Most pathetic military unit ever?

[Ned]

Near the end, the Germans had built an underground factory that could produce 1000 jets per month. The only problem was they no longer had any fuel to train pilots.

Georing said that had they understood the criticality of air defense, he could have had that plant in operation by the beginning of 1943.

In retrospect, if Germany had maintained air supremacy throughout the war, it would have won.

[Ikarus]

Even with all the jets the Germans still lacked the engines. Also, the Allied nations had jets shortly after the Me-262s introduction and Germany's airpower would soon be diminished once again. Even still, the onslaught of Allied Air Power was too great to overcome, even with jets from this underground factory. The biggest mistake of the Luftwaffe was not producing a four-engine, long-range bomber.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, and as for worst military unit ever, one unit no one has brought up are German "parachute divisions" which were actually made up of Luftwaffe forces which received almost 0 infantry training and were thrown into battle. The 9th Parachute Division, for example, was the first major German unit to crack at the Seelow Heights, and this whole concept of using air force personnel as infantry was bad from the beginning. Volksstrum units were pretty bad too, although they did not have as high of expectations as the Luftwaffe units did.

The allied forces at Monte cassino might have a diferent view on german paratroop forces

[notyoueither]

60-40. US effort into Europe vs the Pacific.

Make it 70-30 and the war would have lasted till 46 or 47. German and Japanese cities would have still laid in ruins. American ability to produce weapons and to obliterate from above would still have yielded the same result.

The Brits and the Commonwealth weren't no slouches there either. Just didn't have the required advantage to do it alone.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Near the end, the Germans had built an underground factory that could produce 1000 jets per month. The only problem was they no longer had any fuel to train pilots.

They HAD enough jets. Only one ten could fly and it wasn't just fuel. The engines burned out fast. They never had enough engines. Mostly due to lack of high temperature alloys.

[Seeker]

Another major factor was the German training program or lack thereof.

The Western Allies built a large and very effective training program in Canada and the USA.

The Germans were 'eating the seed' so to speak so that their training program by the end of 1943 was 'Real combat with deadly opponents'. The Japanese were even worse about throwing away trained pilots.

The end result: A lot planes with noone to (effectively) fly them. The Axis ended with a tiny number of incredible aces (like that Japanese ace) and lot of very green, very dead pilots. The western Allies air corps were all professional, consistently.

Most Pathetic:

-The Russian Baltic Fleet of 1905 has to be the most pathetic tragicomedy in military history.

-Samsonov's army in 1914.

-The Praetorian Guards of the time after Commodus and before Phobus. Basically a mob of libertines disguised as an 'army'.

-Alexander III Macedonian troops versus Roman Republican Legions. Even with every advantage, the Macedonians just weren't very good fighters (Thermopylae, the Romans fight up a steep rocky slope, in a river, in a narrow canyon, bristling with the Macedonian sarisae, are outnumbered, and still achieve a decisive victory)

-The Italian tank which had to go up against the British 'Matilda' tank.
The Matilda was called 'the Queen of the Desert'. Italians had one tank called the rolling coffin, famously not even bullet proof in some areas to high calibre bullets. Riveted Armour.

-The SS Polish MP unit the nazis raised. Not very effective.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


The United States government refused to surrender the fort at Sumter and indeed was making haste to reinforce the facility for agressive action against the sovereign state of South Carolina. Many southern states seceded as was their right. The War itself was started by the Federalists. The South was conquered and occupied in a brutally oppressive, illegal, and cruel war.

Not only that, but the first shots fired were not at Fort Sumter in April, but by Yankee soldiers at Florida civilians at Fort Barrancus on January 8, 1861, three months before Sumter.

The "resupply mission" to allegedly provision Fort Sumter carried 29 naval guns and 1400 men under arms, and was couple with a simultaneous mission for armed reinforcement of the Yankee garrison at Fort Pickens, Florida.

The Lincoln administration deliberately planned the Sumter / Pickens expedition to provoke armed conflict with the south. In addition to lying about the composition of the mission, the Yankees used a southern Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court as a back channel messenger to carry a letter to the governor of South Carolina suggesting that the Yankees wanted to negotiate a peaceful transfer of Fort Sumter (and by extension, this would be a model for similar transfers of other forts).

