Military Blunders

[EScurlock]

Military Blunders:

While we’re waiting I thought it would be interesting to discus some of the military blunders of WWII.

1st: some German blunders directly attributable to Hitler

1) Failure to take advantage of the entrapment of British and French troops at Dunkirk.

2) Failure to recognize British resolve and plan for the possibility of having to invade England.

3) Attacking Russia without having secured a peace with Britain. Attacking Russia at all for that matter.

4) Failing to secure oil in the Middle East before attacking Russia.

5) Campaigning in North Africa without bothering to secure the vital island of Malta.

6) Ordering the Army to attack south toward the Caucuses Oil Fields while Moscow was still in reach. Result: neither the oil fields or Moscow were taken.

7) The brutalization of the Slavic people in Russia, causing resistance from people who at first thought of the Germans as liberators. (Also grossly immoral but were looking at this from a strategic point of view)

8) Hitler’s no retreat orders, tremendously hindering the German Army’s ability to fight a mobile defense. We can group Stalingrad, Leningrad, the destruction of Army Group Center, the mauling of German defenders in Normandy by the Allied Navy here.

9) Kursk. Speaks for itself

10) Hitler’s personal interference in Normandy, resulting in the German counter attack in being delayed.

11) The December offensive (Battle of the Bulge)

That’s enough for me, anyone have any thoughts on blunders on either side?

------------------

He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins.

[Major Tom]

American, French and British Blunders

1) Not intervening when the Rhineland was occupied (Germany only had 6 Divisions)

2) Not going to war over Czechoslovakia (The Czech's had a strong enough army to probably defeat the Germans on their own)

3) Not to attack the Germans in September 1939 in force while they were occupied with Poland.

4) Not to come up with a formal agreement with Russia before the Germans did (They were negotiating at the same time as the Nazi-Soviet pack, but, didn't put too much effort in negotiations)

5) Having a horrible invasion plan of Norway. (only used the British 49th Division, and a Guards Brigade and 2 French divisions, lack of air support and coordination with Norwegian forces)

6) Not either securing a stable plan with the Dutch and Belgian, or, deciding to fight purely on French soil in prepared positions in early 1940.

7) Inability to organize a counteroffensive even though there were plans and the forces availible after May 1940.

8) Sending 2 Crack divisions and a much needed armoured Brigade to Greece while weakening North Africa, resulting in Rommel's success (He fought newly arrived and ill equipped forces in 1941) and losing Crete (Placing these two divisions plus an Armoured Brigade on the island would have made it virtually invincible).

9) Churchill's continual sacking of Commanders in North Africa. Many commanders who were sacked managed to learn and defeat Rommel's tactics, but, were fired before they could implement them.

10) Dieppe. The main fault here was lack of accurate information about the beach. It had a rocky beach instead of a sandy one whick stopped even Churchill tanks dead in their tracks, and sea walls that were 7 feet high vs. the supposed 3 feet.

11) Anzio, not advancing on Rome when it was open.

12) Bombing the railroad system in France too well. (The allies could not utilize this much needed form of supply transport after the invasion)

13) Advancing on a broad front. With the horrible supply situation and the relative weakness of the German army after Normandy Eisenhower was wrong in making the army move along the entire front.

14) Not clearing the Schelt when there were virtually no German troops in 1944. (Delayed the opening of Antwerp and would have solved the supply crisis)

15) Not learning from May 1940 and keeping the Ardennes area lightly held by American troops in 1944.

16) Terror bombing. Was not effective, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and tens of thousands of Allied airmen.

17) Sending Russia too many AFV's and fighter aircraft. These were not used very much by the Red Army or Red Airforce and could have been put to much better use on other allied fronts.

Notice that some things like Kassarine Pass, Market Garden, and even the raid at Dieppe were not seen as incompetence. These were military failures. Sometimes good plans or engagements succeed or fail, it does not reflect directly on the plan itself. There was no way I could have mentioned all of the Allied blunders, let alone I didn't include the Russians or the Pacific Front.

[killmore]

I somewhat/partially disagree about nr 17. Most of the were severely outdated (like aircobra) they would be useless after 1942.

[Fionn]

Umm, Hitler did have a plan to invade England. It wasn't realistic BUT you can hardly blame Hitler for not creating an amphibious strike force 3 years before he figured he'd have to go to war.

9. As for Kursk.. I'd say the blunder was that Hitler delayed it to allow the Panther to be committed. If it had gone ahead when and as initially planned it might have worked. In fact it probably would have worked.

