Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sun 09/08/2013 View Sat 09/07/2013 View Fri 09/06/2013 View Thu 09/05/2013 View Wed 09/04/2013 View Tue 09/03/2013 View Mon 09/02/2013
1
2013-09-08 -Short Attention Span Theater-
Top 10 Worst Military Decisions In History
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Uncle Phester 2013-09-08 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views ]  Top

#1 Add IDF not squashing Egypt in 1973.
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2013-09-08 01:37||   2013-09-08 01:37|| Front Page Top

#2 1. Bush 41, not taking out Saddam Hussein in Gulf War I.

(Not his worst indecision. That would be the failure to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to do the equivalent of Truman's denazification to the education industry and government funded foundations, but this time directed at economic/cultural marxists, in this country.)

2. Overall failure of both sides in the Civil War to not equip their soldiers with repeating firearms.

3. French at Crecy and Agincourt, not recognizing the failure of armed heavy cavalry against higher rate of fire English and Welsh longbows, not once but TWICE.

4. Failure of American general officers to counter the American media's, but especially Cronkite's, disinformation campaign regarding Tet.

Posted by no mo uro 2013-09-08 05:47||   2013-09-08 05:47|| Front Page Top

#3 I'd add that America messing around during Suez caused literally a world of problems.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2013-09-08 06:29||   2013-09-08 06:29|| Front Page Top

#4 ...All interesting and good choices except for:

#6 - The Army of the Potomac was badly disorganized in the wake of its victory at Gettysburg and simply could not be lined up and sent out again that quickly. Second, Meade had been in command for only a VERY short time - Lincoln had appointed him just before the battle, and he was literally still in OJT. If he'd been in command for a few months and still couldn't get it together, that would be a valid argument. And third, the Army of Northern Virginia was still a VERY dangerous opponent - it was not the bleeding, broken, and starving mob it would be two years later. Their morale was high, they were still in supply, and their leadership (though disappointed at the way things had turned out) was still intact and aggressive. Had Meade somehow overcome the first two problems, the result of an attack on the retreating ANV would almost certainly have been a genuine disaster.

#5- The Gatlings were genuinely wicked weapons for their day, but they had one severe drawback: once in battery they were tactically immobile. They could only fire in a straight line ahead of them and they couldn't fire at all while their bearing was being changed. On top of that, the crews had to stand erect while firing and reloading - they couldn't take cover at all. The Indians certainly weren't going to ride straight into a stream of bullets, and they were sufficiently good marksmen that they would have been able to pick off the crews, probably before they ever got off a single round. The one thing the Gatlings could have done that MIGHT have saved Custer was slowed down his march - had that happened, the other column that they were supposed to meet when they attacked the Indians might have been in place, and LBH would have looked more like Wounded Knee. (The other column was commanded by General Alfred Terry, who told LTC Custer to take his time - Custer instead drove his regiment hard and fast, most likely to get there first, defeat the Indians himself, and get all the glory. Didn't work out so well.)

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2013-09-08 07:34||   2013-09-08 07:34|| Front Page Top

#5 Too many ethnocentric listings. If you have umbrage with the Western oriented world, the fall of Constantinople at the hands of the Turks sent the European nations looking south then west to get to the East. The result was the age of Exploration and Colonization and the ascendency of the West. Maybe not the victory they thought it was.

Then there's the Chinese decision that their problems with the West stemmed from the failure to faithfully follow traditional Chinese institutions and culture unlike the Japanese who saw the West's advantage lay in technology and organizational institutions. The Sino-Japanese War demonstrated that error which they would still be learning a hundred years later.

Then there's the Aztec habit of taking prisoners for sacrifice rather than grasping the concept of utter destruction of an opponent. Not killing the entire entourage of Cortez and allowing him to escape to link up with new arrivals on the coast was ultimately fatal.

The Crusaders allowing the Mamelukes to peacefully transit their lands to confront the Mongols at Ain Jalut would mean the Mamelukes and Arabs would be back to end their presence in the Levant states. The Mongols would have tolerated 'dependent' Christian states as they did in Russia.
Posted by Procopius2k 2013-09-08 10:15||   2013-09-08 10:15|| Front Page Top

#6 World War I
Posted by tu3031 2013-09-08 11:36||   2013-09-08 11:36|| Front Page Top

#7 THis guy puts the Afghan invasion in Andropov's hands when at this time it was Brejnew who was Secreatary of the Party. So nuff saisd about this list.


Hitler came very, very close of taking Mocow. Since Soviet Union's railway network was centered on Moscow its loss or mere encircming would have been a critaical blow to the Red Army and to Soviet industry. He came close to taking Soviet Union's oildfields and he came to a mre 200m of taking Stalingrad. Now you could think samml mater. Soviet Union is huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge! Well no. Stalingrad was the on teh best path for transsporting oil from the Causacaus to where it was neede and more importantly Soviet Union was on the verge of dist=integration: its Army was deeply demoralized, hueg chinks of its industry were gone, so many peole had been left in German hands its population no longer exceeded Germany's and its most fertile lands had been lost so its population was surviving on 2000 calories day.. Most of this was told by Stalin in the famous "Ne shagu nazad" (no step back) directive: Soviet Union could no loneger afford to lose ground. In fact it had to recover some of the lost one in order to feed its population. Had the Germans crossed these last 200 meters they would have had time to cover theirr falnks Sovuiet Union wouldn'ty hace recovered its fertile la,nds and the German troops in the Caucasus wouldn't have been forced to retreat so the Spring of 1943 would have started with the Germans close to Soviet Union's main oild fields.

