Biggest Blunders in Military History - Page 12




 
--
 
August 28th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
Admiral King USN In charge of Americas Atlantic Fleet, his refusal to arrange convoys of ships travelling along the East Coast Of America during WW2. Ike said of him that this man almost lost the war single handed, the Germans called it their second happy time when they could pick off ships of all types with out being attacked them selfs
August 28th, 2005  
Papamike
 
Several issues about the Dardenelles campaign.....

Firstly as a strategic endevour I believe it sound. Its objectives were to provide support for Russia (they needed those supplies via a warm water port) and knock out the Ottoman empire from the war, securing the Suez and the "soft underbelly" of the Germans.

The problems operationally SHOULD be directed against Churchill and the British War cabinet for not clearly assigning command (was Hamiltion or "forgot his name... Admiral Re..sumfin-fleet commander guy" in control of the forces) or supplies. The Campaign always lacked adeq ordinance for the any field guns - which although the terrain at ANZAC is bad, at Helles would have been priceless. Also blame can fall on Hamilton who was unstable and should of been relieved of command early on. He also assigned the ****ING BUTCHER Hunter-Weston to command troops at helles who had no quarms "blooding" troops.

The lame ol' aussie excuse of "the poms blew it by landing us on wrong beach" should be tossed too fellas, the lighters did land on right beach...
problem was the most nthly lighter was where it was ment to be but the others bunched to the north... so instead of a 2.5mile front it was just at Anzac and at Nth Beaches. I will admit the idea of running that coaler ashore at Helles ( the River Clyde??) was stupid and costly. 2500 dead.

When ashore, despite ANZAC Mythology the boys didnt act like heros... many didnt get off the beach till mid morning... Ive been to Gallipolli and the terrain is terrible- but some acountability must go onto the troops ashore for not reorganising a decent offensive front. They ran off into the hills to be held up by a Turkish force a fragment of their size. By blame I merely mean the CO in charge really didnt have the proper men for the job. Inexperienced troops did fail to take any objective on the first day.

There are several reports of units from the 5th and 7th (i think) battalions going to ground on 400 plateua due to shrapnelle fire from Gabe Tepe and refusing to move. Hence why the main lines stayed at 400. They could of taken the second ridge properly even if they could not hold the third. Several partys did capture the Third ridge and Baby 700 but had to fall back due to no back up from the second and third waves who landed pretty much unopposed onto the beached but straggled and got lost on Walkers ridge and Shrapnel gully. Had they reinforced the advanced parties they could of held the third and final ridge including the hieghts...


meaning that the turkish divies would have withdrawn to Ecebate and possibly the forts- the final objectives anyway.

Another **** up was the withdrawal of naval firepower from the pennisular due to sub activity... therefore no guns supporting attacks.


Finally the landings at Suvla and the "demonstations" at Anzac ie theNek and Lone Pine, Chunak etc.

Anyone who has not read up on the Dardenelles Campaign it is basically an account of how to run a war as badly and as costly as possible while still telling the bosses back in England that alls well...



That aside why has no one mentioned Bullecorte (spel??) 1917. Massive offensive on Western Front WITHOUT ANY PRELIM ARTY!!!!!!! against Hindenburg line... Utter failure....

or Champaign for Frenchies( think Pertain CO)

or Berasheeba for Turks... Captured by 10000 Brits and Aussies dying of Thirst in the desert.

I could go on but I dont like to rant for toooooo long..

soz

August 28th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papamike
That aside why has no one mentioned Bullecorte (spel??) 1917. Massive offensive on Western Front WITHOUT ANY PRELIM ARTY!!!!!!! against Hindenburg line... Utter failure....
Ha! Like that one. Thanks!
--
August 31st, 2005  
hammerlock848
 
"My choice the failure of the French to extend the Maginot line to the Ardennes in 1940. That bit of brilliance cost them the war even before the battle started."

I would have to disagree, the Battle of France was decided by the maginot line. It was decided on the battle field, and by a series of events that could have been changed at anytime. It was misstakes made by the French and the British that ended in France's defeat.

As for the maginot line there are a lot of myths that surround, it was finshed by 1935, and didn't rob the French of money to build tanks or planes. And French had more of both in 1940 than Germany. In fact fact 1935 the Germans started building their own line of defence.
September 8th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
Phoenix.....The Charge Of Light Brigade, well funny things happen during these times, okay the charge was a failure, but while this going on another attack went in else were which was a great success and helped to bring the closure of this campaign. If it had not been for a certain poem would we ever remembered tis charge.