Biggest Epic Fails in History

[Lord Revan]

I know I'm bias but I suppose Winter War (as a whole) would be way better example of an incomplete victory that was an epic fail (from the part of the attackers) then anything from the american civil war, sure the soviets won in the end but it could be considered a phyrric victory as they were unable to achive their primary objectives (aka the conquest of Finland) due to heavy casualities caused by the soviet military and political leadership underestimating the level of resistance the finns were capable of pre-war estimates by the soviets on how long it would take to conquer Finland by force were few weeks, the war lasted 3 months, also at the start Stalin sent troops from the southern provinces to fight the finns thinking that local soviet troops would be too friendly with finns (for those who don't know the winter of 1939-1940 was very cold)

Conquering Finland wasn't Stalin's goal, though. What he had originally wanted was some more space in Karelia if I remember corectly, only going to war after the Finns expectedly refused. He got that with a lot of losses and a diplomatic fiasco, but got it nonetheless.

Now, had the Finns broken the offense entirely and counteradvanced against Leningrad (just saying), that would have been an epic fail for Russia.

actually conquering Finland was always the intended goal, while the orginal demands were less they would effective striped Finland of the means to defend itself allowing USSR to take over easily, like they already had done in the baltic states using the same strategy only few months prior IIRC so I suppose no one can blame the finnish leadership for essentially telling the soviets to shove their demands where the sun don't shine when their intended plans came clear.

also you got remember at during that time the FDF was a mess having shortages in just about everything but enemies and most of the equipment they had was badly out of date, the so called Model Cajander refers to the fact that good chunk of finnish troopers only got an insignia and possibly an utility belt when they joined cause there wasn't enough uniforms or weapons to give.

then there's the fact finns had civil war (sort of) only 2 decades earlier and a failed (well tbh there was never any chance of it succeeding but still) right wing uprising both which caused alot of internal conflict.

how ever instead of dividing the finnish people and crushing the finnish military with superior forces, Soviets not only had more personal, their equipment was generally more up to date, Stalin managed to unite the finnish people and the initial attacks were total disasters soviets only winning due to having more men and finally figuring that napoleonic tactics done badly wasn't right way to go in 1940(!) started using propper tactics and still only managing a lesser version of the orginal plans.

[PeZook]

Didn't the Soviet performance during the Winter War also convince German generals that the Red Army was next to worthless, and thus significantly influence the decision to stab the USSR in the back?

I'd argue that it might classify as an epic fail for this reason alone

[Metahive]

Well, the german generals certainly thought it would be easier to overwhelm the USSR based on the Red Army's performance in Finland. The decision to wage war on the Soviet Union at all was however already on the books before the Winter War. What influenced the Nazis to attack in June '41 was a meeting between Hitler and Molotov that convinced the former that the Russians were beginning to focus their attention in the wrong direction (that is, the Dardanelles and Southeastern Europe as opposed to Persia and India).

And to be fair, in the first few months of Barbarossa the Red Army did perform very badly seemingly vindicating the judgement of german military intelligence. It was just that the Russia Germany faced in '41 wasn't the unstable and under-industrialized anachronistic feudal state from WWI anymore.

--------------------

Can we establish that something only counts as an epic fail if the culprit performs vastly below reasonable expectations?

[TheGreekDollmaker]

Didn't the Soviet performance during the Winter War also convince German generals that the Red Army was next to worthless, and thus significantly influence the decision to stab the USSR in the back?

I'd argue that it might classify as an epic fail for this reason alone

The winterwar did certainly make the German Generals more willing to believe that the Red Army could be defeated in a matter of weeks (Hitler said that the USSR was like a shack house, you would need only a push and the whole thing would go down in shambles), but the original conviction actuallys started back in WW1 with the Battle of Tannenberg, which may be an Epic Fail on Russia.

What happened was that the Germans managed to anticipate that the Russians would take some time to mobilize their forces, and while it would take that amount of time to mobilize, they should take all of their Military capabilities and knock out France and Britain, which what the Schlieffen Plan was supposed to do. Problem was that this would leave relatively few good forces guarding the Eastern Front.

They left one good reserve force there a force that was never expected to do anything than just barely delay the russians enough for the Schlieffen Plan.

What ended up happening was that not only did that German reserve force manage to defeat the invading Russian army that tried to overwhelm them in Tannenberg, but they esssentially managed to knock out a few Russian divisions. The battle was such a smashing success for the Germans who didn't even expect such a thing to happen from such a reserve force. The Russians would get their shit together later in the war and manage to pull some effective military operations, but that battle at Tanneberg became like a shadow hang over them.

