Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

WWII Blunders

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: WWII Blunders
    Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 23:28
Originally posted by red clay

Would the failure of the Nazis to develop and produce a long range Heavy bomber be considered a blunder?  Or just short sighted.


Hitler did plan long range bomber from long before the war - to invade America! The Yanks of course got wind of it and took counter-measures. It became a game of spy vs spy in pre-war times. The hard working plane designers got a raw deal in that they designed adequate bombers for Europe but their best designs were rejected as not being good enough for America as well. It was not an oversight, Hitler screwed up by wanting too much.
elenos
Back to Top
YohjiArmstrong View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 27-Jul-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
  Quote YohjiArmstrong Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2007 at 14:52
Originally posted by Sparten

The Italian campaign in general was a blunder. It tied down the best allied troops in s secondry theater. As a result you had very green formations attacking at Normandy. I think the US 3 ID would have done better at Omaha, then the 29 ID a formation that should never have been thrown to the wolves.


That is entirely debateable. The Italian campaign was always troublesome because it was, if you will, a stop gap. After the fall of North Africa the Western Allies had to decide: Northern Europe or Italy? An assault on Northern Europe in 1943, whilst debateable (considering German losses and the fact it was the high point of British power), would probably have ended in failure. Attacking Italy might work.

The trouble was as Britian wanted Italy and America Northern Europe it all ended up in another trans-Atlantic squabble. When Italy was finally decided on in a compromise the very nature of the compromise meant that it was a stop gap theatre until the N. European invasion was ready. It was therefore gradually starved of more and more men and equipment meaning that it never really got as far as it should.

For me two of the largest mistakes, not mentioned here, have got to be the great British desert war migrations of '41 and '42 when troops were taken away from O'Connor (about to take all the N. African Italian erritories) and the Auk (about to destroy Rommel who had no fuel or tanks) in order to look after Crete and the Far East respectively.

Another glorious mistake was Singapore. I'm sure we're all familiar with the litany of problems- not least that for a base designed to be defended by air power it had little to no air power. Furthermore the continous dumping of barely trained soldiers contributed nothing, helped bring about defeat and severely retarded Far East prospects for several years.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2007 at 21:06
The fall of Singapore? The Japanese showed the world world that they were capable of land attack by using new forms of jungle warfare.
elenos
Back to Top
YohjiArmstrong View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 27-Jul-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
  Quote YohjiArmstrong Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 04:45
Yes but the fall of Singapore might concievably have been resisted had several mistakes not been made. The Japanese whilst well trained were not unique- the Argyll and Sutherlands proved British troops could do the same. The entire force could and should have been trained like that.

My arguement simply rests on the fact that the British made dozens of mistakes, compounded by the Japanese strengths in Jungle Warfare.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 05:04
Originally posted by red clay

Would the failure of the Nazis to develop and produce a long range Heavy bomber be considered a blunder? Or just short sighted.


Neither, it wasn't necessary to the Nazi war effort. They could hit the British and the Russians and that's who they were going to be bombing anyway. They were mostly important for the US, so they could reach forward airfields and begin operations quickly.

The Germans certainly could have used longer-range fighters though ...
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 08:20
The British had no respect for the Japanese as fighters and were not prepared to think otherwise, big mistake!
elenos
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 01:05
Wow, there is quite a few to choose from.  Some of the more major ones in my estimate would be the entire eastern front for the germans, they give definition to the word winging it.  The Wehrmacht was improvising from the first week of the invasion until the end of the war.  Hitler and his decisions especially after 41'.  Operation Sea-lion (invasion of britain) including the battle of britain between the airforces of britain and germany.  Tank production and the nazi obsession with developing a million different variations and wanting to mass produce all of them, instead of mass producing say the panzer III or IV as Guderian would have liked.  Having anything to do with Mussolini and the italian military.  Japan attacking the U.S. at pearl harbor. 
It's harder for the allies considering they won the war and could afford setbacks much better than the hardpressed axis, the U.S. being unprepared for pearl harbor I suppose could be one.  Not giving patton a bigger role.  I'll have to think about allied blunders more.
Some blunders that have nothing to do with losing the war for the allies would be the fire bombing of civilian targets, monte cassino, not standing up to stalin and letting him take half of europe, unconditional surrender which prolonged the war not shortened it (who is the moron that thought that would shorten the war and was a good ideaDead).  For the germans following the nazi racial policy in the east, instead of liberating the ukrainians etc. and having them fight alonside the germans versus against. 
My mind is drawing blanks, that will have to be it for now.
 
