Greatest military blunder of WWII

[timshatz]

I would add as my favorite inexcusable blunder the failure of the axis (both Germans and Japanese were totally guilty) in protecting codes. The arrogance/ignorance/carelessness of the Germans in believing that the allies were incapable of cracking their codes has always been shocking to me. May have been a different war if the axis would not have laid out sub locations/fleet strategies for the allies. The tide of the Battle of the Atlantic would certainly not have changed for several more months and who knows what may have happened at Midway or for that matter Coral Sea.

That's a good one that hasn't come up so far. The Germans did an average job (at best) with signals security. Naval codes were compromised almost on a routine basis. But that happened to all the players in the war. Just more widespread and more players working at decoding German signals.

Pretty interesting idea.

It is also interesting that German Naval Codes were compromised in both World Wars and, in both cases, the Naval High Command refused to believe their messages were being read by their Enemies. Even after review by intelligence agencies.

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

I'm going to vote Operation Barbarossa as the worst blunder.

The now famous "halt" order, as I understand, was meant for the Panzers and not the infantry. Even when the "halt" order was rescinded, much of the evacuations were still to take place, and by that time, the perimeter and defenses of Dunkirk had been given time to be prepared, which by then was almost an entirely French affaire, and not forgetting the rearguards at Lille as well.

However, has anyone noticed that the British losses in North Africa far exceeded the number of British troops evacuated at Dunkirk? My question is, had the BEF not been able to escape at Dunkirk, as bad as it may have been, would it have crippled the UK?


Even if the "halt" order had been given, and the BEF had escaped, had Hitler not invaded Russia, I think he could have dealt with England by commiting all the resources that otherwise were dumped into Operation Barbarossa. More U-Boats, more ships, more planes of all kind, certainly more troops, more of everything.

As far as I am aware, I can see no indication that Stalin was going to breech the Non-Agression Pact signed with Germany ( on the very eve of WW 2 ). I also don't think that Stalin would have lifted a finger to help England in the event that Germany would have launched an invasion. For all we know, Stalin viewed Churhill as a staunch Western anti-communist who was a threat. I think Stalin would have been only to pleased to let Hitler deal with England, thus eliminating a potential threat while he sat and read about it in the Kremlin.

 

[Freebird]

I'm going to vote Operation Barbarossa as the worst blunder.

The now famous "halt" order, as I understand, was meant for the Panzers and not the infantry. Even when the "halt" order was rescinded, much of the evacuations were still to take place, and by that time, the perimeter and defenses of Dunkirk had been given time to be prepared, which by then was almost an entirely French affaire, and not forgetting the rearguards at Lille as well.

However, has anyone noticed that the British losses in North Africa far exceeded the number of British troops evacuated at Dunkirk? My question is, had the BEF not been able to escape at Dunkirk, as bad as it may have been, would it have crippled the UK?

Yes it would because the Dunkirk evacuee's were about 90% of the UK's 14 division regular army strength in Sept 1940. (There were also about 12 very green training divisions with very limited equiptment)


Even if the "halt" order had been given, and the BEF had escaped, had Hitler not invaded Russia, I think he could have dealt with England by commiting all the resources that otherwise were dumped into Operation Barbarossa. More U-Boats, more ships, more planes of all kind, certainly more troops, more of everything.

1941 would have been too late, as the British had time to re-build. The best time to invade would have been right after France surrendered, I have doubts that the British could have stopped an invasion from getting ashore.

As far as I am aware, I can see no indication that Stalin was going to breech the Non-Agression Pact signed with Germany ( on the very eve of WW 2 ).

Yes there was. Stalin planned to attack Germany in the spring of '42, according to Russian archives. If you look at the (Russian) order of battle for Barbarosa, the large build-up of tank forces west of Kiev under Timoshenko was preparing for the planned '42 Russian attack.

I also don't think that Stalin would have lifted a finger to help England in the event that Germany would have launched an invasion.

You sure got that right! He would have broken out the best vodka for the fall of the British Empire

For all we know, Stalin viewed Churhill as a staunch Western anti-communist who was a threat.

We do know that's EXACTLY what he thought of Churchill. (and entirely true, Churchill hated the communists ALMOST as much as the Nazis. - how do you think the term "Iron Curtain" came into the vocabulary?)

I think Stalin would have been only to pleased to let Hitler deal with England, thus eliminating a potential threat while he sat and read about it in the Kremlin.

Yes and perhaps why he was so furious that Germany decided to wipe him out first.

I don't think Barbarossa was a blunder, it was inevitable that Russia Germany would come into conflict. I can't see Communism Fascism co-existing in Europe for long. Hitler was correct to attack when he did before Stalin rebuilt his army. Hitlers mistakes cost Germany the chanse to win the war though.

 

[Pflueger]

Agree that USSR/German conflict was inevitable and that Babarossa had a chance to succeed were it not for a parade of bungles (delaying onset, failure to winterize, questionable changes in objectives, wasting of resources in other theaters, etc.). Perhaps Barbarossa might best fit on a poll titled "Worst Military Bungles of WW2," this thread might also include Op Market Garden, the Anzio beachhead flinch, Op Diadem (Clark's mad dash) = plans which woulda/coulda/shoulda, but were nixed by human flaws/bungling.