So how did this affect the Nazi Generals in WW2? Well, in Hitler's mind and many of the generals, Tsarist Russia was a billion times better then the current Soviet System, and they would look how well they the Tsarist Army did in WW1 and come to the conclusion that this new Soviet Army was could be knocked out with just one good offensive.

Of course we all know how that turned out.

[Thanas]

That is not true IMO. The battle of Tannenberg was exactly planned the way it turned out, simply because the Germans were fighting on their turf and knew from Radio intercepts/reconnaissance that the Russian armies were unable to support each other due to a myriad of reasons. Oh, and they had the best tactical mind of the entire war leading them.

I also am not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that Hitler thought the Tsarists were better enemies. Maybe I am just unaware of some sources?

[Sea Skimmer]

The German army in the east in 1914 was also larger by several army corps then that planned under the generally unworkable Schlieffen Plan, while the Russian armies failed to attack in a coordinated fashion, or well, at all in some cases. End result was at Tannenberg the German forces were only outnumbered by about one third, and actually had superior firepower owing to how lightly armed Russian divisions were by design. Doesn't work out well. This was not some amazing victory that redefined military thinking.

The 1941 invasion was predicated on the idea that Russian forces were very strongly deployed in western Russia, and that these forces could be destroyed within six weeks to a few months That was entirely true, and actually happened. Indeed it went even better then planned at the army group level, though coordination between army groups was lacking for reasons which have never really made any sense. The problem came about in that it was expected that any remaining Russian forces would be simply too weak to establish a credible defensive effort, and the rest of the country would be overrun at leisure. More or less a repeat of France in 1940.

What the Germans did not understand was that Russia had incredibly vast forces deployed throughout its entire territory, and that these reserve units were in large part fully equipped, if not with the latest types of weapons. So long before any active duty Soviet divisions arrived from the Far East, those massive reserves basically appeared out of nowhere and kept up a sustained resistance to the German advance, massively the Germans even while the Germans were winning. Hitler didn't help matters with idiot orders that pushed up losses whenever the Germans were forced onto the defensive while awaiting supplies. So the German army just bled to death, and by the time the Soviets could muster a major counter attack around Moscow the numbers and firepower simply didn't exist to beat them. You had Panzer regiments with nine working tanks, and infantry battalions with under a hundred effective troops left trying to cover two thousand yards of front.

Some German generals did think Russian forces were larger then planned, and certainly many of them, and Hitler, understood that massive logistical problems would be encountered going deeply into Russia, but I doubt a single one realized just how many weapons the Soviets had managed to produce. This was heightened by the fact that the extensive Ju-86 recon overflights conducting in 1940 and 1941 could not reach into central Russia, but they could very well confirm the large scale forward deployments of the Red Army.

Underestimations of USSR armaments actually kept up right to the bitter end, when they made their CFE treaty declerations they ended up declaring something comical like 140,000 artillery pieces and heavy mortars, while NATO had been estimating that the entire Warsaw Pact had about 90,000 such weapons.

[aieeegrunt]

Germany's Intelligence efforts in the East counts as a truly Epic Fail. Based on the numbers Foreign Armies East gave them, that the Russians had 200~300 divisions mostly deployed west of the Dnepr/Dvina, Barbarossa was an excellent plan executed very well. It did indeed destroy the Russian armies west of the Dnepr/Dvina line. Unfortunately they completely missed all the reserve units the Russians had available, and their ability to raise more. They also failed to calculate the possibility and impact Lend Lease would have.

Some of the more perceptive German leaders knew how utterly this fucked them by winter 1941. When Hitler raised the question of "now what" at that time von Rundstedt's analysis was more or less "withdraw to our start line and hope Stalin forgives us" for which he was sacked of course. Ribbentrop's judgement was similar to Yamamoto's "Run wild for 6 months"; "We have a window of about a year, then Russian manpower combined with American industry will cause the war to enter a most difficult phase". Most Difficult being diplomaticese for "Utterly fucked we are". After this Germany's military strategy began to embrace more and more fanciful "Hail Mary" stuff like Rommel in North Africa.

In the "There Ain't No Justice" file the idiot responsible for this fuckup managed to parlay his "expert knowledge" of the Russian military into a very cushy job with the US military post war.

[Thanas]

In the "There Ain't No Justice" file the idiot responsible for this fuckup managed to parlay his "expert knowledge" of the Russian military into a very cushy job with the US military post war.

