worst descision to split forces in history

[The Yosemite Bear]

currently my bets are currently the british army at Isdelwana, or Custer at Little Bighorn....

[Adrian Laguna]

The assault on Stalingrad. Hitler ordered the army split to attack two differnet targets, Stalingrad and some oil fields I think As everyone knows, that didn't go very well for the Wermatcht.

[Seydlitz_k]

Hmm, probably Hitler's decision to split up Army Group Centre between Army Group North and Army Group South when they were only a few kilometers from Moscow during Operation Barbarossa. Many generals and staff officers from the Oostheer and Ober Kommando der Wehrmacht officers protested, and some even resigned.

When Army Group Centre was put back on track, Zukhov had consolidated the defenses around Moscow and it was too late. That single decision probably lost the Nazi's WWII.

[Duckie]

Hmm, probably Hitler's decision to split up Army Group Centre between Army Group North and Army Group South when they were only a few kilometers from Moscow during Operation Barbarossa. Many generals and staff officers from the Oostheer and Ober Kommando der Wehrmacht officers protested, and some even resigned.

When Army Group Centre was put back on track, Zukhov had consolidated the defenses around Moscow and it was too late. That single decision probably lost the Nazi's WWII.

Nonsense. It lost them Moscow, but the Soviets still would have steamrollered the Wehrmacht back on schedrule even minus their capital. I've heard theories they could have done it without Baku, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow. Sure, Morale would be shit, but they'd still have overwhelming superiority of numbers and somewhat-near-parity in technology.

However, it may have delayed the Red Army long enough to ensure a completely free Germany from the Allied side. So in way it could have been better. Or it could have just been the same.

[Darth Tanner]

Stalin would likely have remained in Moscow till the end like Hitler did with Berlin, if the USSR lost him the political collapse would have carried over to both the army and the economy, letting Germany win by default.
On the other hand if he had simply fled Moscow you are right to say the Russians would have fought on (even with the immense political damage losing and fleeing moscow would have caused), especially since Moscow hadn't been the capital that long.

Our defeat at Isandlwana was largely down to ammo shortages and stupid decisions in preparing the camp, Chelmsford in particular, rather than a shortage of manpower. The battle at Rorke's Drift shows that concentrated fire is more than sufficient to resist a larger force of close combat infantry, the problem at Isandlwana was that there were no fortifications (the refusal to circle the wagons as the Boa allies suggested) and that the troops spread out too much, weakening the lines. It is likely that if the 1200 or so troops there had formed proper formations behind their wagons they could have annhilated the zulu forces, as occured with all subsequent battles.

My biggest military splitting of forces would be the attack on Texas by Santa Ana. By the time Huston decided to attack practically none of the mexican army were actually with him and he was simply overwhelmed by a drastically less well trained army - quite the idiot!

[The Yosemite Bear]

Our defeat at Isandlwana was largely down to ammo shortages and stupid decisions in preparing the camp, Chelmsford in particular, rather than a shortage of manpower. The battle at Rorke's Drift shows that concentrated fire is more than sufficient to resist a larger force of close combat infantry, the problem at Isandlwana was that there were no fortifications (the refusal to circle the wagons as the Boa allies suggested) and that the troops spread out too much, weakening the lines. It is likely that if the 1200 or so troops there had formed proper formations behind their wagons they could have annhilated the zulu forces, as occured with all subsequent battles.

*cough* Hlobane

[K. A. Pital]

MRDOD

So in way it could have been better.

Back that up.
Are you suggesting that the extermination of more people according to Mr.H's plans would be better? Any prologation of World War II is not "better" in any normal sense of the word. The Allies would simply suffer more losses and may even lose any possibility to get a hold in Europe. We decimated 3/4 of German manpower at a very high civilian life cost, and someone thinks more people dying could be "better in a way"?

Or it could have just been the same.

