArthur saw fit to have him executed over an immature personal grudge.
Indeed he was. My teacher always spoke of him with respect, and always condemned the Kempitai, which was out of his league I believe.

[Alfacentori]

Two for US in Pacific, WWII: The invasion of the Philippines and the Invasion of Guam.

Out of curiosity why would you call these two US blunders?

I'm not hugely familiar with the campaigns finer details, but certainly the US 'island hopping' pacific strategy isolated a lot of Japanese forces until the end of the war. Larger islands/island chains like the Philipines and Guam however could not be bypassed due to their strategic importance. They were costly campaigns no doubt and the Philipines fighting lasted to the end of the war, but they also bought the US important advantages, as well as new air and supply bases. The luring of the remaining Japanese heavy fleet elements out at Leyte and destructon of carefully hoarded Japanese air strength for example were also an important consequence of the campaign, even though Halsey nearly made that a US disaster.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you just curious as to your reasoning?


Edit: Answered in PM, thanks MM.

Alfa

[Alfacentori]

Indeed he was. My teacher always spoke of him with respect, and always condemned the Kempitai, which was out of his league I believe.

I thought Yama****a was executed because he, through his orders, committed war crimes? How does that consitiute a personal grudge? Where the charges not proven?

Alfa

[Mastermind]

I thought Yama****a was executed because he, through his orders, committed war crimes? How does that consitiute a personal grudge? Where the charges not proven?

Alfa
He was primarily tried for the Manila massacre (Japanese naval personnel under the command of Rear Admiral Sanji Iwabuchi, who was ,debatably, under the command of the General, slaughtered more than 100,000 Philippine civilians) and for his extermination type prison camps he had been in charge of. The man was an inhuman monster and deserved the noose he and his chief of staff received.

In my opinion, the noose was too kind... he should have been drawn and quartered with slow cranking winches.

[ShanghaiExpress]

He was primarily tried for the Manila massacre (Japanese naval personnel under the command of Rear Admiral Sanji Iwabuchi, who was ,debatably, under the command of the General, slaughtered more than 100,000 Philippine civilians) and for his extermination type prison camps he had been in charge of. The man was an inhuman monster and deserved the noose he and his chief of staff received.

In my opinion, the noose was too kind... he should have been drawn and quartered with slow cranking winches.

He was also in charge in Manchuria while Unit 713 was committing human vivisection and biological weapons test on civilians and POWs. Yama****a was never brought up on charges for that but he should have and was certainly not clean as his revisionist supporters allege.

[Chulo]

I thought Yamash1ta was executed because he, through his orders, committed war crimes? How does that consitiute a personal grudge? Where the charges not proven?Alfa That case was called Yamash1ta v. Styer and was taken up all the way to the U.S supreme Court as case 317 U.S. 1; 66 S. 340. While the question of issue was the application of Habeas Corpus. Yet the Supreme Court ruled that the law of war imposes on a commander the duty to take any appropriate measures within his power to control the troops under his command in order to prevent acts which constitute violations of the law of war. So Yamash1ta was legitimately charged with personal responsibility arising from his failure to take such measures.

[WingCommander]

No invading the whole of pakistan.

[goat89]

That case was called Yamash1ta v. Styer and was taken up all the way to the U.S supreme Court as case 317 U.S. 1; 66 S. 340. While the question of issue was the application of Habeas Corpus. Yet the Supreme Court ruled that the law of war imposes on a commander the duty to take any appropriate measures within his power to control the troops under his command in order to prevent acts which constitute violations of the law of war. So Yamash1ta was legitimately charged with personal responsibility arising from his failure to take such measures.
That was what I was told of. I believe he had several of his IJA men tried in S'pore for the killings of certain civilians (malay and chinese). The Kempitai had clashed with him b4 I believe.

[Saturn]

Maginot Line

The Maginot line is NOT a blunder.

France had almost half the population of Germany then and the balance power on the continent was very unbalanced.
The Maginot line allowed a 2/3 shorter front and it worked well on that field.

Blunders:

- to have not finished the job in 1918,
- to have decided the reamament in 1938 instead of 1936,
- to have thrown 1/2 of the army in Belgium in May, ready to get trapped there,
- to have ignored the aerial recce reports telling that there was a 60km trafic jam of tanks on the small mountain roads of the Ardena,
- to have made a defense in line instead of a defense in deepth on the remaining 1/3 of front not protected by the Maginot line (Unlike most think, they have not 'stagnated' to 1918: they have regressed to 1916)
- to have an idiot general in chief at the very top,
- ...whose idiot have been very slow to decide a flank counter-attack on the panzerdivisions
- .... and just the day he was finally ready at least to move his fat ass, the idiot was fired by other idiots...
- his successor (who wasn't really an idiot militarilly) nevertheless took one week to make an audit of the situation....
- .... just to decide exactly the same plan as the one planed by first idiot in chief (too late of course, the Germans just couln't believe they were no reaction for so long...)
- ... and his main headquater general with all the plans killed himself on a road accident on his way to put it in place...
- etc, etc, etc (I could continue the list for much longer)

The biggest set of blunders ever. But not the Maginot line.