Out of curiosity, who are you speaking of?

[Metahive]

I'm pretty sure he's speaking of Reinhard Gehlen.

EDIT:
I must also add that Fremde Heere Ost wasn't exactly alone in its assessment of the Russians as pushovers, the Western allies initially thought the same.

[Sea Skimmer]

German intelligence and personal was still highly useful postwar, even if massively wrong on certain things, because the US had literally nothing else to turn too. The last published maps of the USSR dated to 1914 for example; the U-2 overflights were planned using German maps prepared for the invasion of Russia, then updated with captured documents, as they showed reasonably accurate railway networks. Soviet maps meanwhile showed cities that didn't exist, and excluded others, and even in the 1970s they still wouldn't hand out fully accurate maps of Moscow to its own citizens, let alone tourists.

[aieeegrunt]

Gehlen was indeed who I was referring to. It's not like his information was useless, it just seemed like the one guy who's screw up more than any other single thing doomed Germany to defeat not only escaping consequences, but going on to a rosy future with the US intelligence services

[Thanas]

But Gehlen didn't even head Fremde Heere Ost until 1942.

[PainRack]

How about this guy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cestius_Gallus

Josephesus attest that he must had been bribed to turn away from conquering the Temple Mount, resulting in a prolonged war for several years, not to mention his own personal loss as the legion was constantly raided by Zealots as they withdrew out of Judea.

[Thanas]

Meh. This seems like typical Roman scapegoating to me. Note that it took Vespasian several years and over four-six times as many troops to crush the rebellion eventually. What was Gallus supposed to do with only a quarter or a fifth of that force, especially considering the terrain?

[lord Martiya]

In Roman fashion, destroy the city. That I doubt would have crushed the morale of the rebels.
And that's assuming Jerusalem's buildings were mostly made of wood: I doubt he had the time to destroy the city without arson, and if the buildings were made of stone or other non-flammable materials it would have been impossible.

[Purple]

In Roman fashion, destroy the city. That I doubt would have crushed the morale of the rebels.
And that's assuming Jerusalem's buildings were mostly made of wood: I doubt he had the time to destroy the city without arson, and if the buildings were made of stone or other non-flammable materials it would have been impossible.

Not really. Even if the entire city had been made of stone it would have been filled with flammable material by virtue of people living in it. So with dedicated arson it would still have gone up like a torch.

[Thanas]

In Roman fashion, destroy the city. That I doubt would have crushed the morale of the rebels.
And that's assuming Jerusalem's buildings were mostly made of wood: I doubt he had the time to destroy the city without arson, and if the buildings were made of stone or other non-flammable materials it would have been impossible.

He failed to take the entire city and Jerusalem during that period had plenty of water and lots of garden thanks to Herod's magnificent building programs. It is very hard to burn a city like that, especially when you could never control it entirely.

Not really. Even if the entire city had been made of stone it would have been filled with flammable material by virtue of people living in it. So with dedicated arson it would still have gone up like a torch.

...and your sources for this are?

[Purple]

...and your sources for this are?

Well I guess common sense. Even if the buildings them self were made out of stone they would have used some form of timber framing. And when you combine that with furniture, rugs, clothes and everything else that is flammable around a household the building will tend to burn out. Even if this does not lead to it collapsing it is for all intends and purposes burned out and ruined. And whilst having stone buildings will not cause a firestorm to easily spread through a city a deliberate arson campaign conducted by a professional army could still torch it to good effect. Certainly enough to cause the kind of psychological and physical results that one intends to when destroying a city. People might rebuild but they will newer forget and all that.

Just look at the kind of effect fire does to modern buildings. And imagine it being done on purpose on an industrial scale.


This all being said. I do admit that I did not have knowledge of the extensive water works that you mentioned. And that in the particular case they would pose a significant complication. However my reply was always aimed more at the generic notion that a stone city won't burn and not the particular case.

[Thanas]

...and your sources for this are?

Well I guess common sense.

You should have stopped here and just said "I don't know".

Even if the buildings them self were made out of stone they would have used some form of timber framing.

Why? You do know that in that time frame buildings could be made out of stone nearly entirely , right? They had brick and mortar works.

Heck, even older buildings were hard to destroy. For example, Alexander's destruction of the Persian king hall had to be accomplished by professional engineering.

And when you combine that with furniture, rugs, clothes and everything else that is flammable around a household the building will tend to burn out. Even if this does not lead to it collapsing it is for all intends and purposes burned out and ruined. And whilst having stone buildings will not cause a firestorm to easily spread through a city a deliberate arson campaign conducted by a professional army could still torch it to good effect.