Russian Blunders.

1. Counter-attack the Germans on the first day of their invasion.

2. Create such inter-army rivalry during the drive on Berlin that the Marshalls actually ended up having Red Army unit fight Red Army unit in the drive to Berlin in a few cases. BAD IDEA.

[Major Tom]

In reply to #17,

Many Tanks and Aircraft, such as Sherman, Valentine, P-39, Hurricane, etc. would have been put to much better use either in North Africa or over in the Pacific. These weapons might be obsolete vs. the professional German army, but, the Japanese were way behind in quality of weaponry. The Hurricane could stand up on its own against most early war Japanese fighters (In early 1942 50 of them were sent to Malaya and temporarily regained air superiority). The Allies were fighting with Buffalo's, P-35's and P-40's in the Pacific. The P-39 Aircobra was actually used a lot in the Pacific in a ground support role. The P-40 was used in the Pacific and North Africa to good effect. The Matilda II was used in the Pacific long after it was withdrawn from the West.

Send 200 Hurricanes to Russia, and their effect won't be felt. Send 200 to Malaya, and Singapore probably would not have fallen. Same goes for AFV's. An armoured brigade or division of obsolete tanks in Burma, Malaya, or the Dutch East Indies could have turned the tide of war by early 1942. The main thing that Russia needed were transport trucks in order to modernize and speed up their supply system.

The Allies in some theatres begged for such equipment that they were giving Russia, who only begged for a Second Front to be opened up in the West.

As for Kursk, I would have rather said that keeping the armour in some sort of reserve to cut off and destroy a Russian attacking pincer would have been a better strategy. However, whoever attacks first has the initiative.

Hitler's stand or die policies did have some merit. In 1941 if the German army would have retreated as it's Generals had desired it would most probably been caught and destroyed while on the move. Staying where they were was probably the best choice that they had. Hitler was lucky on this one.

An invasion of England would probably have ended up to be like a Dieppe, Gallipoli, or Allied version of Norway, if it was lucky...

[Scott]

I think Hitler's biggest mistakes:

1) Not understanding global warfare. If Germany had secured North Africa, Malta and the Middle East, it would have made it far easier to starve Britian into submission.

2) Impatience. If he hadn't attacked the Soviet Union so quickly, but instead taken North Africa and the Middle East and consolidated his gains in Europe for a year or two, it would have been much more difficult to defeat Germany, or to even invade "Fortress Europe".

------------------

You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding...

[civdiv]

Reading number 11 above (Anzio) brought a little funny to mind (Well I think it was funny.). I was looking through the history section at Borders and saw a book called (I think); 'The 45th Infantry Division: The Rock of Anzio'. I thought to myself "You were supposed to be 'The Wildcat of Anzio' or 'The Blazing 45th' or 'The Irresistable Force of Anzio', not the rock, that was the whole problem."

[civdiv]

The US tank boards decision that a tank armed with a 57mm main gun would be sufficient for Overlord. After much disagreement the Army managed to get the 75mm approved but the earlier disagreement caused great difficult is later upgunning. The Pershing could have been available a year earlier, but many, including Patton, argued that it's introduction would hinding the logistics effort, plus, they said the Sherman was good enough.

Plus, any tank designed by the British. While the Sherman wasn't great, it was superior to anything the Brits came up with (Due in part to the restriction on the width of the tanks, due to the relatively narrow width of their railroads.).

[EScurlock]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Umm, Hitler did have a plan to invade England. It wasn't realistic BUT you can hardly blame Hitler for not creating an amphibious strike force 3 years before he figured he'd have to go to war.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I've been wrong plenty of times), but It's my understnding that Hitler fully expected Britain to seek peace after the fall of France, and the plan for the invasion of England didn't get started 'till after efforts on the part of German diplomates failed to budge the British an inch toward the peace table. Hitler's failure to forsee that likelyhood was a key contributing factor in Germany's total inability to take the war across the Channel. Granted, the fall of France was suprizingly fast, but if you intend to make war with an Island nation you should consider how to make war on it's own soil.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Fionn:

9. As for Kursk.. I'd say the blunder was that Hitler delayed it to allow the Panther to be committed. If it had gone ahead when and as initially planned it might have worked. In fact it probably would have worked.

