Let's put on the thinking caps and see if we can frame the topic to get a discussion going. What in your opinion is the greatest military disaster to befall a given nation? Lots of options....
DJ

well for me thats an easy one,

Great Britain, first battle of the somme.

catastrophic losses of men through tactics that could have been devised by an ape in a peak cap!

now seriously, did they really think getting out of the trenches and slowly walking towards the enemy was going to work?

cheers

joe

Not to pick on the Brits but I'd have to say Singapore and the whole Malaya campaign in WWII. I'm not 100% sure they could have held it forever, but they probably could have held out longer than they did. For the Yanks it's probably the Philippines, again I think that with less of a defeatist attitude they could have held out longer. For the Japanese their biggest disaster was probably Pearl Harbor, they were doomed from the start. Militarily the Japanese probably lost more important ships at Midway than any other battle. For the Germans invading Russia and declaring war on the US are the two biggest blunders. Militarily I'd have to go with Kursk and the Normandy landings. IF they had been able to push the allies back on June 6th things might have been a bit harder on the allies. For Russia it was getting caught flat footed with their planes on the ground when the Germans invaded.

Both Napoleon & Hitler invading Russia without taking the winter into account, for the British than either the Somme or possibly the Battle of Hastings. For my own ancestors then Culloden was pretty bad, they ended up having to leave the country and Hudsons Bay was a pretty wild place in those days! LOL

Since DJ has made me somewhat a student of the Korean War with his excellent suggested reading list I will toss out the whole intelligence failure in that conflict as a "disaster." Halfyank covered most of the others that I would have mentioned. I will toss this out too: The failure of the IDF to appreciate the threat posed by the saggers in the Yom Kippur war.

Thanks for starting a new thread DJ!
Shaun

I am going to suggest Gettysburg where hundreds of thousands died in a single day.

Actually, the total casualties at Gettysburg were between 54 and 55 thousand for Union and Confederates combined for three days of fighting, which is less than the first day on the Somme for the British alone. My nominee for worst military disater is the entire First World War. The better part of an entire generation of European men was wiped out, countless cities were destroyed with millions left homeless, goverments were overthrown, empires crumbled, and, worst of all, nothing was settled. In fact, the outcome of WW1 only served to lay the seeds of conflict for WW2.

i would have to agree pretty much with what Rodger ,Greatbrit and Warmachine have said. my one disagreement would be on Pearl Harbour i think that by by not invading that was their downfall.by the way my granda O'Neill was at the Somme he was R.H.A.lucky for him.

I'd say the Battle of Adowa between the Italians and the Ethiopians. It seemed the Italians underestimated their "inferior" enemy. They got routed in the process.

Another is the Battle of Cannae between the Romans and Carthaginians. I dunno if military intelligence existed back then but it seems that it is what the Romans lacked.

Another is Operation Market-Garden. It was the largest airborne operation. But like what Cornelius Ryan titled in his book, it was a Bridge too Far. Military intel spoiled what could have been a perfectly good plan by Montgomery when it failed to mention that a crack SS tank unit was resting in the AO. It slowed the progress of the follow-on forces, led to the destrutcion of key bridges that led to Arnhem, trapping the Red Devils there.

If there's another that can qualify as a disaster, it's the misuse of Special Forces and their auxilliaries in guarding the frontier between Vietnam and Cambodia. These irregulars were not suited to go head-to-head with NVA regulars or VC regiments plus their questionable loyalty as some VC infiltrated their ranks. As a result, some, if not a lot of outposts were overrun.

Then there's that action in Somalia (Black Hawk Down, I dunno what else to call it). My take on this is, daylight is not the right time to make the snatch as Somali militia are up and sure to expect trouble. Better to have done it at night where the Delta Force can do what they do best.

The higher-ups hamstrung TF Ranger by denying them AC-130 gunships and Bradley IFV's. They had to make do with lightly-armored Humvees.

The US Marines should have been available for backup since they possess the necessary tools for the job (light and heavy armor plus aircraft) or the 10th Mountain Division. That would have provided enough people to secure the crash sites. A company of Rangers would not do. As a result, they were spread thin, aggravated by the casualties they incurred. Come to think of it, they should have just sent in the Marines.

I dunno if TF Ranger was aware that the Somali militias had their own intelligence network as well?

some good points made here,

however id still go with the first battle of the somme.

the point about the entire first world war is a good one, and my own great grandfather survived being gassed at the somme, only to be crippled with lung diseases for the rest of his life. tragic loss of an entire generation

cheers

joe

Certainly, we have some interesting candidates. I am surprised that we only have the Battle of Midway mentioned as a sea battle disaster. The Battle of the Philippine Seas is certainly a big loser for the Japanese as is the Battle of Leyete Gulf. Broke the back of Japanese seapower. Singapore is another interesting entry. Can we get some follow-up on it?
DJ

singapore is a good candidate, and came about largely as a result of the antiquated, defeatest attitude of the admiralty and other figures in high places.

