Talk:List of military disasters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Death by Lightning

I swear I didn't make this up.. when I was a kid, I was reading a book with a title along the lines of "100 weird facts" or something, and it said "more people died in the battle of XXX than by fighting", and went on to describe how an army of people wearing armour were marched to the top of the hill where a thunderstorm broke out and.. well, do the maths. I have spent the past hour and a half googling for this and I think I got to the end of the internet. Does this ring any bells to any historians? I'm assuming that it was a minor battle given how much is written about it (in 2010, about naught, apparently), but most of the other "facts" I read in that 3 inch wide christmas present book seemed to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.39.223 (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Dance3600#*-* (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Severity and causes

I was going to include the Battle of Mogadishu in this article, but decided against it because the failure there was more down to technical failures than outright incompetence or oversight which I believe should be part of the criteria for inclusion in this article. I think this is an important article, since even though "list of" type articles don't necessarily count as academic, the links provided by this article to the actual incidents are extremely useful, and in that respect, this page should be well maintained, which is why I've been filling in reasons (see paragraph below). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.39.2 (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Reasons

This page could turn into a good training manual for budding generals. I've used my knowledge of WW1 and WW2 to fill in some of the reasons for the military cock-ups, but there are so many on this page relating to wars that I don't have knowledge and I can't do them all without laborious research, which is unfair, given that the person who entered the particular disaster probably fully aware of what was the error.

I'm doing my best here, but someone could help! I've done Operation Market Garden, Stalingrad, Moscow, and Midway, but this page is full of "everyone died" but no reasons why. Incidentally, the charge of the light brigade actually achieved its objectives, and was praised in London until various poets announce the public that it was a great loss of life. It resulted in a fundamental change in how the chain of command in the British army was built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.39.2 (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Time Frame

How should this article address the timing of battles? Something that seemed strategically brilliant at the time may later turn out to be a big blunder. A simple example is Pearl Harbor... was initially a smashing Japanese success, but later analysis says that destroyers were relics by WWII anyways, and the US carriers got away. In the very long view, Pearl Harbor led to the defeat of Japan in the Pacific. Or Hitler's invasion of Russia... was a smashing success up until Stalingrad. Feco 22:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Hitler's attempted invasion of Moscow is for me the perfect definition of Military cock-up. They expected the battle to be over quickly, and instead found themselves fighting through the russian winter with no warm clothes or antifreeze. It should be down to individual operations, and in that respect, the failure to deal with Pearl Harbour was an error on the part of the Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.39.2 (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

What is disputed??

Quite. Where's the debate? Where's the dispute? Who is disputing anything? If no dispute turns up on the talk page, then I guess the 'The neutrality of this article is disputed' thing can be removed. 18:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Edited to add--ah! Suddenly it all becomes clear! Thanks. Monk Bretton 00:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC))

This is an obvious POV trap. I initially added that template to help control POV on the Iraq War. It is too early to tell, and should not be included on this list. If this happens again, I will list this article on VFD. Andros 1337 03:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was split off from List of commercial failures, formerly List of major flops. There had been a section NPOV tag on the "Military flops" section of that article, which is the basis of this article. Here's the discussion about the NPOV debate, copied from Talk:List of commercial failures:

---

Since that section was added, the Iraq war kept on showing up. I removed it twice from the list. However, I am totally sure it will be added again. I'm thinking, should this section be removed? Andros 1337 18:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. That section's an unnecessary POV trap. I added the Bay of Pigs Invasion, but now I think that was a mistake. Now that I think about it, any "military flop" for one side isn't a flop for the other side. There's really no way that section can be made NPOV, and it's not really important to keep it here in the context of "flops." --Szyslak 23:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW: If I don't hear any objections within the next day or so, I'm gonna "be bold" and delete that section. --Szyslak 06:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere on this discussion page, this whole article is inherently non-NPOV, insofar as high expectations compared to low results are inherently judgemental. If we're going to keep the article, I don't see where military flops are any more non-NPOV than anything else, except that the current focus of news is on a military action. I suspect that in 1998, political flops would have been a "POV trap" due to the Lewinski scandal. I think that this can be kept, but that there be a limit applied (say, no flops later than 1954 or 1994 or whenever) so that we can have some hope of objectivity. So how about Napoleon's invasion of Russia? — DLJessup 06:38, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

