Military Blunders (mistakes)

[jjrox32]

 

When Persia attacked Greece. Apparently the Persian's had a untrained troops, because in almost every battle the Greek's won or that was a tactical defeat (Battle of Thermopylae), the Greek's were massively outnumbered (Battle of Plataea, Battle of Salamis). Of course the Greek's had thousands Spartan's though Razz

 

 

 

The Greek's won that war somehow, and when the weakened Persian's retreated, they were eventually conquered by the Romans. If the Persian's didn't lose that war, they'd probably rule most of the world right now.

 

Persian and Greek style of fighting was completely different. The Persians relied on Cavalry, archers, and lightly armored quick strike infantry. On an open battlefield where they could maneuver they were deadly. Their weaknesses were if their leader fled, they would all flee(ala. Alexander's victory), and if they went head to head against heavy melee troops without the ability to maneuver they were at a disadvantage.

 

 

 

The Greeks favored heavy infantry in closed fighting formations. In a straight up battle they were deadly. Their weakness was being flanked because their formations didn't adapt well to changing directions.

 

 

 

 

 

Two factors played a huge role in the Persian defeats in Greece. First is a tactical factor is that the two main battles fought on land against the Greeks involved terrain where maneuvering was difficult and they were forced to go head to head with tough heavily armored Greek Hoplites. The second weakness was a strategic weakness involving supplies. When the Persians invaded Greece with their massive armies the only sensible way to supply their army was by sea. If their navy lost their army automatically had to retreat because they would have no supplies without the navy.

 

 

 

At Battle of Marathon where they were first defeated the Greeks were able to attack them near the coast before they could fully deploy in marshy ground that messed up the deployment of their cavalry. This enabled the Greeks to maximize their strengths while minimizing the Persian strengths.

 

 

 

After Thermopylae in the second great invasion Athens won a massive naval victory over the Persian navy that severely weakened their war effort and was the main cause of their eventual defeat.

 

 

 

Good points. But I don't think that the Persian's should have lost the Battle of Salamis. They outnumbered the Greek's 3 to 1 in terms of total ships. I think that if the Persian's strategy was a bit better, they would have won more battles. For example, when Xerxes deployed the first 10,000 troops at Thermopylae, they were lightly armoured and armed with swords and short spears. Obviously that won't get you far against a Greek phalanx made entirely of long spears and heavily armoured hoplites.

[Zonorhc]

Good points. But I don't think that the Persian's should have lost the Battle of Salamis. They outnumbered the Greek's 3 to 1 in terms of total ships.

 

That was precisely why they lost the battle of Salamis. Even after they sent their Egyptian squadron to the west to cut off the Hellenic escape, they still had far too many ships to fight in the narrow waters. Same deal as on land. Smaller ships get packed in, foul up each others' oars as they try to back away from the heavier Greek (mainly Athenian and Aeginetan) triremes that were chewing them to pieces (Herodotus viii.84-94). In an open engagement, such as at Artemisium, the Greeks were at a significant disadvantage due to their heavier ships, barring freak storms.

 

(Herodotus viii.84-94)

 

 

 

I think that if the Persian's strategy was a bit better, they would have won more battles. For example, when Xerxes deployed the first 10,000 troops at Thermopylae, they were lightly armoured and armed with swords and short spears. Obviously that won't get you far against a Greek phalanx made entirely of long spears and heavily armoured hoplites.

 

To be fair to Xerxes, those few thousand men he wasted on the Phocian wall did wear down the Greeks somewhat. Heavy infantry were not invincible. At any rate, Thermopylae was not the critical engagement at that point, since Artemisium had to be taken in order to keep the army supplied. If nothing else, throwing away all those lives was a sort of insurance against Artemisium failing: if the Greeks had held there, Xerxes would have counted those extra thousands of men as a liability. The Greeks, however, had to hold Thermopylae and Artemisium at all costs, since if one was lost, so was the other. Xerxes only had the problem of supply. If he lost Artemisium, he only had to throw away a few thousand more men to make up for the supply deficiency and establish a stronger foothold on Macedonia that the Hellenic league wouldn't have been able to dislodge him from in the first place.

