Batttles (Greatest strategy - worst startegy)

[Le Petit Prince]

Greatest startegy

1.Stalingrad (just love it)
2.Eucra (david won on Goliath)
3.Austerlitz (Napoleon greatest battle)
4.Ardens (Manstein blitzkrieg)
5.Midway (japan defeated) with
6.Azincourt ( trained simple archers beats well equiped cavalry)
7.Trafalgar (Nelson...)

WORST strategy

1.Pearl Harbour (when you sneak attack be sure to destroy the ships not just damage them!!!!)
2.Verdun (hitler said it was the biggest carnage of all time)
3.Barbarrossa (particularly not attacking Moskva but the North and Southpart of USSR- soldiers with no winter coats)
4.britain's battle (Goering attacking london instead of UK airfields giving a break to the RAF)
5.vietnam war US strategy

[Vrylakas]

Best:

Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's Shenandoah Valley campaign between the First Battle of Manassas and the Seven Days Battle in 1862, in the American Civil War. I have no sympathy for the old Confederacy, but Jackson led a brilliant hide-and-seek campaign against superior Federal forces, marching and counter-marching hundreds of miles in days, repeatedly defeating larger Union forces. His maneuvers in this campaign are still studied in military academies the world over. Ironically, when Lee pulled him from the Shenandoah to help fend off MacLelland's 100,000-strong Union force then invading Virginia, Jackson sucked. his greatness in the Valley campaign is contrasted strongly with an amazingly poor porformance in open battle.

[punch]

Worst:

Battle of Kadesh, between Egyptians and Hittites, 1274 B.C. this is usually trumpetted as a great victory for Ramses II but you're buying his propaganda if you believe that. Ramses II was outwitted at the battle and his army very nearly destroyed by his arrogance and naivite. His own butt was only saved by a last minute charge by his personal guard when the Hattic army took to looting his personal tents instead of concentrating on capturing him. Ramses II peppered Egypt with glyphs and monuments to his "great victory" at Kadesh, but in reality Egypt signed a humiliating peace treaty with the Hittites in 1258 recognizing their hold over most of the disputed lands and Ramses II was forced to marry one of the Hattic king's daughters to make nice. Some victory. Ancient Egypt would give birth to many great generals and military strategists; but Ramses II was not among them. His greatness lay in PR....

[Andu Indorin]

Attempting to distinguish battles from campaigns, and excluding naval and air operations ('coz I'm a "land-lubber") :

Battles:
1) Hannibal, Cannae, 218 b.c. The first and most decisive "double envelopment" manuever; subsequently attempted so many times, but never with the same results -- though Scipio came close against Hannibal himself at Zama.
2) Alexander, Gaugamela (Arbela), 331 b.c. Just about every battle Alexander fought was a display of brilliant leadership and tactics; but Gaugamela stands out for Alexander's ability to adjust and fine tune his battle plans to achieve maximum effect.
3) Napoleon, Austerlitz, 1805. A masterpiece of deception, concentration of force, deployment, and timing. As with so many of his battles, special mention for Davout, the ultimate subordinate commander.
4) Frederick, Leuthen, 1757. The best of Frederick's "oblique order" of attack, using terrain to mask his movement until the decisive onslaught.
5) Lee/Jackson, Chancellorsville, 1863. Hooker's sudden "paralysis of command" notwithstanding, one of history's most desperately daring and successful flanking operations.

Campaigns:
1) Subotai Khan, the Invasion of Central Europe, 1241. The Mongol military system at its best: six independently operating columns converging upon a decisive point, a "Cannae" on the strategic level.
2) Manstein, Plan for the Invasion of France, 1940. The best application of the "Blitzkrieg," marred only by Hitler's inane decision to halt the Panzer columns short of Dunkirk. Special mention for Guderian for his initiative in driving on to the coast, despite OKW's many hesitations after the breakout at Sedan.
3) Heraclius, the Issus/Halys Campaign, 622-623. Turning point in the last Byzantine-Persian War, a superb example of Sun Tzu's admonition to "seize key ground" as well Napoleon's strategy of the central position; and throughout the campaign, Heraclius's judicious choice of when to fight allowed him to turn a basically untrained army into an elite fighting force.
4) Wellington, the Vittoria Campaign, 1813. Much is written on Napoleon's favorite strategy of the movement sur les derrieres, but in my opinion, Wellington's 1813 campaign employed its principles even more effectively than any of Napoleon's campaigns.
5) Scott, the Invasion of Mexico, 1847. Operating deep in enemy territory, Scott cut loose from his base of operations for the final advance on Mexico City. Wellington declared "Scott is lost. He cannot capture the city and he cannot fall back on his base." Having succeeded, Wellington declared Scott the greatest general of the age. Special mention for Col. Robert E. Lee for establishing the lines of attack in the final engagements. Also of interest, the invasion of Mexico provided the exemplar for the better-known Vicksburg Campaign of U.S. Grant.

