Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 3rd, 2012, 04:05 PM   #301
Citizen
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: salt lake city utah
Posts: 8
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by howard38 View Post
Hattin comes to mind when I hear the word "debacle".
in other words 'youre hattin it when in a debacle'.
finniansantics is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 3rd, 2012, 09:24 PM   #302

Fiver's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,904

Battle of Salamis

Battle of the Nile

Battle of Lake Erie

Battle of Tsushima

Battle off Samar
Fiver is online now  
Old October 4th, 2012, 01:45 AM   #303
Academician
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 60
Debacles


Hattin was a sure and unneccessary debacle, like the battle for Leyte Gulf in 1944 turned out to be when the massive Japanese torpedowave attacks proved to be unsuccesful and all their gunnery yielded likewise almost nothing and being disabled by some tiny destroyers in return!!. Not even taking in account the sacrifices to come in position and the same sacrifices to leave the area after nothing was gained.

Leyte turned out to be a real debacle for the Japanese!!!
(Midway and Guadalcanal being the real turning points)
The Marianas was just was un unsuccesful attempt to hit back.

Stalingrad was the debacle for the Germans.
(battles around Smolensk and Moscow being the real turning points).
Kursk was just was a tactical succesful attempt to hit back, but attained no strategical goals.

EG. foreseen debacles are no debacles!!! In my opinion the encirclement of most units of Heeregruppe Mitte in July 44 was from start almost unavoidable. Even relative quick and the fast retreat moves of the German center or the units Southeast of Bobruisk could not prevent being surrounded within just over 1 week after the attack started (22th june) and just missed the German relief forces builtup within a few days around Minsk(!). Soviets were very keen in just blocking the few possible escape routes and their moves were just in time to yield a maximum profit!!!
That the Soviets still lost over half a million man KIA, MIA and WIA can be credited to a few German units which executed their defense in an awful effective way. Some German divisions shot away over 30.000 artillery rounds on the first day just on the assembly areas of the Soviets with horrible results. Presumably this (wise) tactic paid off since most divisions were fleeing at the end of the first day and their artillery seldom got the chance to go in action again. German losses were 400.000, lower than that of the succesful Soviets but the KIA and MIA (around 300.000) were higher than that of the Soviets. So was the Soviet offensive a most effective example, to be repeated 1 month later in the far South near Kishinev.
Klassiker is offline  
Old October 4th, 2012, 02:04 AM   #304

rehabnonono's Avatar
inveterate antagonist
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen
Posts: 2,178

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron1 View Post
My bad; posted from memory. Here's the link to Joel Hayward's journal article on the subject. "Stalingrad: An Examination of Hitler's Decision to Airlift"; Airpower Journal, Spring 1997

Goering actually buggered off to loot Paris on the 22nd and showed up again at Rastenburg on the 27th. Hayward's source is Irving's research. Hitler first spoke to Goering on the 21st (by telephone).

From Hayward's article:


My case for Barbarossa is such:

What almost everyone overlooks when examining it is the fact that despite it's apparent successes, Barbarossa tore the guts out of Germany's most potent (experienced) combat arms. The absolute loss of so many of these battle hardened formations would never be made good. On 22 June, they were committed as fully cohesive units, accustomed to working together as a team during the chaos and stress of combat. Very few of them remained as such by October. Gutted. All the replacements in the world can not rebuild that sort of cohesion...not that there were anywhere near enough replacements available anyways. If that's not a debacle, I don't know what is.
These units had been raised from individual geographic localities; many were schoolmates and neighbors prior to entering the army. They knew each other to the point where reactions to sudden developments were inherent. In August and September, the Red Army deployed massive formations during the battles on the "road to Moscow" and during the famous "operational pause" of HGM. German casualty figures during these two months reflect the utter brutality of these largely unrecognized battles. Red Army casualties in these failed forntal offensives were horrific.

The massive losses suffered by the Red Army tend to overshadow all of this, leading many to believe that Barbarossa was actually a nominal success. This perception is reenforced because (nominally at least) the Germans were still holding the initiative during the period (i.e. Kiev encirclement). "If only it weren't for: i) the Balkan delay, ii) the mud iii) the cold, iv) the wrong rail gauge, v) no winter clothes...etc, etc".

