godofthunder9010
Active member
Hurried paths of conquest always seem to die out faster. I wonder if Hitler ever thought of that?
Biggest Blunders in Military History
Doppleganger
Active member
Charge_7 said:
Did a quick search and found the following link. I'm not sure about how much of a hold Parkinson's had on him but if it is true it would go some way in explaining why Hitler went so downhill as the war progressed.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_40131.htm
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I dont entire agree, a theory I have had for quite a while is that the Italians did as much to defeat Germany as the allies did.
Lets face it:
- The entire balkans campaign had to be carried out because of Italy's failed attacks on Albania and Greece which dumped British troops in Greece thus making it a priority German intervention. This delayed Barbarosa by at least six weeks (in summer) and depleted the reserves available to the Russian campaign.
- The North African campaign was another Italian fiasco which cost Germany a good 200-300000 troops which if available on the Russian front through 1942-43 may have made a noticable difference especially in the Staligrad area where oddly enough the Russian counter offensive ran right through the middle of an Italian/Spanish division and ended in the destruction of the 6th Army.
Basically the Italian war effort killed more Germans (approx 700000) than it killed Allies.
serbianpower
Active member
MontyB said:
you can not blame only italians for stalingrad. german lines would be run over anyway. it is not italians fault but hitler stupid orders.
on the other hand, german balkan campaign was not caused only by situation in grece. germans had to atack yugoslavia anyway because they refused to join germans.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Thats true however the Greece/Crete section that extended the campaign was purely Italian driven.
No doubt but my point is that bailing the Italians out in Greece and North Africa essentially cost the Germans the 6th Army and the Africa Corps.
The main problem with the theory is that it is pure "what if" work ie If Germany had had 6 extra weeks at the start of Barbarosa and before winter would it have allowed the capture of Moscow, had the Africa Corps been available for service on the eastern front would it have sped up the advance in that 6 weeks to avoid a Stalingrad altogether.
[/quote]
The Other Guy
Spam King
There was tension between Hitler and Stalin to find out who could kill more of their own people.
serbianpower
Active member
[/quote]MontyB said:
there is some logic, but I think there is too much `if`. what if stalin believed to informations he recieved from west about german atack, what if he left his best generals and CO in comand...
Doppleganger
Active member
The Other Guy said:
In that case Stalin easily won!
The Other Guy
Spam King
While we're in word war II, how about the Kasserine Pass, in tunisia?
The Other Guy
Spam King
At least, the war in europe would have been over. Japan would still invade china, etc.
Claymore
Active member
I think that a discussion about military blunders should include the American Civil War battles of Fredericksburg (Burnside), Chancellorsville (Hooker), Chickamauga (Rosecrans), and Cold Harbor (Grant).
Of the four I think that Fredericksburg was the worst followed by Chickamauga, Chancellorsville and then Cold Harbor.
I know that in terms of casualties Cold Harbor was worse, but Grant did not lose command (as the other three all did) and the AOTP stayed in contact with the ANV and continued the attack. Having said that, Grant always said after the war that Cold Harbor was the one attack that he always regretted.
Of the four I think that Fredericksburg was the worst followed by Chickamauga, Chancellorsville and then Cold Harbor.
I know that in terms of casualties Cold Harbor was worse, but Grant did not lose command (as the other three all did) and the AOTP stayed in contact with the ANV and continued the attack. Having said that, Grant always said after the war that Cold Harbor was the one attack that he always regretted.
The Other Guy
Spam King
Is fredricksburg the one where the norther troops surrounded lee, just to stop, regroup, and get desroyed by the Confederates led by "Stonewall" Jackson?
Claymore
Active member
No, I think the battle you are referring to is Chancellorsville, although the Federals did not have Lee surrounded by any means. To the best of my knowledge, the only time Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia were ever surrounded was at Appomattox, when they surrendered.
Here are links to info for both battles:
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/battle-fredericksburg.htm
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/battle-chancellorsville.htm
Here are links to info for both battles:
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/battle-fredericksburg.htm
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/battle-chancellorsville.htm
Charge 7
Master Gunner
The fall of Singapore and the loss of Force Z. I put them together because they are part of the same British debacle.
Even with poor equipment Percevil could've done so much more than he did and Yamashita was almost completely out of ammo and supplies when surrender talks were called for, indeed, at first he thought the British were demanding _his_ surrender.
Admiral Tom Philips clung to the idea that battleships could hold their own against airpower simply because no battleship had yet been sunk while at sea by airplanes. He ignored the lessons of his _own_ navy at Taranto let alone those at Pearl Harbor just days earlier. Historians still quander his behavior in not calling for fighter cover over Kuantan. Only Captain Tennant of the Repulse did so and belatedly as he had assumed that Philips had already done so. RAF Buffaloes arrived only to see a bottom-up battleship disappear beneath the waves. Percevil's errors only added to the agony of the survivors of Force Z as they marched off to Japanese captivity.
Even with poor equipment Percevil could've done so much more than he did and Yamashita was almost completely out of ammo and supplies when surrender talks were called for, indeed, at first he thought the British were demanding _his_ surrender.
Admiral Tom Philips clung to the idea that battleships could hold their own against airpower simply because no battleship had yet been sunk while at sea by airplanes. He ignored the lessons of his _own_ navy at Taranto let alone those at Pearl Harbor just days earlier. Historians still quander his behavior in not calling for fighter cover over Kuantan. Only Captain Tennant of the Repulse did so and belatedly as he had assumed that Philips had already done so. RAF Buffaloes arrived only to see a bottom-up battleship disappear beneath the waves. Percevil's errors only added to the agony of the survivors of Force Z as they marched off to Japanese captivity.
Charge_7 said:
at that stage i don't think the fighters that the british had in the pacific would've been anything other than target practice for the japanese.
zero's Vs buffaloes & gladiators = fish in a barrel.
but the point is taken, lessons weren't learn't because of the stubborn belief that a battleship was in some way impervious to air attack. even the belief that they could be MADE to be effective against aircraft...by that i mean the admiral yamamoto fielded toward the end of the war
redcoat
Active member
Like you said, no battleship had yet been sunk by airpower while at sea. At Taranto and Pearl the ships were moored in harbour, in effect 'sitting ducks'. Britain had already been at war for over two years, and had not suffered a major ship loss to the Luftwaffe, so against the Japanese whose airforce capability the Allies had no knowledge of, but tended to greatly underestimate, the sending of these two ships without aircover was a risk, but in the circumstances it would have seemed a risk worth taking.Charge_7 said:
Admiral Tom Phillips took a risk, as commanders often have to do in war in order to win. But luck wasn't with him.
Charge 7
Master Gunner
Force Z was hit by bombers, not fighters. Even old Buffaloes would've decimated them.
Endless tracts of open ocean. Twist and turn all you want but where are you going to hide? They may as well have been at anchor for all the good being at sea did them. Also, the British kept all their ships larger than a destroyer out of the channel. With the limited range of the Luftwaffe, their capital ships never came up against it.
Endless tracts of open ocean. Twist and turn all you want but where are you going to hide? They may as well have been at anchor for all the good being at sea did them. Also, the British kept all their ships larger than a destroyer out of the channel. With the limited range of the Luftwaffe, their capital ships never came up against it.