Honorable mentions for Best Battles/Campaigns (no particular order): Scipio, African Campaign, 204-202 B.C.; Caeser, Gallic Wars, 58-51 B.C.; Saladin, Hattin, 1187; Montrose, the "Year of Miracles," 1644-1645; Prince Eugene, Zenta, 1697; Marlborough, Blenheim, 1704; Napoleon, Opening Phase, Italy, 1796; Napoleon, Ulm, 1805; Jackson, Valley Campaign, 1862; Grant, Vicksburg Campaign, 1863; Hindenburg/Ludendorf, Tannenburg, 1914; Allenby, Megiddo Campaign, 1918; O'Conner, the "Wavell Offensive," 1940.

Worst Battles/Campaigns (no particular order):
Nicias, Syracuse, 415-413 b.c.; Crassus, Carrhae, 54-53 b.c.; the French leadership, in general, Crecy (1346), Poitiers (1356), Agincourt (1415); Burgoyne, Saratoga, 1777; Gates, Camden, 1780; Duke of Brunswick, Jena-Auerstadt, 1806; Bennigsen, Friedland, 1807; Burnside, Fredericksburg, 1862; Hamilton, Gallipoli, 1915; Hitler, Dunkirk, 1940; Hitler, Kiev Pocket, 1941; Hitler, Stalingrad, 1942-1943; Hitler, Kursk, 1943; Hitler, Normandy, 1944; Navarre/de Castries, Dien Bien Phu, 1954.

[Sodak]

The worst battle must be Gen. Custer's swan song at the Little Bighorn. Only a complete moron would have attempted that. He rode his men down a gulley (!) west toward the indian villages, hoping that all the braves would be distracted by the charge from the south by a second US force. It apparently never occured to him that the southern attack might fail, and it did. The indians were on to his ambush before it started. Custer and his men didn't even make it down the hill - completely surrounded, outnumbered, and then dead.

[joespaniel]

Best battle - October 3rd and 4th battle in Mogadishu, because I was there!

Worst battle - October 3rd and 4th battle in Mogadishu, because I was there !

[Kahran Ramsus]

The worst has to be the Battle of Balaclava (Oct. 25, 1854). Complete incompetance on all levels by the British.

[Case]

Best Strategy: Operation Overlord.
Worst Strategy: The Battle of the Somme

[S.P.Q.R.]

Best: the Scottish in Bannockburn

Worst: as already said several times, Custer at Little Big Horn

[Adebisi]

edit

[Achinz]

I'd rate the defeat of the British in Malaya and Singapore in WWII as the worst of the British!

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Achinz
I'd rate the defeat of the British in Malaya and Singapore in WWII as the worst of the British!

Idiotic higher command, gross underestimation of Japanese troops (racism mostly), wrong overall strategy (the guns of Spore faced the sea, not Johor the landward-side), diseparate forces (Indian, Aussie, British), Jap undermining of loyalty of Indian Army troops (Asia for Asians!). So the invincible fortress fell.

[kittenOFchaos]

The British surrendered too soon at Singapore for they feared massive civilian casualites...little did they know the Japanese would have had to withdraw had the British fought on till nightfall...the Japanese were running out of ammo and didn't have the numbers.

Had Singapore held for longer either reinforcement of a withdrawal could have saved the massive garrision.


The battle of the Frontier in 1914 for the French sucked...the Germans invade Belgium, the French attack the heavily fortified french-german frontier...clever!

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
The British surrendered too soon at Singapore for they feared massive civilian casualites...little did they know the Japanese would have had to withdraw had the British fought on till nightfall...the Japanese were running out of ammo and didn't have the numbers.

Had Singapore held for longer either reinforcement of a withdrawal could have saved the massive garrision.

So could the Japanese, reinforcements and resupply I mean. Remember, that the sea-lanes were being controlled by the Imperial Japanese navy. The British just lost 2 battleships off Pahang.
Anyway the British commander, Percival, surrendered cos the forces in Spore began running out of fresh water and food. Cos the Japs had taken Johor which was the source of most of Spore's water at that time. And cut off the sea-lanes so the Brits couldn't resupply by sea.

[Mikoyan]

Some of my favorite battles: Hastings, Agincourt, The Battle of Brunkeberg (Swedish troops beat the danes in Stockholm), Lützen, Kursk, Stalingrad.

Of course these opinions all depend upon perspective, but...

Crecy, Agincourt, Midway, Gettysburg, D-Day, Kursk, Bunker (Breeds) Hill, Trafalger.

[geake]

First of all, I don't really believe in strategy or so-called militaristic geniuses ...

What is strategy? Is a general a good strategist if he tells to a messenger during the battle :"go and tell to the 3rd cavalry to attack the battery on the right and tell this general to move his troops one kilometer forward". If you take the example of napoleonian wars, it would have sometimes taken hours for a horseman to get to the place, if not being killed, and sometimes he wouldn't even find the general because he moved by himself.

The only strategy I can see there is to plan something in advance and pray ... hoping that the ennemy hasn't planned something that would put you in a bad position because of your own plan.
Then the one who wins might just be the lucky one.

Maybe it's not like that anymore thanks to transition, but anyway, I think that the only valid strategy is to have a motivated army...

[pavelsu]

The worst for Incas and the best for Spanish

I think the fall of the Incas at Cajamarca is the most incredible battle in the history:

"Pizarro and his men found the camp where Atahualpa was staying, and upon sending in Hernando Pizarro, Francisco's brother, Atahualpa agreed to meet with the Spanish. Now, he was not ignorant of their ways, nor was their arrival a surprise. in fact he had been expecting them. After several days of making the Spaniards wait, Atahualpa rode to meet them. However, when he arrived at the agreed place there was no one in sight, for they were hiding in order to make a surprise attack. The first person to reveal himself was Vicente de Valverde, a Dominican Friar. Through a translator, he told the Inca Atahualpa that he and his people must convert, and if he refused they would be considered an enemy of the Church and Spain. Atahualpa refused. His refusal gave Pizarro a perfect reason to begin an attack on the Inca people. They did not practice the true faith and therefore were totally justified in attacking them in the name of Christianity. The Spanish (200 infantry soldiers and some cavalry) opened fire and attacked the Inca soldiers that were there with Atahualpa (about 10000 inca warriors). In the struggle, Pizarro's men went after the Inca, intending to kill him. But Pizarro had other plans and in saving Atahualpa's life was the only Spaniard injured in the showdown. Atahualpa was then captured and taken prisoner."

Resuming, only 300 spaniards soldiers conquered a huge empire.

[andycapp]

Churchill was correct in recognizing the fall of Singapore, to the Japanese, as the worst disaster in British military history.

The battle for Singapore was lost on the Malay penisula where the British command used static defensive strategies along the roads whilst the Japanese repeatedly out flanked Allied forces by moving through the "impenetrable" jungle. The other deciding factors were, obviously, Japanese domination of the air and sea.

The tragedy was, that the fundamental flaws in the British position in Malaya and Singapore were identified in the 1930's and used as case studies in British military colleges - regrettably nothing was done to rectify the problems.

Apart from the military consequences, the cost in human suffering was immense for both civilians and Allied military personnel. 130,000 Australian, British and Indian servicemen (and women) were captured by the Japanese and condemned to 3 years of barbaric treatment by their Japanese captors - thousands died, particularly on the infamous Thai-Burma railway.

Resuming, only 300 spaniards soldiers conquered a huge empire.

How come my one musketeer can't conquer an entire empire? If their spearmen can kill my tank, I want my musketeer to be an invincible force of conquest.

[DingBat]

Hmm, I think we're confusing strategy, operational plans, and tactics.

Battles usually don't represent any "strategy". Strategy is the plan to win a campaign or war. The main reason the Germans lost WW2 is that Hitler didn't really have any high level strategy.

The Blitzkrieg is often offered as a brilliant strategy. But Mansteins brilliant plan wasn't simply to attack through the Ardennes. His contribution (and Guderians, etc) was to say "Look, we don't want to attack head on. We want to attack them where they ain't, get around them, penetrate deep, avoid stand up fights, bypass, bypass, bypass". With that in mind, the original attack plan for France was flawed and flanking the advanced allied positions in the Low Countries was the only option. It's not that the attacking through the Ardennes was some flash of genius, but using the philosophy of the blitzkrieg NO OTHER OPTION MADE SENSE.

On the other hand, someone else in this thread has pointed to Stalingrad as brilliant strategy. I don't think so. It's good war to take advantage of the mistakes of your opponent but to say that the Soviets planned to suck the Germans into Stalingrad from the beginning is to give them WAY too much credit. Operation Uranus took advantage of an opening that the Germans provided but the Red Army at this point was still a club, not a rapier. Stalingrad could be viewed as a massive failure for Paulus just as much as a victory for the Soviets.

Just trying to show that a major victory in battle doesn't automatically mean brilliant strategy. Sometimes you're just lucky.

/bruce