Biggest Blunders in Military History - Page 6




 
--
 
March 10th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
here 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...
Completely agree it is a huge "IF" and you can apply an "IF" to almost anything ie what if the counter attack at Arras had suceeded France may have not fallen and the war would have been over by 1941.
March 10th, 2005  
The Other Guy
 
 
At least, the war in europe would have been over. Japan would still invade china, etc.
March 10th, 2005  
Claymore
 
 
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.
--
March 10th, 2005  
The Other Guy
 
 
Is fredricksburg the one where the norther troops surrounded lee, just to stop, regroup, and get desroyed by the Confederates led by "Stonewall" Jackson?
March 10th, 2005  
Claymore
 
 
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/leefoun...ericksburg.htm

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoun...llorsville.htm
March 10th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
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.
March 10th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
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.
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
March 10th, 2005  
redcoat
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
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. .
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.
Admiral Tom Phillips took a risk, as commanders often have to do in war in order to win. But luck wasn't with him.
March 10th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
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.
March 10th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
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.
good points charge...thanks