 

[Freebird]

Agree that USSR/German conflict was inevitable and that Babarossa had a chance to succeed were it not for a parade of bungles (delaying onset, failure to winterize, questionable changes in objectives, wasting of resources in other theaters, etc.). Perhaps Barbarossa might best fit on a poll titled "Worst Military Bungles of WW2," this thread might also include Op Market Garden, the Anzio beachhead flinch, Op Diadem (Clark's mad dash) = plans which woulda/coulda/shoulda, but were nixed by human flaws/bungling.

Dont forget France 1940 and Dieppe in the "Bungled" list. Or the air defence on Dec 7 1941

 

[F-14]

According to me the German mistakes at stalingrad was pivitol in the Europen Theater of operations Hitler had made a lot of blunders @ StalingardThe failure of the German Army was nothing short of a disaster. A complete army group was lost at Stalingrad and 91,000 Germans were taken prisoner. With such a massive loss of manpower and equipment, the Germans simply did not have enough manpower to cope with the Russian advance to Germany when it came.

Despite resistance in parts – such as a Kursk – they were in retreat on the Eastern Front from February 1943 another factor that the Hitler and his generals failed to take in to consideration (Due to the blind optimism that
they would have a Quick victory ) the winter for which the Germans were Ill prepared Temperatures dropped to well below zero and food, ammunition and heat were in short supply. added to this Hitlers Adment orders to fight till the last as shown in this communication with von Paulus dated January 24th 1943

Supreme Commander to 6 Army, January 24, 1943

"Surrender is forbidden. 6 Army will hold their positions to the last man and the last round and by their heroic endurance will make an unforgettable contribution towards the establishment of a defensive front and the salvation of the Western world."

this ment that the German were horrible traped and were doomed to oblivion at stalingrad

 

[Njaco]

Some good points, F-14 but Stalingrad would never had happend if Barbarossa had never happened. The major battles were a result of the major decision to invade. Stalingrad, Kursk, Leningrad just proved how poor a decision it was.

And in my opinion, if adherence to orders wasn't so prevalent in the Wehrmacht, von Paulus just might have pulled a Rommel, ignored orders and gotten his men outta there.

 

[Freebird]

Some good points, F-14 but Stalingrad would never had happend if Barbarossa had never happened. The major battles were a result of the major decision to invade. Stalingrad, Kursk, Leningrad just proved how poor a decision it was.

Njaco, I don't think you can call Barbarossa a blunder because Hitler really had no other choice, he had to attack USSR before they re-organizrd the Soviet army. Stalin would have attacked Germany in 1942, Hitler was quite astute in realizing this. (no honor among thieves?) Once Britain France upset the German plan by declaring war, Hitler was stuck. I think he made the correct choice by attacking, it was just the application that was bungled

Agree that USSR/German conflict was inevitable and that Babarossa had a chance to succeed were it not for a parade of bungles (delaying onset, failure to winterize, questionable changes in objectives, wasting of resources in other theaters, etc.). Perhaps Barbarossa might best fit on a poll titled "Worst Military Bungles of WW2.

And in my opinion, if adherence to oders wasn't so prevalent in the Wehrmacht, von Paulus just might have pulled a Rommel, ignored orders and gotten his men outta there.

In this i agree, if Hitler had a capable leader in charge (Manstein, Guderian) they could have had a totally different outcome at "Stalingrad", and we might be debating what a brilliant move Barbarossa was. (Although we might be debating in German... )

 

[F-14]

thank you for the Comment .But if you remember Op Barbarossa would have been a success if the Wehrmacht prepared well enough the success that they (Read : the Wehrmacht ) with out preparing much had achived in the Begennig of the operation was enormus While the Russians were well aware of German preparations, and were tipped off to the impending invasion by both their own intelligence, as well foreign sources, the Germans achieved total surpriseCoupled with the element of surprise, the Germans possessed better training, more extensive experience, and were able to obtain decisive superiority at the points selected for attack. The Russians had large amounts of obsolete equipment, were poorly deployed to meet the attack, and lacked defensive positions. As a result, the Russian frontier was quickly overrun and the Germans achieved penetrations in many places. By 16 July, 1941, the Germans had captured Smolensk, which was less than 250 miles from Moscow, and Army Group Center alone had captured about 600,000 men and 5,000 tanks.so from this postion to the varge of total defate at the hands of the Russian Red army . The conner stone of this german defeat lie at Stalingrad

 

[plan_D]

I don't believe the defeat of the Wehrmacht lay at Stalingrad; I don't believe there was a single blunder on the Eastern Front that turned the war against the German nation - it was a collection of blunders that became too large to overcome.

The first blunder on the Eastern Front was the movement against Moscow in the winter of 1941. Guderian should have been allowed to winter in Smolensk where defensive positions could have been erected which would have been capable of halting the Soviet counter-offensive that in reality forced the Wehrmacht away from Moscow as they tried to dig into open, frozen, ground.

