|
|
The Worst Battlefield Blunders: Five Battles That Ended Badly
By Stephan Wilkinson |
Military History | Imagine how much longer and bloodier World War II might have been had Admiral Yamamoto not filled the decks of his vulnerable carriers at Midway with fully fueled airplanes awaiting ordnance. What if Hitler, despite his anger at the bombing of Berlin, hadn’t switched tactics from downing Spitfires to uselessly attacking London? Battlefield blunders can be as decisive as brilliant tactics, whether they suddenly advance tribal factions toward nationhood, punish a proud military unaccustomed to losing or temporarily swing the balance of power in an utterly unexpected direction. That said, following are five losers who might have wished for a do-over. Hamilton at Gallipoli  During World War I, German General Erich Ludendorff famously observed, “The English fight like lions.” “Yes,” a staff officer famously replied, “but they are led by donkeys.” British General Sir Ian Hamilton might not have been a full-fledged ass, but he was certainly a bumbling Ferdinand the bull—shy, courteous and overly accommodating. Unfortunately, Lord Kitchener, Britain’s Secretary of State for War, gave him command of the 1915 invasion of Gallipoli—the amphibious landings by British, French and ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) troops intended to take Turkey, a German ally, out of the war. The campaign demanded an assertive, tactically brilliant, take-charge commander. Instead, the Allies got a kindly uncle who really didn’t want to interfere with his brigadier nephews. Not that a promising young Winston Churchill had done any better. As First Lord of the Admiralty in 1915, he proposed that a task force of 18 aging battleships charge through the Dardanelles, the narrow 38-mile-long strait that led toward the Turkish capital at Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul). Forts flanked the high-bluffed Gallipoli Peninsula west of the strait, so Churchill’s strategy was akin to taking a convoy of vintage Cadillacs on a thunder run through central Baghdad. The British lost five battleships, mainly to mines but also to Turkish coast artillery. This should have been a hint, not that Gallipoli was impregnable, for the Turks really didn’t have a modern army or much in the way of good artillery, but that the commanding terrain made a frontal attack potentially suicidal. Indeed, the Greeks—the Turks’ neighbors and longtime adversaries—had formulated a war plan in case the Gallipoli Peninsula ever needed to be attacked, and it called for 150,000 men. Lord Kitchener scoffed at that estimate. Johnny Turk would cut and run at the first sign of the Allies, he insisted, and half as many troops would do just fine. Thus, early on the morning of April 25, 1915, Hamilton launched his enormously ambitious amphibious landing. An outline of the beachhead assault might read like a description of the D-Day landings were it not for the absence of any specialized landing craft. Armored assault boats did exist back in England, but they remained a well-guarded secret; heaven forfend invaders would use them and thus spill the British beans. Instead, huge warships towed ponderous strings of cockleshells—essentially lifeboats—toward shore, then split the strings and transferred the towing job to slow, shallow-draft launches. Oarsmen stroked the final few yards onto the beaches. The action most often memorialized in paintings of the landing was the beaching of the old steamer River Clyde to allow soldiers to emerge from its sally ports (doors along the hull at the waterline) and stroll ashore on gangplanks. Unfortunately, it was equally easy for Turkish machine gunners on the heights to pick off troopers one at a time as they popped from the sally ports like mechanical ducks in a shooting gallery. Of the first 200 soldiers to step from the ships, just 21 made it to the beach alive. Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6            Tags: 19th Century, 20th - 21st Century, Historical Conflicts, Historical Figures
 |
SPONSORED SITES
STAY CONNECTED WITH US |
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 1,200 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Once A Marine | Achtung Panzer! Terms of Use | Copyright © 2008 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
Loading ...
9 Comments to “The Worst Battlefield Blunders: Five Battles That Ended Badly”
The Little Bighorn section of this article is simply riddled with idiotic statements & completely shows the author has no idea whatsoever about what he is actually writing about. Perhaps, he should at least study the campaign & battle itself prior to simply writing what he has heard about the battle. His total ignorance to what took place in Montana simply discredits his abilities as a “writer” as well as historynet.com for posting this ridiculously uninformed article! It seems his only study of the battle came from watching Little Big Man! PLEASE!
