The Worst Military Decisions in History

[pmacc]

WW1
Gallipoli was a major blunder. The British generals pretty much sent those men straight into a slaughter house.

WW2
Nazi Germany's Operation Barbarossa was a major stuff up. Hitler had enough on his plate, he should of kept with the non aggression pact, finished off the UK and Africa and then focused on the US with Japan. Soviets should have been the last thing he dealt with.

[MITCHAY]

I'm glad Hitler didn't succeed and also the Soviets. My grandparents were war refugees from Hungary and barely made it into Austria and then onto Australia.

By far and large it seems the Iraq campaign was the worst in modern times. And it seems likely that we may end up there again, though no commitment has been made but only so much can be achieved by airstrikes.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by superyob

I think you are getting your political ideology mixed up with military decisions...

You think?

[Uncle_Ken]

I am assuming that we are only talking about poor military decisions and not any form of ideology (for me that would be a separate discussion).
Looking at Chinese history lots of turns and twists there, I also think Custer's dislike of Gatling guns was a poor decision, Little big horn with Gatling guns would have been different.
UK
Just my thoughts

[superyob]

Originally Posted by Uncle_Ken

I am assuming that we are only talking about poor military decisions and not any form of ideology (for me that would be a separate discussion). Looking at Chinese history lots of turns and twists there, I also think Custer's dislike of Gatling guns was a poor decision, Little big horn with Gatling guns would have been different.
UK
Just my thoughts

That is correct, but at least one on this forum cannot distinguish between the two and must resort to insults to cover their own inadequacies...

The Gatling gun would have been a major game changer. One has to wonder why Custer saw fit not to use them...

[CoupeKing]

Originally Posted by superyob

The Gatling gun would have been a major game changer. One has to wonder why Custer saw fit not to use them...

I wondered that too. Could be that he wanted to conserve ammunition or that he preferred marksmen, or just a logistical problem. Hitler had a similar belief. He wanted everyone, especially on the Eastern Front, to run around with a K98. In fact the STG44 (AK-47) was basically designed without him even knowing. Only until he was showed its effectiveness did he give the order to produce it in limited numbers. Rifles at Stalingrad, especially in the buildings were all but useless. You mite aswell run into a room with a cricket bat. But yeah, protecting a Fort or woteva it was, seems strange he wouldn't use Gatlings.

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by superyob

I think you are getting your political ideology mixed up with military decisions...

I've been watching this thread, wondering where it will end up and I can see the above post supports my view for what is acceptable and what is not.

If the posts relate to failed military plans (i.e. the iniital expected result was not achieved), all well and good.

If it becomes a discussion about ideology, that will close it.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by CoupeKing

I wondered that too. Could be that he wanted to conserve ammunition or that he preferred marksmen, or just a logistical problem. Hitler had a similar belief. He wanted everyone, especially on the Eastern Front, to run around with a K98. In fact the STG44 (AK-47) was basically designed without him even knowing. Only until he was showed its effectiveness did he give the order to produce it in limited numbers. Rifles at Stalingrad, especially in the buildings were all but useless. You mite aswell run into a room with a cricket bat. But yeah, protecting a Fort or woteva it was, seems strange he wouldn't use Gatlings.

Were not bows and arrows seen as cowards weapons in certain cultures? Perhaps Custer thought they were unmanly as all he needed to teach those 'pesky' Indians a stern lesson was a sabre and a good horse.

Aside from the K98 Mauser, which was a fine rifle, the Germans had Schmeisser MP 40s but I am not sure how wide spread their use was...

[CoupeKing]

Originally Posted by superyob

Aside from the K98 Mauser, which was a fine rifle, the Germans had Schmeisser MP 40s but I am not sure how wide spread their use was...

Yeah the MP40 was widespread, and its variants. From memory the STG44 was first used at Kursk. So post-Stalingrad, and up until then, the preferred choice of small-arm was the MP40 or captured Soviet sub-machine gun's. They would probably use anything that they could get their hands on at that stage of the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rms_of_Germany

[ford man xf]

It wasn't weaponary that cost Germany the USSR, more so the logistical nightmare of supply in such a terrible winter.

[MR REKLAW]

2 x Atomic weapons on Japanese civilians.Yes It brought about an end to WW2,but at what cost to our planet and everyone's children's future??

