• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bad ideas in war

HansMustermann said:
Another bad idea: 'oh, we'll just take the enemy's fuel', aka, the level of logistics planning for the Battle Of The Bulge :p
Click to expand...

Well, given the fuel situation in Germany at that time, they did not have much choice but to hope to seize Allied gas.
Of course, the whole Ardennes offensive was a huge mistake. Even most of Hitler genterls though it just could not work.
 
theprestige said:
Nukes weren't strictly necessary to make Japan surrender, but they were probably the optimal solution to that problem. And they also had the advantage of intimidating the Soviets. So actually a great idea in war.

Project Pluto, on the other hand, was a terrible idea in war, which is why it never got off the ground. Looks like it might be a great idea for peacetime, though.
Click to expand...

The use of Nukes was the best of the options the Allies had in the final days of World War 2...none of them good.
It probably saved more Japanese lives then the other two would have done:
which were.
1.The Invasion of Japan
2. The continutation of the strategy in place whne the bombs were dropped..the blockade and bombardment of Japan...although the conventional Strategic bombing was winding down because of lack of decent targets.But the blockade would have caused famine in Japan by early 1946, which would have killed many more then died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And the idea that Japan was near surrender is just plain false. The Militants ,with their fight to the last man strategy, were firmly in control until the bombs were dropped.
Even after the Emperor decisiion to surrender, there was an attempt by the Hard liners to stage a coup to surrender the war..which came damn near suceeding.
The whole idea was to make the first stage of the Invasion of Japan..Operation Olympickthe invasion of Kyushu, the Southern most Island,
so costly the US would agree to a negotiated peace. That was never on the cards.
 
dudalb said:
The use of Nukes was the best of the options the Allies had in the final days of World War 2...none of them good.
It probably saved more Japanese lives then the other two would have done:
which were.
1.The Invasion of Japan
2. The continutation of the strategy in place whne the bombs were dropped..the blockade and bombardment of Japan...although the conventional Strategic bombing was winding down because of lack of decent targets.But the blockade would have caused famine in Japan by early 1946, which would have killed many more then died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And the idea that Japan was near surrender is just plain false. The Militants ,with their fight to the last man strategy, were firmly in control until the bombs were dropped.
Even after the Emperor decisiion to surrender, there was an attempt by the Hard liners to stage a coup to surrender the war..which came damn near suceeding.
The whole idea was to make the first stage of the Invasion of Japan..Operation Olympickthe invasion of Kyushu, the Southern most Island,
so costly the US would agree to a negotiated peace. That was never on the cards.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and if they shortened the war by a couple of months, they would have reduced the total casualties given how many civilians were being killed in China. Also the number of casualties in Japan would have been horrific.
 
Seizing the battleships Sultan Osman I and the Resadiye in 1914 by the British government.
The value of 2 extra battleships for the British navy stood in no comparison to the cost of adding the Ottoman empire as an enemy in the Great War as well as losing a connection to the Russian port of Sebastopol.

Having made the Ottoman Empire an enemy then deciding to fight them on a shoestring in the Dardanelles campaign. Because, with so many soldiers available to you, it surely should be no problem in wasting some of them?

Giving Cradock conflicting orders and resources, thereby ensuring his inevitable defeat in the battle of Coronel. All because you have to be seen to be doing something, anything, against Speer's flotilla.

Harebrained ideas about invading the Northern German Baltic coast

Ordering the battleships King George V and Rodney to continue hunting Bismarck, even if they would have run out of fuel. Because losing two extra battleships, right after the loss of Hood, would be such a good trade, if at least Bismarck would have sunk. At least there the British admirals knew when to quietly ignore an order, they were given.

Not everything above can be directly or solely pinned on Churchill, but he was very much an ignorant stubborn fool at times.

In 1940, he did give the right speech right when it needed to be given. That is also true.
But the rest of his career is drenched in too much blood and stupidity.
 
How would Rodney and KGV have been lost?
They didn't run out of fuel although Rodney did damage it's turbines racing to get to the area.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
How would Rodney and KGV have been lost?
They didn't run out of fuel although Rodney did damage it's turbines racing to get to the area.
Click to expand...

