What was the worse military plan of all time?

[Mostlyharmless]

Classics might include the Austro-Russian plans for Austerlitz or Yamamoto's plan for Midway. These are examples of plans which misuse superior forces so that they risk suffering a decisive defeat. However, plans that overlook a fundamental problem are also of interest. For example, I have heard that there was no way that Parma's army could have reached the Spanish Armada of 1588 and thus no way to transport an army to England. Simpler failures of imagination, such as Publius Claudius Pulcher not asking what if the Carthaginians sail out of the south entrance of the Drepana habour together with his efforts on his side's morale, also have some charm. Perhaps the greatest consequences come from classics of political miscalculation such as Polk's invasion of Kentucky. Yamamoto is perhaps unique in being able to offer his Pearl Harbor plan to go with his Midway effort.

Other or better (worse) ideas?

[Yelnoc]

Well, Operation Barbarrosa wasn't very well thought out.

[Falastur]

The British invasion of Afghanistan in the 1830s?

No wait, I've got a better one: the Zanzibari declaration of war on the British in 1896, when they blatantly had no ability to resist and even worse, the British already had a warship sat in port with its guns facing the capital. Shortest war of all time.

[Nerdlinger]

At the risk of inciting a riot, the 2003 invasion of Iraq?

Edit: Of course, that's not pre-1900, though.

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Originally Posted by Yelnoc

Well, Operation Barbarrosa wasn't very well thought out.

Any plan that involves attacking Russia is not very well thought out.

Seriously, besides that Operation Market Garden was kind of fail. It sounds like a good plan on paper, that is if you exclude the intelligence people on the ground give you.

[Citizen Samuel]

Originally Posted by DJC

At the risk of inciting a riot, the 2003 invasion of Iraq?

Edit: Of course, that's not pre-1900, though.

The invasion was very successful militarily. It was the postwar civilian planning that screwed the pooch.

If you're talking about US interventionist military strategy then Gen. Westmoreland's initial Vietnam strategy wins hands down.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by The Gonzo

The invasion was very successful militarily. It was the postwar civilian planning that screwed the pooch.

If you're talking about US interventionist military strategy then Gen. Westmoreland's initial Vietnam strategy wins hands down.

Well, I guess I was referring to the overall plan which included no exit strategy. Though the Iraq War hasn't (yet) caused nearly as many unnecessary deaths as Vietnam, so you have a point.

[Zyzzyva]

Originally Posted by Falastur

The British invasion of Afghanistan in the 1830s?

That wasn't badly thought-out: they won, after all. Now, when things started to come apart in the 40s Elphinstone's method of dealing with the situation* was absolutely terrible and might even garner my vote, but the invasion itself (and even the occupation, 'til they sent Elphy Bey) was reasonably competently executed.

*To wit: recite the phrase "Well, let's just hope it doesn't come to that." Repeat as needed or until everyone is dead.

No wait, I've got a better one: the Zanzibari declaration of war on the British in 1896, when they blatantly had no ability to resist and even worse, the British already had a warship sat in port with its guns facing the capital. Shortest war of all time.

...It was the British who DOW'd there, eh.

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Hmm, just remembered the epic fail that was the planning for the breaking of the Petersburg Siege in the American Civil War. Actually, it originally was a brilliant plan. Originally, the besieging Union forces were to tunnel under the Confederate trenches, place tons of explosives, and then after detonating it launch an assault with an experienced black regiment leading the charge that was specifically trained to go around the crater and hit the Rebs when they were down. Where the plan failed was when meddling by the higher ups occurred. Depending on whether you ask a Southerner or a Northerner, either General Meade was a racist who didn't trust the black troops, or he was scared of the political fallout at being seen as using blacks as cannon fodder if it failed, so he gave the position of lead regiment to one that was unprepared and whose colonel was a drunk who didn't even lead in the battle. In the end they ran straight into the crater and it became a turkey shoot.

[Zyzzyva]

Originally Posted by Hresvelgr

Hmm, just remembered the epic fail that was the planning for the breaking of the Petersburg Siege in the American Civil War. Actually, it originally was a brilliant plan. Originally, the besieging Union forces were to tunnel under the Confederate trenches, place tons of explosives, and then after detonating it launch an assault with an experienced black regiment leading the charge that was specifically trained to go around the crater and hit the Rebs when they were down. Where the plan failed was when meddling by the higher ups occurred. Depending on whether you ask a Southerner or a Northerner, either General Meade was a racist who didn't trust the black troops, or he was scared of the political fallout at being seen as using blacks as cannon fodder if it failed, so he gave the position of lead regiment to one that was unprepared and whose colonel was a drunk who didn't even lead in the battle. In the end they ran straight into the crater and it became a turkey shoot.

...And also Ambrose Burnside was somehow involved, which pretty much meant it was doomed from the get-go.

Speaking of Burnside: Fredricksburg. Just... Fredricksburg.

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Originally Posted by Zyzzyva

...And also Ambrose Burnside was somehow involved, which pretty much meant it was doomed from the get-go.

Speaking of Burnside: Fredricksburg. Just... Fredricksburg.

"Well men, today, today we are going to drive back the Southern traitors and end their hypocritical and evil rebellion!"
"Yeah! We're ready to march all the way to Atlanta, just tell us the battle plan..."
"All right, it's gonna go like this. We're gonna line up shoulder-to-shoulder, so everybody can see everybody, march out into an open field and slowly march straight at a hill with a stonewall protecting the Rebs and we're gonna fight and we're gonna win!"
". . . fuck."

