Greatest military blunder of WWII

Greatest military blunder of WWII

  • Total voters
    217

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I still say the greatest mistake was Pearl Harbour on the Japanese part because it was a minor victory with great negative consequences for the Axis powers. Yes Japan did win early on but it was fighting superior tanks and superior manufacturing and just couldn't compete. Similarly Germany was outclassed by the speed of Allied Manufacturing. Germany just couldn't produce enough tanks of sufficient quality to really compete against the storm of metal, the Allies were putting against them. Because for almost 100% of the war Germany was fighting alone as an effective force, sure they did have Allies but the effectiveness of these Allies was always questionable on the war... Italians were more of a hinderance to Germany than a help, North Afrika anyone? Ethopia where they were beaten back by tribesmen with spears when they had tanks and Armoured Cars as another example?
 
Okay, probably the wrong word, but still I am saying that they were still fielding early tanks late into the war that were intended as training tanks and that these tanks didn't have the same ability in combat to match the later Shermans and the churchills. Also the Italians kept requesting help to dig them out of bad situations like North Afrika, and Greece. This therefore led to Germany having to divert their attention from other theatres.
 
HealzDevo said:
Okay, probably the wrong word, but still I am saying that they were still fielding early tanks late into the war that were intended as training tanks and that these tanks didn't have the same ability in combat to match the later Shermans and the churchills. Also the Italians kept requesting help to dig them out of bad situations like North Afrika, and Greece. This therefore led to Germany having to divert their attention from other theatres.
Click to expand...

?????

The most common and numerous German tank of WW2 was the Panzer IV and it had no problem fighting against Shermans and Churchills.
 
....these tanks didn't have the same ability in combat to match the later Shermans and the churchills...
Click to expand...

from
Tiger Tank , King Tiger
Tiger -The Tiger was a heavy tank (55 tons) with a crew of five. It carried 84 rounds for its killer 88mm gun, and was also armed with two machine guns, one coaxial and one above the front hull, with almost 6000 rounds.

King Tiger - The King Tiger had a crew of five. It was armed with an extremely powerful long-barrelled 88mm gun, even more powerful than that of the Tiger, which fired armor-piercing rounds at a muzzle velocity of 1200 meters per second, about a third faster than those fired by the Tiger.

Sherman - As a vehicle, the M4 Sherman was very reliable, and as such it was superior to the German tanks, but as a tank the M4 Sherman had several problems, especially when compared to its enemies, the German tanks. It was simply inferior to them is most aspects. It had a relatively thin armor, an inferior 75mm or 76mm gun which simply could not penetrate the front armor of the German Tiger tanks even from short range, while they could easily destroy the Sherman from long ranges, and it was very tall, 3.43m, which is taller than the German Tigers, and one meter taller than the superb Russian T-34. It means the Sherman could not hide as well as other tanks, which is likely what its crews wanted to do when German Tigers were nearby. With such inferiority in firepower, armor, and shape, no wonder the Sherman crews saw the German Tiger tanks as a formidable monster.

Churchill - It was served by a crew of five and mounted two 7.92-millimetre machine guns in addition to its main gun. Its successor, the Mark V, was fitted with a 95-millimetre howitzer, but the Mark VI and VII returned to the format of the 75-millimetre gun. These later Churchills were still outgunned by their German counterparts, but their thick protective armour partly compensated for the inadequacy of their firepower.

It was a matter of quanity vs quality. Germany had the superior tanks just not enough of them.
 
I was reading a book last night that claimed the invasion of Greece was the biggest mistake. Although a pretty swift victory, it nonetheless delayed Barbarossa by critical weeks. In the author's view, if it wasn't for this they could've been in Moscow by the time winter set in, and the war could've been very different. Opinions?
 
I lean to Stalingrad and Market Garden as major military blunders with Pearl Harbor and Barbarossa as great Political blunders but great military successes!

Too many casualties at Stalingrad before Paulus Surrendered and two bad things about Market Garden 1.) Patton stopped in his tracks by Monty and b.) a great opportunity to capitalize on the greatest Airborne feats of the war and actually get into Germany. Poor intelligence doomed the latter but nowhere/no time in any war did the 'Troopers get it done better than the 82nd, 101st (Puking Buzzards) and Brit/Polish Airborne.

What a waste and Monty continued to use those chips mercilously after the operation failed.

Barbarossa cost Hitler a future chance of negotiated peace with Britain and perhaps even total security of holding all of Western Europe - Japan simply lost its mind by attacking the US.
 
I'm no great fan of Montgomery (when I start of a posting like that on this board, I know I'm asking for it but...) but I think the guy did Ok given his circumstances. He did win the first All British (colonial allies and other countries included) straight battle against the Germans at El Alamain and followed it up with a successful campaign that ended the Axis presence in Africa. Gotta give him credit for that (American troop landings of Operation Torch were very important to the win but his was the main fight for most of it).

Sicily and Italy, so-so. Competent.

