Overestimated battles

Clicked this thread to post "Kursk" and saw you beat me to it. Great minds think alike!

Nonetheless, the outcome of the battle was still vitally important. Had the Germans achieved their objectives (as highly unlikely as that was given the depth of the Soviet defences) there's a decent chance that the Iron Curtain would have been on the Vistula rather than the Elbe, with Christ-knows-what effects on the course of the Cold War. Warsaw rather than Berlin as the European centre of gravity perhaps?
 
As has been mentioned. Gettysburg is very overrated for all the attention it is given, as even if Lee had won he would not have been able to translate it into a significant strategic victory. His army would most likely have been just as battered after three days of fighting, and he would have had to withdraw towards Virginia again, only richer in forage and supplies than historically.

Quebec (1775) is somewhat overplayed by Canadians. Even had Arnold taken Quebec he would shortly thereafter have been a prisoner of war when Burgoyne's forces showed up and besieged him, which probably would have had some disastrous long term consequences for the Patriots.

Lundy's Lane is also probably an overrated one by Canadians as well. If Scott had won, he wouldn't have had the numbers or supplies to carry out another major offensive into Upper Canada, and would probably have been stopped cold at the next battlefield.
 
Quebec (1775) is somewhat overplayed by Canadians. Even had Arnold taken Quebec he would shortly thereafter have been a prisoner of war when Burgoyne's forces showed up and besieged him, which probably would have had some disastrous long term consequences for the Patriots.

Oh that would be a very funny scenario. A pyrrhic victory indeed for the Patriots. Although this would mean the war effort is more closely tied to the British Regulars if the Canadians need bailing out.
 
El Alamein (1942): Even if Rommel had won, he was still massively outnumbered, operating at the end of a very long and tenuous supply line, and operating against an enemy who was only getting stronger. Plus, soon enough, his western flank would have been compromised with the Torch landings.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
El Alamein (1942): Even if Rommel had won, he was still massively outnumbered, operating at the end of a very long and tenuous supply line, and operating against an enemy who was only getting stronger. Plus, soon enough, his western flank would have been compromised with the Torch landings.
Which Alamein - the Axis attack or British counterattack?

To take the latter, let's say the Eighth Army's attack does grind to a halt in the minefields, taking heavy casualties. Vichy French resistance to the Torch landings may well be stronger, since they know Montgomery poses no imminent threat to Tunisia (assuming he doesn't get sacked by a vexed PM), whereas German forces from Europe are liable to arrive at any time. The OTL German response was fairly swift, and if the French hold things up a bit longer at the landing sites, an Axis defensive line can be set up further west - the Allies' near capture of Tunis in December wouldn't happen. In the east, if only to ease the supply situation, I expect Rommel is still going to fall back, though perhaps not as far as the Mareth Line. So if by the end of the year First Army is still at the Tunisian frontier, and a weaker Eighth Army is at Mareth or even El Agheila, then the North African campaign is likely to drag on into the summer of 1943. I won't pretend to know how that would influence Axis or Allied decision making, but there's bound to be some noteworthy consequences.
 
Which Alamein - the Axis attack or British counterattack?

To take the latter, let's say the Eighth Army's attack does grind to a halt in the minefields, taking heavy casualties. Vichy French resistance to the Torch landings may well be stronger, since they know Montgomery poses no imminent threat to Tunisia (assuming he doesn't get sacked by a vexed PM),

I'm not sure strategic factors really mattered. A lot of troops were not committed to fighting the Aliies.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
I'm not sure strategic factors really mattered. A lot of troops were not committed to fighting the Aliies.
The strategic factors had at least some influence on their commitment though. With hindsight we can say "Of course the Allies will win the war," but it's not so clear cut in 1942. In the aftermath of a serious Allied defeat at Alamein, French confidence in Allied victory isn't going to be so strong, and that has a knock-on effect on their attitude to an Allied invasion.
 
In a way, D-Day. Even if the invasion had been repulsed, the Russians by June 1944 still had sufficient forces- & the Germans by then had lost enough men- that they still would have taken Berlin & won the war.

HOWEVER, D-Day succeeding meant that WWII was shortened & many lives saved(though of course all too many did perish).A successful D-Day also insured that the Russians wouldn’t take all- or @ any rate, a much bigger slice than they did end up getting-of Europe. Thus D-Day insured that the post-war was far better than it might have been.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much all of Hannibal's career is composed of overestimated battles as well. Rome could send a seemingly infinite number of armies against him while his own government didn't even send another army to support him up until Hasdrubal's invasion. Cannae was a very impressive feat, nobody can deny that, but it was not a situation that could be kept up forever, seeing as he eventually lost of course.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
battle of britain ...MOST OVERRATED

lets say RAF fighter command is completely destroyed by luftwaffe

and what ? germans probably will lose most of their fighters too

brits can replace all their fighters a lot sooner

and are panzers going to wade across the channels on pontoon boats ?

