Hopeless battlefield defeats

[James]

This is becoming a series, I think. I'm glad that there is a specific place for discussion of military history.

I am curious - what do you think is the most hopeless battlefield defeat in history?

I'd say the German 6th Army at Stalingrad, 1942-43. It would've been almost as bad to be a Russian victor.

[FuturePara]

Persians at the battle of Platea (spelling?) Persian infantry dressed in linen with whicker shields charing the bronze and iron Phalanx of Spartans and Athenians.

[Kriz]

Greatest defeat ever was world war one, the loss of millions of lives, even more wounded and seemingly endless destruction. Above that it's pretty sure that World War 2 is a direct result from the first one.

Off course this isn't really a battle so forgive me if I went off topic ;)

[XASA]

I'd have to go with Stalingrad not only for the great military loss it was for the Germans, but also for the political and pyschological effect it had on the rest of the war. For the first time, the dread German juggernaut was halted and the flower of its army destroyed, giving the Allies, especially the Russians, hope that they could defeat Germany.

Also, another "defeat" that had disasterous results: The Tet Offensive. Although the Americans won the military battle--the Viet Cong was so devastated they never returned to their former strength-- the political ramifications lead to more dissent back in the States, LBJ not running for another term and the eventual loss of the country to regular RVN troops.

[FallenAngel]

I say Wake Island. 400 something Marines and 1200 civilians with half a dozen artillery pieces, no aircraft after the first day, and limited supplies against an entire invasion force of Japanese.

Course, their loss was something of a morale booster in the States.

[California Joe]

Stalingrad probably takes it for magnitude.

Fredericksburg for the Union in the Civil War is pretty brutal.

Isandlwala for the British was a very bad moment. Did I spell that right?

[Royal]

Stalingrad probably takes it for magnitude.

Fredericksburg for the Union in the Civil War is pretty brutal.

Isandlwala for the British was a very bad moment. Did I spell that right?

Isandhlwana - close!

Yes it was a loss, but it wasn't major in the overall scheme of things, and the numbers lost were nothing like that at Stalingrad. It was probably worse for the Zulu's, as it lead to reprisals and over reactions by British and Imperial forces. It was also rather overshadowed by the subsequent action at Rorkes Drift...

[Ratamacue]

Angel: did you see the History Channel special on Wake Island? it may have been hopeless, but 400 Marines were able to push back 2 Japanese invasions with minimal casualties.

The only reason they surrendered was because their CO had been out of contact for quite some time and thought the island had been overrun. Quite the contrary.

[California Joe]

Dammit Royal, I was only off a couple of letters. heh. ;)

[Tom.G]

The first Gulf War was the most monumental battle field defeat in history. After six weeks of the air war, the ground war lasted only 100 hours. The attack left an estimated 10 000 Iraqi dead, 70 000 prisoners and an unknown (but very high) number dead civilians in its wake (some estimates put the Iraqi dead at over 100 000). Compared to 240 dead coalition soldiers. That my friends, is the biggest military defeat in history.

In terms of individual battles it was as one sided:

Kafshi: Two Iraqi divisions destroyed by air power while attacking the town of Kafshi just south of the Kuwaiti border.

73 Easting: 2nd ACR (Armoured Cavalry Regiment) destroys the RPG (Republican Guard) Tawalkana Mechized Infantry Division with less than 10 dead.

Medina Ridge: 1rst Armoured Division destroys the rear guard of the retreating RPG. 300 Iraqi tanks and other armour destroyed; one american was killed.

[txajas]

What about the Falklands(sp) war? An ill equiped, conscript unmotivated Argentinian army vs. a professional well motivated army. And to make things even more interesting, declare war to a world power while you are still getting the war supplies from the allies of the country you just declared war against (the Argentinian were bulding up their supply of missiles at the same time they declared war, smart...). Oh and to top it all, assume that in a war between Argentina and the UK, the US would support Argentia (double smart).

LOL... It may have not been the worst military defeat, but sure it was one of the stupidiest ones. It seems most South American armies are pretty bad when it comes to wage battle against other real armies, so they are only good at oppresing innocent unarmed citizens......