This transfer was actually suggested by General in Chief Winfield Scott, who was of the opinion that if you didn't wave the Union flag in the hotheads' faces (keep in mind there was only seven seceeded states then), they'd lose interest, and the economic ties to the north would make them change their mind after a few months.

The Yankee plan was three-fold: Privately suggest, out of official channels, that the Yankees wanted to negotiate, publicly state (Lincoln) that the only desire was an unarmed resupply mission without changing the balance of force, and "open secretly" prepare an armed reinforcement mission to present a threat to the South Carolinians.

Despite that, the first salvo from Charleston harbor was by orders well across the bow of the lead Yankee ship, in the traditional armed warning not to approach. The first shots at Sumter fired for effect were fired by the Sumter garrison at the Charleston shore batteries which had fired warning shots only.

Despite this show, the only casualties were one man wounded on each side, the Yankee because his own gun blew up.

Hey, JT - don'cha just hate it when we're on the same side of somethin'?

[David Floyd]

The allied forces at Monte cassino might have a diferent view on german paratroop forces

No joke, because they were fighting REAL paratroop forces. The forces I'm talking about, such as the 9th Parachute Division, were simply Luftwaffe infantry that had never jumped out of an airplane in their lives.

David Floyd, I ran across a site today that had quotes from all top Nazi's generals and business leaders on why they lost the war. To a man, they attribute their loss to Allied airpower. The loss of their oil fields was critical loss No. 1. The loss of their ball bearing plants No. 2. Finally, the virtually complete destruction of their railway and communications systems made movement and resupply virtually impossible. Even from a tactical level, the German Army was immobolized by Allied airpower. No German unit could move during daylight.

Actually, the Luftwaffe largely defeated the Allied bomber offensive in 1943, causing massive casualties and forcing it to be abandoned. When the long range P-51s came into action, of course, they dominated, but part of that domination was due to the fact they had no fuel. Fuel was really one of the major reasons for German defeat. I wouldn't call air power a root cause of the defeat, but a consequence of Germany's lack of fuel.

[Ned]

David, But the lack of feul was caused by strategic bombing of oil fields, railroads and synthetic fuel factories.

[Ned]

MTG and jimmytrick, I will accept your version of the facts for the moment. It appears then that Lincoln chose military pressure and confrontation with the South rather than the soft approach of Scott. This implies that he actually intended to provoke the South into firing first in order to blame the war on them and rally public support in the North.

Well it worked. The apparent reaction to Ft. Sumpter in the North was hysterical patriotism that not only formed the basis of the eventual Union victory, but forever changed America.

In many respects, what Roosevelt did later in putting incredible pressure on the Japanese so that they, not the US, would start a shooting war is a repeat of what Lincoln did - and with the same results.

If it is true, though, that Lincoln intended to provoke the South into shooting first, the South should have figured that out and not fallen into Lincoln's trap. The ONLY way to avoid war and secede peacefully was to do so "legally," by order of the Supreme Court (or with the permission of Congress.)

If that question were presented to the Court today, their answer would simply be to cite to the War between the States and declare that no such unilateral right exists. However, whether they would have said in 1861 is an open question since opinion on the issue at the time appeared to be divided. Certainly, the Declaration of Independence itself provided a significant legal basis for the South's position.

On the issue of a "just" war, I still maintain that deliberately starting a war, even if the cause is "just," without the means or likelihood of winning it, is not "just." That simply leads to defeat, slaughter and misery - which is what happened to the South.

[David Floyd]

David, But the lack of feul was caused by strategic bombing of oil fields, railroads and synthetic fuel factories.

No, lack of fuel was caused by Germany not having enough of it, even with Romanian and Hungarian fields.

Well it worked. The apparent reaction to Ft. Sumpter in the North was hysterical patriotism that not only formed the basis of the eventual Union victory, but forever changed America.