[EasyC]

Cracked article on some blunders/stuff ups. (http://www.cracked.com/article/208_5-battlefield-screw-ups-that-were-hilarious-until-people-died/)

[Ought Six]

The whole conduct of the Vietnam War. The idea of limited, politically correct war with areas we could not bomb, individual airstrike targets picked in the White House, peace talks and halts in bombing, the cessation of the mining of Haiphong harbor, and generally a war that was not fought to actually win it.

[manberries]

The whole conduct of the Vietnam War. The idea of limited, politically correct war with areas we could not bomb, individual airstrike targets picked in the White House, peace talks and halts in bombing, the cessation of the mining of Haiphong harbor, and generally a war that was not fought to actually win it.

Well ****ing said. Funny, the hippies demands for peace in that war ended up killing far more people than an all out war against the north would have. This is especially true since we bombed it into dust in the end anyways.

[Mastermind]

The whole conduct of the Vietnam War. The idea of limited, politically correct war with areas we could not bomb, individual airstrike targets picked in the White House, peace talks and halts in bombing, the cessation of the mining of Haiphong harbor, and generally a war that was not fought to actually win it.
(My War) Well said. Sadly, I think this lesson has yet to be learned or understood. I think we are doing exactly the same stupid crap today x2.

[skipperbob]

The greatest blunder in Viet Nam was getting involved in the first place! After the Japanese and the French we should have stayed out.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

British officer Patrick Ferguson being too honourable to shoot George Washington in the back in 1777.There has never been any proof that it was indeed Washington, it was simply a colonial American officer.

[pobeda]

I believe the greatest military blunder in recent history was the chinese attack on vietnam in '79 they had all the advantages in terms of tech and numbers and lost horribly

[Black_Eagle]

#1 Crusades
#2 Cold War
#3 Karansebes (laughed for 5 minutes with slight stops for breathing)

Other Failures:
- Napoleon vs Russia
- Napoleon (Waterloo)
- Napoleon (he was offered schematics for steam warships and declined them...)
- Tsushima (Russians being stupid)
- Verdun (Germans being stupid)
- Hitler vs. Russia (Hitler being stupid)
- Dunkirk (Hitler being stupid)
- Vietnam (America being stupid)
- N. Korea vs. S. Korea
- Singapore (British being stupid)
- Cannae (Hannibal being smart)
- King Pyrrhus (he invented the name: Pyrrhic Victory)
- Teutonberg (Rome being stupid0

[gosciu555]

- Saddam invading Iran after encouragement from foreign powers.
- The obligatory Pickett's Charge



The Arabs in the coalition forces in the Gulf War wouldn't allow us to proceed onto Badghad.

Since when does the "coalition" care about what "The Arabs" think? That had nothing to do with that and quite frankly I don't see how that was "a blunder." If they had continued, it would have become a major quagmire worse than the latest one.

[sgt_G]

dunkirk 1940

if Hitler hadn"t put all of his faith into Goering's air power and had sent a panzer division (or two) the Brits wouldv'e been in worse shape:-*$

BUT we all know how THAT went!

[TheKiwi]

Dunkirk was largely the result of two very different outlooks of the German and British.

To the German's, the British had been "pushed into the sea". They could go nowhere and were no threat. The terrain around Dunkirk wasn't ideal and so the idea of wasting panzers on a defeated foe (when the panzer divisions had already taken large losses from both combat and mechanical woes) wasn't really thought of as serious.

Of course to the British, the sea was the way out and a chance to regroup. In fact a significant number of the Dunkirk evacuees were re-landed a few days later in North-West France in preparation for continuing the battle.

[Shadowstorm]

The Iran-Iraq War. It's considered one of the fruitless wars in the 20 Century.

[nemowork]

Choosing to have a retreat from Khabul with thousands of non-combatants in the depths of an Afghan winter rather than weathering out an uncomfortable siege. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Elphinstone%27s_army

The Horns of Hattin. Pride over common sense isnt a good choice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hattin

The Battle of Pliska. Just because you have a nice shiny new army you dont have to use it, especially when the enemy really, really wants to surrender. Otherwise your skull ends up as a nice shiny new wine cup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pliska

[JBH22]

Battle of longewala

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Longewala

[martinexsquaddie]

The argentine invasion of the falklands 1982.

a military plan that relied on the birtish not fighting. when it was obvious the task force was on its way. It was a use it or lose it force . i.e the fleet could fight or go home it could not hang around.
The junta did'nt have a plan to fight or the ability to back down or save face.

[Mastermind]

The argentine invasion of the falklands 1982.

a military plan that relied on the birtish not fighting. when it was obvious the task force was on its way. It was a use it or lose it force . i.e the fleet could fight or go home it could not hang around.
The junta did'nt have a plan to fight or the ability to back down or save face.
Good one. But, I think the Argentines came within a fraction of a millimeter of actually winning that contest just through the mistakes the British made and pure dumb luck (or bad luck, depending on the viewpoint). The outcome was by no means a "done deal" once the British fleet sailed.

[G3SG1]

The Egyptian raid in Larnaca airport is one of the biggest blunder of all military operations i know and by far the stupidest.