The second blunder was moving armoured forces away from the Moscow push to Kiev. This spread of forces gave Guderian no mobile punch and slowed the chase. With this armoured force at hand Guderian could well have taken Moscow in the winter of 1941, or at least held up against the Soviet offensive.

If, with the armour at hand, Guderian was allowed to move back to Smolensk then the Soviet counter-offensive would have failed and Moscow would have fallen in the spring of '42 - plunging the Soviet rail network into confusion and slowing Soviet reinforcement on all fronts.

 

[Njaco]

Ok, I can see the point about Barbarossa but if it was necessary then how the blunder of not being actually prepared to take on such an endeavour? Just from the Luftwaffe standpoint, no long range bombers for the massive movements of factories out of range.

 

[F-14]

I agree with Najco if you look at the Inventroy of luftwaffe there was not a single long range Bomber like the ones that allies had this factor saved the soviet industries and as soon as the soviets were reorganized the Number of tanks and other munitions of war including manpower was easily available this lack of Long range bombers was due to the fact that the Gremans depended a bit to much on the Ju stutka

 

[Freebird]

Ok, I can see the point about Barbarossa but if it was necessary then how the blunder of not being actually prepared to take on such an endeavour? Just from the Luftwaffe standpoint, no long range bombers for the massive movements of factories out of range.

I like Pflueger's distinction between "Blunder", a strategic decision or plan that was badly flawed from the beginning {such as Operation "Lustre" the intervention in Greece 1941, or "Sledgehammer" the planned 1942 Allied invasion of France} as opposed to a "Bungle" which is a generally sound plan that fails because of the execution. I would put "Barbarossa" in the latter category, it could have worked, save for some mistakes carrying it out {S ome of which Plan D has listed}

I don't believe the defeat of the Wehrmacht lay at Stalingrad; I don't believe there was a single blunder on the Eastern Front that turned the war against the German nation - it was a collection of blunders that became too large to overcome.

The first blunder on the Eastern Front was the movement against Moscow in the winter of 1941. Guderian should have been allowed to winter in Smolensk where defensive positions could have been erected which would have been capable of halting the Soviet counter-offensive that in reality forced the Wehrmacht away from Moscow as they tried to dig into open, frozen, ground.

Equipping the Wermacht with winter clothes would have helped too...

The second blunder was moving armoured forces away from the Moscow push to Kiev. This spread of forces gave Guderian no mobile punch and slowed the chase. With this armoured force at hand Guderian could well have taken Moscow in the winter of 1941, or at least held up against the Soviet offensive.

If, with the armour at hand, Guderian was allowed to move back to Smolensk then the Soviet counter-offensive would have failed and Moscow would have fallen in the spring of '42 - plunging the Soviet rail network into confusion and slowing Soviet reinforcement on all fronts.

I think one of the greatest failings was a failure of the Germans Japanese to make joint plans, like the Allies did. # 1 on the list would have been a combined U-boat campaign in the Pacific Atlantic starting immediatly after "Pearl Harbour". A solid combined effort in this regard might have forced the British to concentrate shipping escorts to protect the vital North Atlantic routes, leaving Africa the Far East vulnerable. If the Axis could have broken the British control of Egypt/Persia/India, then their chance of success improves dramatically in Russia.

I posted some of these strategic outcomes in another thread.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww...lize-us-war-effort-combined-attack-11317.html

 

[Bakshi]

In my many years in historical aviation history, I met many living (aviation)legends, one in particular was a German high ranking general officer. This question of blunders did come up.

He summed it all very simply when he said (paraphrasing)..."the ONLY reason the Allies won the war, is that we Germans outbungled them!"

 

[Njaco]

Thats a good one.

 

[Freebird]

Another one I heard was quoted from a captured German officer in the desert. "Your men (British Aust.) fight like lions, too bad they are led by asses (donkeys).

 

[Njaco]

 

[F-14]

Another one I heard wasquoted from a captured german officer in the desert. "Your men (British Aust.) fight like lions, too bad they are led by asses (donkeys).

 

[plan_D]

"Equipping the Wermacht with winter clothes would have helped too... "

That's too easy for people to say when talking about the war in the East. The Red Army suffered from the ferocious winters too; plus Germany suffers from its own bad winters and many Germans gained winter clothing from dead Soviet soldiers.

Winter clothing would not make the German troops able to dig into the ice outside Moscow nor would it have made up for the lack of armour.

Winter clothing would have made a massive difference in Stalingrad; but in 1941 the Germans would have still been pushed away.

 

[Freebird]

True enough Plan, I also agree with your point about the concentration of the Panzers. In fact, I would say that they could have concentrated them in the north or south, but to split them up doomed both advances to fail the objectives in 1941.

As for winter clothes it was typical on all nations in WWII underestimating the enemy, the Japanese underestimated the US production capacity, and the Allies underestimated the Japanese ability. I just read another book about Singapore, it was then common belief that the "Japanese were not good at aircraft"