[UoUo]

Six day war.

[Shadow]

The 45 Min. war!

[Tom.G]

You forgot the invasion of poland at the beggining of ww2. That took like 3 weeks. German Blitzkrieg vs. Polish Cavalry= slaughter. And to add to insult, the russians invaded from the east a few days after the start of the German offensive. The Poles didn't stand a chanse.

[catalyst]

wat about the battle of Singapore or Pearl Harbour also???

Tactically they were horrific defeats for the forces involved and if luck would have been with the Japanese then Pearl Harbour would have been the end of the war due to NO US fleet left in the pacific and Singapore would have had the British capitulate in the East.

Just a thought....they are bigger battles that did cause positive effects for both sides but we tactically a major defeats for the allies

[Ngati Tumatuenga]

Dien Bien Phu

[Chris1]

Ill-equipped? Don't agree with that, they had the same weapons with some heavier pieces and more ammunition. Ill-supplied might be a better term, they didn't have enough food but that was more due to the Task Force than Argentine planning.
Conscript?
Not all of them were conscripts, some of them were not only professional, but the best Argentina could send
Unmotivated? The Falklands to Argentina is territory occupied by a foreign power, debate the politics all you like, they were motivated to defend what they viewed as their territory.
It was a combination of errors on the part of the then leadership of Argentina that meant that although they put up a good fight, the Argy's on the Falklands could not win, not the overwhelming power of the British Army.
What it is though, is proof of the professionalism of the British forces
they went down there with a Hi-tech plan (Using the Chinooks and air power to conduct a fast moving airbourne assualt, once put ashore by the Navy) that ended up going back to basics and the soldiers and marines were trained well enough and had the right mindset to win.

Stalingrad gets my vote, Hopeless, complete and above all, PREVENTABLE defeat.
What about the Falklands(sp) war? An ill equiped, conscript unmotivated Argentinian army vs. a professional well motivated army. And to make things even more interesting, declare war to a world power while you are still getting the war supplies from the allies of the country you just declared war against (the Argentinian were bulding up their supply of missiles at the same time they declared war, smart...). Oh and to top it all, assume that in a war between Argentina and the UK, the US would support Argentia (double smart).

LOL... It may have not been the worst military defeat, but sure it was one of the stupidiest ones. It seems most South American armies are pretty bad when it comes to wage battle against other real armies, so they are only good at oppresing innocent unarmed citizens......

[ibstolidude]

it appears operation "the airsoft players versus the seeming majority of the board"..could fall into this thread.

[martinexsquaddie]

the argentinians from what i read never planned to fight for the falklands thought there was nothing the British could do. Most of Mod thought so as well, maggie made them see otherwise
So when the task force turned up they did'nt know what to do after the belgrano sank the argie navy bottled it

[ogukuo72]

Got to give you Brits credit for balls. By all rational calculations, it would have been better to just give up the Falklands, instead of sailing thousands of men thousand of miles to fight in a hell-forsaken place! I'm sure the Argentinians thought so too!

[cut]

control the falklands, control the south sea routes arround s. america
same with the U.S. and the panama canal, the UKvs. spain and gibraltar

[Tom.G]

Occured near the end of the hundred years war. The British were outnumbered at least 3-to-1, and still managed to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

[Tom.G]

Austerlitz, Jena, the Pyramids, Abukir, Wagram etc...

[Kampfhamster]

Ambush at Morgarten Switzerland

November 15. 1315
Rudolf from Habsburg tried to invade Switzerland with an army of 3000 - 5000 soldiers. About 1/3 was on horses.

But the swiss prepared an ambush in a narrow valley.
In a short battle the swiss defeated the heavy cavalry of the duke.
The casualties of the swiss were very low, but 2'000 of the knights were killed.