The Egyptians wanted to do an Entebbe type operation.



On 19 February (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_19) 1978 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978), Egyptian forces raided Larnaca International Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larnaca_International_Airport) near Larnaca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larnaca), Cyprus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus) in an attempt to intervene in a hijacking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking) situation. Earlier, two assassins had killed prominent Egyptian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt) newspaper editor Youssef Sebai and then rounded up several Arabs who were attending a convention in Nicosia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicosia) as hostages.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_raid_on_Larnaca_International_Airport#cite_note-BBC-0) As Cypriot forces were trying to negotiate with the hostage-takers at the airport, Egyptian troops decided to launch their own assault without authorization from the Cypriots. The unauthorized raid led to the Egyptians and the Cypriots exchanging gunfire, killing or injuring more than 20 of the Egyptian commandos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_raid_on_Larnaca_International_Airport#Egyptian_raid

[TheKiwi]

Good one. But, I think the Argentines came within a fraction of a millimeter of actually winning that contest just through the mistakes the British made and pure dumb luck (or bad luck, depending on the viewpoint). The outcome was by no means a "done deal" once the British fleet sailed.

Heh! If the Argentines had payed more attention to the BBC, they'd know that their bombs were failing to detonate on hitting RN ships due to poor fuzing and that the para's were gathering above Goose Green ready to attack. Both of those could have made a difference to the outcome.

[Lokos]

A few from my perspective... (and mostly to do with the Soviet side of WW2)

1) Constructing the Stalin Line (which, in some sections, almost rivaled the Maginot Line) to protect your frontier, and then wholesale redeploying the forces earmarked to man it hundreds of miles to the west. Corollary to this was the decision to deploy the forces of the Western Military District along the new German border's tactical zone, leaving few formations available to conduct maneuver warfare deeper in the Soviet strategic zone. Coupled with a general lack of preparedness, the Soviets basically handed the Germans their greatest victories, and threw away an entire army (the RKKA, for all intents and purposes, was completely destroyed and subsequently rebuilt in the second half of 1941).

2) STAVKA's decision to expand the first winter offensive (December 1941 - February 1942) along the entire front, instead of concentrating on and possibly shattering AGC. The net result can be summed up as an operational draw, with Soviet losses once again bordering on catastrophic. The carefully husbanded reserve built up just prior to and during December was completely frittered away.

3) The insane reforms Stalin instituted after the Spanish Civil War ended. Although these reforms were - somewhat - rational in the context of that particular conflict, the Soviet use of armor was woefully retarded by them. By October 1939, when a whole new set of realities was made apparent to Stalin (following the German invasion of Poland), especially, it was too late to create the sort of armored force that the Soviet Union needed to combat the Wehrmacht. Only the skeleton of this makeshift force was available by June 1941 - and the many Mechanized Corps the RKKA disposed of were badly understaffed in key areas, poorly prepared, poorly equipped, poorly led (in many instances) and under-trained (ditto). Not to mention horribly deployed and employed...

4) The Purges. Can't stress this one enough. DS73 might disagree (in a strange, against-all-common-sense way), but reshuffling the hierarchy of the entire Soviet military in the lead-up to the war - and especially so at its highest echelons - and thereby creating institutional uncertainty on a massive scale did the Soviets no favors whatsoever (to put it very lightly). In the same way that 'green' recruits don't have the combat effectiveness of veterans, newly trained officers can never substitute experience/training with eagerness. The Purges were reflected on every level by the Soviet performance in the first period of the Soviet-German conflict during the war. From the stilted, poorly thought out deployment patterns of both infantry divisions and the mechanized forces, to their collective operational reactions... the Soviet officers of the time were obviously not prepared.

L.

[Uboj]

It could've been worse. All but one bridge (Arnhem Bridge) was captured.

Monty should have taken Antwerp first. So i disgree it was a blunder and waste of resources better used on the one great General the Allies had.....Patton.

Oh and Every decision Hitler made.

[shadowsrider]

Battle of Karansebes. An Austrian army defeats itself. :|

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kar%C3%A1nsebes

Spectacular :)
Combination of Italians and Austrians in one army gave really boosting effect :)

[Dean1962]

US Civil War: Burnsides assault on the crater in Petersburg VA

Damn. Beat me to it.

[Clockwinder]

There are so many!!! And a lot of the "greatest" beat this one, but what about the British strategy in the far east prior to WWII? The fortification of Singapore equates to the Maginot Line, so none of the huge naval guns could be brought to bear on the Japanese forces coming down the Malayan Peninsular (many on bicycles), and the defence was left to infantry and antique aircraft. To compound this piece of military eclat, the Australian AIF 8th Division was sent in, just in time to be made prisoners and for many to die horribly in Changi and on the Burma Railway.
The British believed they could protect Singapore from the sea (without air support) but the loss of the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse showed Japanese superiority. These losses meant the Peninsular was wide open to the east, and so began a rout.