It would just mean more Allies and civilians dying, it couldn't possibly be "same" due to simple fact of war prolongation, hence continuing slaughter. If more dead is equally bad as less dead, then I don't really get the point of rushing to defeat Germany. Or defeating it anyway.

Darth Tanner

Stalin would likely have remained in Moscow till the end like Hitler did with Berlin

Hitler had nowhere to go; Stalin had to retreat into the vastness of Russia. Do you think Stalin was a total idiot to stay in Moscow and get himself killed along with all the Stavka? You're wrong: he was readying for evacuation. He had a special command center in Kuybishev ready, and the order for redislocating the government was already there. He just stayed a tad longer in Moscow to oversee the Parade of 7th Nov. Kuybishev was ready to become a second capital... it never did, however.

[CarsonPalmer]

I think that MRDOD is saying that the Soviets might have been shut out of Europe entirely, and that would have led to the Western Allies controlling all of Germany, leading to a reduction of Cold War paranoia, perhaps no Vietnam, no competing factions in many South American and African countries, and less terrorism today.

[K. A. Pital]

I think that MRDOD is saying that the Soviets might have been shut out of Europe entirely

It's simple. Soviets demolished the German forces, so that the Allies could invade. If the Germans would have more years to strenghten their hold in Europe... neither the Soviets, nor USA-GB may not have the ability to defeat them at all. It would come to a standstill. With a long-lasting bloody war.

and that would have led to the Western Allies controlling all of Germany

Where did they get the power to get "all of Germany"? Oh, right, I forgot - last time the D-Day force was nearly thrown off-coast, and that counteroffensive in Ardennes was so bad they called Russia and said "Start the offensive so that the Germans would be forced to stop!!!". That's easy - the Allies owe their European success to Russia grinding Nazis to bloody pulp. If that's delayed by a few years, I can't see them invading at all. Neither of them.

leading to a reduction of Cold War paranoia

How so? If Russia were weaker, I suggest that "Operation Unthinkable" may have been executed straightaway, IF as you say Allies would totally conquer Germany before the Soviet Union.

The rest are consequences of a Cold War which would happen anyway, with or without Germany, due to the enemy-like perception of both sides.

So, aside from bumping up World War II's already enormous death toll, what's the result? Answer: none. That's logic and history.

[Darth Tanner]

*cough* Hlobane

I must admit I had not heard of this battle before but from what I can see about it this was a force of some 20,000 zulus overwhelming a british cavalry force of only 200ish men that was in a non-fortified position attempting to attack an elevated village.

[CaptainChewbacca]

How about Japan being creative instead of committing their full forces to Midway?

[CarsonPalmer]

StasBush, in this scenario, Russia fights on, so the German army is still worn down. I think the only real difference is that the Russian advance westward reaches the Polish border, as opposed to Berlin. In fact, Germany might even be more worn down by fiercer fighting and longer supply lines in the heart of Russia.

Anyway, the Ardennes offensive failed not because of any Russian offensive, but because it was simply a poor plan. As far as I know, the Germans called no reserves from the attack to fight the Russians, and were stopped because they tried to go too far.

Even if the death toll in WWII is decreased, who knows how many lives are saved in the ensuing forty years? With the influence of the Soviet Union greatly reduced, the United States in not setting up dictators in Latin America and Africa, and probably is able to avoid fighting in Vietnam. Without the bloody purges in those countries, or the chaos that racked Southeast Asia, the world is already a much more peaceful place.

In addition, the US either does not train the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan, or the war does not happen to begin with, greatly reducing Islamic terrorism.

[The Yosemite Bear]

the problem that Hlobane doesn't mention was that light cal. was guarding medicine, food, ammo, and weapons destined for a major fort, guess who got all those goodies, and guess who had to abandon the fort or starve?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Nonsense. It lost them Moscow, but the Soviets still would have steamrollered the Wehrmacht back on schedrule even minus their capital. I've heard theories they could have done it without Baku, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow. Sure, Morale would be shit, but they'd still have overwhelming superiority of numbers and somewhat-near-parity in technology.