I don't agree that this article is "inherently POV." The article List of people widely considered to be eccentric went through two VfD's over the same issue; a fair number of Wikipedians argued for deletion simply because eccentricity was subjective and unquantifiable. As I said elsewhere on this talk page, just because something's not precisely quantifiable doesn't make it unencyclopedic or "inherently POV." Take the article on terrorism, for example. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, so is that article a candidate for deletion? We could say the same about any number of issues or concepts, like mental illness or love. This article does a good job of qualifying the fact that people disagree over what is or is not a flop. When people add "marginal" cases, they tend to be removed pretty quickly. I really think it's possible to write encyclopedic, NPOV articles about things that can't be precisely defined to everyone's liking. Besides, this is a fun article. Everyone knows and loves the Edsel, New Coke and other famous flops, and it's fun to learn about more of them. --Szyslak 07:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW: There are some concepts and ideas that are so unquantifiable they don't deserve an article or list: something like List of beautiful women, for example. But I don't think this is one of them. --Szyslak 07:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I guess whether something is a military flop depends on whose side you're on. Vietnam may have been a flop for the US, but it wasn't for the victors, who now run the place. (Incidentally the comment added that it was "militarily a success" is false - I removed it. Perhaps some military battles were successful, but ultimately the USA failed). Likewise for Napoleon's invasion of Russia - a flop for him, but a success for the Russians! Likewise, one could list "Nazi Germany's attempt at world domination" as a flop - but calling it "world war two" would not qualify as a flop.... Thus, my point is, it depends on your point of view. I doubt many people would nowadays support a Nazi-centric POV as legitimate, but if WP had been written in the early 1930s, well, who knows? Graham 02:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have point about POV. To clear it up, I'd define a military flop as a large mistake made during battle/war that seriously affected the outcome, or spectacularly fails to have any affect on the outcome (like the Maginot line). I don't like the idea of defining every losing battle as a flop for the losers. (That'd be like listing every baseball game as a flop for the losing team.) A military flop should be something where historians look back on it and slap their foreheads and say "What the hell were they thinking?", not something where they say "That was a hard fought battle/war." - Lifefeed 05:27, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

---

Iraq war

Since the war is not over, any assessment of it as a military disaster or success is premature and POV
— User:Curps in an edit summary [1]

Not that I intend to press the point, but the fact that it is not over is a strong argument that it is a disaster. What if it never ends? Quagmire Accomplished. — Davenbelle 21:45, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

The war was not a disaster but the occupation was - see my edit on the main page. GCarty 12:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted those edits. Nice try... Andros 1337 15:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I put Dien Bien Phu back in its chronological position, and added the Athenian expedition to Syracuse. GCarty 15:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would not say so much that the Iraqi invasion was so much a military disaster, but rather a military mistake for the reasons attacking Iraq. Additionally, Andros 1337 has requested this page to be protected. However, as there is no evidence of a full revert war in progress, I feel it is not necessary to protect the page at this time. I would like to remind editors that the Wikipedia has a three revert rule and may cause you to be blocked if you make more than three revisions within a 24 hour period, not counting revisions due to vandalism. The Wikipedia would like to assume good faith, and ask editors to calmly and rationally approach a resolution before the article is protected. Should this page be protected, please request for its unprotection also at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- AllyUnion (talk) 20:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am an opponent to the to invasion of Iraq, but this has nothing to do here. IMO this a political mistake. We will know who's right and who's wrong in several years. But this is not a military disaster. Ericd 21:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This Modern World: Turning the corner — Davenbelle 17:38, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Bad luck

"Argentinian bombing of Royal Navy ships during the Falklands War. The Argentines, bombing at very low level, repeatedly hit British ships, but the bombs almost always failed to detonate." Bad luck, not exctly a disaster ? BTW, what do you think of the Invincible Armada ? Ericd 19:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reply: I say thats a blunder, they should of flown higher, its the way bombs are designed.

Defining a military disaster

I simplified the definition (which I found confusing), & added 3 overlooked candidates. (And I expect to get flamed for how I summarized them.) -- llywrch 00:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This definition doesn't match the content : It's not obvious that the French were superior to the German in 1939 as well as it's not obvious that Custer had an advantagez against the Native. What seems important to me is major strategic or tactical mistakes. Ericd 10:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I was striving in the definition is close to what you said, Eric; these are situations where one side with a clear, undeniable superiority over its opponent was defeated by its opponent clearly due to its own incompetence. However the constant use of "losing" confused me -- & probably others, which is why I reworte it in the first place. I'm open to a better definition. -- llywrch 18:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's the same. Forgive me but as as a French "loose a Battle" makes me think to Charles de Gaulle, and there's many reasons to believe that before 1930 he knew that the next war was already lost. I any case I would prefer incompetence or misorganization to "undeniable superioty". It's clear that in the case of Custer or Dien Bien Phu the US troops and the French troops trapped themselves in a mouse trap by underestimating their ennemies, its also obvious that the other side had more than enougth firepower.... Ericd 22:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I would say we are closer to agreement than you may think, Eric -- especially over the importance of "incompetence or misorganization" for a given candidate for this list. (In any case, I hope you & I can agree that we need a statement at the beginning of this list explaning what is meant here by a "military disaster.") The only point we have that might separate us is the matter concerning "undeniable superiority", & let me explain why I think that is important.

When 2 armed forces are poised to engage, it cannot be denied that one given side must be superior, roughly equal to, or inferior to the other. Should a military disaster occur on the side that is inferior to the other, then it really is of no consequence because that side would have likely have lost anyway; should it occur to one side where both forces are roughly equal, then it is difficult to be certain that the losing side was done in by incompetence rather than craftiness by the other side.

This list will undoubtedly generate a lot of arguments. Should we list almost every battle of the First World War, where the lives of thousands of men was squandered by unimaginative & arrogant generals? (Although the horror of Passchendaele might be worth including.) Every instance where an officer led his men into a prepared ambush? By limiting our list to those events where one side should have won -- yet made a blunder that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory -- we might avoid some of the flamage.

