HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: Greatest Military Blunders of All time
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:13:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.190738.5166@sequent.com> dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>Are we talking strategic or tactical?
>Fredericksburgh battle listed.  But an even dumber move, IMHO, was
>Burnside's Crater battle around Petersburg in 1864.  Great idea/bad
>excecution that cost thousands of casualties and wasted effort.
>Imagine, blowing up a huge section of the Confederate line and then
>sending the troops into the big hole with no ladders and not securing
>the edges of the crater!  If he had succeded the war might have ended
>there. But he didn't.
>
 Not only that, but failing to send adequate numbers of troops into the
gap, failing to send them quickly enough after the hole was created, and
then, when some gained the crater ridge anyway, failing to reinforce
them, even though the bulk of the Army of the Potomac was present,
sitting on its hands.

-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@daily.grebyn.com		(So I'm a minimalist...)
From: spencer@panix.com (David Spencer)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Greatest Military Blunders of All Time
Date: 5 Oct 92 11:54:04 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

cashman@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Geoff Cashman) writes:

>I think it can be very effectively argued that Vietnam was not
>a military blunder (though, as in all battles and wars, blunders
>happened) but a political blunder. 

Doesn't _anybody_ read Clausewitz? There is no distinction between
poilitical blunders and military blunders. War is the extension of
policy by other means.

dhs   spencer@panix.com
From: c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Greatest Military Blunders of All Time
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:24:03 GMT
Organization: The Nibelungenlied Incorporated

In article <BvAsv3.3Ey@acsu.buffalo.edu> v151luy2@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott D McGinnis) writes:
>
>	Nicopolis.

I would not say so. The Allied original plan for the battle was sound, but it
was the impetuousness of the French chivalry, which blundered the whole thing.
Even so, the French knights beat the Turks in four or five successive occass-
ions (the light cavalry, the infantry archers, the Turkish infantry and the 
Sipahis until they were finally overwhelmed. The battle continued quite even
until the Dellis made their decisive charge, which resulted in the Christian
rout. The Wallachians and Hungarians had deserted long before this. Although
the Nicopolis was definitely a Turkish victory, they themselves suffered
terrible losses too. If the French had obeyed the orders of Sigismund, the
Allies could well have won.

Much more worse disaster was, of course, the battle of Agincourt ! Or the
battle of Rudau, where the Lithuanian light cavalry charged the heavies
of the Teutonic Order, only to be countercharged and totally crushed and
pursued and massacred, the Lithuanians having their Duke Kenstutis killed
and the Grand Ducal sacred standard lost. The Teutonic Order lost only some 
200 brethren.

>P.S.:The Charge of the Light Brigade is up there too.

Sure, although over-advertised. What about Little Bighorn ?

  ++ Tuomas Viljanen                     ++ For a battle like Crecy, you do  ++
  ++ Lahderanta 20 A 19                  ++ not need a military genius like  ++
  ++ SF-02720 Espoo 72 FINLAND           ++ Edward III. All you need is an   ++
  ++ 358-0-592175 or c34657b@saha.hut.fi ++ idiot like the Duke of Alencon.  ++
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Greatest Military Blunders of All Time
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:26:06 GMT
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <ROTEN.92Oct2142011@CUBA.gsfc.nasa.gov>, roten@CUBA.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Roten) writes:
> In article <14621@chalmers.se> d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) 
> writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Sep29.143955.28999@newstand.syr.edu> 
>>sawyer@erc.cat.syr.edu (Russell W. Sawyer) writes:
>>>Battle at little big horn....  (Custer under estimating the Idians)
>>
>>  According to the park rangers(?) there the indians had twice as many
>>winchesters as the cavalry had single shot rifles, so underestimating is an
>>understatement. In hindsight, it is hard to see any possible outcomes 
>>other than either custer avoiding the indians or his force goetting wiped out.
> 
> If what I read a few years back in a National Geographic article about the 
> battle is correct, it was worse than that.  
> 
> The Indians used _Henry_ _repeaters_, by choice.  You know, those nasty 
> 14-shot tubular-magazine Civil War era assault rifles.  And the poor US 
> cavalry had single-shot rifles.  Brrrrrrr .....   

	Custer also decided not to take the pair of Gatling guns he had
available, because he felt they would have slowed him down too much. :-)

Brandon Cope
From: roten@CUBA.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Roten)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Greatest Military Blunders of All Time
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:20:11 GMT
	<14621@chalmers.se>
Organization: /cuba_b/dirbe/roten/.organization
X-Newsreader: GNU Emacs 18.57.1, GNUS 3.13, NNTP 3.10

In article <14621@chalmers.se> d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) 
writes:

>In article <1992Sep29.143955.28999@newstand.syr.edu> 
>sawyer@erc.cat.syr.edu (Russell W. Sawyer) writes:
>>Battle at little big horn....  (Custer under estimating the Idians)
>
>  According to the park rangers(?) there the indians had twice as many
>winchesters as the cavalry had single shot rifles, so underestimating is an
>understatement. In hindsight, it is hard to see any possible outcomes 
>other than either custer avoiding the indians or his force goetting wiped out.