[Dean1962]

Arnhem was a close run thing. I remember seeing a program on it on telly and it came across as one of those operations where the Allies almost did it. The paras did very well despite the landing grounds being further away than they could have been as well as holding the bridge as long as they did. Bad weather played a part because it reduced air support and tactical recce which would have vital in supporting XXX corps advance and harassing the Germans. If the weather had been good, the story might have been "the greatest airborne victory of all time". I dont think it was a blunder in the sense of incompetence.
rgds

I disagree. There are several reasons why it was a blunder. The first is because British intelligence knew that a German Armoured Division had decided to rest and re-fit in Arnhem. This made a victory for the Red Devils pretty much impossible, and with it, a failure of the whole plan. The second was far more serious. If you look at the whole operation, it was foolhardy to try to send a major armoured relief force up one road. The corridor that Montgomery envisaged was far too small, and even a minor German force could have cut it repeatedly. Continuously pushing units up one road with so little space would have ended up making that advance look more like Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. The Allies would have left more dead and wounded on the road than would have made it to Arnhem, never mind the Ruhr. They would have been sniped, shelled, bombed, rocketed, and strafed, and at no time would the Allied units have been able to hide, deploy or maneuver anywhere. Still think it was a good plan?
The only reason that I could see that Eisenhower approved this plan was political in that he could not be seen as favoring his American subordinates. However, Montgomery was neither a good tactician nor a good leader, (he was almost sacked on numerous occasions by Eisenhower and by Churchill) and Ike had major misgivings about this operation. However, he had said no to Monty so often, that he had to give him something, and unfortunately, Monty came up with this disaster. At least the results were so bad that Monty was justifiably limited to standard tactical practices for the rest of the war.
Personally, I think he should have been sacked for his performance (it was awful) during the Normandy campaign.

[Dean1962]

The Frog's Maginot Line: Trench warfare was SO yesterday.


And in the end, the German bypassed the line and came from the unprotected Belgian border... AGAIN...

The Maginot Line was far more than just a line of trenches. It was one of the greatest system of military defenses that the world has ever seen. However, the realty of France's situation limited it in certain aspects.
The line ended at the Belgian border because France could not afford to build it any longer. In addition, the Belgians objected to having such fortifications on their border, they felt that it was an affront to the abilities of their own military.
The Belgians had built a similar system along their border with Germany, and the lynch-pin of their defenses was Fort Eben-Emael. The Germans took it on the first night of their assault against Belgium using a brilliantly planned and perfectly conducted airborne assault and used a secret weapon that allowed them to neutralize the defensive turrets and enter the fort. After than, they were able to roll up the Belgian line of forts and move into France. The secret weapon was the shaped charge.
The Germans knew that if they had attacked the Maginot Line, they would have been defeated. While many people today consider it a folly, it did, in fact, do it's job. Since the building of the line, there have been no successful invasions of France through the German border.

[Clockwinder]

x2 on Arnhem by Dean1962. The single (narrow) road, lack of bridging pontoons (to replace bridges blown up by the Germans), any sort of infantry boats (flanking attacks on well defended bridges i.e. Nijmegen), incorrect radio crystals (someone should have been shot for this one!) and un-surveyed landing zones for gliders and paras - these were the most serious. Why was it a "Bridge too far"? II SS Panzer Corps which consisted of the 9thh SS and 10th SS Panzer Divisions had been reduced to approximately 6,000-7,000 men, 20-30% of its original strength due to having been in continuous action since late June including in the Falaise Pocket; losses in officers and NCOs had been especially high. Model ordered the two divisions to rest and refit in 'safe' areas behind the new German line; these areas coincidentally were to be Eindhoven and Arnhem!! But also Browning for his part decided to bring his entire staff with him on the operation to establish his field HQ using the much needed 32 Horsa gliders for administrative personnel, and six Waco gliders for U.S. Signals’ personnel. He has never explained why. Monty wouldn't listen when told the weather could impede the re-inforcements of the Paras, and indeed fog closed EVERY staging base for TWO days! preventing the Polish Brigade re-inforcement, re-supply, and new radios.
Speaking of radios - because some idiot failed to verify frequencies, standardize equipment or test, troops watched as their re-supply fell on the enemy, air support was non-existent, yet sitting on airfields waitng orders that never got through and commanders had no idea of how they were situated. Blunder? Monumental fvckup that should have seen Montgomery court marshalled.

[TheKiwi]

...
The line ended at the Belgian border because France could not afford to build it any longer. In addition, the Belgians objected to having such fortifications on their border, they felt that it was an affront to the abilities of their own military.
...

The French army was never stiffed of money before the outbreak of the 2nd World War. In many years, they didn't spend all the money parliament allocated to them. The decision to halt the Maginot line at the Belgian border was a political one, designed to tell the Belgians that they would not be abandoned in the event of a German attack.

Interestingly enough, the French Army re-occupied the Maginot line fortifications after 1945, only abandoning them in the early 1960's.

[TheKiwi]

For an interesting "What-if" scenario, ask "What if the roles in Market-Garden had been reversed with the US para forces landing at Arnheim and the British taking the areas closer to the line of advance. From recollection, the US air dropped radios were much superior to the British models and they probably would have got the air support and correctly dropped resupply that the British missed out on.