But that is just my opinion. -- llywrch 05:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added a longer introductory paragraph. I tried to define military distaster in a way that included everything that we already have listed. It's tough to try to do that in a way that includes The Charge of the Light Brigade, but not The Alamo. We might also want to include a line like, "A military disaster is the difference between a hard fought battle, and an embarassing one." - Lifefeed 14:53, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Most of what you wrote, Lifeed, is a good step forward. But the following section needed changing: "to a clearly inferior army recklessly (and suicidally) attacking a superior force". The reason is that this describes a bonzai charge, which many Japanese units made in World War II as demanded by their bushido code.

According to bushido, surrender is dishonorable & worse than death, thus the defeated side has only the option of committing suicide, either by sepukku or in a reckless & suicidal attack. I assume that if a Japanese force were faced with a more powerful opponent, & had the option to retreat (or simply hold its position) it would do so; but if neither were possible, then it would be forced to commit suicide to keep its honor. Such an act itself would not be considered a disaster (although it might follow a military disaster), but a final attempt to regain honor & should not be included in this list. (And as far as I know, all such suicide attacks are clearly labelled so by historians.) -- llywrch 17:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The important points regarding the definition: The failure must stem from bad command decision(s) (from a high position within the chain of command) on the part of the vanquished, or be the result of a critical technology failing, and the defeat must be monumental. I don't see why the example of the Battle of the Little Big Horn should even be questioned as a candidate for inclusion here. The entire course of the battle was affected by Custer's assumption that the Sioux/Cheyenne camp presented a poorly armed and disorganized fighting force (read: 'mere savages'). His 'cavalier' attitude seems to have proved his undoing.

The US 7th Cavalry at his command had certainly had other options at that juncture than an outright frontal assault. In fact, Custer had been given orders to wait for reinforcements to arrive before engaging the Sioux village within his line of sight. He disobeyed orders and failed to perform adequate reconaissance on the enemy forces prior to attack. For that reason he was unaware of the full size of the forces he was about to face, their strength of arms or their level of readiness (including the Cheyenne, they turned out to be more than 3 times the number at his command, and they were better armed than his men). Outgunned and quickly surrounded, Custer's 7th Cavalry lost their lives. It was an impulsive, rash command decision which resulted in an unequivocal loss. That certainly qualifies it as a disaster according to the stated definition, as well it is called such in many modern history books. -- John Albert 9:38 3 Mar 2005

Proposed NPOV definition of military flop

Since this article is a NPOV trap, I propose we define Military flop-- as a military action that turns out to be disastrous to the attacking side, e.g. Custer's last stand or the Spanish Armada, during the battle at hand.

If the initial action is successful, it shouldn't be considered a flop because of what happened later, e.g. Pearl Harbor (American resources eventually led to an Allied victory where the Axis powers were in a dominant position at the time of the attack.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ramsquire (talk • contribs) 22:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't see that military flops can be confined to attacks. Is there an NPOV problem now - if so let's discuss - else no need to derive rules in anticipation. The opening paragraphs seem to describe scope adequately. --User:AYArktos | Talk 00:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about failing to sign in. Sometimes I just forget.Ramsquire 18:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I was just trying to suggest making an objective definition for the purposes of this discussion. The major problem I noticed in the discussion page was that everyone seemed to have a different idea of what qualified. Before reading the article, and going solely on the title, I thought it would be a discussion of armies that although vaunted as formidable before war turned out to be less than advertised sort of like the fascist Italian army, the tsarist Russian military, and in recent times, the Iraqi Republican Guard or the Afghani army. But no one else seemed to share my definition, and every one seemed to have their own. But I do think there needs to be a discussion so that the article is NPOV. Ramsquire 18:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that a military disaster should be limited to an attacking side, as defending sides have made their grand mistakes. The Maginot Line, for example, intentionally did not cover the Belgian border under the assumption that nothing would come through that area, which was precisely where the Germans invaded from. As a definition, I suggest the following guidelines:

• A military disaster should be seen as the result of a poor decision, not of a good decision by the opposing side(s). For example, in WWII German leaders were fooled by Allied deceptions of their invasion of the continent. This would be credited as an Allied success rather than a German disaster. In contrast, the German attack on Stalingrad was practically a pissing content between Hitler and Stalin, with no strategic value and destroying Germany's Russian campaign. That would be a military flop.
• There should be a distinction between factors that could have been prevented and factors that were inevitable. For example, the damage done at Pearl Harbor could have been prevented if the Americans weren't so open with their fleet information. On the other hand, the Mongol invasion of Japan could not have prevented the "divine wind" that sunk all their ships and foiled the invasion. Both were disasters in their own right, and "luck" (specifically bad luck) does have a major role in many battles.
• The side which is affected by the disaster does not necessarily have to be the losing side. The Charge of the Light Brigade is a good example of this. The orders were misunderstood and the cavalry was decimated, but the charge was successful.
• Do not tag something as a disaster just because one side loses a battle or another side exploits weaknesses. The Spanish Armada lost against the English fleet because the galleons were slow and cumbersome compared to the fast English ships, as well as the use of fireships. This was not apparent until after the battle, so both sides were unaware of it.
  • Although, if one side is completely oblivious to the other side, that's a disaster in itself. There's a difference between "not aware of" and "didn't know and damn well didn't care". Case in point: Custer's Last Stand. Use your judgement.
• On the other hand, if the side is aware of disaster potential and commits to it anyway, that would be a clear military blunder. If a commander knew that the enemy could counter his planned attack, but launches it anyway, that's a flop.
• Military disasters should not be limited to battles and engagements. They should also encompass disasters relating to events, military infrastructure, technology. For example, the German Maus tank would've been a disaster if it had been put into development.
• While flops are generally the result of stupid decisions, not every stupid decision turns out to be a disaster.
  • Also consider the timeliness of the incident. The use of bright red uniforms is quite stupid compared to modern concepts of camouflage, but that was the norm then.