By Jeff on Jun 22, 2008 at 12:21 am
Custer was an idiot and a p***y. It doesn’t warrant any closer study than that.
By JRS on Jul 10, 2008 at 11:59 am
Lets not forget Naumo not launching the third strike wave at Pearl Harbor. He would have destroyed the fuel farm, starving the Pacific fleet for fuel, and possibly gotten the returning carriers. There would have thus been no Battles of the Coral Sea, or Midway. But the greatest blunder of all would be politicians overruling GENERALS TACTICAL DECISIONS FOR POLITICAL GAIN. For example, the President of France ordering Verdun to be held at all costs, over the GENERALS DESIRE TO PULL BACK AND SHORTEN THEIR LINES. Result 500,000 unneccesary French dead.
By Stanley Peek on Jul 26, 2008 at 5:25 pm
To JRS: perhaps you should research George Custer and his service during the Civil War. Specifically at Gettysburg and his actions against JEB Stuart’s attack that most likely won the battle for the Union. You can start your research with Lost Triumph written by Tom Carhart.”idiot and a P***y” thats strong words from someone who prob. couldent even water Custers horse.
By joe on Aug 9, 2008 at 12:14 pm
The comment that the British soldiers in WWI were “lions led by donkeys” was never said by any German general or one of any other nation. In recent years Cornelli Barnett (one of the masterminds behind the BBC’s wonderful history of WWI) has admitted that he made up the quote, which reflected his own views.
By James D Graham on Sep 3, 2008 at 6:52 am
Naming Custer’s defeat as a worst battlefield blunder is lame. He only lost 262 men! It wasn’t even the worst defeat to native forces in that decade. Chelmsford didn’t do as well in the Zulu war losing 1,200 in a single action two and a half years later.
Custer’s defeat is also paled by St. Claire’s losing one half of the U.S.Army 800 men in Nov 1792 to Miami Indians.
By Barney Cooney on Sep 7, 2008 at 11:34 am
the battle of the little big horn was basicly a draw. Custer blundered badly, but Benteen fought well and managed to save the day.
I do agree with James Graham and suggest that if you want to read about exciting Indian warfare checkout the woodland Indians.
By hew byrd on Sep 18, 2008 at 4:34 pm
It’s a pity that The battle for Malaya (8th December 1941 - 10th
February 1042) was not included in this research of worst
battlefield blunders.
One would see how the British Lt.General Percival was defeated
by Lt. Gen Yamashita (The Tiger of Malaya) with a combat force
one third that of Percival’s.
Yamashita out thought and out maneuvred the GOC of the
Commonwealth forces in February 1942 into surrender despite
Percival having more ammo and provisions than Yamashita’s
forces.
By Derek on Oct 29, 2008 at 4:17 am
There was no Civil War general who is more misrepresented than Ambrose Burnside. The attack at Marye’s Heights was planned as a diversion. The real attack was to be several miles away at the portion of the defense line held by Stonewall Jackson. General Meade then a division commander, pierced Jackson’s line as planned. The plan then called for Edwin Sumner’s Corp to expand the breach and force the confederates to retreat, inflict as many casaulties,etc . However, Sumner a McClellan groupie, said his orders weren’t “Clear”. So instead of expanding the breach, he did nothing. Meade could not hold the area where the line was breached with a single division. He was forced to retreat. It is true , Burnside did not possess the required “coolness” when things went wrong. He foolishly , after his good plan which would have won the battle was sabotaged, tried to win by repeatedly attacking Marye’s Heights. So McClellan’s sycophants helped the rebels win another battle as occurred at Second Manasses. Another factor overlooked by those who love to kick a man when he’s down was the fact that Burnside, had stolen a march on Lee and easily would have taken Fredericksburg, but for the minor detai of having to wait ELEVEN DAYS for pontoons to cross the Rappahanock. Of Course, by then, Lee’s army was totally concentrated on the other side of the river.
By Joe Hamilton on Nov 20, 2008 at 6:50 pm