[Clockwinder]

For an interesting "What-if" scenario, ask "What if the roles in Market-Garden had been reversed with the US para forces landing at Arnheim and the British taking the areas closer to the line of advance. From recollection, the US air dropped radios were much superior to the British models and they probably would have got the air support and correctly dropped resupply that the British missed out on.

Well not really.
Some loss of communication between the bridge and Divisional Headquarters in one of the drop zones was expected, because 13 km (8 miles) separated them and the main radio used throughout the Division was the Type 22 set designed to have an effective range of 5 km (3 miles). The British radios did not function at any range; some had difficulty receiving signals from just a few hundred meters and others received nothing at all. It was found after landing that the radios had been set to different frequencies, two of which coincided with those of German and British public broadcasting stations.[/URL] Other theories have been advanced to explain the greatly reduced range of the 1st Airborne Division's radio sets. Thus communication between 1st Airborne units was poor while German defences were being coordinated and reinforced. John Greenacre's study points out that radio communications failures were experienced by the Division before, were warned about prior to the operation, and provisioned for by bringing extra field telephone wire. The more powerful WS19HP set was used by 1st Brigade on D+1. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Market_Garden#cite_note-Hibbert99100-94)
The only means of calling for close air support was through two special American units dropped with the 1st Airborne Division. These units were equipped with "Veeps": jeeps having SCR-193 crystal sets. It was found impossible to communicate with aircraft on the higher of two frequencies for this and the sets could not be tuned to the lower frequency. Despite efforts to re-tune them, one set was soon destroyed by mortar fire and the other abandoned the next day, cutting the 1st Airborne's only possible link with RAF fighter-bombers. The pilots were under orders not to attack on their own initiative since from the air there was no easy way to distinguish friend from foe; together with poor weather, this led to a critical lack of air support.
After the war it was identified that the Royal Corps of Signals was either unaware, or did not make aware Divisional Signals of the communication problems identified in November 1943 due to sun spots by the Scientific Advisor's Office to the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Market_Garden#cite_note-96)21st Army Group. Consequently Urquhart ordered the 4m antennae to be used, which were useless due to physics of radio propagation. The wrong frequencies were part of the same problem due to Signals personnel not being aware of the scientific considerations behind radio communications.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Market_Garden#cite_note-97"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_propagation)

[TheKiwi]

I doubt very much that the General Ridgeway would have allowed the air forces to dictate landing zones to the extent that General Browning (who was new to the airborne game) did.

[Clockwinder]

For an interesting "What-if" scenario, ask "What if the roles in Market-Garden had been reversed with the US para forces landing at Arnheim and the British taking the areas closer to the line of advance.
This might be worth a thread of it's own - "What If ... "> Interesting concept.

[TheKiwi]

Yes, I promised James that the next one would be non-WW2, but this is a good one to look at for the future.

[Clockwinder]

I doubt very much that the General Galvin would have allowed the air forces to dictate landing zones to the extent that General Horrocks (who was new to the airborne game) did.
For Sure. As it was he hated the ones he WAS given (one was 9Km from the target!!!)
Both Horrocks and Browning were new to airborne ops, and the American Commander Brereton, was a USAAF officer with no experience of airborne ops at all. Browning spent all his time trying to make sense of the battle personally, and ran his staff ragged trying to get "status" instead of running the Op. Horrocks had the better deal with Garden, although we all know his problems.
And all of this was because Monty didn't want Patton to be "first" - and took vital resources away from Patton's advance further south.

[Dean1962]

I believe the greatest military blunder in recent history was the chinese attack on vietnam in '79 they had all the advantages in terms of tech and numbers and lost horribly

That was not a defeat! The Chinese withdrew after their invincible army had finished teaching a lesson in military prowess to their fraternal socialist brothers!

[Mastermind]

For an interesting "What-if" scenario, ask "What if the roles in Market-Garden had been reversed with the US para forces landing at Arnheim and the British taking the areas closer to the line of advance. From recollection, the US air dropped radios were much superior to the British models and they probably would have got the air support and correctly dropped resupply that the British missed out on.
Personally, I do not think one thing would have changed. I can find absolutely nothing wrong with the British fighters on the ground in Arn. I do not believe any professional fighting force could have done one whit better. As for the radio problem, I am positively stunned by the Brit commo guys screwing up. At the time, radio communications were well understood. Alternative means of communications should have been included...to equip such a massive force, on such an important mission with such paltry and poorly thought out communication gear was simply not tolerable. In my opinion, there is no proper excuse for it.

So, the real question for a "What if" is how things may have changed if the Brits had had quality radio communications with the fighter bombers?

That question being answered, I still have my doubts as to the outcome being much different when we consider the outlandish scheme of moving such a huge force over the narrow corridor under constant enemy harassment.

I believe the plan was of such poor nature as to be almost criminal...I don't blame anyone but Eisenhower for the disaster...he was by far smart enough to have immediately identified it as a lame brained concoction for idiots....as for the political considerations, Eisenhower at the time had full power to stop it even over the PM's insistence. He approved it simply as a nod to personalities...something no military commander should ever do.