That's all I can think of for the moment. Remember that these are simply suggestions, so feel free to comment or add your own. --Scottie theNerd 14:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, another thing: Also consider the scale of the blunder. A thread in this talk page mentioned the case of low-flying bombers getting shot down because they weren't flying at the proper altitude or using their equipment properly. Mistakes are one thing, but disasters are another. A military disaster should therefore be an incident, event or decision that can be attributed as the primary cause of a major failure (in battle or otherwise) or a successful action with unnecessary loss of life. --Scottie theNerd 14:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If you talking about the Argentinian bombers in the Falklands War then that is considered a pretty major mistake - the bombers hit almost all their target ships and if the bombs had exploded the British Taskforce might very well have been wiped out and the war could probably have been won by Argentina. This in turn would've had consequences for the survival of the Argentinian dictatorship and Margret Thatcher's Conservative government. So it was a small mistake with potentially huge consequences. --Sus scrofa 05:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right. Still, under my suggested guidelines, that would merely be a huge blunder rather than a military disaster. The mistake prevented success from happening rather than causing a disaster. --Scottie theNerd 08:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

American involvement in Vietnam War

Exactly what was the military disaster there? The political objective was to prevent South Vietnam from falling to communism, with the military side aiming to prevent the North Vietnamese from doing so by force. As far as military operations go, everything went relatively well for the Americans and they had no serious setbacks in the armed forces. The "disaster" was a politcal one: anti-war sentiment at home, poor management of relations with the South Vietnamese government, the South Vietnamese government not having the level of competence and reliability for the people to trust...basically, the American war machine did its job — to prevent the North Vietnamese Army from pushing to the South. The US Army and Marine Corps held the war in a stalemate. They left because of political pressure, and it was only when the US armed forces left that the NVA successfully stormed the South. To say that the Vietnam conflict was an American military disaster is putting the blame on the wrong group. Even if the military failed, it would hardly qualify as a disaster.

In any case, you reverted to an incorrect edit. --Scottie theNerd 15:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If Vietnam is not considered a disaster then Afghanistan should also be removed GreatGodOm [[User talk:GreatGodOm|&Theta;<small>''talk''</small>]] 16:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would consider the Russian invasion of Afghanistan to be a military failure, but not a disaster. --Scottie theNerd 01:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The same applies to many on this list but the Soviet invasion, while a major failure, was not a disaster. I've removed the entry GreatGodOm 19:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor

I agree with the removal of the line stating that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a military mistake for Japan, but not with the reasoning. The blunder with Pearl Harbor was a political one, not a military one. The Americans kept all their eggs in one basket and were crippled in one blow. That Japan "awakened a sleeping giant" doesn't have anything to do with military mistakes. Hitler made an equally colossal mistake in arbitarily declaring war on the United States and thus bringing the downfall of Nazi Germany. --Scottie theNerd 08:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, Pearl Harbor ought to be removed from the article entirely in my opinion. First off, it's quite disineguous to say there was no lasting damage when over 2000 Americans were killed, along with 8 battleships sunk/damaged/disabled, nearly 200 aircraft destroyed against a loss of 29 planes and 64 men. That is an overwhelming first strike That the Japanese did not achieve the number one goal of attacking America's aircraft carriers hardly makes it "a disaster", and that the political fallout galvanized American opinion, really does make it a political blunder and not a military one, and in fact Admiral Yamamoto was fully aware of what America's response would be (he also was not popular among his peers for his bluntness regarding that, but did his job anyway). His plan was to disable the primary American force and force one or more major naval showdowns where the Japanese fleet would finish the job. Pearl Harbor didn't particularly deviate from this, and while the battle did not go perfectly, it was objectively and unequivocally a one-sided smackdown for the Japanese. The real "disaster" did not happen until the Battle of Midway, which is already listed. So, yeah, incongruous entry. It really is not consistent with the rest of the list and should be removed. I'd do it myself but I'd like to get some feedback on this first. Beansy (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: I went ahead and removed the Pearl Harbor entry, as the page is not one subject to very frequent updates (last one was 20 days ago). I would argue that a very clear-cut victory that started a war that led to a disastrous defeat in the long term cannot be defined as a disaster itself, even if the victory was not absolutely perfect with all objectives met. If it were, any time a war was started by one party that led to that party's complete defeat could be characterized similarly. Heck, the incident that most historians agree to be the greatest subsequent turning point in the Pacific Theater, the Battle of Midway, was already listed separately. However, I am open to counter-arguments. Beansy (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