In many respects, what Roosevelt did later in putting incredible pressure on the Japanese so that they, not the US, would start a shooting war is a repeat of what Lincoln did - and with the same results.

Why should something working have anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of the action? This brings up an interesting point, by the way - Antony Beever, in "The Fall of Berlin", brings up the point that Germans called various actions wrong because they did not succeed (for example, declaring war on Russia and the US was wrong because they ended up winning). You're doing the exact same thing here.

The ONLY way to avoid war and secede peacefully was to do so "legally," by order of the Supreme Court (or with the permission of Congress.)

Since when does a State need Congressional or SCOTUS approval to exercise one of its exclusive powers?

[GePap]

Most Pathetic loosers: any group of people not able to give it up on any defeat over 100 years old. Candidates? Most Central and eastern European peoples, Most groups in the Middle East, Southerners, Mexicans, so forth.... Wow, big groups.

I think most of the suggestions made are from utterly to completely wrong: Everyone is 'defining' pathetic as loosing- many good units loose, due to many factors.

Let ma add a simple definition to get the discussion back on track (you southerners lost- be glad the North was nice and generous at the end and didn't shoot all Confederate politicans and generals, as we could have done. you guys got off damn easy and got to subjugate blacks for 100 years more):

A unit shall be deemed pathetic if:
a. The very concept behind it is fundamentaly flawed. examples: Russia Anti-Tank dogs, flaming pigs, Divisions sent into field without infntry training, parachute troops without parachutes.
b. A unit completely routed due to its own incompetence, not due to geographic factors (all battles including chokepoints thus don't count. geography won it for one side) or technological advantages.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Ned - some interesting points.

Lincoln was a master politician and strategist, for the most part. South Carolina had seceded four months prior, and the rest of the deep south states followed shortly thereafter, but secession then stalled. Prior to Sumter, Virginia held a secession convention which soundly defeated a motion to secede, and that seemed to freeze things in place.

The Europeans didn't take secession seriously, but they didn't care, either - ships went in, ships went out, but Charleston, the very hotbed of secesh fever, had the stars and stripes in it's harbor, effectively giving the finger to the "sovereign" state of South Carolina. It was sovereign de jure, but when you have an armed force in your harbor that you consider a foreign power, it doesn't do much for your de facto sovereignty.

While it seemed that things would be negotiated, the South Carolinian authorities delivered mail, and Charleston merchants sold food and supplies, and otherwise dealt routinely with Major Anderson and Captain Doubleday (of later Gettysburg and baseball fame), and their men.

Things broke down once the South Carolina folks realized they were being hosed by Anderson's superiors, and the idea occured to just let them run out of supplies, then let them leave. Sumter could have been taken by force before Anderson ordered the full Charleston garrison out of Charleston and over to Sumter - it was virtually empty for months.

When Lincoln was inaugurated in March, he very quickly wanted to prove a point. If Sumter remained under Federal control, nobody would take secession seriously - the principle city of the seceded states couldn't even secure it's own harbor. That being the case, tariffs and customs duties would still be collected (along with slavery the two biggest drivers to secession for the original seven states in the CSA) because European ships would not want to defy the effective Federal authority on the seas - embodied by the Navy, the coastal forts system, the Coast Guard, and Revenue cutters. Federal control of the forts meant an effective imposition of Federal will on the seceded states, all the way to an embargo if necessary.

Resupply of Sumter could have kept the garrison going for months, and the clear humiliation of the secessionists would have been severely demoralizing, as well as continuing the economic chokehold from tariffs. Successful resupply would also remove any incentive the Yankee government would have had to negotiate. As a matter of principle, the seceded states no longer had any representation in the Yankee government, so if Yankee power was maintained over them, the only choices were to come crawling back in defeat, hoping that legislative influence would keep things more or less in balance, or to submit to Yankee authority with no representation in the government.

South Carolina simply could not allow that resupply mission to take place. To do so was to be subjugated completely on a political, strategic and economic front.