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by REKLAW

2 x Atomic weapons on Japanese civilians.Yes It brought about an end to WW2,but at what cost to our planet and everyone's children's future??

It ended the war at a great cost...but imagine the human cost of an invasion of Japan and it's many well defended islands by people who would fight to the death to protect the emperor....the lesser of two evils.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by REKLAW

2 x Atomic weapons on Japanese civilians.Yes It brought about an end to WW2,but at what cost to our planet and everyone's children's future??

This is surely a monstrous military decision that I would not like to have on my conscience but the alternative was horrendous as well. Either way it was a lose, lose situation...

[CoupeKing]

More people died from conventional bombings at Tokyo, Dresden and Cologne than both the A-bombs combined, that's just 3 major cities. Dozens were carpet bombed.

[ford man xf]

Most deaths in Dresden were from incendiary devices and many question why there was a need to bomb Dresden that late in the war.

[Bill M]

Barbarossa would have to be one of the worst given the impact on Europe for 50 years after it started.
There are numerous reasons why the Germans could never beat the Soviets, one was Hitler himself, a Corporal will never make a general and he fired the competent ones and appointed yes men in their place.

The other factor was manpower, the Soviet army was replaced at least three times it's 1941 strength, the Germans could not win the war of attrition they found themselves caught up in.

The Russians had better tanks (T-34 & KV series) that were able to cope with the harsh conditions and the their security services enabled them to keep far ahead of any German incursions behind the front lines.

As an example read this brief summary of Operation Scherhorn/Operation Berezino, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Scherhorn.

There were many significant studies performed by the Allies postwar on exactly why the Germans failed so there is plenty of excellent sourced material to peruse.
Bill.

[Iggle Piggle]

Don't know enough about Barbarossa to make an educated comment (though do know a couple of good bars in the Barossa), so will ignorantly ask what would have happened if Germany and Japan had managed to defeat the allies?

Would the fighting have stopped, or would Hitler's thoughts about supposed "lesser races" seen Germany then fight the Japs?

Not sure of the accuracy of this, but I once read that WW1 was the last war in which military casualties outnumbered civilian casualties, and that in each subsequent war more civilians were killed than soldiers. Sad if that is true.

[superyob]

Not sure if Hitler was remotely interested in Japanese territory. He only sent forces to Greece and North Africa to fulfill the obligations of his alliance with Mussolini...

[Struggo]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Hitlers idea to attack the Russians and not invade England was because he considered the Russians were historically the enemy of Germany and not the English.

Spot on, Russia were a bigger threat with the ever growing Boshevik threat to Germany/Europe at the time.

[Struggo]

Adding to the thread, I believe the following were poor decisions,

WWI - Gallipoli campaign & The Battle of the Somme

WWII - Bombing of Pearl Harbour

1588 - The Defeat of the Spanish Armada by the British

[robertjp]

What about Napoleon attacking Russia as well, have to be a one of the worst defeats ever. Hitler didn't look at history did he.

[TRAU BLAU]

Hitler should have allowed a full retreat from Stalingrad.Or Paulus should have just made a break for it.As for military blunders,the invasion of Vietnam would have to be up there.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by TRAU BLAU

Hitler should have allowed a full retreat from Stalingrad.Or Paulus should have just made a break for it.As for military blunders,the invasion of Vietnam would have to be up there.

North Vietnam Invading South Vietnam ?

That went quite well for them in the end.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Bill M

Barbarossa would have to be one of the worst given the impact on Europe for 50 years after it started.
There are numerous reasons why the Germans could never beat the Soviets, one was Hitler himself, a Corporal will never make a general and he fired the competent ones and appointed yes men in their place.

The other factor was manpower, the Soviet army was replaced at least three times it's 1941 strength, the Germans could not win the war of attrition they found themselves caught up in.

The Russians had better tanks (T-34 & KV series) that were able to cope with the harsh conditions and the their security services enabled them to keep far ahead of any German incursions behind the front lines.

As an example read this brief summary of Operation Scherhorn/Operation Berezino, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Scherhorn.

There were many significant studies performed by the Allies postwar on exactly why the Germans failed so there is plenty of excellent sourced material to peruse.
Bill.

There's a very interesting study done by the CIA in the 1960's (in the public domain) about the logistical resources needed to feed the Wehrmacht on the eastern front, and how the wheels started to fall off early in the piece...

[CoupeKing]

When the Germans first invaded the Soviet Union, for the most part they were considered liberators, especially from anyone that had witnessed half their family die on a collective farm in the Ukraine. But Hitler would have none of this, so by the end of the war he had militias and partisans with a million plus fighting strength trying to dismantle anything they could behind the lines. This drew huge amounts of resources from the front line (look up pripet marshes, that's were most of the resistance were based)

Barley any sealed roads and the entire railway system ran on a different gage. Getting spare parts and replacements (they had something like 8 different types of motorbikes or variant's) was a logistical nightmare.

Only a few months into the campaign the German's captured about a million Russian soldiers, they didn't know what to do with them, they could barely feed themselves let alone all these extra mouths. Most died and some were transported to parts in Europe to work in factories if they were lucky. And if they spoke German they would sometimes receive ration-cards.

In Stalingrad, as the grind came to an end and the German Armour went into hull-down positions over the winter, the crew would pack the inside of tanks with straw for warmth. This attracted rodents, and once they went to start their tanks, nothing happened, all the electrical wiring had been eaten,lol. And mechanics, especially for the Luftwaffe, couldn't service the engines properly because if they didn't wear gloves their skin would stick to any metal surface they touched. General Winter strikes again.

[Moby Vic]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

Most deaths in Dresden were from incendiary devices and many question why there was a need to bomb Dresden that late in the war.

Revenge for the bombing of Coventry. It was a long war and years of fighting desensitize anyone. If the Axis hadn't started the war in the first place, their member nations wouldn't have been bombed into submission.

[Moby Vic]

Originally Posted by Bill M

Barbarossa would have to be one of the worst given the impact on Europe for 50 years after it started.
There are numerous reasons why the Germans could never beat the Soviets, one was Hitler himself, a Corporal will never make a general and he fired the competent ones and appointed yes men in their place.

The Nazi regime was doomed to failure. It was intentionally set up to feed the paranoia of its members (to get them to report on each other) with redundant organizations (Wehrmacht, Wehrmacht SS, SS, Gestapo) that were all stovepiped to the megalomaniac at the top who fired anyone who disagreed with him. An empire can't be sustained through the will of one person.

And the Germans already knew from experience that fighting a war on two fronts was not sustainable.

[xrystl]

The defence and fall of Malaya and Singapore goes down as some major stupidity on the part of the allies (British led) , the Japanese just outsmarted them at every move , even when the Japanese had stormed halfway down the Malay Peninsula the Brits were still expecting a seaborne attack against Singapore even though there were no Japanese fleet anywhere near the area and all there shore emplacements were pointing to seaward , the Japanese just marched across the Causeway and claimed Singapore , the Causeway was the lifeblood of Singapore and the Japanese controlled it so Singapore was theirs for the taking ,
The British had a scapegoat in Percival , and Percival was only following orders . Just another great British blunder as Singapore was their Jewel in the crown in South East Asia .

[Focused]

Originally Posted by REKLAW

2 x Atomic weapons on Japanese civilians.Yes It brought about an end to WW2,but at what cost to our planet and everyone's children's future??

I respectfully disagree and I don't understand the reference to our children's future comment (it was not he first atomic explosion - only the first done in anger).
I was actually in Hiroshima last month and found the museum and peace park absolutely fascinating. There's no doubt that the two bombs were terrible, but IMO they were certainly a greater of two evils. If they weren't used, the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered thus resulting in the necessity of a ground invasion. This would have, in no doubt, resulted in far more deaths both on the side of the Allies (remember, we didn't start this war) and the Japanese. And because of the incredibly nationalistic tendency of the Japanese (soldiers and civilians), they wouldn't have surrendered so you'd have seen armed Japanese kids taking on American marines (and inevitably killed). Japanese women and children would be expected to fight for their emperor, or die. It's a very different worldview to us Europeans (US and AUS included).

So in summary, there are two paths history would have taken:
1) Atomic bomb, Japanese civilian deaths, Japanese surrender.
2) No bomb, Allied invasion, Allied deaths, Japanese soldiers dead, Japanese civilians dead (probably more), then Japan would have surrendered.

Nuclear weapons suck, but in this case, they were used properly and saved millions of lives.

[Moby Vic]

And not a single nuclear weapon has been used in anger since 1945.