If Pearl Harbor is to be on the list, it should be as a disaster for the Americans. The destruction of the US Pacific fleet toppled one of the major pillars of the grand strategy of the US and in the six months following the attack the Japanese conquered territory that was only recaptured after three years of bitter fighting. Saying that it was a disaster for the Japanese is like saying that the Battle of France was a disaster for the Germans (as it led to the invasion of the Soviet Union, which led to utter defeat).--Sus scrofa (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it really meets the criteria for that either, since the Americans were not the ones initiating it (the vast majority of listings here are when something backfired), and did not make any major errors in failing to anticipate it (yes they made a few mistakes but nothing truly idiotic and completely avoidable). My argument would be that there were mistakes on both sides but they were of the secondary type, and, independent of long-term consequences years later, as a military operation it was a major success (so no listing as a Japanese disaster). Furthermore it owed its success to Isoroku Yamamoto's careful planning and not any truly significant American blunder (so no to listing it as an American disaster either, as it would still be inconsistent with the list; a good example of a disastrously errant defensive mistake would be General Santa Anna failing to post sentries during his army's afternoon siesta despite knowing the Army of Texas was very nearby, just before the Battle of San Jacinto). As such I would argue that Pearl Harbor is no more qualified for this list than Hiroshima, or any other one-sided battle whose outcome was not dependent on one side's disastrous and foreseeable error. Beansy (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the US did commit some major errors. They underestimated the threat that air power posed even to the largest and most heavily armored warships. After the battle of Taranto (were battleships were destroyed by a gaggle of aging biplane torpedo bombers) they should have known. They also underestimated the Japanese, at the start of the Pacific War Allied personnel were infamously told that the Japanese didn't possess any carrier-based monoplane fighters. The US also should have been prepared for a Japanese attack at all times after the point when the US + the Allies imposed an oil embargo against Japan in 1940 (to curb Japanese aggression in China). No nation would tolerate an embargo of a vital resource without some sort of response. At the time of the attack, US-Japan negotiations were taking place and those in the know should have known that Japan had no other option than war if the negotiations didn't resolve the issue and this is doubly true once the negotiations did break down (shortly thereafter the attack on Pearl Harbor was ordered), just leaving the fleet at Pearl Harbor at rest was a major mistake. It was just a fluke that the carriers were out of the harbor on that day. It was also the case that the US defenses misidentified incoming Japanese planes as US planes returning to base, which meant that few airplanes got of the ground to oppose the attack. No amount of planning can achieve that. The Japanese anticipated losing at least one carrier in the attack. In the event they didn't lose a single warship (excluding the mini-subs that were sent into Pearl Harbor and never returned). But I don't necessarily agree that major errors are part of the criteria for inclusion on this list or that it must be a military initiative that backfires. If there is a reliable source calling it a military disaster (or something equivalent) it probably qualifies. If you would, could you comment on my idea to prune the list radically (currently the section at the bottom of the talk page)? I know I said I'd do it by now, but I haven't got around to it, and some more input would be nice.--Sus scrofa (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

These are not military disasters

• Bravo Two Zero of the first Gulf War.

If we have to list all the failed operations involving less than 8 people, this article should be endless. Loosing five men is a tragedy, but it is not a military disaster.

• Operation Eagle Claw.

First of all (quote) This operation involved so many opportunities for failure that it was more akin to a Hollywood movie script than an actual military operation does not sound very encyclopedic. Moreover, in the operation 8 people lost their lives. It is not a military disaster. It is just a failed rescue (and the hostages were rescued by the end).

Gala.martin 16:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Bravo Two Zero. It was a routine patrol, not a major military operation, and its impact was minimal if any. Operation Eagle Claw, on the other hand, would qualify as a disaster. While loss of life was minimal, it was a high profile rescue operation that utterly failed. The description needs to be reworded, but it's a big enough flop to be considered a disaster.

In regards to the Battle of Lepanto, I'm not convinced that it was a military disaster unless you specify the mistakes made by the Ottomans. One side pulling off a decisive victory does not automatically make it a disaster for the other. The losing side should at least bring the disaster upon themselves. --Scottie theNerd 01:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. So I purpose to delete the Bravo Two Zero item. Someone with more info than me could re-write the Operation Eagle Claw comment (easy job, I hope).

In regards to the Battle of Lepanto, I defend my choice. According to the definition in the article, a military disaster is due to mistakes or a brilliant move on the part of the enemy. In the battle of Lepanto (the one in 1571), Ottomans outnumbered the Holy League about 300 ships to 200 (a large difference in sea warfare). The tech-level was almost the same, and both the fleet were ready for the battle. Anyway the outcome was a real disaster for the Ottomans. Almost all their ships were lost, while the League lost just 12 ships and was able to capture several Ottoman's ships.

