What Do You Think Was Most Stupid And Pointless Battle (not war) Ever?

[sydhe]

Idi Amin's invasion of Tanzania was really, really dumb. It did free Uganda of Idi Amin, so I guess it accomplished something.

I'm tempted to include the British re-invasion of Kabul during the First Afghan War (they went to Kabul, found out Shah Shuja had been assassinated, and went home). They did free some prisoners left over from the first invasion, so I guess it wasn't entirely stupid.

 

[Zardnaar]

The Battle of Iwo Jima. AKA lets kill alot of Marines for a battle that does absolutely nothing towards winning the war. The only battle of the pacific where the Japanese inflict roughly equal casualties on the Americans. Totally pointless battle. At least Verdun may have worked.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Lone Pine (As shown in the Austraian movie Anzacs)

2 company of soldiers died attacking with bayonets only strong enemy held positions and were annihilated within five meters of there starting / jump off trench.

 

[classical_hero]

Who was the mod editing this message? Alcibiaties you know it is a serious breach of rules?

He was once a mod.

 

[Gelion]

He was once a mod.

Oups.... my bad then ...

P.S. Someone revived a thread that was dead for 4 years?!! No wonder I didn't know the guy

 

[Panzaman!]

Many to name......
Battles from The Boer War : many
World War 1 Battles: Verdun, Ypres, Somme and especially Gallipoly
(The idea itself was an error)

World War 2 Battles: Dieppe Raid, Hurtgen Forest, Iwo Jima(I totally agree with Zardnaar, it was the only late land battle in witch japan marines inflicted equal casualties to us)

 

[Dr. Yoshi]

The battles between Honduras and El Salvador in 1969 over a disputed football match.

 

[Ukas]

Football match is as good reason as any.

 

[Birdjaguar]

What is the most pointless battle of all time. For me a contender has to be the battle for New Orleans during the 1812 war between Britain and the USA. Not only was the war over 2 weeks ago but the British employed the worst tactics ever.

Well, the peace treaty was signed in Ghent (Belgium) on Dec. 24th 1814. Jackson in Louisiana was about six weeks away by boat. There is no way he could have known the was over by mid January.

The Treaty of Ghent

On December 24, the Treaty of Ghent is signed ending the war. The war in the field continues until mid-February.

Treaty of Peace and Amity between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, Concluded at Ghent, December 24, 1814; Ratification Advised by Senate, February 16, 1815; Ratified by President; February 17, 1815; Ratifications Exchanged at Washington, February 17, 1815; Proclaimed, February 18, 1815.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The Battle of Iwo Jima. AKA lets kill alot of Marines for a battle that does absolutely nothing towards winning the war. The only battle of the pacific where the Japanese inflict roughly equal casualties on the Americans. Totally pointless battle. At least Verdun may have worked.

I disagree. The island was an important airbase. With out it, the US would not have been able to keep up its B-29 attacks which ultimately destroyed Japan. It may have been bloody but it certainly wasn't pointless.

 

[The Yankee]

Well, the peace treaty was signed in Ghent (Belgium) on Dec. 24th 1814. Jackson in Louisiana was about six weeks away by boat. There is no way he could have known the was over by mid January.

Besides, the British were the ones looking to gain control of the Mississippi. So we can blame them.

 

[Ukas]

I disagree. The island was an important airbase. With out it, the US would not have been able to keep up its B-29 attacks which ultimately destroyed Japan. It may have been bloody but it certainly wasn't pointless.

Besides Iwo Jima has had great propaganda value after the battle.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Besides Iwo Jima has had great propaganda value after the battle.

US were losing a lot of aircrews in the long distance bombing flights. iwo Jima had been intended as a jump of point for invasion of mainland japan proper.

 

[FriendlyFire]

During height of verdun: a hasty counterattack had been organised by the reckless general madrin (sp?)

not only was hes inflexable but incompetent. hes position was mainly due to hes attachment to perteins raising status.