We're in complete agreement here. If the attack was to take place as originally proposed, (my reference material went back to the library so I can't give exact dates or names but it was late spring I think)It stood a good chance of success; however the initiative to take advantage of the situation which the field generals saw was taken away from them. The idea languished in high command, including Hitler's desk well beyond the point where it made any since at all. Not to mention the intellegence leaks that gave the Russians the heads up required to make the Kursk salient a veritable fortress.

------------------

He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins.

[Guest JonS]

Ohhh, CivDiv - are you asking for nationalist inspired flames?

I'll limit myself to asking whether there were any British designed tanks with the nickname "Ronson" or "Tommy Cooker"?

Changing tack, and partially agreeing with your point: "Quantity has a quality all its own"

Regards

Jon

------------------

Ubique

[RolandFreisler]

unfortunately Hitler's mad decisions such as attacking Russia were not military blunders but an ideological need. he stated quite clearly in Mein Kampf that the german Volk needed Lebensraum, and that the "natural" enemy for Germany was Soviet Russia. in a certain way Hitler put ideology on top of military needs from 39 to 45. he was convinced he'd win the war not by outstanding military strategy but by destiny alone: he thought the Aryans had to win, no matter what. he thought it was a law of nature, something nobody could do anything against.

obviously with a leader like that The Reich was bound to lose the war.

the only errors on the German side one can criticise are the ones that were made by the military, ie. the reasonable people. those are the ones who should have won the war for The Reich, by convincing the Fuehrer that during the war his leadership of the army was highly questionable.

[Major Tom]

Good British Tanks

Churchill Series (Incl. AVRE)

Valentine IX

Cromwell Series

Firefly (American Tank, British modified)

Crusader (If not for speeding this too early into production it was a very good tank) (it could reach almost 50 mph)

The British had some great designs, and they didn't have America's luxury of having time to work out all the bugs in their tank development. Valentines were very good, the Russians really liked them. Churchill tanks were very versitile, Flamethrowers, Engineer vehicles, Infantry Tanks, etc...

The main reason for using mostly American stuff was to keep ammunition and spares uniform with all the allies. The British and Canadians would have been probably much better off using their own equipment.

The only complaints were really that of technical problems, such as unreliability. Given time, these problems would have been worked out (Cromwell was a very good tank, based on the questionable Cruiser series).

[Fionn]

EScurlock.

Good points and mostly right but the REAL reason Germany couldn't invade has nothing to do with planning. It simply has to do with the fact that Germany was gearing up for a war starting in 1943 at which time there would have been sufficient forces for a narrow crossing.

So, it wasn't a Fuehrermistake but rather simply an unfortunate side-effect of the war starting before it had been estimated to start.

It is hardly a blunder to be unprepared simply because one's military ramping up hasn't reached a stage whereby all forces are at 100% planned strength. Remember, the navy (the force which had to carry out that invasion) was the branch of the service which both by planning and due to the large size of ships etc would be the LAST arm of service to reach the size determined by the re-armament plan ( the navy portion of which was known as the Z plan).

BTW the Z plan was unrealistic but we can expect that Germany would have had a few aircraft carriers and a large surface and submarine fleet by 1943, large enough to support an invasion...

Also remember that they only needed sufficient barge transport to carry maybe 3 divisions across by sea in the first wave. Non-specialised transport ships could carry other divisions across and debark into ports once the first port was seized.

Obviously though it would have been logical for Britain to come to terms in 1941 and so it was logical to assume they would. Only the ascension to power of Churchill probably prevented some terms being sought.

So, I'd say an unfortunate happening but not really a blunder.

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3) Attacking Russia without having secured a peace with Britain. Attacking Russia at all for that matter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I partially agree with the first part, I completely disagree with the second. Taking out England first would have been safer, but the real mistake was Hitler's interferance in Russia in '41. The Germans could well have knocked Russia out in '41 had the stuck to the original plan.

As for attacking Russia being a mistake, it was a necessity. It was either attack Russia, or wait to be attacked by Russia. The war in the East was inevitable.

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Send 200 Hurricanes to Russia, and their effect won't be felt. Send 200 to Malaya, and Singapore probably would not have fallen.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And 200 fighter pilots, and erks, and support and logistics echelons... That's a tall order for 1941.

But in fact I agree. Lend lease to Russia of anything but food and medical supplies was a waste. Russian stuff was mostly superior, and they sure showed they could produce plenty of it. Add in the costs (human and material) of getting it there and it wasn't such a good plan.