But this victory was just the begin of
Confoederatio Helvetica now known as Switzerland

[perdurabo]

Desert Sloth:
You forgot the invasion of poland at the beggining of ww2. That took like 3 weeks. German Blitzkrieg vs. Polish Cavalry= slaughter. And to add to insult, the russians invaded from the east a few days after the start of the German offensive. The Poles didn't stand a chanse.
Polish Cavalery with sabers in hand vs tanks is big lie of nazis propaganda:) jeah it was a defeat but with backstab of russians and without help of uor "friends" french and brits we didn't have a chance:) but funny thing germans had more casulties from PL than from French :)

- what has 5 shifts in gear?
- tank
- what has 4gears to backward and 1forward?
- french tank:)

[NcDeuce]

Many of the battles fought in Afghanistan that are not very well known throughout the public. For info on what really what went on in Operation Enduring Freedom, go out and read "The Hunt for Bin Laden" by Robin Moore.

There are some extremely intense fights in the book. One battle involved a small group of Delta Force operators being inserted by Little Birds into a small town. CIA intelligence, like in most cases, is bad. Instead of a few Taliban kids, the D-boys run into a large group of elite, hardcore bodyguards of Mullah Omar. The operators were heavily outnumbered but fought on and eventually slaughtered the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces. A Delta medic died of severe head wounds suffered in the battle en route to a hospital in Germany for surgery. Many were wounded but they overcame the odds.

Goes to show you, don't mess with our Special Ops Forces...especially 1st SFOD-D.

[Tom.G]

The battle of Alesia in the Gallic war was pretty bad Julius Caesar was able to siege a numerically superior foe who held the high ground and was able to win.

[Kitsune]

@perdurabo

The stories of "stupid polish attacking german tanks with horse lancers" was not "Nazi propaganda"...they started to course around in France after the sucessful conquest of Poland. Probably to explain the unsuspected fast German victory.

I seriously doubt that the "teaming up" of Soviets and Germans had anything to do with it...the Germans did nearly all of the fighting and the Polish were to slow to react even on the German troopmovments. Face it: Even without the Soviet partaking the course of the campaign would have been virtually the same. (By the way: Soviet operative skill wasn't to high. It showed in their attack on Finland a few month afterwards. But they excelled in quantity.)

As far as I know the German fatalities in the Polish Campaign numbered 13000 killed (many more wounded though). In the "French" Campaign around 100.000 were killed (but British forces were also present, that has to be taken into account). But still: As far as i know the losses against the French exceeded those in the war against Poland.

But I may be mistaken. Corrections are welcome...I always like to learn. ;)

[Tom.G]

@perdurabo

The stories of "stupid polish attacking german tanks with horse lancers" was not "Nazi propaganda"...they started to course around in France after the sucessful conquest of Poland. Probably to explain the unsuspected fast German victory.

I seriously doubt that the "teaming up" of Soviets and Germans had anything to do with it...the Germans did nearly all of the fighting and the Polish were to slow to react even on the German troopmovments. Face it: Even without the Soviet partaking the course of the campaign would have been virtually the same. (By the way: Soviet operative skill wasn't to high. It showed in their attack on Finland a few month afterwards. But they excelled in quantity.)

As far as I know the German fatalities in the Polish Campaign numbered 13000 killed (many more wounded though). In the "French" Campaign around 100.000 were killed (but British forces were also present, that has to be taken into account). But still: As far as i know the losses against the French exceeded those in the war against Poland.

But I may be mistaken. Corrections are welcome...I always like to learn. ;)

Thanks for backing me about Polish Cavalry. But the Germans did suffer more casualties vs Poland then they did against France. I don't know the exact numbers but I know that they were higher against Poland.

[Tom.G]

The Six days war was one of the wort battlefield defeats in History. The attack in the Saini (I think) was one of the most successfull military operations ever.

If the Egyptians had implemented their defense plan, Operation Kahir, the Israelis would have been slowed down considerably. But since they had complete air superiority it wouldn't have made much diference.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Egyptian incompetance greatly facilitated the operation (When the High Command issued the orders for a general withdrawl from the Saini, some division commanders simply issued the order for withdrawl then jumped in their staff car and headed West for the Canal. Leaving the Colonels to make the withdrawl).