[assassin_696]

Germany consistently trying to fight a war on more fronts than it could (WWI and WWII).

[Nero]

 

in the name of the emperor, they defended till the last man. surrendering is prohibited

 

 

 

I'll ask again. How is that a military blunder? :|

 

 

 

 

We ask ourselves, could they have defended better without doing these sucidial tactics?

 

 

 

No. They didn't have high-tech targeting systems back then so hitting a ship with a bomb relied a helluva lot on either luck or mass bombing.

 

The Japanese couldn't rely on luck

 

And they had lost too many planes to do mass bombing runs on ship formations.

 

 

 

Only 8.5% of the Kamikazes might have hit a ship, but I guarantee that % would have been a lot lower if they had stuck to "traditional" methods of warfare...

[tomdavies90]

Vietnam, ha they are a country of pyjama wearing loons who eat rice and noodles....yeah but they're gonna kick your [wagon]

[One Too Far]

i think The uk and us at the bridge at ahrnem in wwII, thougt they could take the germans there easy, they thougt wrong =p, almost wiped out the uk and us soldiers that were in the battle i think.

[yomom1919]

I'm not going to list them, but count all the mistakes made by the first Union commanders of the Civil War... The war would have been over in half the time.

[RebelAssassin]

during world war 2, the germans launched a attack on malta (i think) using paratroops which ended in disaster for them, after that the germans didnt use paratroops for the remainder on the war.

[malo2]

Japan

 

- Pearl Harbour (basially harmless attack, that brought the worlds superpower into the conflict)

 

Do you really thing japan did that without expecting a war? This was their way of starting it, and whats more effective than destroying the enemies best battle ships and carriers before the war even starts?

 

 

 

-Kamikazes and Worshiping the Emperor (totally sucidial attacks that could've been avoided and retreat to regroup and counterattack the Chinese and Americans)

 

The kamikazes were actually quite effective, correct me if I'm wrong :-k

 

 

 

Here we go.

 

There is a good chance that America wont join WW2, they were isolantionists. just like in WW1. (America was witnessing the Europeans and Asians getting annihlated by the Axis, yet they just sent war goods without declearing war)

 

The attack on Pearl Harbour only sunk 14 warships and about 4000 casualties (very minimal compared to how the Europeans and Asians are getting slaughtered)

 

Its obvious that the Attack could be avoided, since America probably wont distrub Japan. This is because when Japan invaded Philipines, America didnt even declare war.

point?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to a U.S. Air Force source:

 

 

 

Approximately 2,800 Kamikaze attackers sunk 34 Navy ships, damaged 368 others, killed 4,900 sailors, and wounded over 4,800. 14 percent of Kamikazes survived to score a hit on a ship; nearly 8.5 percent of all ships hit by Kamikazes sank.

 

 

 

 

 

tiny percentage of hit rate, while the planes and pilots were in desparate need. While the Americans' ships were flocking the Pacific.

 

We ask ourselves, could they have defended better without doing these sucidial tactics?

 

of/c i dont want them to do better, because they slaughtered my people, the Chinese.

How in the world is that small? Those are some insane casualties from just 2800 kamikazes. Those numbers show that every kamikaze killed almost two enemy soldiers! Plus sinking of 34 ships and damaging 368 others? Those kamikazes were a much bigger pain in the [wagon] for the Americans than I thought, thank you very much for proving my point.

[crimsonking]

Napoleon Bonaparte's march into Russia during the Russian winter.

[M_D_K_48117]

A Blunder is a spectacularly bad decision or action.

 

These Blunders lead the the annihlation of their own armies

 

 

 

What do u think are some most unforgettable military blunders in human existance?

 

 

 

 

 

Well, the most infamous ones happened during WW2:

 

 

 

Japan

 

- Pearl Harbour (basially harmless attack, that brought the worlds superpower into the conflict)

 

 

 

-Kamikazes and Worshiping the Emperor (totally sucidial attacks that could've been avoided and retreat to regroup and counterattack the Chinese and Americans)

 

 

Germany

 

 

 

- Didnt finish Britain before turing to Russia *it can be debated that both allied countries were uncounquerable by the Nazis*

 

(Russia is bloody cold, supply lines were streching like a rubber band, treated the Russians brutally which lead to the Soviet's human sacrifice that was unheard of in the Western world and Russia's manpower out-dueled the German armed forces.)