[_matt_]

Poor leadership:
The battle for "spion kop" (South Africa) 24 jan 1900, "lead" by lt-gen Charles Warren. (Boer War)
Unnecessary loss of assets:
The battle for the Java Sea, a flotilla led by Rear Admiral Karel Doorman, made famous from his radio call "I Attack, Follow me" (or) "All ships follow me" against the Imperial Japanese Fleet.
And perhaps debatable: The battle for Goose Green, 1982. A more political than military victory. (taking cover)

And for Arnhem, 1944 the quick response from Ze Germans caught everybody by surprise, the allocation of ad-hock forces on key places and the long distance between DZ and objective were a decisive factor in the battle.
Anyone seeking more info about this battle could check this site: http://www.rememberseptember44.com/
Questions about Arnhem are welcome.

[eskachig]

Well ****ing said. Funny, the hippies demands for peace in that war ended up killing far more people than an all out war against the north would have. This is especially true since we bombed it into dust in the end anyways.It's not so simple. American policy of slow escalation of vietnam was in place before mass popular opposition to the war - for much more pragmatic reasons. There was real concern of being embroiled in a nuclear war with USSR or China.

[oldsoak]

I disagree. There are several reasons why it was a blunder. The first is because British intelligence knew that a German Armoured Division had decided to rest and re-fit in Arnhem. This made a victory for the Red Devils pretty much impossible, and with it, a failure of the whole plan. The second was far more serious. If you look at the whole operation, it was foolhardy to try to send a major armoured relief force up one road. The corridor that Montgomery envisaged was far too small, and even a minor German force could have cut it repeatedly. Continuously pushing units up one road with so little space would have ended up making that advance look more like Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. The Allies would have left more dead and wounded on the road than would have made it to Arnhem, never mind the Ruhr. They would have been sniped, shelled, bombed, rocketed, and strafed, and at no time would the Allied units have been able to hide, deploy or maneuver anywhere. Still think it was a good plan?
The only reason that I could see that Eisenhower approved this plan was political in that he could not be seen as favoring his American subordinates. However, Montgomery was neither a good tactician nor a good leader, (he was almost sacked on numerous occasions by Eisenhower and by Churchill) and Ike had major misgivings about this operation. However, he had said no to Monty so often, that he had to give him something, and unfortunately, Monty came up with this disaster. At least the results were so bad that Monty was justifiably limited to standard tactical practices for the rest of the war.
Personally, I think he should have been sacked for his performance (it was awful) during the Normandy campaign.

do I still think it a great plan - absolutely - the Germans themselves said the single thrust over the Rhine would have worked.
was it implemented well ? - nope. Had Patton been running the overland drive to the Bridges with 3rd US army - would he have got there in advance of Horrocks ?
Having walked the area I am surprised how close they came. We even got a unit accross the river in a very vain attempt to release presssure on the paras - thats how close it was. Had we over-ridden the flak fears and dropped closer to the bridge, had the weather been good enough for air support from 11 TAF ( I think I've got that unit designation right ) - had someone included boats ( a detail NOT down to Montgomery ). Yes, it could have been done.

[Hollereer]

- King Pyrrhus (he invented the name: Pyrrhic Victory)
Pyrrhus a military blunder? Think again.

[Mordoror]

#1 Crusades
#2 Cold War
#3 Karansebes (laughed for 5 minutes with slight stops for breathing)

Other Failures:
- Napoleon vs Russia
- Napoleon (Waterloo)
- Napoleon (he was offered schematics for steam warships and declined them...)
- Tsushima (Russians being stupid)
- Verdun (Germans being stupid)
- Hitler vs. Russia (Hitler being stupid)
- Dunkirk (Hitler being stupid)
- Vietnam (America being stupid)
- N. Korea vs. S. Korea
- Singapore (British being stupid)
- Cannae (Hannibal being smart)
- King Pyrrhus (he invented the name: Pyrrhic Victory)
- Teutonberg (Rome being stupid0

Humpf
there is a lot of thing to be said about that list

Napoleon in Russia. Well yes a blunder once Kutuzov decided a schorched earth strategy. If the pirmary will of the Czar and some of his officers was achieved (massive frontal encounter on the borders or not to far of it) the destruction of the russian army wou;d have led to what was searched for by Napoleon : an armistice and then a neutral stance by Russia

Waterloo : not a blunder. I know that the english like to stick to that legend by the angloallies army was the only winner and that it smashed the french army (in that case the angloallies army is often transformed in English army alonep-)) In fact the angloallies army was close not to be defeated tactically (would have much more looked for a stalemate) but ratherwas close to fall back on the road to Anvers. Wellington himself gave these orders around 16-17 PM. Have the prussians been late a little more, it would have been a strategical victory for Napoleon as it was planified (forcing the Angloallies to retreat and eventually re-embark and afterthat take care of the Prussians).
the battle itself was poorly conduced from Napoleon standard though but the strategical move with lower number of troops was the best that could have been done and may have succeded

Verdun : the German were not supid as were not the French. Both armies bogged down in an attrition war

Hitler vs Russia. The whole campaign was a blunder in the eratic way it was conduced. The initiation of the campaign was not