Normandy he gets a bad wrap. Depending on your perspective, either rightfully so or he is maligned. He did plan to take Caen in the first day (if not the first several days) of Overlord. Took much longer. Changed his PR from "Being the lead in the offensive" to "taking the German brunt while the Americans broke out". Some of this was Montgomery's ego talking (lead in the offensive) and some of it was the plan (pushing while the US broke out) but when it came to the plan actually being "The Plan" is a good guess. I've heard it both ways (Monty was the lead and Monty holds the flank).

But he also had a big problem on his hands. His forces were not going to get any larger after Normandy. From June 6 onwards, his forces get steadily weaker while the US forces get stronger. In short, the Brits were running out of men. Yet he had to keep a position in the Allied forces that would not force the Brits aside as a junior partner. He had to husband his manpower and still fight (and win) battles. He did that by fighting set piece battles and using firepower whenever possible. He didn't rush it. He didn't take un-needed chances.

Montgomery's real failing was his ability to piss off just about anybody he met that he didn't win over. He had a powerful ego (most of the leadership on both sides did) that got the better of him. In a force that was a mixture from all places and races, that can easily be constituted as arrogance and contempt. Not good for an Allied force.
 
Negative Creep said:
I was reading a book last night that claimed the invasion of Greece was the biggest mistake. Although a pretty swift victory, it nonetheless delayed Barbarossa by critical weeks. In the author's view, if it wasn't for this they could've been in Moscow by the time winter set in, and the war could've been very different. Opinions?
Click to expand...

Have heard that too. Dunno. The Germans were at the end of the line when they got to Moscow. No energy, long supply lines, you name it, they were short on it. The Soviets were short too. But they were falling back on their lines of communications. That helps immensely.

I think, long and short, that the Germans just bit off more than they could chew in Russia. It did to them what it did to everyone. Swallowed them. Swallowed the Soveit Army too. Russia is big enough to bury more than one army at a time.

Probably why there was no serious plan to Invade the Soviet Union in the Cold war. Containment and let the in inherint contradictions of Communism destroy the Soviets from within.

Russia is just too damn big.
 
timshatz said:
I'm no great fan of Montgomery (when I start of a posting like that on this board, I know I'm asking for it but...) but I think the guy did Ok given his circumstances. He did win the first All British (colonial allies and other countries included) straight battle against the Germans at El Alamain and followed it up with a successful campaign that ended the Axis presence in Africa. Gotta give him credit for that (American troop landings of Operation Torch were very important to the win but his was the main fight for most of it).

I agree Monty's importance in North Africa.

I thought he started his 'failure to achieve' rep in Sicily when he failed to cut off the German troops across the Straits of Messina - then compounded by a.) Caen and b.) failing to close the trap at Falaise Pocket - after he petitioned Ike to stop Patton then REALLY compounded his 'failure to achieve' reputation at Market Garden. Having said all of the above he did an excellent job during and after the Bulge

Sicily and Italy, so-so. Competent.

Normandy he gets a bad wrap. Depending on your perspective, either rightfully so or he is maligned. He did plan to take Caen in the first day (if not the first several days) of Overlord. Took much longer. Changed his PR from "Being the lead in the offensive" to "taking the German brunt while the Americans broke out". Some of this was Montgomery's ego talking (lead in the offensive) and some of it was the plan (pushing while the US broke out) but when it came to the plan actually being "The Plan" is a good guess. I've heard it both ways (Monty was the lead and Monty holds the flank).

Monty specifically politicked Ike and Bradley to prevent Patton from running North to 'meet' him and then failed to punch south to close the trap at Falaise - most of those surviving troops helped stop him at Market Garden

But he also had a big problem on his hands. His forces were not going to get any larger after Normandy. From June 6 onwards, his forces get steadily weaker while the US forces get stronger. In short, the Brits were running out of men. Yet he had to keep a position in the Allied forces that would not force the Brits aside as a junior partner. He had to husband his manpower and still fight (and win) battles. He did that by fighting set piece battles and using firepower whenever possible. He didn't rush it. He didn't take un-needed chances.

Montgomery's real failing was his ability to piss off just about anybody he met that he didn't win over. He had a powerful ego (most of the leadership on both sides did) that got the better of him. In a force that was a mixture from all places and races, that can easily be constituted as arrogance and contempt. Not good for an Allied force.
Click to expand...

One can only wonder what the outcome would have been if Patton had received Priority instead of Market Garden.

Regards,

Bill
 
timshatz said:
I'm no great fan of Montgomery (when I start of a posting like that on this board, I know I'm asking for it but...) but I think the guy did Ok given his circumstances. He did win the first All British (colonial allies and other countries included) straight battle against the Germans at El Alamain and followed it up with a successful campaign that ended the Axis presence in Africa. Gotta give him credit for that (American troop landings of Operation Torch were very important to the win but his was the main fight for most of it).

Sicily and Italy, so-so. Competent.

Normandy he gets a bad wrap. Depending on your perspective, either rightfully so or he is maligned. He did plan to take Caen in the first day (if not the first several days) of Overlord. Took much longer. Changed his PR from "Being the lead in the offensive" to "taking the German brunt while the Americans broke out". Some of this was Montgomery's ego talking (lead in the offensive) and some of it was the plan (pushing while the US broke out) but when it came to the plan actually being "The Plan" is a good guess. I've heard it both ways (Monty was the lead and Monty holds the flank).