However, it may have delayed the Red Army long enough to ensure a completely free Germany from the Allied side. So in way it could have been better. Or it could have just been the same.

Really? I could swear that I remeber reading somewhere that Moscow was the centralized hub of the Soviet Union's railroad network, and that it's loss would have crippled the SU's logistics/Industry.

[Stark]

that counteroffensive in Ardennes was so bad they called Russia and said "Start the offensive so that the Germans would be forced to stop!!!".

I find your perspective fascinating, but I'm almost certain this is sixty-year old Russian propaganda. I'll go grab my books, but I'm pretty sure Stalin styled it like that even though it doesn't make any sense chronologically. I'll try and find my source.

[CarsonPalmer]

That wouldn't have made sense even if Stalin had timed the offensive perfectly. By the time the Germans needed western troops in the east, the battle in the Ardennes would have reached a decision.

[Big Phil]

that counteroffensive in Ardennes was so bad they called Russia and said "Start the offensive so that the Germans would be forced to stop!!!".

I find your perspective fascinating, but I'm almost certain this is sixty-year old Russian propaganda. I'll go grab my books, but I'm pretty sure Stalin styled it like that even though it doesn't make any sense chronologically. I'll try and find my source.

The British propaganda is good too - Apparently Eisenhower was hiding in his bunker for a week, couldn't make a decision, and Montgomery came to the American's rescue. He personally stuck his dick in every Tiger's cannon and blew them up with his "semen of incredible power."

A bad split - Romans at the Teuteberg (SP?) Forest. Three Legions spread out in marching columns in enemy territory. Their destruction marked the demise of eastern expansion for the Romans.

[Seydlitz_k]

Nonsense. It lost them Moscow, but the Soviets still would have steamrollered the Wehrmacht back on schedrule even minus their capital. I've heard theories they could have done it without Baku, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow. Sure, Morale would be shit, but they'd still have overwhelming superiority of numbers and somewhat-near-parity in technology.

However, it may have delayed the Red Army long enough to ensure a completely free Germany from the Allied side. So in way it could have been better. Or it could have just been the same.

Really? I could swear that I remeber reading somewhere that Moscow was the centralized hub of the Soviet Union's railroad network, and that it's loss would have crippled the SU's logistics/Industry.

It was Blkbrry, that's the thing. Sure, If Moscow had fallen the Russians would have still fought on. Their chances of beating the Germans back would be severly reduced though. It dosn't matter how hard you fight, if you have no logistics to back you up - which is coincidentally why Germany lost the war.

In an age when armies and ammuntion still had to be taken to the front by train, loosing the centre of your railroad network would have been a very devastating strategic blow.

It's simple. Soviets demolished the German forces, so that the Allies could invade. If the Germans would have more years to strenghten their hold in Europe... neither the Soviets, nor USA-GB may not have the ability to defeat them at all. It would come to a standstill. With a long-lasting bloody war.

Stas Bush is also right in the fact that the Western allies wouldn't have stood a chance against the full power of the Wehrmacht. In fact, the British wouldn't have invaded at all if it wasn't for pressure from the US and Stalin's pleas to open a second front.

The Ardennes offensive was never a real threat though. The Germans only held the advantage when the weather was bad. As soon as it cleared up, Allied Air superiority brought the advance to a standstill. It was just to little to late.

[Ypoknons]

A bad split - Romans at the Teuteberg (SP?) Forest. Three Legions spread out in marching columns in enemy territory. Their destruction marked the demise of eastern expansion for the Romans.

"Eastern expansion" is a bit of oversimplification, isn't it? In the early AD100's, long after Teutoburg forest, Emperor Trajan took Dacia and took Ctesiphon (modern Iraq, ancient "Parthian Persia"). Hadrian retreated from the Parthians back to old borders but Dacia remained in the Empire for another 100 years. Expansion in Germany, I supposed probably possible but the wealth of the East drew Trajan there.