Edit: forgot about the soviets.Confused  Giving budenny(sp.?) command of anything larger than a squadron.  Stalin issuing no retreat orders in the beginning of the war.


Edited by Justinian - 08-Aug-2007 at 01:07
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 03:46
Biggest blunder, the US for some reason keeping its experienced formations in Italy and sending green troops to Normandy.
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 04:53
Hindsight is of course a wonderful thing as are opinions.
 
By the way putting in green (but trained) troops to attack a position where a very attacking and CONFIDENT frame of mind is wanted is quite normal. Veteran troops tend to be much more wary!
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 07:19
There you have a huge blunder. the US bombers were supposed to bomb the empty beaches of Normandy to create foxholes for the landing troops to take cover. Instead they detoured and went for more attractive targets and  so cost the lives of many thousands. 
elenos
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 09:41
Originally posted by Peteratwar

Hindsight is of course a wonderful thing as are opinions.
 
By the way putting in green (but trained) troops to attack a position where a very attacking and CONFIDENT frame of mind is wanted is quite normal. Veteran troops tend to be much more wary!
Until the get their first taste of fire that is.
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 11:02
Wrong, there was no way the bombers would detour off their assigned targets.
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 11:03
Originally posted by Sparten

Originally posted by Peteratwar

Hindsight is of course a wonderful thing as are opinions.
 
By the way putting in green (but trained) troops to attack a position where a very attacking and CONFIDENT frame of mind is wanted is quite normal. Veteran troops tend to be much more wary!
Until the get their first taste of fire that is.
 
Precisely they would have done their job as they very bravely did
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 19:41
The bombers would have gone to their assigned targets, but when under heavy fire they had a breakdown in the chain of communication from the top. Happens all the time in war. Study the countless pictured of the beaches at the time, not a bomb crater anywhere and smooth as a baby's bum. In "Saving Private Ryan" a reconstruction was done from the accounts of those who landed. The landing scenes are brutally accurate. All they had was those iron things sticking up out of the sand to hide behind when they needed the previously planned fox holes in the sand.
elenos
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 01:42
If I remember the allies were still using air attacks where they would come right over their own troops rather than perpendicular to them during D-day.  They ended up killing some of their own troops, including a rather high ranking general from what I remember reading.
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 04:59
Originally posted by elenos

The bombers would have gone to their assigned targets, but when under heavy fire they had a breakdown in the chain of communication from the top. Happens all the time in war. Study the countless pictured of the beaches at the time, not a bomb crater anywhere and smooth as a baby's bum. In "Saving Private Ryan" a reconstruction was done from the accounts of those who landed. The landing scenes are brutally accurate. All they had was those iron things sticking up out of the sand to hide behind when they needed the previously planned fox holes in the sand.
 
There was no plan to make foxholes on the beaches with bombers. Try talking to some people who were in the landing as I did the other day at a D-day museum near where I live.
 
The whole point was to get OFF the beaches as fast as possible and push inland. There was to be no hanging around.
 
The bombers targets were basically the enemy and any communication links. Not making holes in a beach which weren't wanted.
Back to Top
kurt View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 358
  Quote kurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 00:42
Would anyone disagree with me when i say: the Germans lost to the Soviets because their industrial output did not match Soviet output?
 
The reason I'm saying this is because at the Battle of Kursk, when the final nail was slammed into Germany's coffin; those brilliant German tanks were rendered obsolete against Soviet T-39 tanks, even though T-39's were far inferior in quality, but much more numerous in quantity.
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 21:59

I wouldn't, that is one of the reasons though not the only reason.  Also the soviets were superior in quantity and quality in tanks until the panthers started rolling off the line.  The german generals were most unhappy to come across the T-34's in the opening of Barbarossa.  To say nothing of the frontline soldiers.