Dunkirk : this was not a blunder but either the consequence of the overstretching of the panzers that were on the end of their supply line, the delay fight offered by rear french armies and the fact that it allowed Hitler to look smart for possible negociation with England

Vietnam : far from being a blunder from a military point of view. From a political one we all know the result

Tsushima and Singapore are blunder and enters in the same area : both european countries involved have willingly mis evaluated the will/fighting spirit/fighting technics and technical/tactical advancement the little yellow boys have made in the art of war. Fortunately both countries have learned their lessons who were not renewed and were reversed at KalKin Ghol and in Burma respectively

Cannae is also a blunder from the Roman point of view : absolute numeric superiority, choice of the field of battle, choice of the moment of the battle. unfortunately they missed the battle tempo

Pyrrhus : there is no blunder at all, only the battles turned in an attrition war and in fact Pyrrhus was quite successful from time to time

Teutonberg : this is not a blunder or maybe only for the roman leader. His soldiers felt in a trap done by former allies....there is in that case not a lot of thing you can do.

[matthew.manhorn]

Operation Iraqi Freedom
Operation Barbarossa
Vietnam War
Pearl Harbor

[nemowork]

Verdun : the German were not supid as were not the French. Both armies bogged down in an attrition war

That was the point though, the idea was that the Germans would use limited forces to goad the French into massive expenditure and losses for something that had symbolic value and no real value. French patriotism and honour made sure they did exactly that but their main blunder was in stripping the defensive forts and positions of their guns and men so the Germans had a relatively easy early victory.

The Germans blunder was even worse, instead of limited forces they got sucked in more and more until they lost sight of their original goals and they suffered equal attrition to the French.

[Mastermind]

Yes...if there was a massive blunder at Verdun, it was on the Germans. Losing sight of the original mission has led to some pretty devastating military defeats.

This seems to happen quite a bit in military history. Nagumo at Midway is a good example. Lee at *****sburg another.

[PsihoKeke]

Hood at Franklin and Nashville: Assaulting well entrenched enemy army of the same size over open ground. Due to stupid mistake of one Union division his men managed to push into entrenchments before beeing bloodily repulsed. Despite terrible casualties, including loss of his best commanders he went to besige well entrenched numericaly superior army :cantbeli:

Napoleon's invasion of Spain: Just becouse he could he invaded allied country dismising all contrary advice. When rebellion broke out, he thought it a trifling matter sending largely green units to subdue it resulting in Saragossa and Bailen fiascos. Despite his personall intervention it turned into complete cluster**** requiring 300.000 troops to keep lid on.

Mussolini's invasion of Greece: Bogging down in Africa, Mussolini decided to look for flashy victory against Greece despite the fact that his troops in Albania were less numerus than Greek and that poor comunications in Albania prevented quick reinforcement and hampered regular suply.

[iloxos]

Mussolini's invasion of Greece: Bogging down in Africa, Mussolini decided to look for flashy victory against Greece despite the fact that his troops in Albania were less numerus than Greek and that poor comunications in Albania prevented quick reinforcement and hampered regular suply.

Α great idea with the most horrible plan. Greeks were at the edge of poverty being in constant political turmoil with more than 50% in unemployment living in paper houses (refugees of the 1923 war)
Mussolini had better troop quality, air superiority (100 to 1), sea superiority (100 to 1) and tanks. He also had Dodecanese an excellent base at the greek rear.

The italians did not chose to attack at the coastal west greek road down to Patras with a large tank force or simply use the total of their army in a single tank drive to Metsovo and Thesaloniki (guarded by the Davakis attachment (2000 troops!!!!)) but walk broadly all the way ina huge mountain area in the start of the winter.
In the second week of parading they had let the greeks mobilise fully bringing union to an almost broken state.
The results were expected after that.

[JRT]

Germans were quite good at this during the last big live firing exercise. Not trapping the British Forces at Dunkirk was the first. Shifting bombing raids from RAF airfields to civilian targets was another. Not understanding what Chain Home was and leaving it functional. Giving up on Operation Seelöwe resulting in a 2-front situation where a big part of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS had to be left to Norway, Netherlands, Belgium and France to cover the Western Front, which didn't have to be done if Britain and Ireland had been taken. In essence Germany turned east too early.

Designing and fielding complex machinery in limited numbers instead of simple machinery in massed numbers. The incapability to motorize Wehrmacht's infantry. Fighting a futile war in Africa, leading to a third front when they couldn't have afforded to have more than one.

Focusing on the mass murder of civilians led to an organization demanding resources, mostly manpower.

Focusing badly needed resources and manufacturing capability to weapon systems that had no difference in the outcome of the war, like V-1 and V-2. Not going nuclear. Underestimating the strength and production capabilities of the SU and USA combined.

And the biggest blunder of the Germans, not putting a bullet through Hitler's head.

[TheKiwi]

Sea Lion (given the German resources in 1940) was never ever going to suceed anyway. Giving up on that saved plenty of German soldiers lives, if only for the eastern front a year later.

An attempt at Sea Lion would have gone down in history as an equally bad idea to Operation Barbarossa.

[JRT]

Sea Lion (given the German resources in 1940) was never ever going to suceed anyway. Giving up on that saved plenty of German soldiers lives, if only for the eastern front a year later.