[perdurabo]

kitsune in war Poland aginst Germany yes we didn't have a chance but with help of the brits and french... if germany wuld be backstabbed by french and brits theywould had to send moust of troops on the west so we could fight with comunist....

[Maciek]

If the Soviet did not help the Gertmans would have biggeer theritory to occupy. What was the number of occupying force in Poland and France?

[NcDeuce]

The Battle at Ft. Wagner by the 54th Mass.

[Vance]

The Alamo. Heh. *Looks at location*

[aktarian]

Bagration aka Collapse of Army Group Centre, summer 1944. Germans lost 28 divisions and over 300.000 troops. Defeat bigger than Stalingrad.

Leucra, 371 BC. Thebans defeat Sparta and end Spartan supremacy in Greece

[bishop1]

you cant say the alamo, if it was a defeat, it would be a stepup, they knew they were dead, just like the Spartans at Thermopolye(sp), it was a stand for something personal, not really a battle. How about the maginole line (sp) in France, the germans just went around it and kicked them in the ass literally, but thats the french, so whats new? Id also have to say midway for the japs, and *****sburg for the south, that might could have totally reversed the way things went, but oh well, just what id have to say.

[Mark Sman]

Yes. The naval siege of Yorktown.

The French Navy (yes French) blockaded the British Navy from providing relief to the besieged British Army forces in Yorktown. This directly led to the bulk of the British Army's regular force surrender. Thus bringing about the end of the 'active combat' portion of the US Revolution. October 19, 1781.

It would be 6 more years (June 21, 1788) before the U.S. constitution would be signed sealed and delivered. Kinda puts timelines in prespective don't it.

[US_Frogman]

The Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812. Well... actually, two weeks after the cease fire was officially signed, but news hadn't reached New Orleans yet. Anyway... 3000 Red Coats attacked the dug in Americans at New Orleans, led by General Andrew Jackson. The 1200 Americans defending New Orleans slaughtered the attacking British. At the end of the battle 13 Americans were dead and 40 wounded. 2000+ British soldiers lay dead in front of them.

[NcDeuce]

Old Hickory! woot

[Flagg]

Getting back to the Falklands......the Poms may have routed the Argies....but it was nearly a Mexican standoff.......

take a look at the Royal Navy's actual losses

then look at the number of UXO (unexploded ordinance) hits on Royal Navy task force vessels

6 more hulls would likely be at the bottom of the Atlantic if the Argie Air Force actually used bombs that exploded....

the Poms were really lucky there.

Man for Man the Poms certainly kicked Argentine ass on land

In the air the Argentine's gave as good as they got.

[Royal]

Getting back to the Falklands......the Poms may have routed the Argies....but it was nearly a Mexican standoff.......

take a look at the Royal Navy's actual losses

then look at the number of UXO (unexploded ordinance) hits on Royal Navy task force vessels

6 more hulls would likely be at the bottom of the Atlantic if the Argie Air Force actually used bombs that exploded....

the Poms were really lucky there.

Man for Man the Poms certainly kicked Argentine ass on land

In the air the Argentine's gave as good as they got.

The reason the Argies had so many duds was because they were bombing from well below 100ft, so fuses didn't have time to arm.

The reason that they were bombing from so low was beacuse of the task forces integral Anti Aircraft Defence assets and the Harrier CAP.

If they'd bombed from higher, they'd have been shot down by Sea Hawks, Harriers or GPMGs...

Thats not to take away from the skill and bravery of the Skyhawk and Super Ettendard pilots.

BTW if the French hadn't covertly supplied them with Exocet anti-ship missiles, most of the losses outside of San Carlos water wouldn't have happened.

There was an SBS op against one of the French supply ships run from Gibraltar, but the plug was pulled because of Kissenger and his 'diplomacy' for Ronnie :cantbeli:

[Flagg]

Although I have to state clearly I certainly wasn't there, nor have I ever met or known any combatants that particpated in the Falklands conflict I disagree on several points:

The Sea Harrier was short on endurance, short on numbers and limited in weapons loadout making it a mediocre CAP platform......I think it was more pilot than plane that allowed it to perform so well.