But he also had a big problem on his hands. His forces were not going to get any larger after Normandy. From June 6 onwards, his forces get steadily weaker while the US forces get stronger. In short, the Brits were running out of men. Yet he had to keep a position in the Allied forces that would not force the Brits aside as a junior partner. He had to husband his manpower and still fight (and win) battles. He did that by fighting set piece battles and using firepower whenever possible. He didn't rush it. He didn't take un-needed chances.

Montgomery's real failing was his ability to piss off just about anybody he met that he didn't win over. He had a powerful ego (most of the leadership on both sides did) that got the better of him. In a force that was a mixture from all places and races, that can easily be constituted as arrogance and contempt. Not good for an Allied force.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with every word of this.
 
Dunkirk was a big blunder. UK would have had to talk terms because our army was gone...our troops and heavy equipment.

End of Churchill and peace terms with Hitler.

We may not have surrendered but Hitler would have had a free hand to attack USSR and the Yanks could not have used UK as airbase.
 
Going out on a limb here but...

Think Patton's plan had problems as well as Montgomery's. Both plans were based on the idea of a narrow front assault to take key features (Bridges, Cities, ect) and turn the enemy's flank in the larger sense. The problem with both plans is their limited scope for unlimited gains. The time for that was probably over by September of 1944.

The German collapse and retreat through France/Belguim was a result of 2.5 months of heavy combat in Normandy. The Battle of Normandy was about who could resupply and keep up the pressure faster. The Germans lost. They could not keep feeding in troops or supplies. After long and intense combat, they literally came apart. Thereafter, it was a race for the German border. Everybody headed for home (from the German perspective).

But at the German Border (or close to it in many cases), the advantages come back to the Germans. The Allies are on the end of a long supply line, the Germans have fallen back on theirs and they are fighting on or close to home soil. A limited front attack allows the Germans to focus their defensive powers on one attack. Either General, Patton or Montgomery, was facing long odds.

It is also probably that the time of ripost attacks was over. The war had refined itself. An attack by an enemy into your rear no longer led to panic at all levels. People knew what to do (hold the shoulders, delay the advance, attack the follow up elements, cut the supply lines). It was 1944, not 1940. The Blitzkrieg (no matter who was practicing it) was now standard technique. So was the response to it.

I think Eisenhower figured this out by the time of the Bulge. It was one of the reasons why he did not opt for Patton's 3rd Army attacking into the German rear and told them to go to Bastogne. The war was a broad front war of resources, not a slashing war of Blitzkrieg. The lighting attack could work, but only after the enemy had been worn down by long, expensive and broad front warfare.
 
timshatz said:
I'm no great fan of Montgomery (when I start of a posting like that on this board, I know I'm asking for it but...) but I think the guy did Ok given his circumstances. He did win the first All British (colonial allies and other countries included) straight battle against the Germans at El Alamain
Click to expand...

I think General Alexander never got the credit he deserved for El Alamain
and Montgomery was happy to receive all the praise being the prima donna he was.
 
trackend said:
I think General Alexander never got the credit he deserved for El Alamain
and Montgomery was happy to receive all the praise being the prima donna he was.
Click to expand...

Think you're right on that one Trackend. Alexander was on of the very good and overlooked British Generals of the war (IMHO). He, Park, Slim and Auckinleck were very good at their jobs, in varying degrees (Park being the best and Auchinleck the least of the unknowns). If Alexander had a down side, it was leaving too much in the hands of his subordinates (Clark making a run for Rome instead of cutting off the German retreat is a prime example- but I don't like Clark and I think History has pretty much nailed him as a headline grabber). He was the direct opposite of Monty, relaxed, smooth, calming. Over the years, I think historians have been kind to him.

Park was great during the Battle of Britian and great during Malta. Fought Kesselring (who was very good) twice and beat him both times. When the Brits were having a very tough time with the Germans, Park always won. Granted, he was fighting from the superior strategic position (defensive) but so were the French!

Slim is just plain forgotten. Ran the war in the East and took a broken army, remolded it and sent it back against the Japanese where it eventually triumphed. Like the British effort in the Far East, he is generally not known.

Auckinleck is the guy who Alexander replaced. Good general, when in charge against Rommel, he kept him in check at El Alamein. Calm, smart, unruffled. But he was a poor jugde of ability and had a tendency to stay loyal to subordinates too long. Cost him his job in the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

SaparotRob
Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
935
SaparotRob
SaparotRob
DarrenW
  • Poll
Which period/theater of WWII do you enjoy studying the most?
Replies
6
Views
2K
gomwolf
G
S
  • Poll
The Best Propeller Aircraft of WW2
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
tomo pauk
tomo pauk
G
  • Poll
Yak-3 vs Yak-9 vs La-7: Best Soviet fighter of WW2
Replies
10
Views
14K
CORSNING
C
Timppa
  • Poll
The best US Navy admiral of WW2
Replies
2
Views
3K
Juha
Juha
Back