At the time of secession, nobody thought there would be war - this was just 18 years after Dorr's rebellion (in Rhode Island), which had a legal fallout replete with holdings for state's rights and state sovereignty - even to the point of a state bringing a state court capital charge of treason against the state, not against the United States, based on the duel citizenship recognized in the US Contitution. (Privileges and Immunities Clause, among others)

When the actual Sumter mission showed up, it was strong enough to present a threat of either blockade or outright invasion of Charleston - clearly more than was necessary for a resupply mission, and clearly a direct confrontation and challenge. The Charleston and surrounding area militia was not in sufficient force or state of readiness to resist an assault, especially if the Yankees retook some of their abandoned shore batteries.

As far as the legal issue - for South Carolina to bring an action for succession in the Federal courts was impossible. The Congress has the power to limit jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, so legislatively, they could have just kept it in a District Court. The matter could not have been brought to the Supreme Court directly as a result of the Cases or Controversies clause.

The practical issue is one of submitting to jurisdiction - one can't claim sovereignty while giving the Federal courts personal jurisdiction over the State of South Carolina, nor can one claim the right of secession is inherent in the reserved powers of the states, while submitting that issue to the subject matter jurisdiction of the Federal courts.

The onus would have been on the United States (as the allegedly injured party) to bring a Federal court action on the secession question. Why didn't they? They would have lost before SCOTUS, without the slightest doubt. The Taney court was strongly states' rightist, and the Dorr's Rebellion issues clearly showed that the Federal courts gave great deference to state sovereignty.

So Lincoln had no reason to go to the legal remedy - he went straight to the military and strategic remedy of forcing either conflict or capitulation.

As far as the long-term results went, the south has clearly ended up better off than it would have been, and once the end of slavery became a real issue in the north, we're all better off for the destruction of that institution.

If you look at the complex practical issues (southern plantation owner debt to Yankee banks for purchase of slaves, illiquidity in the southern barter economy, the mass numbers of slaves who would be freed to become paid workers, the politics in the north of accepting an instant six million free persons as potential competition in northern labor pools), nothing short of the combined devastation and economic stimulus of war would have made mass emancipation possible.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
Most Pathetic loosers: any group of people not able to give it up on any defeat over 100 years old. Candidates? Most Central and eastern European peoples, Most groups in the Middle East, Southerners, Mexicans, so forth.... Wow, big groups.

Given the general political climate of the US in the last several decades, we'd have to add Yankee liberals to that list as well.

(you southerners lost- be glad the North was nice and generous at the end and didn't shoot all Confederate politicans and generals, as we could have done. you guys got off damn easy and got to subjugate blacks for 100 years more):

You guys sold out blacks and reconstruction so you could buy a fradulent presidency without controversy (Tilden won ) to keep your patronage jobs. You also got to do plenty of subjugation of blacks, the Irish, Italians (remind me, where were Sacco and Vanzetti?) and other immigrants yourselves.

You didn't shoot our politicians because if you had pruned that crop, a more skilled crop would have been able to rise and give you more hell, and if you'd shot our generals, you wouldn't have had any skilled generals from which to learn. Anybody can win given unlimited manpower, unlimited material, damn near unlimited time, and a straight forward, plow into 'em approach, so don't tell me Sherman and Grant were worth a fair damn.

[Chris 62]

Floyd, you have it wrong, there is a difference between Luftwaffe feld divisions and Luftwaffe Fallschirmjäger divisions.

Even though they stopped airborne ops, fallschirmjägers still recieved A/B indoctronation and fought as elite formations.

Luftwaffe feld divisions were formed on orders of Hitler, out of rear-area and surplus Luftwaffe personal.
Goerig refused to let the army train and teach them, as a resut they were poorly equiped, and totally useless.
These formations were used mostly on the Russian front, and the idea was scrapped after the uselessness of these formations were realized.
Your also wrong in another area Floyd, they were not used in divisional level in Italy, only Russia and 5 of them were stationed along the Atlantic wall.

http://www.warfarehq.com/scen_workshop/toe/luftwaffe.html

http://www.luftwaffe-hist.demon.co.uk/mainscreens/2-Feld%20korps.htm

You can read about the German airborne forces here:

http://www.eagle19.freeserve.co.uk/