Worst Military Underperformance

The Nationalist Chinese Army during the Chinese Civil War.
The Nats... They had everything going wrong. Their troops were essentially conscripted peasants, corruption ate away at the USA's money, and they had more deserters than joiners. The PRC was probably helped more by the fact that they weren't the ROC/they promised land reform, than because of who they were.
 
I'm pretty sure that the current military understanding is that going for Kiev rather than Moscow is what prevented the Germans from suffering a humiliating and catastrophic defeat in front of Moscow, and which would have also left the Soviets with vastly more military and industrial capability of their own without the loss at Kiev.


Given that the thread is supposed to be about armies underperforming relative to strength, training, equipment, I'm not really sure if France underperformed. Yes, France as a state underperformed in producing the army of 1870, but given the terrible blemishes which pervaded the French imperial army and the fact that the German system was simply superior at putting a large army in the field quickly with good supplies, intelligence, aggression, artillery, systematically good training, aggressive doctrine, and an effective general staff, the outcome of the war was effectively pre-determined from day one... Although admittedly, the sheer scale of the French loss might have been lessened by different command.
The french had plenty of advantages of their own that they failed to properly utilize due to their inferior general staff, they didn't win a single battle. That sounds like underperormance to me.
 

A more specific point of order, but the LW was always a factor on the Eastern Front right to the end.


How significant of a factor?

What percentage of the Luftwaffe was fighting in the East in 1944-45?

40-50 % at the start of 44. 25-30% in early 45. The LW managed to keep between 4,000 & 5,000 combat aircraft operational on any particular day during 1944. The main differences were the decline in pilot skill, & the decline of bombers in proportion to fighter aircraft. Production rocketed up wards during the year, but so did losses. John Ellis has some charts and text describing German air force strength biannually 1939-1945. Also production numbers
 
The Italian Army in North Africa (and East Africa for that matter)

Particularly the preceding 'Invasion of Egypt' where they had every advantage and should have pushed on rather than advanced 65 miles and stopped.
 
The Army of the Potomac prior to Grant co-locating his overall HQ with it...

It should be remembered that McClellan won seven of eight battles he had with Lee. His failing wasn't that he couldn't win, but that he'd treat victories like they were defeats. Still, he won too much to really belong near this discussion. Burnside is worth bringing up primarily because he was a lot more successful in most of his other campaigns during the war.
 
That's a running Italian historical theme though isn't it? Decent troops (as good as anyones) terrible commanders.
It is a bit odd?
The Italians produced probably the finest Special Forces Unit of WW2. And the Folgore Division was one of the best that fought on any Battlefield.
Its just everything else!
 
It is a bit odd?
The Italians produced probably the finest Special Forces Unit of WW2. And the Folgore Division was one of the best that fought on any Battlefield.
Its just everything else!
Every country runs into the problem of having some terrible generals here and there, the truly odd thing is the Italian's lack of generals that are any good.
 

Redbeard

Banned
A lot of good examples and points in this thread.

After a good deal of thought my bid would after all be the French in 1940, but the British at Malaya 1941/42 will come close.

The French in 1940 had 100 + reasonably well equipped Divisions (as good as the German) and a well protected right flank behind the Maginot Line. All they needed to do was to identify the main German trust and then bring a hailstorm of fire and counterattacks down on it.

But what do they do? They assume the Germans will play the role the French plans had given them (attacking though Belgium like in WWI) and even fail to put up recon to see if they after all might come through the Ardennes (like in 1870). Not only are the troops sent into Belgium sent into a trap, but it were the best in the French army that were lost and after that no strategic reserve was left! IMHO that is bad generalship of the worst magitude, especially as a slightly LESS aggressive attitude would very likely have had the Germans bog down - and save the lives of tens of millions of people!

But close is the British mismanagement in the two years following the fall of France. Churchill certainly still is one of the most important persons in the history of mankind (in the positive way) as it was not at least his determination that kept Britain fighting and thus gave a contribution to the defat of nazism that we could not have done without. But, IMHO Churchill more than anyone else also brought the British global role to an end through his dispositions from the BoB and to the fall of Singapore. After BoB there was no imminent risk of a German invasion of the British Isles but also no chance in hell that the British and their Empire alone could defeat the nazis. That should mean a cautious strategy first of all focused on staying in the game and on defending the Empire - just like Britain always had done. But what does he do? He feverishly demand that the British "take the initiative" and waste huge resources on campaigns, mainly in the Med., that achieve very little - and when just a fraction of the resources wasted could have been decisive in defending Malaya and Singapore. Malaya and Singapore he very well knew were a most likely target for near by Japanese aggression, but made the fatale misjudgement that this could be deterred by sending two capital ships, when Japan had more than ten times that number of capital ships (incl. carriers) and access to airbases in FIC.

Of course the British Empire wouldn't be granted eternal life because Singapore is defended, but with Singapore lost in the humiliating way it was, the trust in the British being of any use outside their own islands was fatally undermined.
 
From what I've understood Zhukov wanted to prevent the German 9. Armée to retreat back to Berlin and instead encirle and destroy it outside the city. Anything but a brutal frontal assault on the Seelower Höhen might have allowed the Germans to retreat back into Berlin and make that fight all the more harder. Or so I've understood it.
Heinrici was the better general, pity he had such little to work with
 

Archibald

Banned
The french had plenty of advantages of their own that they failed to properly utilize due to their inferior general staff, they didn't win a single battle. That sounds like underperormance to me.

You are wrong. There were battle wons. The Germans had their arse thoroughly kicked in Gembloux and Namur. While Sedan collapsed miserably, only 10 miles in Stonne and Le Mont Dieu another battle raged for three weeks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sedan_(1940)#Battle_of_Stonne
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The Syrians on the Golan Heights in 1973 deserve a mention. With such an enormous disparity in infantry, tanks and artillery, with the Israeli air advantage largely neutralized due to the SAM network, and with the element of surprise to boot, by rights they should have crushed the Israeli defenders and been on the Jordan River without any trouble.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
From colonial times...

Chelmsford's opening moves against the Zulus that led to Isandlwana - although we did get a decent film & Michael Caine out of it!

Redvers Buller's strategy at the start of the Second Boer War; he can share the blame for Black Week with his underperforming generals.

And on the subject of the Boers, how about Colley's efforts at Laing's Nek and Majuba Hill?

Hicks Pasha at El Obeid.

And just to show that where the British lead others follow: -
The Italians at Adowa

But the prize for best colonial numpties must go to General Silvestre and the Spanish Army at Annual in 1921, massacred by an outnumbered opponent.



Mind you, to show the big boys can kick dirt in some faces, the Dervish hordes at Omdurman in terms of size must be pretty high up there. Kitchener was a lot luckier than most believe.
 
Top