 

 

 

-Hitler self proclaimed Field Marshal (Hitler had no experience commanding, he was only a foot soldier in WW1. His relunctance to allow his troops to fall back lead to his whole armies being captured by the Russians

 

 

Both Germany and Japan and even Italy

 

-attacking and conquered land too big to handle, there must be troops guarding these areas. Later in 1944 and 45, the Axis had to defend multiple fronts which it was unable to do successfully.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tojo (Jap leader) and Hitler almost captured half of Humanity, and if there will only be Austalia, USA, Canada and South America left, will they hold against the ruthless Axis?

 

 

 

 

 

The russians fought hard cause if they didn't they would be killed by (a) the germans or (B) their own commanders.

[Nero]

during world war 2, the germans launched a attack on malta (i think) using paratroops which ended in disaster for them, after that the germans didnt use paratroops for the remainder on the war.

 

 

 

The Germans actually surprised the Allied forces occupying Malta and captured the island.

 

Paratroopers were also used again in 1944 during the Battle of the Bulge.

[Striker6]

Salamis, a blunder definitely. I think it was the Corinithians that in the run up to the Peloponnesian War claimed that it was through Persia's own fault that they lost the Persian Wars over anything else (incidently I've just been looking for the quote in my Thucydides but was unable to find it).

 

 

 

Anyway Salamis paved the way to the Athenian Empire if you think about it, the great naval victory gave Athens the prowess and pride in naval supremacy that it was to later govern its Empire on. If it hadn't been for the navy it wouldn't have been able to police the Hellespont and corn supplies as well as exacting the "contribution" from its allies.

 

 

 

But as we are in the area of 5th century Greece I might aswell say the Sicily Invasion 415. Not sure how many of you have studied it but it brought about in my opinion ( as its debateable)the pride before the fall as Greek hubris was punished. With such a lack of man power, ships, and well pride...coupled with Persian money being pumped into the Spartans of course Athens begain the downfall of its Empire as I (think) something like 40,000 Athenians were captured and killed. As after that Athens struggled on for a while but with allies revolting left, right and centre they were steadily crumbling.

 

 

 

Anyway I have an exam on this period Monday after next so hopefully I'll remember enough of this :ohnoes:

[Ambassadar]

Steven Pressfield has a book that covers the Sicily campaign that I read a while back which focuses on and follows the life of Alcibiades. It wasn't nearly as good as Gates of Fire about the Battle of Thermopylae that he also wrote.

 

 

 

I would much rather have see a movie about Gates of Fire than 300.

[lymnli]

np man.

 

these are personal opinions malo2.... take life ez no1 is gonna ever win, u can ask other people "was pearl harbour a mistake"

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_in ... t_blunders

 

 

 

http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780 ... index.aspx

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_disasters

 

 

 

http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/kamikaz ... dex.htm#10

 

 

 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/ ... -8012.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gg view these... its still ur opinion cant change that... i dont care/mind

[Striker6]

Steven Pressfield has a book that covers the Sicily campaign that I read a while back which focuses on and follows the life of Alcibiades. It wasn't nearly as good as Gates of Fire about the Battle of Thermopylae that he also wrote.

 

 

 

I would much rather have see a movie about Gates of Fire than 300.

 

 

 

Haha Alcibiades legend, man he was a character from what I've read certainly has lead an interesting life. Jumped ship from Athens, slept with the Spartan queen :lol: or something? Then ran over to the Persians right?

 

 

 

Yeah I was meaning to get one of Pressfield's books actually...

[Ambassadar]

He was definitely an interesting person...

 

 

 

This gives a basic rundown on his life.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcibiades

[baron8000]

Russo-japanese war 1905 - The Tsar at the time called the Japanese "little yellow monkeys" then sailed his entire navy half way round the world before being roundly trounced with his entire navy sunk.

 

 

 

And people wonder why the serfs hated him :P