Stupid mistakes that cost or nearly cost a battle

Hello to you all

Since nobody has ever raised this subject I would like raise it.

 

What are the most trivial or stupid mistakes that happened which either lead to direct failure in a military campaign or nearly lead to one.

 

I remember reading that a German officer in either Jan or Feb of 1940 crashed his plane in Belgium and he had on him the detailed initial plans for the German offensive that would happen in May. Although the plan was adjusted the main features remained the same yet the French and allies didn't take the plan seriously.

Cannae. Varro had the bright idea of just ditching all plans and formation, and just directed all troops towards Hannibal's centre. (Simplification)

Polish counteroffensive at the Bzura in 1939 (first phase of the battle of Bzura) was the Polish "lost victory" and later cost the battle.

General Kutrzeba well took advantage of the favourable moment, and took the initiative at the moment, when he had got local superiority over German forces (9 IX). Later he successfully continued his attack for one day in conditions of the balance of power (10 IX) and for two days in difficult conditions of enemy superiority over his forces (11 - 12 IX), just in in order to resign and stop his attack on 13 IX - despite the fact, that Polish counteroffensive was still progressing (slower than at the beginning, but it was progressing).

In addition, it happened so that the moment when general Kutrzeba decided to stop his attack (because of allegedly stiffening German resistance), exactly coincided with the moment when general Blaskowitz finally and decisively ordered the general retreat of his 8th Army.

In consequence, on 13 IX Poles withdrew to the north behind the Bzura river, and at the same time Germans retreated to the south, behind the city of Lodz. Both armies retreated !!!

Astonishment of Germans must have been considerable, when - while once again marching to the north on 14 IX (in the face of lack of any further Polish pressure after the German retreat behind the city of Lodz) - they did not encounter literally any Polish units south of the Bzura river!

In other words - in the moment when the scale of victory decisively turned for the Polish side, despite numerical and material superiority of the enemy - Kutrzeba decided to stop the counteroffensive, instead of chasing and finishing off the already beaten along the whole frontline at the Bzura enemy.

Kutrzeba made a serious mistake - he did not finish the once started job, despite the fact that he was yet making his way towards the end of it. He hesitated and doubted in strength of his forces in the most inappropriate moment - when determination was indispensable.

custer at the big horn had he kept his command togethere he could have won and been a hero

Pickett's charge at Gettysburg, absolute folly for the Confederates, losing countless men at Gettysburg. I heard that at Bighorn that if Custer would have waited x amount of days he would have had Gatling guns and reinforcements.

Great thread

Edited by Sun Tzu - 04-Jun-2009 at 00:31

Originally posted by Sun Tzu I heard that at Bighorn that if Custer would have waited x amount of days he would have had Gatling guns and reinforcements. Great thread

yeah but the problem here is that the Sioux & allies were hard to grasp, they were basically on a huge raid and Custer at LBH had the opportunity to attack them. the infantry and artillery were too slow for this kind of warfare.

Originally posted by Chookie Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Charge of the Light Brigade - "Hey soldiers, I think our command wants us to charge up a hill at a fortified battery. Sounds great!" Though it did not cost the battle, it cost the lives of thousands of British cavalry. Actually it didn't. The Light Brigade when it charged, consisted of less than 700 men. It suffered 103 dead and 130 wounded, which doesn't add up to "the lives of thousands of British cavalry..." EDIT: Wiki says 110 dead........... Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Battle of Stirling Bridge - "Okay, instead of just firing into the lightly armored Scots relentlessly with our longbowmen, let's charge our cavalry across the bridge into phalanx-esque Scottish schiltrons." The English outnumbered the Scots and had better trained troops. The English knights were allowed to get a significant amount of their men across the bridge before the Scottish army showed itself.......

Alright, I exaggerated on the Light Brigade part. Had the Light Brigade been an actual brigade (instead of 700 men), this could have cost the Brits the battle.

But, as for Stirling Bridge, I never said that the Scots were immediately defending the bridge. But still, with a lack of knowledge about where the Scottish army, it is a stupid mistake to lead an army with cavalry across a bridge. Cavalry are not meant to sit still, but to charge. It is pretty hard to charge if the enemy can enclose you.

Ironically the Scottish victory of Stirling Bridge actually prevented a civil war in England. King Edward I was at odds with some of his nobility, particularly Earl Bigod and Earl Bohun, but the Scottish victory kindled patriotic emotions in England and baronial opposition to Edward faded. King Edward was thus able to recruit a large army the following year 1298 and inflict a crushing defeat on the Scots at Falkirk.

The battle of Manzikert (simplifying things a little): Romanos' signal to withdraw in orderly fashion for the night after what had been all in all a successful attack was interpreted as a signal to rout. The army broke and the Byzantine emperor was captured...

well, at the battle of Tours, If the Muslims Ignored the Frankish attack on the booty they gathered during their campaign they would have won, but nearly half the army retreated to protect the booty without orders and that destroyed the formation and really cost them the battle and many other things............