CivDiv: I'd take a Church over a Sherm any day, 6 pdr or 75, doesn't matter to me. Not very fast, but at least there's something in the way of armour between me and Jerry. Just don't make me drive up a shingle beach with it.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[WWIIRulz]

Hitlers greatest blunder: Trying to defend to much territory.

[Neutral Party]

Germany's biggest blunders weren't military but political-strategic.

Failing to realise that they had actually lost WW1 was the root cause of all of their problems. The myth grew up (fanned by the nazis) that the unvanquished imperial German army was "stabbed in the back" by those cowardly unpatriotic communists (identified as the Jews) or those cowardly unpatriotic capitalist money-grabbers (also identified as the Jews).

Someone (I can't remember who) once defined a nation as "a group of people held together by a common misunderstanding of the past and an intense hatred of their neighbours".

Of course the allies (esp. French) worsened things enormously by imposing the very harsh punitive reparations which drove Germany into economic collapse and made moderate politics untenable. So nazi Germany's attitude was a mixture of "we woz robbed" and "bet you couldn't do that again".

Next problem was the "we can beat you with one-hand tied behind our back" syndrome. The practice of total-war was never really put into practice until it was too late. Women were excluded from the workforce in very distinct contrast to UK & USA. The purpose of women was, of course, to produce lots of perfect little aryans who would be used to colonize the empty spaces where the slavs used to live. Large portions of German industry continued to produce consumer goods until relatively late in the war. Moreover, there was no supreme national power structure - various organizations (Todt, party, SS, wehrmacht, etc.,) spent too much energy on turf wars rather than on the shooting war.

With the possible exceptions of Goebbels and Speer, the nazi hierarchy was pretty dumb (Goering anyone ?). Rather than the reality of the war, they were more interested in establishing some idealogical fantasy island based on their warped visions of aryan supermen, Teutonic Knights, sub-human slavs and rat-like Jews - hello is there a psychiatrist in the house?

The Germans in WWII proved, in a similar fashion to WWI, that they were good at fighting but bloody useless at war.

Joe

[Guest Charles]

Arguably, I think one of Hitler's greatest political blunders was to have unilaterally declared war on the United States after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. He was not obligated to do so under the terms of the Tripartite pact, and it's interesting to wonder what might have happened if the United States entry into the European theatre of the war had been delayed another six months or more.

------------------

Not THE Charles from BTS

[This message has been edited by Charles (edited 02-02-2000).]

[Tom Callmeyer]

Not understanding Naval Warfare. Let's not forget that Hitler told his navy that war would come in 1945, and therefore never gave his navy a chance to built sufficiently enough to represent a significant enough threat to the British Navy. And as a corallary, sending Bismark out without the Hipper et. al. because of damage to these other German capital ships. Sure surface combat was giving way to submarine warfare, but the U-Boats were ultimately defeated by Allied surface ships and aircraft.

For that matter, Hitler never had many strategic bombers which were sorely missed during the battle of Britain. A few Condors was as close as the Luftwaffe ever got.

[EScurlock]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

The Germans could well have knocked Russia out in '41 had the stuck to the original plan.

Maybe, but then again Hitler wasn't giving the Russian people a lot of choice on whether or not to fight or make peace. German occupation of Russian territory was brutal. It is a mystery whether or not the country would have collapsed with the loss of Moscow.

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

As for attacking Russia being a mistake, it was a necessity. It was either attack Russia, or wait to be attacked by Russia. The war in the East was inevitable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another maybe. Stalin may have turned his eye on Germany if he thought it was weak enough to guaranty a victory and geopolitics would allow it. This thought was not in his head in '41. In fact, he refused to beleive that Hitler would attack him in spite of his intelegence people's insistance that war was imminent. Also, Stalin's army was in extreamly poor shape in '41. Hitler knew this and desided this was the desisive time to take Russia.

------------------

He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins.

[Doug Beman]

Tom, I dispute your claim that the Hurry could perform well in the Pacific. I've read that the Zero was superior to even the Spitfire in dogfighting; the American success w/ P40s came primarily because the Americans avoided stand up dogfights and used slash and run tactics. The Hurry wasn't capable of this kind of maneuver, and so would have had to try straight dogfighting.

200 in Singapore...how would that have countered the Japanese naval/naval air superiority, or the fact that the Brits were totally cut off from resupply or rescue?

The Buffalo was totally overmatched against all Japanese fighters in active front-line service.

How would holding armor in reserve at Kursk have changed things? It was the Germans on the attack, and you can't make that kind of attack without armor. Or are you also stating that the Germans should have allowed the Soviets to attack, and then hit them with a Manstein counter attack?