As far as strategy is concerned, the Ottomans' attack was too aggressive. A large part of the League's, had just to wait for them, beeing able to use the reserve ships in the defending their sea zone. Of course the Holy League had to take some risks. For istance, they had to open their ranks in order to defend properly the south wing. Anyway, the Ottomans were too aggressive again, sending their ships in the open ranks: these ships were not able to break the enemy formation, and were attacked from all the directions. Probably, people writing this article know much more than me about war strategy, so I delete the Bravo Two Zero and the Battle of Lepanto, waiting for comments about introducing the latter again (as I hope :) ). gala.martin (what?) 15:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Battle of Lepanto being a disaster, but you should specify in the list why it is a disaster (Ottoman reliance on numerical superiority and over-aggression). --Scottie theNerd 16:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote

Ottamans lost 240 ships (out of about 300), while the he Europeans lost 12 of their 210 ships. So, both Ottomans numerical superiority and large casualities were included. All the items in the list are short (as they should be) and do not give much more info than that. For instance The Battle of Dien Bien Phu, which forced the French to surrender to communist forces in Vietnam in 1954. Please, be clearer about what to add about Battle of Lepanto (or just write it yourself). gala.martin (what?) 19:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I just did. State their over-reliance on aggressive strategy and numerical superiority. However, going in line with the rest of the list, I suppose it isn't essential to include a description beyond that if it links to the relevant article. In other words, throw it back in as it was. --Scottie theNerd 01:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If the Battle of Lepanto is correctly a "military disaster", could the brief explanation then be improved on? Reading the entry without any explanation, I am left with the impression that the disaster was simply the Ottoman navy (ardon my language) had their asses kicked; it badly needs at least a mention of Ottoman over-aggressiveness, otherwise it simply appears to confirm the implication that "if your army gets its clock cleaned, then no matter how hard or well they fought it is a disaster" -- when incompetence is an important element of the definition. -- llywrch 00:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is just a list, not an article about militart disaster. For instance, most of the items in the ancient era are barely cited. --gala.martin (what?) 03:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Gallipoli and Dunkirk

Would the Battle of Gallipoli fit? And what about the Battle of Dunkirk? The salvation of the troops was a miracle, but it was still a bit of a disaster (plans gone wrong, tremendous loss of materiels).--Anchoress 21:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Gallipoli would definitely be a military disaster. Dunkirk wouldn't be; it wasn't a disaster in itself. The Germans had surrounded the French and British units and they were doomed to lose the battle regardless. The successful withdrawal of so many men makes it more of a bittersweet victory for the Germans than a disaster for the Allies. --Scottie theNerd 05:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Spanish armada

Spanish armada anyone?Or the somme?British invasion of mespatamia?Port Arthur?Dermo69

See discussion above. Not every military defeat is disaster. --Scottie theNerd 02:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What, about a quarter of the Armada actually returned to port, after being punished by what they considered was a inferior navy. Spain expected to be invading and reinstalling a Catholic monarch on the throne, but instead lost its dominance on the high seas. The losses, the impact, the misperceptions...smells like military disaster to me.

Other additions, Battle of Saratoga, often considered the turning point of the American Revolutionary War; why not add Pickett's Charge (Gettysburg) where the Confederacy lost the Civil War, in the same way that Fredricksburg was disastrous for the Union. Battle of Manzikert, where the Byzantine Empire lost 2/3 of its army - the best army in Europe, arguably, losing to unknown invaders, and quite unexpectedly, with vast consequences. Louis IV (?) whose Crusade against Egypt was decimated at Dalmietta.

Also, is it correct to call the Ruso-Japanese naval engagement suicidal on the Russian's part, since they expected to whip the Japanese soundly and the outcome was a surprise to everyone, Japanese included. Second, can someone explain further why Operation Eagle Claw is a military disaster? It just doesn't hum with the list. Also, the Maginot Line seems to strike a different chord. We can talk about Japan's vulnerability to submarine warfare, or Nazi German failure to implement their superior technology, especially as regards the Luftwaffe, or just the fact they invaded Poland, expecting the concessions from England and France to keep flowing. Then again, in some way perhaps the Maginot Line is the specific, concrete (heh) mistake of the French defensive strategy. It's mirky. Finally, on Teutoburg, if that's Germanicus' force, I believe that was 9 BC; along those lines, Crassus 33 BC in Syria (later to be repeated by the Crusaders at Hattin). The Jackal God 05:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Halifax explosion

The Halifax explosion of World War I, a mishap that occurred far from the battlefield but destroyed half a city: could it qualify as a military disaster? I get the impression that Albert Einstein's infamous World War II letter imploring US authorities to pursue the Manhattan Project on the grounds that "such a bomb, detonated in harbour, could destroy an entire port" is a clearly implicit parallel between the force of the (eventual) nuclear bomb and that of the Halifax blast from the first Great War. --carlb 03:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say not - the Halifax explosion was an accident and not the result of any military action. --Nick Dowling 05:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.39.2 (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"such a bomb, detonated in harbour, could destroy an entire port" - Einstein wrote this because at the time of writing it was thought that a usable atomic bomb would be so large as to only be able to be carried by a ship - hence the reference to a 'port' - the only possible mode of operation was for the ship to be sailed into an enemy port and the bomb exploded - perhaps in a similar manner to Operation Chariot, although the harbour itself would have been the target rather than any dock gates. The results would have been similar to the Halifax explosion but on a far larger scale.