An attempt at Sea Lion would have gone down in history as an equally bad idea to Operation Barbarossa.

There are different views on this. Firstly if the BEF had been captured at Dunkirk there would have been only very limited number of ground forces available for the British Army. Secondly if Luftwaffe had continued the aerial campaign against RAF targets for a few months longer instead of focusing on futile civilian bombing the Channel airspace would have been in the hands of Germans, effectively closing the Channel from RN.

Germany certainly lacked the transport capability for a cross-channel operation. This can also be assessed as a blunder on their part.

From a strategic point of view, it would have been a better outcome for Germany to lose for example 5 divisions in taking of Britain than to use tens of divisions stretching from Norway to southern France to defend against an invasion from the sea. A successful landing in Britain would have given a lot more units to be used later in the eastern front, even when counting the possible losses in that landing and operations inland.

I dare to say that it was the inability of Germany that prevented the fall of Great Britain more than the admittedly heroic efforts of the British armed forces, especially RAF and RN. Feel free to disagree, I'm sure the Brits do.

[nemowork]

We do, it was the RAF's resistance that showed up their flaws and convinced the Germans to go play somewhere else and gave our politicians and population the confidence to fight on instead of making a diplomatic deal. ;-)

[JRT]

We do, it was the RAF's resistance that showed up their flaws and convinced the Germans to go play somewhere else and gave our politicians and population the confidence to fight on instead of making a diplomatic deal. ;-)

I knew there had to be at least one :)

I agree, the relentless efforts of the RAF were of course crucial to the fate of the nation. I am however still in the belief that had the Germans paid attention to Chain Home and continued to strike on RAF installations instead of shifting the bombing missions to cities, RAF would have had to stop operations in southeast England, leaving Luftwaffe with the control of Channel airspace, a crucial component of a successful invasion.

[TheKiwi]

Got to disagree with you about the Luftwaffe's capacity to control the skies over southern England. The RAF plan was that if it got too hot over the south, RAF fighter forces would be withdrawn to the Midlands, bringing them out of range of Luftwaffe fighters. There they would be able to fight as and when the RAF chose, while being relatively free of attacks on their bases. In the event of an invasion, they could still challenge for air control, and that would be more than sufficient to make any invasion fail.

Even if a large part of the BEF was captured instead of evacuated, there was still a fairly large contingent of British army troops available to confront any invasion force - albeit without large supplies of artillery or tanks. Even after the Dunkirk evacuation, the British were still landing forces into Western France, who sgortly afterwards needed to be evacuated again.

Nevertheless, given the impossibility of supplying an invading force with ammunition, food and fuel, any German force that landed would be destined for POW camps very shortly, without the British army having to supply more than token resistance.

[chancth]

Now THAT is the mother of all military f*ckups.
quotaion from wiki : "result : Self-inflicted defeat"
:grin:I shouldn't have , but I couldn't stop laughing...

[martinexsquaddie]

Argentine invasion of the falklands monumental blunder.
assumed the british would'nt fight AS if.
did'nt renforce in the time they had.
had no plan to B to get out the mess the junta found itself in

[Johnny_H02]

Waterloo : not a blunder. I know that the english like to stick to that legend by the angloallies army was the only winner and that it smashed the french army (in that case the angloallies army is often transformed in English army alonep-)) In fact the angloallies army was close not to be defeated tactically (would have much more looked for a stalemate) but ratherwas close to fall back on the road to Anvers. Wellington himself gave these orders around 16-17 PM. Have the prussians been late a little more, it would have been a strategical victory for Napoleon as it was planified (forcing the Angloallies to retreat and eventually re-embark and afterthat take care of the Prussians).
the battle itself was poorly conduced from Napoleon standard though but the strategical move with lower number of troops was the best that could have been done and may have succeded

I think that the battle was poorly managed by Napoleon and equally poorly staffed. D'Erleons Corps being marched between Ligny & Quatra Bras being a good indication the corps was completely useless in both battles when they were sorely needed. Had Napoleon won the battle (Wellington's centre breaks or Blucher doesnt arrive or arrives too late) then it is possible that Napoleon could beat both armies piece-meal however he would still have the full might of an Allied Prussian (those not engaged at Waterloo), Austrian & Russian + other European principalities to deal with which in my opinion and the opinion of Historian Jeremy Black would have been too much for Napoleon to handle in 1815. The British if anything would have had far less say in the outcome and fate of France after the war.

So one could argue that a victorious Napoleon at Waterloo would only bring greater disaster to France (IE Soviets overrunning Germany in WWII). Looks like Hitler held off the Western Allies just long enough to achieve greater destruction and I don't see a scenario where Napoleon could restore France to its 1790's early 1800's Empire after the 1814 Vienna Peace & the 7th Coalition against Napoleonic France.


Just my 2cents of course.

[PsihoKeke]

Napoleon's strategic position was terrible. Even if he won the battle there was another Prussian army on the Rhine, Austrians defeated Murat and were marching into France, Russians were ariving, while he was without reserves, unable to replace losses from the Waterloo campaign.