Greatest military blunder of WWII

[plan_D]

"The 106th Division was crushed at the point of the spear, brand new and ill equipped in every way. That pretty much sums up the German successes per their objectives and timetable... even with suprise and 3+:1 numerical superiority, huge armor advantage and no Allied airpower for two weeks."

As the German armour advantage was reduced by lack of fuel and ammo, we can hardly count it as huge. But given that the German spearhead overran the U.S 1st Army and left the Allied command bringing in the 1st Airborne Army, it's only reserve, I can hardly give credit to the U.S forces in area for a great defence. The soldiers themselves deserve all the credit but to look at the map, there's no credit awarded.

"So, defense at Bastogne, St Vith, Stavelot, etc or the Engineer's clever and effective small unit defenses at all the bridges in front of German armor was 'irrelevant' - it was all about 'Germans not well supplied and reserves"? You might note that the Ardennes thrust a. caught the Brits and French by suprise in 1940 and it succeeded in routing the Allies but, b. caught Allies by suprise but the American units stopped them in 1944, and ground them up after the intial gains.."

The defence of of those places was irrelevant, yes. The capture of Bastogne might have allowed the German forces to push a few more miles but no matter how far the Germans got, they were doomed to fail. The U.S forces could have just melted away and allowed the Germans to drive unhindered to Paris and they would have still failed.
For the Germans, as I stated, had no reserves. The German advance was the spearhead and that's all there was. If that offensive was to have any chance of succeeding there would have been troops following up to overtake the spearhead once it had ran out of steam. In the event, the spearhead ran out of steam (and fuel) which became a retreat.

I must make some corrections for you, the offensive through the Ardennes in 1940 did not catch the British by surprise - they weren't there to be surprised. And the 1944 offensive was stopped by both the British and American forces, as the British were striking at the north of the bulge. Which led to the 6th Coldstream Guards capturing a fully functioning Panther G which had been abandoned because of lack of fuel.

"I am curious why you dismiss the 27th, the 101st the 82nd and 3rd Army contributions in 'strong' American defense and lay it all on German lack of planning? Was their failure due to not anticipating a capable defense and requiring more numerical superiority before plan execution? That they didn't put their best equipped and most experienced Panzer forces in play?"

I dismiss them all because their actions only brought the German offensive to a halt earlier, the Germans were going to fail anyway. And the U.S 3rd Army was used incorrectly in the counter-attack, Patton himself knew so and stated that he wanted his army to be used to cut the Germans off at their rear.

The German High Command informed Hitler that the plan was going to fail because of lack of reserves - it's not that hard to understand. I know it must be hard but the U.S forces were only a catalyst to the eventual German failure in that offensive. The German General Staff knew it was going to fail, they wanted the forces in used there to be on the Eastern Front - but Hitler overruled.

It was all about reserves, the German commanders knew the U.S 1st would collapse, and they did. The defence was poor and ill equipped, if you wanted a defence that is worthy of credit just like at the Soviet defence at Kursk. And even with that the Germans almost broke-through.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by rogthedodge

....I don't think you can state with any authority 'it was more' due to WW1 than the realities of his situation (and brief)......

I noted that about Monty when I saw the Imperial War Museum exhibit about him.

Unlike the US generals who saw service in WW1, the british generals were participants or witnesses in the great slaughters.

[syscom3]

Plan_D..... youre mixing up "mistakes" with "blunders".

Two entirely different concepts.

Mistakes are recoverable, or dont impact the overall conduct of the battle or campaign.

Blunders are worse, as they do impact the course of events.

We can safely say that Ike made a few mistakes in the war, but none of them blunders.

Market Garden was a blunder for Monty, but only a mistake in the campaign for Europe.

The Bulge wasnt a mistake or blunder at all, as the US competely recovered and went back on the offensive, while the Germans were a spent and defeated force.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by plan_D

[i]"

It was all about reserves, the German commanders knew the U.S 1st would collapse, and they did. The defence was poor and ill equipped, if you wanted a defence that is worthy of credit just like at the Soviet defence at Kursk. And even with that the Germans almost broke-through.

Now we have another Brit expert lecturing on the myriad deficiencies of the American soldier and commanders.

I have to sit back and ponder why Europe (and UK) is not speaking either German or Russian. From your point of view it certainly had nothing to do with US contribution..

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Now we have another Brit expert lecturing on the myriad deficiencies of the American soldier and commanders.

I have to sit back and ponder why Europe (and UK) is not speaking either German or Russian. From your point of view it certainly had nothing to do with US contribution..

Calm it down allright. You dont need to say such things about him. He has not insulted you in any way.

You technically are doing the same things about the Brit commanders. So in that sense are you a "American Expert" lecturing on the myriad of deficiencies of the Brit soldier and comamnders?

You have no problem dishing out deficiencies of Non American commanders, soldiers and equipment but you cant handle it when someone does the same over American Commanders, soldiers and equipment.

Why do you have to talk to others that way?

Sorry I dont like this from anyone no matter who it is.

Again I am calling it like I see it...

And dont call me Anti American for this post. I am an American....

[jmf003]

Plan_D, you've made some interesting and informed points but I believe the facts run counter to some of your arguments.

Originally Posted by plan_D

I didn't blame the Ardennes Offensive on Eisenhower, I said his blunder was his reaction to it i.e not cutting the Germans off, but pushing the bulge out.

Eisenhower wanted to cut the Germans off. The plan called for the American First and Third Armies to collapse the pocket at Houffalize, well behind the German front. Anyone who looks at a map of the battle will see that capturing Houffalize quickly would have achieved that goal.

Ike pushed Montgomery to launch the attack on 1-Jan. Monty felt it imprudent to move that quickly and didn't launch his attack until 3-Jan.

Monty's two day delay wasn't the proximate cause in the German forces escaping the collapsing pocket. A well executed German retreat was. However Monty's slow reaction was much more a contributing factor than Ike's supposed lack of vision.

Originally Posted by plan_D

I must make some corrections for you, the offensive through the Ardennes in 1940 did not catch the British by surprise - they weren't there to be surprised.

It is true that the BEF wasn't defending at the point of attack. However the BEF's invasion of Belgium was based on an expectation that the French lines would hold. The French collapse left the BEF's flank exposed and directly led to the near disaster at Dunkirk.

Surely the successful German attack through the Ardennes was a surprise to the BEF in any reasonable definition of "surprise." If not the BEF were completely bonkers to have invaded Belgium while expecting the Germans to make that position untenable.

Originally Posted by plan_D

And the 1944 offensive was stopped by both the British and American forces, as the British were striking at the north of the bulge. Which led to the 6th Coldstream Guards capturing a fully functioning Panther G which had been abandoned because of lack of fuel.

This is more of a niggling point but most reports of the battle put the German troop count at 500,000, the American troop count at 600,000, the British troop count at 55,000, along with a smaller complement of Canadian, Belgian, and French troops.

With more than 90% of the Allied troops being American, it's not unreasonable for a person to suggest that the Americans stopped the Germans. Certainly 55,000 British troops on their own were not going to stop 500,000 Germans but 600,000 American troops on their own might have.

Stating that "the 1944 offensive was stopped by both the British and American forces" without mentioning the scale of British involvement is a bit misleading. And if it's a matter of honor to give Britain credit for its contributions in a minority role, why mention the British troops without mentioning the other nations?

Originally Posted by plan_D

And the U.S 3rd Army was used incorrectly in the counter-attack, Patton himself knew so and stated that he wanted his army to be used to cut the Germans off at their rear.

Yes, Patton wanted to cut off the Germans but, no, Patton did not feel that his Army was used incorrectly. If you have a quote of Patton saying something to that effect, that would be interesting to read.

Everything I've read indicates Patton was happy with the Houffalize target but frustrated with his rate of progress.

Best regards,

[plan_D]

Blunder - A gross, stupid or careless mistake.

It would be a matter of opinion if a mistake was small or great, but blunder doesn't have to change the course of the war. So, I don't believe I'm mixing anything up, syscom.

In my opinion Eisenhower made tactical and strategic mistakes which were serious; as the war could have been ended sooner. Market Garden was a serious mistake in the whole European campaign, it cost lives and time.

The German Ardennes Offensive was a mistake on the German side; I don't believe nor did I ever say that the U.S forces made a mistake. But what I do say is this; the U.S forces didn't show an overall great strength of defence (as has been stated) and the Allied (note: Not soley U.S) counter action was wrong.

"Now we have another Brit expert lecturing on the myriad deficiencies of the American soldier and commanders.

I have to sit back and ponder why Europe (and UK) is not speaking either German or Russian. From your point of view it certainly had nothing to do with US contribution.."

drgondog,

I can see that you are one of those people that believes the U.S can do no wrong. I advise not to take it personally if someone points out a fault in the U.S.

From my point of view, I see that you're being childish and turning this discussion into a British vs. American argument about World War II. There's plenty of your fellow Americans on this board that know what my point of view is and I'm not anti-American. I'm not like you, I can give credit to other nations.

The fact of the matter is; you couldn't reply to single one of my comments and had to resort to attacks. Stop being a child.

"Eisenhower wanted to cut the Germans off. The plan called for the American First and Third Armies to collapse the pocket at Houffalize, well behind the German front. Anyone who looks at a map of the battle will see that capturing Houffalize quickly would have achieved that goal.

Ike pushed Montgomery to launch the attack on 1-Jan. Monty felt it imprudent to move that quickly and didn't launch his attack until 3-Jan.

Monty's two day delay wasn't the proximate cause in the German forces escaping the collapsing pocket. A well executed German retreat was. However Monty's slow reaction was much more a contributing factor than Ike's supposed lack of vision."

jmf003,

Houffalize would have been a good target to ensure encirclement of a lot of the German forces but Eisenhower gave a target in the centre of the German bulge. His intention was to move to Houffalize from the front and sides which leads to the bulge being pushed out, not surrounded.

If Eisenhower truly wanted the bulge to be encircled the order would have been to take line from St. Vith - Wiltz. Montgomery shouldn't have delayed - you're certainly right and credit must be given to the German discipline in retreat. But Eisenhower should have given deeper targets than Houfalize but he knew it would lead to the bulge being pushed out.

"It is true that the BEF wasn't defending at the point of attack. However the BEF's invasion of Belgium was based on an expectation that the French lines would hold. The French collapse left the BEF's flank exposed and directly led to the near disaster at Dunkirk.

Surely the successful German attack through the Ardennes was a surprise to the BEF in any reasonable definition of "surprise." If not the BEF were completely bonkers to have invaded Belgium while expecting the Germans to make that position untenable."

The British were surprised to see the French collapse so quickly. But the BEF wasn't surprised to see an attack through that region; the fact that it succeeded was the surprise.


"This is more of a niggling point but most reports of the battle put the German troop count at 500,000, the American troop count at 600,000, the British troop count at 55,000, along with a smaller complement of Canadian, Belgian, and French troops.

With more than 90% of the Allied troops being American, it's not unreasonable for a person to suggest that the Americans stopped the Germans. Certainly 55,000 British troops on their own were not going to stop 500,000 Germans but 600,000 American troops on their own might have.

Stating that "the 1944 offensive was stopped by both the British and American forces" without mentioning the scale of British involvement is a bit misleading. And if it's a matter of honor to give Britain credit for its contributions in a minority role, why mention the British troops without mentioning the other nations?"

Fair enough statement, I should have mentioned the British in a minority role. As for mentioning every nationality involved in a fight, I'd rather spend my time doing other than things than listing almost every country in the world - I'll just say Allies from now on.

"Yes, Patton wanted to cut off the Germans but, no, Patton did not feel that his Army was used incorrectly. If you have a quote of Patton saying something to that effect, that would be interesting to read.

Everything I've read indicates Patton was happy with the Houffalize target but frustrated with his rate of progress."

If Patton didn't believe the U.S army was being used incorrectly than I can only reduce my credit for him as a commander. But I'm sure I have read somewhere of his distaste for pushing the bulge, rather than destroying it. I will look.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

To all sides involved lets not let this thread turn into a name calling session okay.

[syscom3]

Plan_d, every general makes mistakes in a war.

And there is a lot of truth in the old saying "the side who makes the least mistakes in a war will win".

So I think it is very fair to say that Ike made far fewer mistakes than his opponents.

However no one has shown that Ike, Patton or Montgomery "blundered" in any battle or campaign in which the outcome was a defeat.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by plan_D

Blunder - A gross, stupid or careless mistake.

It would be a matter of opinion if a mistake was small or great, but blunder doesn't have to change the course of the war. So, I don't believe I'm mixing anything up, syscom.

In my opinion Eisenhower made tactical and strategic mistakes which were serious; as the war could have been ended sooner. Market Garden was a serious mistake in the whole European campaign, it cost lives and time.

The German Ardennes Offensive was a mistake on the German side; I don't believe nor did I ever say that the U.S forces made a mistake. But what I do say is this; the U.S forces didn't show an overall great strength of defence (as has been stated) and the Allied (note: Not soley U.S) counter action was wrong.

"Now we have another Brit expert lecturing on the myriad deficiencies of the American soldier and commanders.

I have to sit back and ponder why Europe (and UK) is not speaking either German or Russian. From your point of view it certainly had nothing to do with US contribution.."

drgondog,

I can see that you are one of those people that believes the U.S can do no wrong. I advise not to take it personally if someone points out a fault in the U.S.

You don't see very well.

I made several comments regarding flawed American commanders, tactics and strategy in many other posts before this thread and our discussn of your point of view about the many other flaws I had forgotten.

I was the first between us to point out Mark Clark's and Lucas' performances in Italy so your comment regarding me as a US bigot is not just incorrect but continues to be intended insult. I didn't trot out the BS meter when you pontificated how Alexander would have easily defeated Kesslering when the bumbling American Generals traipsed through Rome. You had not one whit of a fact to base that speculation.

You have zero facts to base a comment that Montgomery could have executed Market Garden Successfully in Auguts but I let that pass.

You had not one shred of evidence to base a comment that the German thrust, was not only irrelevant to the war, but that it was just as irrelevant if it had gone all the way to Paris. You get my drift?

I did not flare when you carefully trashed Patton's reputation- I did not denigrate the British contribution on the North Flank despite the minimal percentage of Brit forces applied to the battle.

Your comment above is an example of your lecture style however and I must confess to being greatly irritated by what I perceive as a condescending view on your part, combined with making silly unsupported statements such as Market Garden 'works' in August.

When you assume a posture of a lecturer you should be more careful regarding not only the style but also the facts - I have that flaw myself but I confess I am in the presence of a master.

My anger was your comments that nothing that American troopers accomplished at Stavelot, Bastogne and St Vith was 'relevant' and that the thrusrt could have gone to Paris and still be 'irrelevant'

Here's my UNSUPPORTED speculation about the Relevance of the German attack at least going past the Muese. Extending that sir, means that had the Germans accomplished their objective with a drive to the Meuse or to Antwerp (or Paris) - the Allied timetable would have been set back 3-6 months if the US was simply forced to blow the fuel dumps to keep the Panzers from re-fueling.

The Russians were clever enough to thoughtfully delay crushing Berlin and running to the Rhine - the Alliance would have blown up as Eisenhower would have been fired and then insisted that Monty be sacked also.

At the least Austria and all of Germany come under USSR control, possibly Denmark - there is nothing much for the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe as a bulwark against Communist domination - the US loses interest at 'occupying Britain or fighting any more in Europe in WWII - a highly possible scenario to your 'irrelevance'?

Now your turn to trash that scenario and demonstrate that the defense and results achieved by American troopers was 'irrelevant' - I will listen to your explanation

From my point of view, I see that you're being childish and turning this discussion into a British vs. American argument about World War II. There's plenty of your fellow Americans on this board that know what my point of view is and I'm not anti-American. I'm not like you, I can give credit to other nations.

The fact of the matter is; you couldn't reply to single one of my comments and had to resort to attacks. Stop being a child.

Perhaps if you stop lecturing, stick to facts rather than conjecture on the 'irrelevance of the Bulge' and go back and re-read your posts and mine you will find a difference of opinion until the pretty silly remarks about the 'irrelevance of the fights at St Vith, Stavelot and Bastogne. Next examine your points that I did not rebut. I pointed out several examples but what was the point to rebutting your point of view that that you posed as facts with no facts? What is to rebut?

You may have a shorter memory than mine and mine is very short.

"Eisenhower wanted to cut the Germans off. The plan called for the American First and Third Armies to collapse the pocket at Houffalize, well behind the German front. Anyone who looks at a map of the battle will see that capturing Houffalize quickly would have achieved that goal.