It wasn't until the Frisch–Peierls memorandum of 1940 that it was realised that a bomb could be made small enough to drop from a plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Winter War

The Soviet invasion of Finland (Winter War) would fit in well here. Anyone agree?

Can't rightly say. On one hand the invasion was a genuine disaster to the Soviets; according to all sense a world power would waltz right over a tiny underdeveloped country. On the other, there's been some trouble with the precise and verifiable definition of "military disaster" here, and the currently used one requires a defeat - the Soviets won pyrrhically. By the same logic, Ten-gō sakusen probably can't be listed, since it was a deliberate suicide attack, even though the Japanese lost three hundred times as many men as the Americans. --Kizor 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Kargil Bias

how on earth is kargil considered a military disaster when pakistan pulled out due to international pressure? and why is battle of chawinda removed i seriously think indians need to stop being biased and add something constructive86.160.112.71 (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Kindly stop using improper words, if you think the statement is not correct or biased, politely ask the editor to prove his claim. I have added {{dubious}} template to it. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Kargil War is definitely not a military disaster, at least not for Pakistan. It was an intelligence disaster for India and a political/foreign relations disaster for Pakistan. That's why I have removed this from the list. Please do not re-insert in to the article, without discussing the justifications here in the talk page. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

After carefully reviewing, I believe that Battle of Chawinda also does not qualify to be a military disaster. Definitely, Indian mechanised infantry was soundly beaten in the battle, but it was not a completely one-sided scenario. Pakistan also had a good number of Tanks and infantry for repelling Indian attack. So, it is fair that that has also been removed. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Longewala lies

Again the Indian POV pusher has altered information towards the Indian side by stating 100 tanks were in use by Pakistan while the longewala article clearly states only 55 were in use could some non Indian pov pusher re insert the correct information? 81.158.129.26 (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone got a source or two for this number?--Sus scrofa (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the Longewala article it shows you that 55 tanks were involved not 100 Rashtra (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Operation Compass

Italian Camps in North Africa are formed too far apart from each other to provide mutual defence, allowing 35,000 British troops to drive 150,000 Italians back 800Km, capturing over 3 times their own number for only 500 men lost. A military disaster for the Italians? I'd say, and preventable had the camps been placed closer together or the government listened to the Italian General Graziani about the risks of unmechanised forces in modern warfare. Quincel99 (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have now added this. Quincel99 (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Aljubarrota

The Battle of Aljubarrota was one of the greatest military disasters in world history! ...or, perhaps, one of the greatest triumphs in military history, depending on the point of view.

Anyway, it should be at least quoted in this article. -- Popotão (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the article, and it looks more down to good preparation by the defending army than outright stupidity of the commanding general. A colossal defeat, yes, but there isn't much specific in there to rank as a specific cock-up.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.39.2 (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Winter War

Winter war has several Soviet disasters that might be worth mentioning:

• Battle of Suomussalmi: Soviets had 5 time manpower advantage, tank brigade vs bicycle battallion but casualties ended up 15:1 in favour of Finns.

• Battle of Raate Road: Soviets had 1.5 to 2x manpower advantage, casualties ended up being 402 to 7,000-9,000 in favour of Finns.

• Battle of Tolvajärvi: 5 x manpower advantage, casualties 1:10+

• Battle of Kollaa: 4 x manpower advantage, casualties 1:5

• Battle of Summa: A pyrrhic Soviet victory - 600,000 men, 1200-1400 tanks, 4000 artillery vs 129,000 men and 330 artillery out of supplies. Casualties ~1:5 in favour of Finns.

All of the above with Soviet tank brigades, artillery batallions, airforce vs Finnish peashooters. - G3, 23:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.254.21 (talk)

Pavan Khind

Shouldn't the Battle of Pavan Khind be put on this page as it was a huge military disaster for the Mughal forces when the Matathas beat them back. It was merely 300 men that fought off the force of 15,000 men, I think that this should be placed on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhoi.pakfa (talk • contribs) 08:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Attack on Pearl Harbour

I know it was a bad day for Usa, but define the attack less than a complete IJN success but the begin of Japan' defeat is a byzantine sophism to minimize it in chauvinistic way instead of an Historical reasoning, it's like defining Operation Barbarossa the begin of decline of Nazi Power in Europe. --Kiko 64 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of impending cleanup

This article has been tagged for more sources and the "new synthesis" tag since 2008. I am hereby announcing my intention to go into the article and remove (comment out) all unsourced entries. To be included on this list, a military disaster must be termed so (or a self-evident equivalent such as "worst defeat") by a reliable source. I believe that this is not an introduction of any special standard, but merely enforcement of well-established Wikipedia principles. So if you got an entry to the list you want to stay, you have one week to find a source calling it a military disaster before I start editing. Remember that list of major flops and similar lists have been deleted for being POV/unsourced articles. Thank you.--Sus scrofa (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Iraq war

Let's be honest, both the Iraq War and the entire War on Terror were largely failures. A decade-long quagmire counts as a military disaster. And that is not petty politics talking, it's objectivity.--68.61.5.58 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree regarding the War on Terror. Using a military force to fight a "war" against an abstract, non-human enemy (e.g., terror) has backfired extraordinarily. This is what the US military (and others, but the US is leading) is engaged in right now. Call that a political decision, but America's top military commanders are politicians (the "deciders"), and in fact the Commander in Chief ordered this debacle in his capacity as commander of the US military. This is a military operation, top to bottom, with the mission to end terrorism. The issue is political and criminal, and political and criminal strategies might have been more effective, but instead the US military was dispatched to address the issue. Thousands of soldiers are dead, but terrorist actions have only increased, and membership in terrorist organizations has swelled.