If what I read a few years back in a National Geographic article about the 
battle is correct, it was worse than that.  

The Indians used _Henry_ _repeaters_, by choice.  You know, those nasty 
14-shot tubular-magazine Civil War era assault rifles.  And the poor US 
cavalry had single-shot rifles.  Brrrrrrr .....   

--
Charles Roten | Hughes-STX, Incorporated | 
  roten@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov               | 'Use the Source, Luke!'
  7601 Ora-Glen Dr., Greenbelt, MD 20706 | 
  301-513-7805 (w),  301-317-0872 (h)    |            Obi-Wan Stallman
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: Greatest Military Blunders of All Time
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:21:58 GMT

In article <ROTEN.92Oct2142011@CUBA.gsfc.nasa.gov> roten@CUBA.gsfc.nasa.gov  
(Charles Roten) writes:
> The Indians used _Henry_ _repeaters_, by choice.  You know, those nasty 
> 14-shot tubular-magazine Civil War era assault rifles.  And the poor US 
> cavalry had single-shot rifles.  Brrrrrrr .....   
> 
The army didn't want the troops wasting ammunition. (That's not a joke, they  
really said that)

--
Barry Wise


Newsgroups: alt.war
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Lost Chances(was Greatest Military Blunders of all Time)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:45:10 GMT

The thought occurs that many of the blunders are related to missed  
opportunities. My choices for WWII:

Anzio: Nobody home and Mark Clark was afraid to advance

Normandy: Hitler didn't commit the panzers.

Pearl Harbor: Japan didn't continue the attack.

Battle of Britan: Hitler didn't continue the attack on the air fields. 

--
Barry Wise


Newsgroups: alt.war
From: dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad)
Subject: Re: Greatest Military Blunders of All time
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 19:07:38 GMT

Are we talking strategic or tactical?
Strategic could be argued endlessly in what if senarios.  Tactical
examples abound and are more arguable due to the concrete results.
Enough of the philosophy now for my $0.02

I was glad to finally see some U.S.  Civil War examples and Burnside's
Fredericksburgh battle listed.  But an even dumber move, IMHO, was
Burnside's Crater battle around Petersburg in 1864.  Great idea/bad
excecution that cost thousands of casualties and wasted effort.
Imagine, blowing up a huge section of the Confederate line and then
sending the troops into the big hole with no ladders and not securing
the edges of the crater!  If he had succeded the war might have ended
there. But he didn't.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+Dick Winningstad                                                    +
+                    Italian Wines are Fine                          +
+          I'd rather be on a Moto Guzzi in eastern Oregon.          +
+          Fourth gear curves at 7000 RPM are the greatest!          +
+dickwin@sequent.com                                                 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery)
Subject: London Bookstore recommendations wanted
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:41:50 GMT

I'm looking for recommendations for good used military history
bookstores in London (England).  I know about the History Bookshop.
Does anyone have any other recommendations?
		thanks		dave emery
				emery@mitre.org
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Greatest Military Blunders of All time
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:11:46 GMT


	...anybody fancying their chances against Genghis Khan and
	Merry Mongol Pranksters.  The finest example was the nitwit
	who, as a representative of the Khwarizmian empire, decided
	to behead GK's emissaries.  This is a terrible way to find out
	what the Thanksgiving or Christmas Turkey feels like.

	Alec Chambers.
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Greatest Military Blunders of All Time
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:03:16 GMT

cashman@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Geoff Cashman) writes:

>If we use what you are saying as the basis for the original poster's
>question, I think we are changing the essence of his question.  Using
>your post as a basis, I could say that one of the greatest military
>blunders of all time is and will be the sharp reduction of the Seawolf
>program.

To start another thread: Why do you think that the Seawolf program
will be a lynchpin for the near future of the US military?