The Sea Wolf missile was only good for point defense of the ship carrying it..which was only a small # of vessels and the system had a couple of dangerous "brain farts" at critical moments.

The Sea Dart was limited in numbers and seemed limited in effectiveness...I think it shot down a single recon Lear jet and a single Shyhawk..but I'm not positive.

I wouldn't expect a 7.62mm GPMG to be an effective air defense weapon when faced with a Skyhawk traveling at 500mph...I've only "played" with a GPMG once since it's our company level support weapon.....I don't think I could even shoot down a Cessna with it......maybe a blimp though if it's not too windy!

Although I've read the first Stinger kill was made by a Pom somewhere in the AO....any info on that encounter?

From readings it seemed like a "surge" of more than 4-6 Argentine aircraft at once in the AO made life quite difficult for the Royal Navy at times.

I've read Argentine forces only had 3-5 units of the air launched Exocet ......so the French attempted to deliver more units AFTER hostilities broke out? If so, that's a dodgy thing for even the French to do.

In the end, you Poms got an incredibly challenging job accomplished under some harsh conditions and fortunately those UXO's didn't go boom.

Royal....do you know of any publication that covered the Royal Marine contingent stationed in the Falklands when the Argentines invaded?

I'd be keen to read more detail about that.

Also, were there any worthwhile retrospectives on the conflict around the 20th anniversary?

We only had one available to us on the Discover Channel regarding the General Belgrano.

[Royal]

The Sea Harrier was short on endurance, short on numbers and limited in weapons loadout making it a mediocre CAP platform......I think it was more pilot than plane that allowed it to perform so well.

The RN (& RAF) pilots did well with what was available (LtCdr Sharky Ward was the first British 'ace' since WWII). I agree with you on the numbers and endurance, but it's agility was a factor too...

The Sea Wolf missile was only good for point defense of the ship carrying it..which was only a small # of vessels and the system had a couple of dangerous "brain farts" at critical moments.

The Sea Dart was limited in numbers and seemed limited in effectiveness...I think it shot down a single recon Lear jet and a single Shyhawk..but I'm not positive.

I'm no missile expert, but I know both systems had K-Kills

I wouldn't expect a 7.62mm GPMG to be an effective air defense weapon when faced with a Skyhawk traveling at 500mph...I've only "played" with a GPMG once since it's our company level support weapon.....I don't think I could even shoot down a Cessna with it......maybe a blimp though if it's not too windy!

At least one A4 was shot down by GPMG fire from the ships anchored in San Carlos (from memory it was trying to bomb HMS Antelope).

Although I've read the first Stinger kill was made by a Pom somewhere in the AO....any info on that encounter?

I've mentioned it here before. It was an SAS trooper returning from a patrol to San Carlos. Another SNCO had been on a course at Ft Bragg learing to use Stinger when the Argies invaded. He 'borrowed' some tubes, hitched a USAF flight to Ascension and joined the task force there. Sadly he was killed in a helicopter crash after the Pebble Island raid (along with 23 other SAS, SBS, RN & RAF pax). The trooper who got the kill did it with his first round, with no training (he missed with the next two).

I've read Argentine forces only had 3-5 units of the air launched Exocet ......so the French attempted to deliver more units AFTER hostilities broke out? If so, that's a dodgy thing for even the French to do.

They certainly had more than 5 (there were more than 5 ships hit by Exocet), whether they would have let the delivary go ahead is a moot point (personally I think they were given a 'gypsys warning' and told we'd sink it if it set sail, a la Rainbow Warrior).

Royal....do you know of any publication that covered the Royal Marine contingent stationed in the Falklands when the Argentines invaded?

I'd be keen to read more detail about that.

Also, were there any worthwhile retrospectives on the conflict around the 20th anniversary?

NP8902 (who largely became M Coy, 42 Commando, and returned to both South Georgia and the Falklands) are mentioned in most recent books on the Royal Marines.

No there was a deafening silence from both our glorious leadership and the BBC.