The blunder is that the US military tried to accomplish a mission that could not be accomplished by a military (ending a behavior by individuals who hate them), and the disaster is that many thousands have died as a result and Iraq and Afghanistan have been completely destabilized in the process. The important facts are easily sourced (e.g., time spent at war, number of soldiers killed, rate of acts of terrorism before and after the beginning of the war, and number of soldiers killed compared to the number of people killed by terrorism since the war began). Yes, this is an emotional issue, and people will get hot-headed with their objections, but I perceive an unnecessary bias and inconsistent reasoning on this page. If the war is still ongoing, we do not yet know the outcome. I say 1) we do not need to know the overall outcome of the war to say this is a disaster by any objective measure now, and 2) the outcome of any war has already been refuted on this page as being relevant to whether a military disaster has occurred. Dcs002 (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A couple more military disasters for the 18th century

The Braddock expedition: The British army was ambushed and overwhelmed by the numerically inferior French and their Indian allies in 1755. 1000 British casualties vs about 100 French and Indian casualties while the French/Indians were outnumbered 4 to 1.

The Third battle of Panipat: Maratha army completely destroyed by the Afghan army resulting in the loss of two major cities in 1761, turned out to be one of the bloodiest single day engagements in history.

Another disaster from Vietnam: Operation Rolling Thunder.

There are many more military disasters on all sides in Vietnam. I nominate Operation Rolling Thunder. American high-tech fighters were being shot down at alarming rates by obsolete Mig 17s and peasants on the ground using small arms. The obviously stronger force was was losing men and machines at an alarming rate in these engagements, and the weaker force did not lose their fighting effectiveness. The objectives were never achieved, and many American pilots were killed or captured and aircraft lost. Yes, much damage was done to North Vietnam, and by the body count, North Vietnam lost more people than the US, but the primary objective (more were added but not achieved) was to stop North Vietnam from supporting and supplying forces in South Vietnam, such as the Viet Cong. That never happened, nor was the infrastructure seriously damaged in the North. The US lost to North Vietnam, the clearly inferior force, during Rolling Thunder, in part because of the clever tactics used by the North Vietnamese fighter pilots, and also in part because of clever planning by Ho Chi Minh, General Giap, and their advisers. They distributed petroleum widely so their supply could not be taken out by a few bomb runs. They armed peasants with cheap rifles and hand guns to fire at planes. They had recruited a massive workforce that was tasked with repairing infrastructure right away when such targets were destroyed by American bombing. But it was not just clever planning by Ho and Giap. American commanders (principally the Commander in Chief) made their share of blunders. They refused to allow attacks on airbases, leaving the obsolete air force intact. American pilots were no longer trained in dog fighting, and were defeated half the time by the obsolete planes. American planes flew the same routes, so North Vietnamese defenses were able to place anti-aircraft weapons accordingly. American planes also flew their missions at the same time each day, so the population knew when to either take cover or go out and shoot at the passing planes. Success was eventually counted by the number of sorties, and that resulted in more pilots, crew, and aircraft being put in harms way than was necessary. This was all politically spun in the US as a victory based on body count and targets destroyed, with no consideration of the immediate rebuilding of the most important targets. But again, the primary objective was to stop the supplies and other support from flowing south to the VC and others. The US failed, 1,054 pilots and aircrew members were killed, captured, or are MIA as a result of the operation, and 922 aircraft were lost. Those losses, being the result of misguided command decisions and enemy cleverness, and resulting in failure to meet the objectives of the operation, are a military disaster, certainly eclipsing Operation Eagle Claw.

That's my rationale. Everything is easily sourced. Dcs002 (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

ROE?

User:CourtCelts1988 clearly believes a single aircraft accident & an incident described as a genocide qualify as "disasters". I don't. By my count, he's violated the WP:3RR, & I don't feel so deeply about this I'm inclined to. So, if anybody wants to weigh in, &/or rv him... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Poltava

Does it really belong on this list? The winning side had 2.5 more men available. A disaster here would have been if outcome of the battle had been the reverse, hadn't it? D-b (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Original research, Refimprove tags

The article contains many uncited entries and is possibly original research. I.e. who defined a certain battle a "disaster"? I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

19th Century: Battle of the Little Big Horn

Text states: "Battle of the Little Bighorn. June, 1876 – Montana Territory. Lieutenant Colonel George Custer attacks a superior force of armed Native American warriors, gets himself and his entire command killed, the only survivor being a lone horse. 268 U.S. troopers were killed and 55 were wounded."

Comment: Aside from being incorrect as to "his entire command killed," which ignores Custer's subordinates survival (Reno and Benteen), I'd suggest that if everyone is killed then "55 were wounded" might also be incorrect. Moreover, "gets himself ... killed" is somewhat less than pragmatic.