Montgomery's semen verus the Tiger, is however, hilarious.

[Stark]

The British propaganda is good too - Apparently Eisenhower was hiding in his bunker for a week, couldn't make a decision, and Montgomery came to the American's rescue. He personally stuck his dick in every Tiger's cannon and blew them up with his "semen of incredible power."

Ironically, while looking for the quote I'm thinking of I found mention of Montys comments during the Ardenne offensive. American generals certainly didn't like it, and even the British encouraged Eisenhower to sack him for the sake of morale.

[Adrian Laguna]

A bad split - Romans at the Teuteberg (SP?) Forest. Three Legions spread out in marching columns in enemy territory. Their destruction marked the demise of eastern expansion for the Romans.

In all fairness to the Romans and their commander, none of them where aware it was enemy territory. As far as they knew, that area had been pacified.

[K. A. Pital]

What "Stalin propaganda"?

Churchill's special telegram to Stalin, Jan.6 1945 (translated from Russian, so sorry for any dumb mistakes).

"Very hard battles are going on the Western Front... You know from your own experience, how alarming is a situation when you need to defend a very wide front after a temporary loss of intiative... I would be vert grateful, if you could inform me, could we count on a large Russian offensive on the Visla front or on some other vector during January or anytime, that you would like to inform us of. I would not transmit this top-classified information to anybody, except field marshall Brooke and General Eisenhower, with an obligation to keep top secrecy in mind."

Answer from Stalin to Churchill:

"... considering the situation our Western Allies are in on the Western Front, the Stavka has decided to force the build-up and, ignoring weather conditions, start a wide offensive on the central front not later than the second half of January. You can be sure that we would do everything possible, to help out the glorious forces of the Allies"

Churchill's reply, 9 Jan. 1945

"I am very grateful for your exciting letter... We and the Americans throw into battle everything we have. The news I have from you now has very much encouraged General Eisenhower, because it gives certainity that the Germans would have to divide their reserves between the two our battlefronts"

Ignoring that the Red Army was not completely ready for this major offensive, and that the Tehran conference decisions did not oblige the Red Army to do a winter offensive, the Stavka decided to fulfill the wish of the Allies.

On the 12th of January, ahead of slated time and actually without any obligation to do so except a moral one, the Red Army started a massive offensive from the Baltic to the Carpates, on a 1200-km wide front. Hitler's defence was broken, his command immediately started moving divisions: from 12 to 31 January 7 divisions were moved to the Eastern front, 4 of them tank divisions.

The winter offensive in Ardennes and Elsas immediately came to a halt, the German command had to move the 6th SS tank army to the Eastern front, and after that - 16 more divisions. Their forces retreated on the Western Front.

On the 8th of February, the Allied Command retaliated in a massive offensive against the Germans and throw back their lines to December 1944 positions.

[K. A. Pital]

More on the effect of Russian offensive on the Ardennes' operation from General Hasso von Manteufel - the background behind the Germans' actions 13-31 Jan.

... Stage 7 (of the operation). The enemy put our flanks under heavy pressure. There is a looming danger of encirclement. 13 of January, this huge Russian offensive started, and the Command had to move forces from the Western Front to the Eastern Front in emergency, including the forces of the Ardennes' force group. The whole 6th SS Tank Army was taken out of the group and redeployed to the East.

Stage 8. To cover-up the loss of 6th SS Army from the advancing force, all the attacking forces were moved back on initial defence positions on 25th of Januray. Right at this time, the enemy started moving towards the dams - a clear sign that they would soon force the Ruhr. Simultaneously, the english group was preparing for a general assault in the lower Rhein turns.

Thus the defensive capability of the German forces on the Western Front was crucially/critically undermined. We lost our last strategic chance to hold the Rhein line.

[Stuart Mackey]

Why is this thread here?

[The Yosemite Bear]

Why is this thread here?

I don't know I originally ment to put it in off topic, but then again history is a science.