I think otherwise.

Until recently, much of what we (thought we) knew about this period was based primarily on German records and the Memoirs of a few German generals. This is no longer the case. Unfortunately these acquired "truths" of the Cold War era historical record are far stronger than the "rest of the story".
Glantz is as dry as hell to read, but buried in his mountains of facts and tables is a very different story about the Eastern Front; one that is well worth reading.

Barbarossa was a "debacle" for the Wehrmacht because in spite of horrendous losses, the Red Army killed and maimed a large portion of the "creme" of the Wehrmacht in the defense of their country...many, many thousands of them.

Or something like that.
I doubt that you will get an argument about Barbarossa being a huge debacle and the reversals outside Moscow were felt all throughout the line... probably contributed to Hitler's intransigence at Stalingrad where his refusal to leave the city made all other considerations subverted to this single thought.
rehabnonono is offline  
Old October 4th, 2012, 02:30 AM   #305

rehabnonono's Avatar
inveterate antagonist
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen
Posts: 2,178

Quote:
Originally Posted by hisstoryin View Post
I guess the Tet Offensive could be consider a debacle for either side?
Yes, but while the resulting losses were expected by the North Vietnamese leaders... the media debacle was quite a turning point in the minds of the US and Australian public, who had until then thought the North Vietmanese almost ready to surrender.

Quote:
Although the offensive was a military defeat for the communists, it had a profound effect on the US government and shocked the US public, which had been led to believe by its political and military leaders that the communists were, due to previous defeats, incapable of launching such a massive effort.
rehabnonono is offline  
Old October 4th, 2012, 08:01 AM   #306
Academician
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 60

Rehabnonono: yes but I do agree with Iron1 that the German armies losses during July until december 1941 were already of that order that the Wehrmacht was losing too much valuable experienced manpower to be able to continue effectively after 1941.......after Typhoon the Soviet army recovered quickly and thereafter their strength never dropped again. October 1941 was the high-mark of Barbarossa for the Germans, but bad weather and the need to stick on those few roads leading towards Moscow saved the Soviet Union in time to be able to recover and ultimately win the war.

Borodino 1941 was also an essantial time saving battle like the holding actions of the "green" 99th US division (and southward that of the 28th Division) in the Battle of the Bulge.....

The German stop at Borodino would have enormous consequences for Barbarossa........ how 1 Soviet Division (one of the few Siberian reinforcements) stopped Hitlers Germany!!!

And of course if they had behaved friendly towards the White Russian or Ukrainian people, what might have happen with the Soviet will to resist the Germans?? This single
factor could have been a decisive war winner for Germany if they would have adopted a different approach towards the civilian population of the Soviet Union.

Last edited by Klassiker; October 4th, 2012 at 08:09 AM.
Klassiker is offline  
Old October 4th, 2012, 10:42 AM   #307

harbinger's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 719

1812 invasion definitely.
And manzikert.
harbinger is offline  
Old October 4th, 2012, 10:51 AM   #308

harbinger's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 719

Agincourt and nicopolis are also up there .
harbinger is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 01:05 AM   #309

Scaeva's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,210

Battle of Midway for the Japanese.

4 Carriers (!) lost in a single afternoon.
Scaeva is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 02:12 AM   #310
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,521

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salah View Post
For Antiquity, the Teutoberg Forest sounds best to me.
Teutoberg Forest was a brilliant success, Arminius utterly destroyed 3 Roman legions and this ended Rome's expansion into Germany.

The worst debacle in Roman history for me is Crassus' invasion of Parthia.
Poly is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
debacle, military


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How come Julius Caesar becomes one of the greatest military commander in history? justcurious War and Military History 98 February 21st, 2014 10:45 AM
Greatest Military Feats -musketeer- War and Military History 183 June 1st, 2011 12:11 PM
greatest invention in military history? grizzly War and Military History 101 July 29th, 2010 06:45 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.