>				- Geoff Cashman

				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
From: manuel@clt50bv.edf.fr (Jose Manuel ESTEVEZ "clt50bx")
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Looking for history of religious wars
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:05:02 GMT
Organization: Electricite de France, DER, Clamart France

In article <92Sep21.140413edt.24@orasis.vis.toronto.edu>, liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
 |>  You cannot say that the Japanese Conquest during WWII or the current Burmese government
 
Sure for Japan but today musulmins are killed in Burma , they have to go to Bengladesh , perhaps is not only religious war but is certainly too
-- 
 Cordialement.
 =======================================================================
 | Jose Manuel ESTEVEZ           | Tel: +33 (1) 4765 4386              |
 | Electricite de France         | Fax: +33 (1) 4765 5173              |
 | 1 avenue du General de Gaulle | Email: manuel@clt50bw.edf.fr        |
 | 92141 Clamart                                                       |
 =======================================================================
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: A battle for oil (was Re: The most decisive battle in history ?)
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:28:42 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1992Sep25.173611.571@cas.org>, by sdr57@cas.org:
>>What was the ratio of British to Greek troops in Greece?  The
>>performance of the Greek troops should be a good indicator (unless one
>>assumes an innate superiority for Turkish troops).

> I won't get into the question of whether Greeks or Turks are better -
> that is definitely flame war territory.

Exactly.  (My point was rhetorical.)

> A more critical point would be who had de facto control
> of the troops. The British had problems in WWII initially

> I would presume that the Turks would be
> fighting under their own commanders

You are comparing apples and oranges.  I was asking specifically about
GREEK troops, not British.  I was also not asking about the results
(there was a reason why the British interceded, and I would assume the
Turkish army would have been larger than the Greek one at the time),
but about performance.

> And coincident goals would not deter a Turkish
> diplomat from getting everything possible for his country out of
> a deal - and since there were advantages to not taking sides as
> both the allies and the axis were wooing Turkey, the axis would
> have had to offer something really special. 

Good point.  
-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
From: emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Why do wars start? (was: Re: Looking fo
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:13:38 GMT
	<BvBBMD.4u@news.orst.edu>
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

>Why do wars start?
>Because people are stupid!
>Dosn't take a degree to figure that one out.

The writer of this little "homily" clearly has a deficient education
in history, economics and/or political science.  He's probably
ignorant in sociology and psychology, too.  

Must be a business major...

				dave
From: steveo@olen.think.com (stephen anthony)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Ironclads (was Re: News of the World)
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:45:08
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: usa
	<1992Sep25.144506.10628@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
	<1992Sep25.161453.12683@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Sep25.182648.11674@leland.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: olen.think.com
In-reply-to: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU's message of 25 Sep 92 18:26:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.182648.11674@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:

   In article <1992Sep25.161453.12683@midway.uchicago.edu> cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

   Also, is either spelling Merrimac or Merrimack preferred? I've seen both.
   I use the latter because it looks better (imho) with the K on it.
   -- 

Well, it's the Merrimack river. (northeastern Mass) Don't know if it's the
source of the ship's name though.
--
Steve Anthony                     |  "Ain't nobody gettin' outta here |
Application Engineer              |   with out singin' the blues"     |
(617) 234-4000                    |                                   |
steveo@think.com                  |  - Albert "The Iceman" Collins    |
From: massengale_m@cubldr.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: "Stars and bars" (was butternut)
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:40:45 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Stars & Bars was replaced
by the Confederate Battle Flag, since it was too similar to the Stars &
Stripes (bear with me, I'm a novice).

Also, Georgia's flag contains the Battle Flag.  Didn't it used to contain
the "Bars" portion of the S&B, or am I dreaming?

Will Mississippi & Georgia remove the Battle Flag from their state flags,
due to complaints?  I've heard rumors to this effect...

Melanie


In article <1992Sep28.035106.6467@morrow.stanford.edu>, COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan) writes:
> In <Bv99zr.GHx@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu writes:
> ----------------- Bulk of post deleted ------------------------------
> :  	I have also heard that the Confederate first national flag was
> :  replaced by the infamous "stars and bars" because the 1st Natl flag was
> :  too easily mistaken for the U.S. flag at a distance. (easily
> :  understandable if the flag is hanging and not waving in the breeze).
> :  	
> :  	Have fun,
> :  
> :  	Tom.
> 
> I'm just biting my toung this time. ;-)
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
> COWAN@ANL.GOV  (I'm posting from my own account, but not the preferred one)
>         "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is a War Room!"
> from _Dr._Strangelove_or:_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying_and_Love_the_Bomb_
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Announcements of re-enactments
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 00:38:03 GMT

I vote yes. You're not going to find a much better audience to make the
announcements to than this one. People can always "n" past if they don't
want to read it.
Maybe you can include "ANNOUNCE" in the title to facilitate kill fileage
for the truly lazy.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist
indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Oops! CSA "butternut" uniforms (2nd try)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 21:09:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.234534.28680@morrow.stanford.edu> COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan) writes:
>One quick question:  We all know that the North and South are often refered
>to as the Blue and the Grey. We also know of many examples where Union
>forces wore grey uniforms and CSA forses wore blue (to say nothing about
>the more outlandish outfits). However most authors refer to the CSA 
>army as wearing "butternut". I have always assumed that butternut was a light
>brown, similar to khaki, but I can think of no basis for my assumption. 
>
>What color is it?  