DjB

[Berlichtingen]

Charles,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Arguably, I think one of Hitler's greatest political blunders was to have unilaterally declared war on the United States after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. He was not obligated to do so under the terms of the Tripartite pact, and it's interesting to wonder what might have happened if the United States entry into the European theatre of the war had been delayed another six months or more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's a what if for you. Dec 7th -- Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor, Dec 10th -- Germany declares war on Japan. Ok, FDR, now what do you do?

[Major Tom]

This is where I got my info...

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/

Hawker Hurricane IIB (Saw service in Pacific)

Year 1937

Speed 550 Km/h

Ceiling 11125m

Range 772 Km

Armament 12 7.7mm MG (300 Rounds Each)

Load 2x 227 kg Bombs

A6M2 Riesen (Zero in Service in 1941)

Year 1940

Speed 533 km/h

Ceiling 10300m

Range 3110 km

Armament 2x 20mm Cannon, 2x 7.7mm MG

Load NONE

The A6M2 did have 2 20mm cannon, but, there were only a few rounds for these. The 2x 7.7mm MG's didn't have the hitting power to get through much of the armour of Allied planes. The Hurricane was easy to maintain, especially in these limited climates by it's wire frame. The Allied planes also had self sealing fuel tanks, the Japanese didn't. They sacrificed armament and durability to create a very manuverable aircraft with great range. Otherwize, the P-40 and Hurricane outclassed it everywhere else, Firepower, durability and climing rate. There were 150 Buffalo's in Malaya in 1941. Their crews were inexperienced also. The 50 Hurricanes brought in with a relief convoy in January 1942 were able to gain air superiority until they were attritioned down.

Having air superiority would enable ships to travel to and from Singapore. The 18th Infantry division and some Indian Brigades were re-routed to Singapore in January 1942 without loss. It wasn't totally cut off until the last few days of the attack.

One of the main reason for Japanese success early in the war, was that they were facing poorly trained pilots in obsolete aircraft (Buffalo) or, like in the Philippines were able to destroy most of the fighters on the ground. The Japanese have been fighting since 1937 and had many veteran pilots. Plus, the A6M2 wasn't everywhere in the pacific in overwealming strength. There were maybe 50 or so regulated to the attack on Malaya, the rest being A5M Claudes and Ki-27 Nate's or Ki-43 Oscars, none of which was as good as the A6M.

The Flying Tigers, equipped with 50 or so P-40's managed to gain something like 300-400 confirmed kills during their operations in China from 1939-41 with little loss. If you used the Hurricane or P-40's abilities (Good diving and clime rate as well as their high speed) one can slaughter a flight of A6M's. If you tried to dogfight them, they would be able to out turn you.

The Spitfire V which was in universal service with the RAF in 1941 and was a much improved version of the previous Spitfire II

Year 1940

Speed 602 km/h

Ceiling 11280m

Range 756 km

Armament 2x 20mm Cannon, 4x 7.7mm MG

The Spitfire V, unlike the Zero carried much more 20mm Ammunition. This was also a very manuverable aircraft.

[Guest Babra]

Jeez, the Flying Tigers... If I remember correctly, weren't most of their fights vs. Claudes?

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[Doug Beman]

Tom, this site

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/

lists climb rate for the P40 as about 2100 feet/min, while the same site lists the A6M2 as about 4500 f/min.

I've seen, but cannot find the link for, a reference to the Hurry IIb as climbing to 20,000 feet in 9 minutes = 1100 f/min.

In the plane-on-plane statistics of climb and turn, which very often decide life and death, the A6M2 was superior to these two aircraft. If the Hurry IIB and P40 were so superior to the A6M2, why did the Allies stationed in the Pacific, having experience with the ZEKE, demand new and better planes? Why not stick with what they had?

Additionally, how can aircraft with ranges ~772km protect ships from aircraft with ranges of ~3110km? Any air superiority claimed would have been EXTREMELY local, leaving the British still to face the problem of guarding the routes into Singapore.

I really don't believe that having 200 Hurricanes in Singapore would have enabled the British to defeat the Japanese efforts to control the area. The combination of free-ranging naval air (the US Navy demonstrated how well naval air can cope with land-based air) and ground forces of Japan's quality was overpowering. The situation would have been comparable to what the Japanese faced during the last months of the war: lots of land based planes attempting to stop naval assets only to get shot out of the sky by the hundreds.

DjB

[This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 02-02-2000).]