Churchill gave the order that they should continue the chase even it it would mean them running out of fuel. And with the amount of u-boats present in the ocean, a couple of floating battleship would not be the highest on my list of survivability.
Luckily this did not happen, as they encountered Bismarck before. But hey did have to leave the encounter early because of fuel concerns.

In the end nothing untoward happened because of this stupid order from Churchill (not in the least because the admirals flatly ignored it, having learned from the example of Cradock), but as bad ideas in war going, it was up there in pointlessness.
 
erwinl said:
Seizing the battleships Sultan Osman I and the Resadiye in 1914 by the British government.
The value of 2 extra battleships for the British navy stood in no comparison to the cost of adding the Ottoman empire as an enemy in the Great War as well as losing a connection to the Russian port of Sebastopol.

Having made the Ottoman Empire an enemy then deciding to fight them on a shoestring in the Dardanelles campaign. Because, with so many soldiers available to you, it surely should be no problem in wasting some of them?

Giving Cradock conflicting orders and resources, thereby ensuring his inevitable defeat in the battle of Coronel. All because you have to be seen to be doing something, anything, against Speer's flotilla.

Harebrained ideas about invading the Northern German Baltic coast

Ordering the battleships King George V and Rodney to continue hunting Bismarck, even if they would have run out of fuel. Because losing two extra battleships, right after the loss of Hood, would be such a good trade, if at least Bismarck would have sunk. At least there the British admirals knew when to quietly ignore an order, they were given.

Not everything above can be directly or solely pinned on Churchill, but he was very much an ignorant stubborn fool at times.

In 1940, he did give the right speech right when it needed to be given. That is also true.
But the rest of his career is drenched in too much blood and stupidity.
Click to expand...

Two battleships moreso of questionable value to the fleet. I believe one of them never even saw active duty during the war.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Two battleships moreso of questionable value to the fleet. I believe one of them never even saw active duty during the war.
Click to expand...

Both were present at Jutland, although one (HMS Erin, formerly the Resadiye) did not manage to fire her main guns, although 6 shells were fired from the secondary guns.

HMS Agincourt (formerly the Sultan Osman I) was apparently a very spectacular sight, when she fired a full salvo of her 14 12"guns.
 
A number of ships being built for foreign powers were seized when the war started.

Compensation was offered and if possible the ships were returned to their owners after the war.

It wasn't unusual

Drachinifel on HMS Agincourt and Erin

About 13 minutes long.



HMS Agincourt was originally built for Brazil as Rio de Janeiro and sold to Turkey.

HMS Erin

About 6 minutes

Erin was a very good ship.



Battleships built for other nations tended to be ship for ship, better than their Royal Navy counterparts as the country buying them could only afford a few so wanted them to be well specified.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
A number of ships being built for foreign powers were seized when the war started. Compensation was offered and if possible the ships were returned to their owners after the war. It wasn't unusual
Drachinifel on HMS Agincourt and Erin

About 13 minutes long.



HMS Agincourt was originally built for Brazil as Rio de Janeiro and sold to Turkey.

HMS Erin

About 6 minutes

Erin was a very good ship.



Battleships built for other nations tended to be ship for ship, better than their Royal Navy counterparts as the country buying them could only afford a few so wanted them to be well specified.
Click to expand...

All true.
But if you do this you must accept the possibility of the foreign power not exactly reacting completely favorable.

And in the case of the Ottoman Empire, whose first crew was almost ready to embark their shiny new battleship, they did indeed not react favorable.

And then you get to make the choice.
What is more important to you? An extra battleship (or 2) in hand, or an extra active enemy and losing access to a Russian allied port? and losing about 300.000 soldiers, as well as a bunch of, older, battleships?
Now, granted. Not every exact consequence can be known in advance and there's of course no certainty of the Ottoman Empire staying neutral, should they get their battleships.

But if we have to choose. Smart idea, or bad idea?
I go for bad, truly bad idea.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
And no, nukes were not necessary to make Japan surrender.
Click to expand...

Japan was not looking to surrender but have a negotiated peace before the bombs were dropped. Would they have done it eventually without them, probably but that would prolong the war and have a high body count associated with it too. Also probably have given the soviets more territory in asia as well.

There are good reasons to think it was the most humane solution and given what the US knew at the time, a reasonable action.