That assumes that a) You have time to do that b) you actually control the city to a point that you can send out such parties c) You do have the manpower to keep the rebels locked up, fight of reinforcements and to commit to the burning of the city?

Certainly enough to cause the kind of psychological and physical results that one intends to when destroying a city. People might rebuild but they will newer forget and all that.

Meh. City destruction was nothing special. Now, had the Romans burned the temple, then sure, but they could not even take it in the first place.

Just look at the kind of effect fire does to modern buildings. And imagine it being done on purpose on an industrial scale.

What industrial scale?

[Purple]

You should have stopped here and just said "I don't know".

I am admittedly speculating. Feel free to correct me.

Why? You do know that in that time frame buildings could be made out of stone nearly entirely , right? They had brick and mortar works.

Heck, even older buildings were hard to destroy. For example, Alexander's destruction of the Persian king hall had to be accomplished by professional engineering.

Interesting. You have that one.

That assumes that a) You have time to do that b) you actually control the city to a point that you can send out such parties c) You do have the manpower to keep the rebels locked up, fight of reinforcements and to commit to the burning of the city?

As I said already my reply was entirely to the generic notion that you can not burn down a stone built city. Which I allege that you can. And while yes, those assumptions have to be made. And yes it is going to be harder than torching a city of wood and straw it can still be done.

Meh. City destruction was nothing special. Now, had the Romans burned the temple, then sure, but they could not even take it in the first place.

Really? Now on that I have to get a citation. Seriously, was having your city burned down from under you really not a big deal back than?

What industrial scale?

It's a metaphor.

[Thanas]

Really? Now on that I have to get a citation. Seriously, was having your city burned down from under you really not a big deal back than?

It was a big thing, but when faced with a religious, country-wide revolt, burning down one city, even one temple, did not do much. Heck, Massada is the prime example - the Romans had taken everything, burned down Jerusalem, utterly collapsed Herod's great walls. They had surrounded the fortress, everyone knew there was no chance of defeating the Romans. And still they fought. The Jewish revolt was unlike a lot of other revolts because you were up against the taliban of their time. Heck, you even got Jewish suicide commandos.

[Purple]

Really? Now on that I have to get a citation. Seriously, was having your city burned down from under you really not a big deal back than?

It was a big thing, but when faced with a religious, country-wide revolt, burning down one city, even one temple, did not do much. Heck, Massada is the prime example - the Romans had taken everything, burned down Jerusalem, utterly collapsed Herod's great walls. They had surrounded the fortress, everyone knew there was no chance of defeating the Romans. And still they fought. The Jewish revolt was unlike a lot of other revolts because you were up against the taliban of their time. Heck, you even got Jewish suicide commandos.

Wow. I am not sure if I should be impressed or distressed. I guess things really have not changed that much in the region.

[lord Martiya]

He failed to take the entire city and Jerusalem during that period had plenty of water and lots of garden thanks to Herod's magnificent building programs. It is very hard to burn a city like that, especially when you could never control it entirely.

So he couldn't even burn down the city. I say we can rule that Cestius Gallus' failure at Jerusalem was not an epic fail, he just realized he was outmatched and tried to regroup with the incoming reinforcements. Or he was just trying to save his own skin.

[Thanas]

Yeah.

What one can accuse him of is failing to scout ahead properly or keep in a proper marching order, but the latter is pretty hard in rocky terrain (Vespasian was only able to do so by having such a large army that he could send a whole legion ahead) and the former kinda depends on what forces he had available. The legionary cavalry should have been able to do so but we do not know what, if any, of their strength remained at this point.

[Sea Skimmer]

I know nothing of this action on its own, but that sounds like a very classic covering force/advanced guard kind of problem you can find many times in war. If the enemy covering force is strong enough, your advanced guard just gets destroyed in an ambush without the main body being able to help it. The only 'good' solution to this is to deploy your entire main body and advance with it, but then your slowed down massively, no matter the technology, and are unable to make a sudden change in direction (unless everything can fly). So you can get into a situation in which it can actually make sense to have no scouts, and just keep your main body all bunched up together, and hope if you blunder into something unexpected you can deploy off the road in time to save your ass. That works better with some sorts of troops then others.

It does not help that nobody has seemed to ever be able to come up with a comprehensive doctrine, even as a list of really solid suggestions, for either covering force or advanced guard operations either. Its just too situational, but the result is it makes situations endlessly fascinating