Almost as embarrassing as Cold Harbor, which is only more embarrassing as it is the second such plan they made and Burnside wasn't even involved!

Just remembered, speaking of failed assaults on fortified positions in the 1860's, the Battle of Curupaity in the War of the Triple Alliance comes to mind. When Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay all invaded Paraguay, they had to pass the Paraguayan fortifications at Curupaity. There were well-made trenches and moats on a hilltop, manned by 5,000 starving, poorly-equipped Paraguayans preparing for a devastating assault from 20,000 Allied troops.. and the Allies ended up attacking the wrong trenchline. The Allies lost 5,000 troops, the Paraguayans lost 50.

[Zyzzyva]

Originally Posted by Hresvelgr

"Well men, today, today we are going to drive back the Southern traitors and end their hypocritical and evil rebellion!"
"Yeah! We're ready to march all the way to Atlanta, just tell us the battle plan..."
"All right, it's gonna go like this. We're gonna line up shoulder-to-shoulder, so everybody can see everybody, march out into an open field and slowly march straight at a hill with a stonewall protecting the Rebs and we're gonna fight and we're gonna win!"
". . . fuck."

You missed the part where they forded the river first.

Just remembered, speaking of failed assaults on fortified positions in the 1860's, the Battle of Curupaity in the War of the Triple Alliance comes to mind. When Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay all invaded Paraguay, they had to pass the Paraguayan fortifications at Curupaity. There were well-made trenches and moats on a hilltop, manned by 5,000 starving, poorly-equipped Paraguayans preparing for a devastating assault from 20,000 Allied troops.. and the Allies ended up attacking the wrong trenchline. The Allies lost 5,000 troops, the Paraguayans lost 50.

That would be more terrible in a war that was less horrendously one-sided the other way.

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Originally Posted by Zyzzyva

That would be more terrible in a war that was less horrendously one-sided the other way.

Meh, it was still a horrible was of life.

[Grimm Reaper]

Hresvelgr, except Meade can't be blamed for political meddling, decisions by the commander of the army(which rests with Grant) or Burnside, who did everything well until he was suddenly ordered not to lead off with Ferrero's division of colored troops who had been given special training for the assault and instead go with one of his three other divisions, each of them understrength and lacking any of the special training.


True to form, Burnside had the other three division commanders in and had them draw cards to determine which unit would lead, out of two proven and effective officers and a officer widely known(somehow NOT to Burnside) to be not only a drunk(not so important) but a coward(shatteringly important).

[Zyzzyva]

Originally Posted by Hresvelgr

Meh, it was still a horrible was of life.

Well, yeah, but it's like complaining the Germans wasted lives horribly at Verdun. It's kind of hard with all the other horrible wastes of life by the other side staring you in the face.

[Faramir154]

The two largest military failures that come to mind right now would have to be:

The Winter War on the part of the Russians, although they won the battle for Finland, the way they went about it was just awful.

And the Fourth Crusade, I don't think that needs any explanation on how that was a massive failure.

[tehShifty]

Is no one going to mention the intial invasion of Zululand by the British?

[usertron2020]

If you talk about just PLANS, whether they went ahead or not, you could list a
plethora of choices. Either Lee's or Longstreet's first plans on the second or
third days of Gettysburg would have ended the US Civil War with a Northern
victory
Sealion anyone? It's agreed that the July option would have worked but
NOBODY expected such a rapid French collapse July would have required the
Germans to start preparing before Case Yellow even began No, it was September or nothing. A massive board/wargame at Sandhurst in 1975
umpired by surviving British and West German officers responsible for planning for and against Sealion determined it was an exercise in how to
slaughter troops on the beaches GallipoliPLUS in Sealion they
wouldn't escape

[hzn5pk]

Barbarosa and Market Garden are classic examples of plans that hinged on the succcess of many details. One hitch could mean failure of the plan as in Gardens case. Logistics also played a key role in the failure of both.

I also like the category of excellent plans on paper, but poorly executed. In this category. I nominate the British plan to isolate New England in 1777 from the North, South and West. Burgoyne was to march South, Howe was to march up the Hudson and St. Leger was was to march from the west. Everyone was suppose to meet up at Albany. No one made it there as Howe opted for glory and conquered Philadelphia or Philadephia conquered the British. St. Leger was turned back and Burgoyne surrendered.

A second nominee for this category is McClellan's Peninsular campaign. He had initial sucess and then did not take the initiative to move upon Ricmond.

And then there is the category of no attack plans should have been made:

Pickett's charge (3rd day of Gettysburg) and Hood's defenceof Atlanta where he plays into Sherman's hands by attacking are two good examples.

[usertron2020]

I'm still new to this format so I'll try to keep things straight. OK, Pre-1900

Bad plans? How about the Iron Duke's answer when he was asked to
produce a warplan for the conquest of the US following Waterloo? He
answered that four things were required absolutely to conquer America
-and remember this is 1815, not 1776-
First, the entire Royal Navy
Second, control of the Great Lakes
Third, an army of one million men
Fourth, ten years to complete said task
Do I believe Wellington was serious? No, especially not after what
happened to his brother-in-law General Sir Edward Pakenham in
the battle of New Orleans at the hands of future President Andrew Jackson Still it WAS a plan. I don't know what Parliament told
him to do with his plan, but If I knew, I'm sure it isn't printable.