A full regiment was order to carry out an attack. Without any artillary support, no reconices and no planning. The troops having moved up into the dark found themselves totally disorinentated.

They advanced in incorrect attack formation, faced the wrong way, and carried out the advance in the wrong direction. they were subsequenlty descimated.

As reflected in hes Journel. the general writes of how it was "glorious" to see soldiers die in battle.

 

[Verbose]

During height of verdun: a hasty counterattack had been organised by the reckless general madrin (sp?)

Is it Charles Mangin ("Le boucher"/the Butcher or "Le mangeur des hommes"/the Maneater) you're talking about? Sounds like his MO.

And like the attempt to recapture the Fort Doaumont in may 1916 — half a crack regiment expended just to get the survivor to dig themselves in on the outside of the fort, where for ten days the German arty pelted them with shells, until the counterattack cut off captured the survivors, with a handfull of wounded men able to crawl back to receive their medals.

It led to Mangin's dismissal though and it was Nivelle's bloody responsibility. Pétain had warned against it.

 

[Ukas]

Is it Charles Mangin ("Le boucher"/the Butcher or "Le mangeur des hommes"/the Maneater) you're talking about? Sounds like his MO.

And like the attempt to recapture the Fort Doaumont in may 1916 — half a crack regiment expended just to get the survivor to dig themselves in on the outside of the fort, where for ten days the German arty pelted them with shells, until the counterattack cut off captured the survivors, with a handfull of wounded men able to crawl back to receive their medals.

It led to Mangin's dismissal though and it was Nivelle's bloody responsibility. Pétain had warned against it.

To believe in offense is not a bad thing as itself, but then you should pay closer attention to details - especially in the WWI. Mangin truly had a weak point there.

Mangin served again in the autumn of 1918, didn't he?

 

[Verbose]

To believe in offense is not a bad thing as itself, but then you should pay closer attention to details - especially in the WWI. Mangin truly had a weak point there.

Mangin served again in the autumn of 1918, didn't he?

He commanded the French armourd break-through of the German lines at forest of Villiers-Cotterêts in 1918, 18th June.

Several hundred turreted Renault tanks just sliced through the German positions. They got all the way to the German encampents behind the front, were peacful German soldiers harvested the fields.
Mangin the Maneater's tanks machine-gunned the hell out of them and took 30.000 prisoners. I guess they had tooled him up with the right gear for the kind of job that suited him by 1918.

Oh and incidentally, he got all his pretty nick-names before WWI, as a colonial warrior in North Africa.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Is it Charles Mangin ("Le boucher"/the Butcher or "Le mangeur des hommes"/the Maneater) you're talking about? Sounds like his MO.

Oh yes that is him.
he was famous for having said.

"The first wave shall all be killed"
"So too the second wave"
"The third wave also"
"Some of the fourth wave will rearch the objective:
"the Fifth wave will capture the objective"

 

[Dreadnought]

Some Civil War ones:

Federicksburg Everyone except Burnside knew that that battle would go awry whe nthe pontoons didn't arrive on time and Lee fortified the heights but he attacked anyway, a frontal assault.

Nashville Hood stood no real chance of winning in Tennessee but he goes on anyway. He lost nearly 40% of his army for no gain at all. HIs army after the battle almost ceased to exist.

Second Bull Run Who sends an army into enemy territory, outnumbered, intent on reinforcing an allied army on a peninsula that is pulled out in the begining of the compaign, which was the only real advantage you had?

Chickamauga What type of commander positions his troops poorly, spread apart so that they cannot aide each other, then later in the battle creating a whole in his own line?

 

[onejayhawk]

Nashville Hood stood no real chance of winning in Tennessee but he goes on anyway. He lost nearly 40% of his army for no gain at all. HIs army after the battle almost ceased to exist.

I give you this one. As to the others, its off topic. The thread is about stupid battles, not stupid decisions during battles.

I would nominate The third Punic War, Austerlitz, and Pearl Harbor. In each case one side would have been vastly better off by either staying home, or moving aside.

J