Originally Posted by bulldogg

Could you elaborate a bit more? How are you measuring the cost? Not arguing, just curious.

Iraq has the potential to become a regional, generational conflict, all started because of faulty intel.

Originally Posted by Gator

Iraq has the potential to become a regional, generational conflict, all started because of faulty intel.

No, it is worse than that. It was not faulty intel, but rather total misinterpretation of decent intel.

Dean.

(A visit to Fantasyland might be a better description...)

Originally Posted by Dean

Ok, time to have a bit of fun:
Underestimating the enemy: that one has to go to the Italians who underestimated just about everybody, but particularly the Ethiopians. They attacked an army of horse-mounted sword wielding cavalry with a modern (for the time) armoured force, and proceeded to win a war with a long drawn out campaign, when they should have trounced the Ethoipoans in two or three days. For good measure, they were then kicked out of Africa by the Brits, whose favourable kill ratios were the most spectacular of the war.

Unfit Leaders: General Ambrose Burnside.... 'nuff said!

Intelligence blunders: I would change this to "horrid decisions in the face of useful intelligence". The two prizes go to Marshal Montgomery who went ahead with Market-Garden (an airborne assault) in spite of the fact that a German Armoured division was known to be resting a few kilometers from the drop site.
The second goes to Stalin, who did not prepare for Barbarossa in spite of the fact that his intelligence services knew the date, time units commanders, axes of attack, reserves, and everything else. Stalin chose not to believe it, and we all saw the result.
Political influence: Has to go to Stalin for Barbarossa and to Hitler for his attempts to micromanage the war from before Stalingrad right up to the end. He managed to subjugate the German General staff, which was argueably one of the best in the world, and he replaced them with a buch of vapid, useless yes-men.

Dean.

I would say unfit leader award goes to Custer for what happened at the battle of the Little Bighorn.He could have waited for gatling guns I found that out on the History Channel.But I agree with the rest of the awards.

I think one of the worlds biggest and quickest defeats is when a force of nearly 300.000 Italians was defeated by a Commonwealth force of 30.000, there where some 200.000 prisoners taken. The Italians decided to invade Egypt in 1940 when Britain had their backs to the wall. The Italians advanced rapidly for 60 miles then stopped, the Commonwealth force swept around the back of them cutting of their supplies then went in for the kill

One of biggest fags in history: Enver Pasa

Reason: Sarikamis Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sarikamis

I'm not quite sure about the number, but I was told about 90.000 Turkish soldiers died without firing one bullet...they died because of inadequate equipment...they froze to death...

Regards,
Il

Originally Posted by Josh678

I would say unfit leader award goes to Custer for what happened at the battle of the Little Bighorn.He could have waited for gatling guns I found that out on the History Channel.But I agree with the rest of the awards.

I saw this a bit late, but I want to reply to it anyways. Custer was blinded by something else that day, something that most people do not know about. IIRC, he was the youngest Union general officer during the Civil War, and was universally hailed as an excellent combat leader and tactician. However, he was very jealous of the success of one of his contemporaries, Ulysses S. Grant, who became the US president. Custer felt that he was a better officer than Grant, but due to the fact that the war was over, he could not prove it. So he embarked on the Frontier Wars, hoping that a major victory would give him the popularity that he needed to win the Presidency. The results were plain to see, and the 7th cavalry paid the price in full.
OTOH, Burnside was one of those rare officers about which I can find very little good. He did conduct at least one successful campaign against Confederate forces, but he also lost at least 3 other battles. The one good thing about him is that he refused the command of the Army of the Potomac, probably due to the fact that he knew he could not handle the responsibilites of that command. The one place where Burnside comes out on top is that he recognized at least some of his weaknesses, whereas Custer was unaware that he had any.

Dean.

Pennypacker was the youngest Union General.

Custer was 2 or 3 on that list. Being a Brigader under Sheridan he knew Grant and was present at Lee's surrender but was no where in line or near vying for Sam Grants job as CG of the Union Army. And I doubt he had any allusions of attaining that post just three years out of West Point and holding a permenant Army rank of Captain at the time. His Generals Commision was a Volunteer Commission not a regular army commission.

He is recognized as one of the best Union Cavalry Generals of the war. But his trouble with Grant did not have anything to do with Grants success during the Civil War. Custer testified to Congress about misappropriation and other dealings being carried out by members of Grants administration, including the sec of war and Grants brother. Thus incurring the wrath of POTUS and the Sec of War. Some believe Custer did this because he had political aspirations another theory is that he believed that it would topple the Grant administration and he would be promoted back to General Officer (after the civil war he was granted the permenant rank of Lt. Col).
Whatever the reason it didn't work well for him and until just prior to the Big Horn he was on unpaid leave. It took Phil Sheridan's intervention to have him reinstated and allowed to command the 7th.

Agree with USMC

Custer was an inspired leader and expert Cavalryman. His successes in the Civil War have been overshadowed by his disaster at the Little big Horn. If we are to use the same standard, than it would have to say that Robert E. Lee was a bad General because of Gettysburg.

I agree with Dean, my choice would be Ambrose Burnside, a man who personally admitted that he was incapable for the job. He was of course right. I will offer one other saving grace to Ambrose. Burnside was so emotionally distraught by the massacre of Union troops at Fredricksberg after 4 unsuccessful assaults, that we had to be physically restrained from personally leading the next one, an attack that would have certainly cost him his own life.

How many modern Army Commanders have their ever been that have volunteered to personally lead an assault, espicially given the risk? The reason it moves me was that 50 years later French Generals in WWI ordered the brave POILOUS in futile assault after futile assault resulting in a massacre all the while drinking Champagne behind the safety of their own lines and then executing those that dared survive for 'Cowardice'.

i vote on the Trojan Horse.