the same can be said about the fall of france in 1940. if the forces on the battlefield had been used effectively then history would have been very different!

cheers

joe

What about Galipoli? Trust I spelt it correctly.
DJ

dj, galipoli is a good candidate too, im surprised its not been mentioned before.

and you did spell it correctly. sorry im only mentioning british battles so far,

the battle of kesserine pass, and going further back, the battle of narva during the great northern war was a disaster for peter the greats russia, i studied it as part of my A level in history.

sweden defeated russia with losses of 667 men, whilst killing 15000 russians.

cheers

joe

Joe-- Kasserine Pass certainly strrikes a chord within me. A terrible battle so poorly fought at all levels as to call into question the bravery of the individual Soldier and the competence of his leaders. It took a long time to recover the reputation we lost in that battle. Good choice.
DJ

The aspect of Singapore and the P.I., to me, is that they both seem to have involved armies that were defeated before they began. In both cases the Japanese finished up the campaign on a shoe string, living off captured food and supplies. If either the British or the Americans had been able to hold a bit longer, the Japanese might have been forced to stop and consolidate. In both cases this would have to have been before they got to their final stronghold. Once in Singapore or Corrigadore (sp) they were doomed.

To me the worst aspect of either campaign was the thousands of men who spent years in the worst possible conditions because of their defeat.

For the USA I would say Pearl Harbour

But what about:

Blood River (16 Dec 1838)
Isandlwana (22 Jan 1879)
Operation Jubilee (The Raid on Dieppe) (19 Aug 1942)
Kursk (5 July 1943)
Market Garden (Arnhem) (Sept 1944)
Tet Offensive (Jan 1968)

Also

Turkish attack on the Suez Canal during WW1
The sinking of HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales

I would say Dieppe for My Canadian bothers.
Somme for my British forefathers.
Kasserine Pass for my US neighbours.
Maybe the Marrianas turkey shoot for Japan.

Could think of others but that is it for now.

HastyP

stalingrad it borke the back of the axis armies in Russia and caused such loss of men and materials which was felt for the rest of the war also in human terms of the 95,000 prisoners only 5000 or less returend home, all due to one mans stupid ideas this battle was still a bit of a taboo subject with the germans until recently when the film Stalingrad came out,
Incidently on the BBC news about 1-2 years ago the very last POW from the Russian
campagin was sent home he was either Hungarian/Bulgarian and because he spoke
in what they thought was gibbersih he was kept in a Soviet mental hospital and was
forgotten about he was in his 80's it was nice to see him meet his family after all that
time as he'd been classed as dead.
Remember Stalingrad also had implications
for the west until the end of the cold war as this is were the fightback into central
europe and the take over of the eastern states began

I would also like to add the Anzio campaign as another disaster (for the Allied powers).

As for Bataan and Corregidor, it was a rather Pyrrhic victory for the Japanese. They lost a lot of soldiers in action until sickness, hunger, and low ammo prevented the USAFFE from holding out. Gen. Edward King (Bataan) and Jonathan Wainwright decided to exercise "discretion as a better part of valor" with the assumption that the Japanese will treat them well.

why this one dave?

do you mean the battle was a disaster, or the implications of king harolds defeat?

the battle itself was a lucky victory for the normans, but winning meant that the conquest of england was easy.

cheers

joe

Anzio. Now there is a subject for discussion. The Germans almost did it. They almost pushed the Allies back into the sea. Should it have been done to start off with? I am one of those folks who believe the entire Italian campaign was a terrible mistake and illogical diversion of men and resources for a dubious end state (capture Rome?). Food for thought there.
DJ

My theory, for whatever it's worth, is the allies needed to fight the Germans when and where they could. If you go on the assumption that they couldn't invade France sooner than 1944, a debatable point right there, then they needed to be able to fight the Germans on the ground somewhere, and Italy was as good a place as any. It did have the result of knocking Italy out of the war, as well as tying up German units that might have been better used in Russia or defending France. In both of those regards it was a successful campaign. That's NOT to say Anzio wasn't a pretty major mistake.

Anzio and the Italian campaign are self-created diasasters. Italy was out of the war in September of 1943 when the first boat hit Salerno. The British captured Foggia airfield and allowed us to place heavy bombers on the continent to attack Germany. We should have stopped right there and then. We were on the continent, poised to pursue several option (invade Southern France, continue the assault in Italy or hit Greece). We should have pursued these option not commit to a weak thrust up the Italian boot. As Napoleon said "you enter a boot through the top." It was a foolish waste and should have been stopped otr contented with the gains achieved. They didn't enter Rome until 4 June 1944. After that no one ever paid attention to the Italian campaign.
DJ

Actually, the Italians took themselves out of the war when they themselves ousted Mussolini after he failed to deliver his promise of glory. Of course, the reaction was for the Germans to take up the slack. Now that meant something.

Still, the commanders in the Italian campaign (notably Gen. Mark Clark) should have been acutely aware of the bogged down campaign at Anzio and should have quickly found a way around which would have minimized the casualties.

[/quote]