Edited by Justinian - 24-Aug-2007 at 22:00
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Aug-2007 at 19:00
So many 'blunders' in WWII, many made by the Allies early on, which gave the Axis a chance for victory and then many later on by the Axis, which cost them their 'chance'.  Some of the major 'blunders' that had a huge impact on the course and outcome of the war, first on the Allies' side:

1.  Stalin's pact with Hitler - almost let Germany win, whereas a 'united front' of Soviets, British and French could have limited the danger and damage done by the war.  Stalin was 'afraid' that the Allies were trying to arrange a war between Germany and the Soviet Union that they would remain out of.  So he turned around and did the same thing back to them.  The only 'problem' was that Germany was quickly and inexpensively victorious, and massively built up militarily, in large part due to the supplies that the Soviet Union was providing them with under the pact.

2.  Allies' Conduct of the Battle of France - Germany had some major advantages in terms of their military command, training, doctrine, equipment etc.  However, the Allies' plan in response to the Germans in 1940 was just about the worst possible thing they could have done, and directly resulted in a quick easy victory for Germany.

3.  Defense of the Soviet Union, 1941 -  The response of the Red Army to the invasion of 1941, not to mention the prior preparation - or lack thereof, was terrible and resulted in massive losses at the hands of a smaller invading force.  This almost gave the Germans a chance to win the war.

4.  Soviet Counterattacks Late Winter / Spring, 1942 - The initial winter counterattack by the Red Army was very effective and inflicted heavy losses on the Germans.  However, the Soviets expanded their counterattacks and tried to press them too far.  To compound that error they resumed massive counterattacks all along the front in spring, as soon as the mud had dried sufficiently.  The results were a disaster for the Red Army, and almost  gave the Germans another chance to win the war.

From the Axis side:

1.  German stop order at Dunkirk - effectively saved the BEF, allowing it to fight another day.  Given that the German strategy for the conduct of the war was to turn east as soon at the west had been dealt with, this failure to capture the BEF was even worse.  It meant that the Germans had to fight the Battle of Britain to again force Britain out of the war.  That failed as well and the Germans ended up with distraction in the Balkans and North Africa when they really needed to concentrate all their efforts on the eastern campaign if it was to be successful.

2.  Shortsighted conduct of the campaign in the east - Hitler was too overconfident that the Soviets would be 'easily' defeated. The great successes the Germans achieved in the opening stages of Barbarossa confirmed him in his opinion.  This had a number of consequences, from failing to fully 'mobilize' the resources of the Third Reich early enough, to an early campaign of deliberate brutality and extermination in the conquered lands of the Soviet Union.  A 'propaganda campaign' of 'liberation' from communism, the setting up of fascist puppet regimes and re-opening churchs and redistributing collectivized lands may have brought about the 'collapse' of the communist regime that Hitler expected.  Instead, the brutal conquerors approach actually 'forced' people back to support for the communist regime, in order to fight for their very survival.

3.  Stalingrad Campaign - there is some debate about going for the Caucasus at all.  However, Hitler believed that he needed the oil and depriving the Soviets of it would finish their effective resistance.  Whether or not a campaign in that direction was the best move, the historical campaign was very badly implemented and effectively finished the Germans.  They might have been better off if they had driven all the way to the shores of the Caspian Sea, so as to 'cut off' the Red Army forces in the Caucasus.  As it was, fighting for Stalingrad street by street while it was still being resupplied from across the Volga was an incredible blunder.

4.  Just about everything Italy tried to do militarily -  Starting with attacking France in the Alps when France had already been effectively defeated and getting nothing but a 'bloody nose'.  Attacking the British in Egypt and getting totally wiped out by a much smaller British force.  Invading Greece, and losing.  Sailing their warships out of port and getting sunk.  Keeping warships in port and getting sunk!  Trying to 'stab the Germans in the back' by making a deal with the Allies to occupy most of Italy and 'trap' the Germans, and instead getting most of their country occupied by the Germans.

5.  Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour - not really a blunder in a tactical sense, other than 'missing' the carriers.  However, a blunder in a strategic sense in that it provoked a war with a much more powerful nation in which the Japanese had no realistic plan to win.  The Japanese plan was to 'cripple' the US fleet, grab what they could while the grabbing was good and then hold onto it until the US gave up and agreed to let them keep what they had taken.  Chance of Japanese victory with that plan after Pearl Harbour - .0002%.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Aug-2007 at 19:34
A fair enough summary deadkenny. Hitler either didn't do enough or did too much in his campaigns.  
elenos
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.