It certainly was better than the starvation and massive casualties the planned invasion would have resulted in.
 
erwinl said:
All true.
But if you do this you must accept the possibility of the foreign power not exactly reacting completely favorable.

And in the case of the Ottoman Empire, whose first crew was almost ready to embark their shiny new battleship, they did indeed not react favorable.

And then you get to make the choice.
What is more important to you? An extra battleship (or 2) in hand, or an extra active enemy and losing access to a Russian allied port? and losing about 300.000 soldiers, as well as a bunch of, older, battleships?
Now, granted. Not every exact consequence can be known in advance and there's of course no certainty of the Ottoman Empire staying neutral, should they get their battleships.

But if we have to choose. Smart idea, or bad idea?
I go for bad, truly bad idea.
Click to expand...

The Dardanelles campaign wasn't a direct result of either seizing the ships or the Ottoman Empire joining the war.

They are two seperate things.
 
Andy_Ross said:
The Dardanelles campaign wasn't a direct result of either seizing the ships or the Ottoman Empire joining the war.

They are two seperate things.
Click to expand...

That I don't follow.

The Dardanelles campaign surely would not have followed if the Ottoman Empire would have stayed neutral?

The campaign was an effort to knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war and gain access to the Russian ports. The empire being seen as the easiest of the Entente enemies to tackle, as the Western Front was still firmly locked in its place and Russia certainly could use some help.
 
Three was no need for the Dardanelles campaign at all and certainly once it was started it could have been very different to the way it played out.

The RN destroyed the forts but then made no move to exploit it and they were rebuilt stronger.
The landing was unopposed but no effort was made to push inland or secure the heights.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Three was no need for the Dardanelles campaign at all and certainly once it was started it could have been very different to the way it played out.

The RN destroyed the forts but then made no move to exploit it and they were rebuilt stronger.
The landing was unopposed but no effort was made to push inland or secure the heights.
Click to expand...

That was one of the other bad ideas I mentioned.
If you do decide to attack the Dardanelles, the way it was done for real, is certainly not the correct one.
Amazingly incompetent, the attacks and landings were.

And Cape Hellas most certainly was an opposed landing.
 
The problem is that there wasn't a smart way to attack the Dardanelles, or not one that anyone knew at the time. The idea had already been analysed by two different lords of the Admiralty and found to be unfeasible. The second one was Churchill.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Japan was not looking to surrender but have a negotiated peace before the bombs were dropped. Would they have done it eventually without them, probably but that would prolong the war and have a high body count associated with it too. Also probably have given the soviets more territory in asia as well.

There are good reasons to think it was the most humane solution and given what the US knew at the time, a reasonable action.

It certainly was better than the starvation and massive casualties the planned invasion would have resulted in.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is often forgotten that the atom bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
 
Re: The atomic bombs.

1. Yes, as others have stated, Japan had just refused an ultimatum to unconditionally surrender. No matter how some people want to split hairs over the proper translation of "mokusatsu" in context, ignoring -- or any other reasonable translation -- an ultimatum is the same as rejecting it. That's what an ultimatum MEANS. So, fair is fair.


2. As I've mentioned before, the final defense of Japan was a literal Zapp Brannigan plan. ("You see, killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down.") They planned to send the whole of 100 million Japanese, elderly, women and children alike, against the Americans. The vast majority armed with no more than sharpened bamboo poles. Until the Americans get sick of slaughtering millions of innocent civilians and give up. I'm not making it up. Look it up.

So yeah, fair is fair, forcing them to surrender before going all Zapp Brannigan did save lives.


3. THAT said, the Japanese conditions for surrender had shrunk over time to not as unreasonable as you'd think, and not much different from the final outcome anyway.

E.g., from the same "mokusatsu" answer some of the most "controversial" Japanese conditions were stuff like:

Article 9: Japanese soldiers will be allowed to return home and lead peaceful lives again.

Article 10: Japan as a nation will not be enslaved or destroyed.

Seriously, that's the stuff that was so outrageous, that even their own press censored it.

And, then the most controversial condition of them all, that the Emperor will remain Emperor and will not be tried.

Well, what did happen after the war? Ah right, those exact things anyway :p

What I'm saying is that while there is a valid point to be made about accepting an ultimatum or not, there's also something to be said about not escalating it over conditions that you're not going to break anyway. Just saying :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom