Military Disaster due to lack of teamwork

F

Fix bayonets

Active member
Has there ever been a military encounter where teamwork has not worked and resulted in the loss of a battle?

I mean teamwork as in:-

No Communication (not due to technology)
No Loyalty, Trust, co-operation
Lack of authority
Lack of devotion to the task
No understanding of task
No organisation

The action does not have to contain all of the above factors!
 
-The Russian series of defeats at the hands of the Germans after Barbarossa, (lack of... well... everything, but particularly skill)
-The defeat of the Kwantung army at the hands of the Russians, (how the tables were turned!)
The defeat of the Italians at the hands of the Ethiopians, (That was a big laugh)
-Battle of 42 Easting, (little or no communications between Iraqi units and no coordination at all)

I'll post others when they come to mind.

I am a bit surprised by Waterloo. I have always understood that it was too close to call until the Prussians showed up for the flank attack about 4 hours late. It seems to me that it was the Allies who had coordination problems. The French tactics were sound for the beginning of the Napoleonic era, but by the end of it, everyone knew what they were going to do.

Dean.
 
phoenix_aim54 said:
Failed landing of Canadian soldiers in Dieppe, North of France
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you there. The Canadians were well prepared, ready, well armed and well supported, but in the end, it did not make a whit of difference. The Germans were dug in, had excellent well prepared defensive positions, and were able to divide the beaches and to keep them divided. In the end, it did not matter if the Canadians were well-coordinated or not, as the Germans never allowed them to move off their beaches. It was a lost cause even before the Canadians even hit the beaches, and it taught the Allies that a port could not be taken by amphibious assault. In the end, this was the lesson of Dieppe, and it may well have ensured that the Allies were successful at Normandy.

Dean.
 
I don't think I woud call it a failure of teamwork, but the United States Navy made significant changes in command and control after their defeat at the Battle of Tassafaronga.
 
Who said Waterloo? I would say Waterloo was a classic example of how allies should co-operate together. Wellington never would have defended the Mont-Saint-Jean ridge without the promise of at least one Prussian corp. All this talk of how Wellington was saved by Blucher is absolute nonsense. Wellington never would have contemplated standing at Mont St Jean without Blucher's promise of support. Wellington's tactics at Waterloo were a classic 'La maneuver sur les derrieres'. Naploleon would have been proud, if he was'nt the loser. :lol:
 
I knew I would think of more.
The battle of Chateauguay and of Crysler's Farm during the war of 1812.
It was supposed to be a pincer movement by the Americans with the objective being Montreal. The US militiamen suddenly remembered that they were only supposed to be called up to defend American territory, not invade other countries. So they fell back quite quickly when they realized that yes indeed, the Canadians did intend to defend their country, even though they outnumbered the defenders by 5 to 1.
The same thing happened at Queenston Heights. Some US militiamen refused to get into the boats for the same reason, even after the battle had begun. The ratio was not quite the same, however. That one was a real battle, but many US reinforcements, who could well have won the battle, refused to get into the boats to cross the Niagara river.
I like this thread. I'm sure more will come to mind.
 
Hey, Gonk, I agree with you. I thought that I saw a mention of Waterloo somewhere above in the thread, but now that I look again, it's gone... coincidence??? I think not. Waterloo was won with some classic manuvers on the Allies part and lost due to a lack of flexibility on Napoleons's part, which always surprised me. But I do not believe that it belongs in this thread.

Dean.
 
Dean said:
-The Russian series of defeats at the hands of the Germans after Barbarossa, (lack of... well... everything, but particularly skill)
Click to expand...

To be fair to the Soviets though every army that had gone up against the Wehrmacht had suffered the same fate, including the French Army and the BEF, considered by many to be the two finest armies in the world at the time. That's not to say that there weren't inadequacies in the Red Army because there most certainly was. But a new style of warfare heavily compounded those inadequacies.
 
I would say Market Garden failed because of bad team work (bad intel played a big part too). In particular between between the American 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions and the tanks of the British 2nd Army.

If anyone remebers Band of Brothers there is a scene that illustrates this. Unfortunatly it was a rather common occurence has neither group had trained with the other until the drop. A rather large failing on the part of SHEAF.
 
mmarsh....Market Garden operation was put together rather quickly for some thing of that size, there were many failings that all helped to bring about a disaster, and the biggest was as this stage of the war was over confidence, then you can throw in poor planning, radios that did not work, refusal to accept the certain intelligence reports. Yet had this operation taken place just a few weeks earlier it could have have been a great success, but what really threw a spanner in the works was that an SS Armoured Division from the Russian front had just moved into the area for a bit of rest and to be reequipped.
 
LeEnfield

I'll agree that poor teamwork wasnt the ONLY reason, your points are valid. But lack of teamwork played a big part too. Basically SHAEF dropped the ball from part A to part Z on Market Garden. Even if the 2nd SS Panzer Corps hadnt been there I am still not sure it would have been a success.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top