Ike pushed Montgomery to launch the attack on 1-Jan. Monty felt it imprudent to move that quickly and didn't launch his attack until 3-Jan.

Monty's two day delay wasn't the proximate cause in the German forces escaping the collapsing pocket. A well executed German retreat was. However Monty's slow reaction was much more a contributing factor than Ike's supposed lack of vision."

jmf003,

Houffalize would have been a good target to ensure encirclement of a lot of the German forces but Eisenhower gave a target in the centre of the German bulge. His intention was to move to Houffalize from the front and sides which leads to the bulge being pushed out, not surrounded.

If Eisenhower truly wanted the bulge to be encircled the order would have been to take line from St. Vith - Wiltz. Montgomery shouldn't have delayed - you're certainly right and credit must be given to the German discipline in retreat. But Eisenhower should have given deeper targets than Houfalize but he knew it would lead to the bulge being pushed out.

"It is true that the BEF wasn't defending at the point of attack. However the BEF's invasion of Belgium was based on an expectation that the French lines would hold. The French collapse left the BEF's flank exposed and directly led to the near disaster at Dunkirk.

Surely the successful German attack through the Ardennes was a surprise to the BEF in any reasonable definition of "surprise." If not the BEF were completely bonkers to have invaded Belgium while expecting the Germans to make that position untenable."

The British were surprised to see the French collapse so quickly. But the BEF wasn't surprised to see an attack through that region; the fact that it succeeded was the surprise.


"This is more of a niggling point but most reports of the battle put the German troop count at 500,000, the American troop count at 600,000, the British troop count at 55,000, along with a smaller complement of Canadian, Belgian, and French troops.

With more than 90% of the Allied troops being American, it's not unreasonable for a person to suggest that the Americans stopped the Germans. Certainly 55,000 British troops on their own were not going to stop 500,000 Germans but 600,000 American troops on their own might have.

Stating that "the 1944 offensive was stopped by both the British and American forces" without mentioning the scale of British involvement is a bit misleading. And if it's a matter of honor to give Britain credit for its contributions in a minority role, why mention the British troops without mentioning the other nations?"

Fair enough statement, I should have mentioned the British in a minority role. As for mentioning every nationality involved in a fight, I'd rather spend my time doing other than things than listing almost every country in the world - I'll just say Allies from now on.

Why yes, given the proportions, the 80,000 casualties the US suffered in that battle (~50% of land casualties in ETO to inflict 200,000+ casualties on some of the best units the Wermacht had left), you might have mentioned that fact.. but it slipped your mind in your fervour to describe the 'irrelevance' Point of View?

"Yes, Patton wanted to cut off the Germans but, no, Patton did not feel that his Army was used incorrectly. If you have a quote of Patton saying something to that effect, that would be interesting to read.

Everything I've read indicates Patton was happy with the Houffalize target but frustrated with his rate of progress."

If Patton didn't believe the U.S army was being used incorrectly than I can only reduce my credit for him as a commander. But I'm sure I have read somewhere of his distaste for pushing the bulge, rather than destroying it. I will look.

We're delighted that you might re-examine your former contempt for Patton and re-adjust Your view of his reputation as a commander to a new low. It could only cement your reputation as a thoughtful and unbiased historian

Chris - for you I apologise for thinking you were a complete puss. Your last PM had more thought than the first one and I respect the way you handled it.

[lesofprimus]

Welcome back Mark, nice 2 see u again after these couple months...

[lesofprimus]

Glad u put that there Bill.... U know we cant have strife between the Mods and u lesser beings....

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Glad u put that there Bill.... U know we cant have strife between the Mods and u lesser beings....

Dan - let me tell you that I respect you above all others on this forum. Let me also tell you as a continuation that I bow to no man, no reference to how our parents raised us or passion for the contribution of American troopers in WWII - especially 504PIR or 8th AF. and i will not suffer the abundant fools that denigrate our contibutions in that war or any other.

Airborne all the way with a modest reference and respect to ****ing squid seals. we did it long before you and never failed our mission. If you want to understand why I was so pissed at D-Plan reference this comment.

Regards,

Bill Marshall

and for my sons - Sempi ****ing Fi