RN in one night can wipe out any german beachhead and even in the face of full air superority luftwaffe would not be able to prevent the slaughter of german naval reinforcements


Sinking of Bismarck is another one
 
Really? Didn't the northern control of the Mississippi more or less cut the CSA in two parts?
For the North, the Mississippi no longer held the preeminent place in national commerce it once possessed. The Cincinnati Daily Commercial noted that four major railroads and the Erie Canal linked the Northwest with the Northeast and could supplant the Mississippi while forging an even tighter national unity between two sections that shared more in common than either shared with the South. However, a certain mystic character had developed about the Mississippi. People still believed it to be important. But even after the fall of Vicksburg and Port Hudson, there were still reports of transports that got badly shot up by Rebels all the way from Cairo, Illinois to New Orleans, Louisiana.

For the South, the loss of the Mississippi River did split the Confederacy in half but this is a a fallacious view. From a military perspective, the Trans-Mississippi no longer offered any source of manpower. All available manpower was needed to check the Yankee invaders in Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. Most of the men west of the Mississippi sent east only did so before the fall of New Orleans and Memphis to the Federal Navy. In terms of weapons, most weapons entering Texas from Mexico remained in Texas while Richmond was still able to send 30,000 arms to the Trans-Mississippi in early 1864 (for a comparison, Richmond sent 34,000 muskets to the Trans-Mississippi between September 1862-March 1863.
From a commercial perspective, beef from Texas to Virginia was not viable, even before the fall of Vicksburg. The primary method of getting cattle across the Mississippi was for the herd to swim across the river, not trains. Tennessee amply supplied its army with red meat until the summer of 1863 and Virginia obtained its meat from Florida, which then produced just as much meat as Texas. There was an attempt by commissary officers to send Texas cattle to Virginia, but that was abandoned due to poor grazing east of the river and the high cost of forage.
 

Alcsentre Calanice

Gone Fishin'
In terms of weapons, most weapons entering Texas from Mexico remained in Texas while Richmond was still able to send 30,000 arms to the Trans-Mississippi in early 1864 (for a comparison, Richmond sent 34,000 muskets to the Trans-Mississippi between September 1862-March 1863.

How did these weapons enter Texas in 1864?

For the North, the Mississippi no longer held the preeminent place in national commerce it once possessed.

So the argument that the North would want to reconquer the CSA after a southern victory in the Civil War because of New Orleans and the Mississippi is flawed?
 
How did these weapons enter Texas in 1864?
Albert Castel's article unfortunately does not elaborate as to how it was done.
So the argument that the North would want to reconquer the CSA after a southern victory in the Civil War because of New Orleans and the Mississippi is flawed?
Maybe. It is important to remember that there was a great attachment to the Mississippi for the people of the Northwest. However, the river as a route of commerce became less relevant due to railroads. It is plausible that a defeated Union sees the people of the Northwest become less attached to the river. The South had a lot of reasons to permit free trade between the Northwest and the South.

When the Louisiana secession convention passed an ordinance of secession, a resolution guaranteeing free navigation of the Mississippi on the same day, January 26, 1861. The newly formed Confederate government in Montgomery moved along a similar line passing a bill to establish free trade that President Jefferson Davis signed on February 18, and a tariff bill, passed on May 21, established a Confederate policy of prohibiting taxes on imports of agricultural goods. [Information from 'The Civil War in the West' by Earl J. Hess]
 
I'd say Zama. Even if Hannibal won another Cannae, Carthage had no realistic chance of even forcing a white peace, let alone making a comeback.


You are missing the longer term significance of Zama. The destruction at Zama led directly to the third Punic war which led to Roman conquest of North Africa. This in turn led to the grain fleets travelling between North Africa and Rome leading to a massive expansion in trade which made the Empire possible. Once the Vandals take North Africa the Western Empire disintegrates in a generation. Further the 2nd and even the 3rd Punic wars begin the process that destroys the Republic. I agree that Carthage would not have "won" the second Punic war had Hannibal won Zama. However, a wide variety of other changes would have occurred meaning it is an enormously important battle.
 
Plassey is overrated as the foundation of British power in bengal- they had already received all power in Bengal officially from the emperor and it was Buxar that weakened the rest of the indo gangetic plain up to their ambitions from Bengal
 
I doubt it. Refusing to hand back New Orleans would have inevitably led to another war with the US, something Britain clearly didn't want. And if the UK was so set on stopping Louisiana going to the US, they'd have insisted on it at the peace negotiations and kept fighting till they got it.

Britain wouldn't have wanted to keep it. Though slavery still had another generation to go, people in London were already anticipating its end, and getting wary of acquiring more "slave" territory which would only add to the number of slaveholder we would one day have to pay compensation to.

OTOH, that doesn't rule out our exacting a price - say the area now forming WI and MN - for NO's return to the US.
 
Top