For Napoleon his main mistake was invading Russia with too large an Army. An Army so large the Russins didn't dare to oppose and withdrew instead of accepting battle like if they had faced a smaller army. An army so large it was difficult to feed. An Army who had been made so large by including hundreds of thousands of low quality troops and who had lost thirty thousand men to exhaustion and desertion beforehad iether to crush the Russian Army or not fight at all: evry Russian soldier fallen could be replaced by grabbing the nearest mujik, training him a bit and sending it to battle. Every soldier of Napoleon had to come from Germany or from France: weeks and weeks and weeks of marching before he reached the Army. And that if he wasn't killed by partisans or by the Cossacks. Technically Borodino was French victory but since the Russian Army was not anihilated it was as good as a defeat. Napoleon could have afforded a less than total victory for a battle close to the Russian border but not at Vorodino.
Posted by JFM 2013-09-08 12:07||   2013-09-08 12:07|| Front Page Top

#8 Some text was missing from my previous post:

Napoleon's Army lost 30 thousand men before it had crushed the Russian border to desertion and soldier being physically unable to follow the Army. The Russian Army ended accepting battme at Borodino. That was a battle Napoleon had either to avoid or win by knockout not by referee decision: Paris at 1750 miles of Moscow. 20 miles a day: nearly three months that what was needed to replace French soldier lost.
Posted by JFM 2013-09-08 12:33||   2013-09-08 12:33|| Front Page Top

#9 IMNSHO the greatest political/military decision (can't be sure whether or not it was a mistake) was the cancellation/destruction of the Imperial Chinese Navy in the mid-1400's.
From here:
From 1405 until 1433, the Chinese imperial eunuch Zheng He led seven ocean expeditions for the Ming emperor that are unmatched in world history. These missions were astonishing as much for their distance as for their size: during the first ones, Zheng He traveled all the way from China to Southeast Asia and then on to India, all the way to major trading sites on India's southwest coast. In his fourth voyage, he traveled to the Persian Gulf. But for the three last voyages, Zheng He went even further, all the way to the east coast of Africa. This was impressive enough, but Chinese merchants had traveled this far before. What was even more impressive about these voyages was that they were done with hundreds of huge ships and tens of thousands of sailors and other passengers. Over sixty of the three hundred seventeen ships on the first voyage were enormous "Treasure Ships," sailing vessels over 400 hundred feet long, 160 feet wide, with several stories, nine masts and twelve sails, and luxurious staterooms complete with balconies. The likes of these ships had never before been seen in the world, and it would not be until World War I that such an armada would be assembled again. The story of how these flotillas came to be assembled, where they went, and what happened to them is one of the great sagas — and puzzles — in world history.

When another seafaring voyage was suggested to the Chinese Imperial court in 1477, the vice president of the Ministry of War confiscated all of Zheng He's records in the archives, damning them as "deceitful exaggerations of bizarre things far removed from the testimony of people's eyes and ears." He argued that the expeditions of Zheng He "to the West Ocean wasted tens of myriads of money and grain and moreover the people who met their deaths may be counted in the myriads. Although he returned with wonderful precious things, what benefit was it to the state?"
With the destruction of the records the history of this fleet was nearly forgotten. This was just 15 years before Columbus 'discovered' America. It could have been so very different.
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2013-09-08 15:45||   2013-09-08 15:45|| Front Page Top

#10 ....hey guys - gimme a break! I said it was entertaining, not exhaustive...! ;->
Posted by Uncle Phester 2013-09-08 16:02||   2013-09-08 16:02|| Front Page Top

#11 I'm starting to think the Crimean War was a mistake. Instead of the British and French fighting for the Ottomans, why not let Russia bleed itself pacifying the Ottomans and the Balkins, perhaps no WWI and Constantinople back on the map?
Posted by swksvolFF 2013-09-08 21:01||   2013-09-08 21:01|| Front Page Top

23:59 JosephMendiola
23:54 Woolsack Deutscher1907
23:53 JosephMendiola
23:49 JosephMendiola
23:45 trailing wife
23:34 JosephMendiola
23:31 rjschwarz
23:29 JosephMendiola
23:29 rjschwarz
23:02 SteveS
22:08 Zenobia Floger6220
21:17 Old Patriot
21:04 lord garth
21:01 swksvolFF
20:09 JosephMendiola
20:04 JosephMendiola
19:59 J0sephMendiola
19:55 Procopius2k
19:54 Pappy
19:42 tipover
18:54 Paul D
18:37 Barbara
18:34 Barbara
18:04 Charles









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com