Yellow-brown is a phrase that I've seen used a lot in describing it. I do
some miniature painting and I usually just use a light brown or tan for it.
If I cared more than I do, I'd probably mix a little yellow paint into it.
I've also heard grayish-brown and greenish-brown used to describe it, but
I suspect those are probably more from the uniforms being dirty than from
gray and green being the basic color.
I think that they used this color because they had no dyes and butternut
is the natural color of undyed cotton fabric, but I'm not sure of this.
Does anyone know? You can buy undyed cotton clothes now, so if this it
true you could go look at them and find out exactly what it looks like...
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist
indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
From: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: butternut
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:02:21 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO

regarding "General Pope":
I'm confused. Pope was a union officer. I can understand why some union 
troops might want to shoot at him, but I don't think that mistaken 
identity could be used as their defense. Sarcastically yours,
JTHoppers
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: pholland@iastate.edu (Paul J Hollander)
Subject: Re: butternut
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:43:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.013912.26245@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>At Antietam, A.P. Hill's light division was wearing blue uniforms, maybe
>captured at Harper's Ferry. This caused Burnside's rookie regiments not
>to fire on them until it was too late, possibly altering the outcome of
>the battle/the war/history as we know it...

Was just reading Foote's account of the battle of Antietam last night, and
he said that Hill's troops' uniforms were blue, newly captured at Harper's
Ferry.  He also said that butternut ranged in shade from light brown to
dark brown.  Possibly this depended on the formulation and strength of the 
dye, which probably varied with availablility of materials, and on the age
and number of washings of the clothes.

As for confusion, General Pope personally took a Union officer (colonel?) 
prisoner at Perryville.  The man came right up to Pope thinking he was 
addressing a Union officer.  Pope narrowly escaped capture or death shortly
afterwards when he ran into a Union force thinking it was Confederate.

Paul Hollander    pholland@iastate.edu
Behold the tortoise: he makes no progress unless he sticks his neck out.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan)
Subject: "Stars and bars" (was butternut)
Organization: CALIFORNIANS ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:51:06 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <Bv99zr.GHx@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu writes:
----------------- Bulk of post deleted ------------------------------
:  	I have also heard that the Confederate first national flag was
:  replaced by the infamous "stars and bars" because the 1st Natl flag was
:  too easily mistaken for the U.S. flag at a distance. (easily
:  understandable if the flag is hanging and not waving in the breeze).
:  	
:  	Have fun,
:  
:  	Tom.

I'm just biting my toung this time. ;-)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV  (I'm posting from my own account, but not the preferred one)
        "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is a War Room!"
from _Dr._Strangelove_or:_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying_and_Love_the_Bomb_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: Artillery Question
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:05:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.123041.28819@panix.com> spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) writes:
>Hollow iron balls filled with powder were the first exploding shells,
>if I recall correctly; they weren't particularly effective because the
>shell tended to rupture into a couple of big pieces instead of lots of
>tiny pieces. The big advantage of shrapnel is that it breaks up into
>lots of little pieces.

Shrapnel already is a lot of little pieces.  It consists of a hollow
projectile filled with bits of metal (usually balls) with an explosive
matrix poured around it - much deadlier that a mere exploding shell, 
because there is that much more metal being thrown around.  It is,
at base, just a special kind of shell.  This is easily confused, because
"shrapnel" is commonly used to denote any piece of flying metal, short
of an entire ball, that comes from a cannon.

>I believe shot and canister, which would look a lot like exploding
>shells, were also invented fairly early.

Shot usually refers to a solid projectile, whether a ball or a bolt.
Canister is more like using a cannon as a giant shotgun; it has 
somewhat the same effect as a shell.  I don't think either resembles
an exploding shell, in the sense that it looks like something 
coming apart in mid-air.  (I have seen shot and canister fired, but
not shells, so you may want to discount this last.)
--Chuck
-- 
D'Angelo Law Library         "The dogmas of the quiet past are
cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu      inadequate to the stormy present. . .
uclcjt1@uchimvs1              We must disenthrall ourselves. . ."
From: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: reenactments
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:23:34 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO

I have posted announcements for Civil War reenactments in the past, and 
have seen other postings by others. Before I post any further 
announcements I wanted to check with my fellow readers to make sure that 
this was generally acceptable (there were several critical responses 
previously). Any votes, yeah or nay?
JTHoppers
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa