Failure of Soldiers

When the fact that a fighting force performed poorly comes up you usually blame the officers or lack of equipment.That had me wondering,were there ever instances where gear and leadership were of high quality but the fighting force failed due to the poor morale or other qualities of the soldiers?

motivation and experience matters

think of the russian army in 1917

>officers arent worse than germans
>equipment about the same
>training too

yet they were done dieing for their tzar

Plenty. Look up decimation, the most obvious example.
The Battle of Rocroi is another good example, just about every Spaniard and their allies fucked up save for the Tercios.

>the poor morale or other qualities of the soldiers?
managing that is the job of leadership. it's still their responsibility.

"in charge" means, necessarily, responsibility.

in the winter war, the soviets had more men and better weapons (though their winter gear as inferior) than the finns, yet the the finns held against them and suffered far fewer losses in the war. it did end in finnish loss, but it was a pyrrhic victory for the soviets.

But that was because the Soviets were lacking in experienced officers, mostly because Stalin recently had most of them killed.

it's not like the finns had a slew of experiencd officers either. mannerheim was one, as he was originally from russia, but at that point the finns had only been independent for a couple of decades, so it's not like their military was highly developed.

There's plenty of examples of this happening, the Russians in the opening stages of WWII before they got their shit together. During the Vietnam War, there were instances where US Army units (made up mostly of draftees) tucking tail during an ambush while on patrol and ending up leading the VC/NVA right to their fire bases

The Italian soldiers during the wars with Austria in the 19th century performed pretty poorly and broke/were routed with incredible ease in some cases.

>equipment about the same
Not even close. The Russian army in WW1 was always under-supplied. Russia was the least industrialized of the great powers, and the country's industry simply couldn't keep up with the astounding demand for artillery shells that the Great War created. The Russian government often resorted to purchasing urgently needed weapons in bulk from outside the country. But this had its own problems. With the Baltic Sea being sealed by the Germans, and the Black Sea being sealed off by the Turks, the only port that Russia could use to import supplies into the country was Vladivostok. Just looking at a map should make it obvious why this was not ideal.

What would be a good overview for why this happened? As far as I understand it, the Italians ultimately won their war to unify their country against the specific wishes of the Hapsburgs to the contrary.

The Italians lost; the French saved their asses and won for them. The Austrians btfo’d the Italians basically every time they met them in a major engagement.

The book “For God and Kaiser” is an excellent overview of the military history of the Austrian Empire from 1619 to 1918, and a few chapters in Part 2 deal with the wars with Italy.

The Italian unification worked better when Garibaldi was relegated to propaganda and the French army did the heavy lifting. It's not militarily impressive, but when you can get someone else to shoulder the political and military cost to achieve what you want, that's rather hilarious in its own way.

Interesting information guys and thanks for the book recommendation.

Modern Afghanistan army is of very poor quality. the men are crypto islamists, quasi-impressed, only in it for the money, addicted to drugs, extremely corrupt, with most having loyalty to their clan or ethnicity instead of to the afghan nation,...

every Arab army in the last 70 years. Saudi Arabia and Iraq especially.

Italy during the Greek campaign.

South vietnam comes to mind

Falkland war comes to mind as a good example
>Ground forces have almost the same equipment
>Argies have numerical superiority
>They have weeks to prepare defences
>In the end superior british professional soldiers broke through the argies conscripts

R
U
L
E

T
H
E

W
A
V
E
S

so you looked at the battles without studying them?
The first war of indipendence was a loss because the king didn't want to risk getting raped by a combined Austro-French Coalition
The second instead Italy won minor skirmish even when outnumbered against Austria,obv Italian couldn't outfight one of the biggest empire of the time without help
and the third contrary to what a lot believe didn't go that bad as the battle of custoza was going well until the high command order a retreat because the commanders were fighting betwen themself

Can't really think of any such examples.
I mean, nothing concrete comes to mind, but only way that could happen is if leaders didn't have time to prepare their troops.
Soldiers are soldiers, you could turn pretty much everyone into effective soldier who can do the job adequately. When that doesn't happen it's always the failure of leadership or lack of resources.

Brits in the Peninsular War
Wellington was brillant, but he got stalled for 6 years against a second-rate French army in Iberia, because the average British soldier was terrible

seems a well informed post, doesn't come across as bitter and written by a frenchman at all

I think the Soviets in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam could count.
The M16's weren't shit. The powder wasn't bad either. The problem was the a Congress was stupid enough to send men to war without cleaning kits, in order to save a few bucks.
In both cases, I think poor morale (both in the forces, and at home) prevented them from achieving victory.

You sound like a mad bongistani
What is your "well informed" opinion on why Wellington got stalled for so long then?
We know he was a good general since, when given competent German and Dutch troops (like at Waterloo), he beat Napoleon

His main issue in Iberia was that he had to use British troops, the scum of Earth

he was at the end of a long supply line, fighting multiple french armies with reinforcements scarce.

he fought cautiously for the most part and mindful that his was the only significant british field army with little space for risk, when he had the opportunity he smashed the french as at salamanca, but above all else he had to hold what he held and preserve his army, and french strength in spain was numerically far superior to the british for the entire war

interestingly at both salamanca his troops were almost entirely british, at at albuera his subordinate Beresford was out generalled by his opponent but the french were unable to obtain a victory because the british troops were simply better. the french general after the battle said
>There is no beating these troops, in spite of their generals. I always thought they were bad soldiers, now I am sure of it. I had turned their right, pierced their centre and everywhere victory was mine – but they did not know how to run!"
failure of the troops themselves was not a issue

ISIS defeating the Iraqi army in 2014 and conquering Mosul.

Cept the soldiers were the last to retreat after their generals and officers abandoned their posts.

If the troops suck then it is still the leadership's fault for not training them properly. When a company has a bad year, you blame management, not the janitors.

>Falkland war
1. Argie officers mistreated their soldiers, tortured them much as they did on civilians during that period.
2. Argentine Armed Forces were much more of a political strong arm than a professional instrument. Constant coup d'etats and meddling in internal politics by different factions on the armed forces weakened them from day 0 almost.
3. There's no cohesive sense of nation even today in Argentina. There was no conflict or predicament before the Falklands War for to coalesce the peoples in Argentina in a common sense of being. Even today this is discussed on academic circles on Argentina.

>when he had the opportunity he smashed the french as at salamanca
Yeah, that was in fucking 1812
The Irishman had been in Iberia since 1808, yet he couldn't do shit until the French started draining troops there for the Eastern European Front after Russia

>and french strength in spain was numerically far superior to the british for the entire war
The French were widspread all over Spain to deal with the insurgency
Only a small part of the French force present on theater ever faced Wellington (you'll notice he outnumbered them in every battle)

>There was no conflict or predicament before the Falklands War
Up until the falklands war...

>invite Jews in
>this is the state of your nation 300 years later

Americans during the American Revolution. The men in the Continental Army were cowardly farmers, not soldiers. It often only took one volley to make them scram. The Americans only stood their ground when they were vastly numerically superior.

That was only true in the opening phase of the war when most of the Continental Army was militia, as the war went on they gradually reformed and with Baron von Steuben’s help had become essentially on par with the Royal Army in quality if not quantity. Their artillerymen especially were quite skilled. Not saying much, to be fair, since by the standards of most of Europe the Royal Army at that time was really shit.

Uhrrrrrrrr
You reek of pathetic subhumanoid, go take a shower

What the fuck are you talking about 'royal army'

And who was telling them what to do?

The battles in 1848 it's fair to say the patriotic Italian volunteers routed very easily compared to the Austrian professionals.

Holy fuck read a book. The American revolution is marked by the Continental Army being great at fighting retreats under pressure. Even the generals fighting then remarked on this.

Your statement isn't even true for the stat of the war as the militias in Lexington and Concord fought and stopped their supplies from being seized. The Massachusetts forces booted the British out of the state forever quickly.

But the falklands issue was present far before the war. Maybe not as a strong movement but still important

>king promises help
>cuck out and doesnt give it
>volunteers retreat instead of dying in mass to a professional army
Fighting to the end only makes sense if you actually gain something from it

I wonder if Barbarossa could have succeeded if the Red Army's incompetence was not revealed to the Soviets in the Winter War.

I should have specified the kings regular army, the royalist army

That's what he's talking about when he mentions the discussions in academic circles. The war and "dispute" has been characterized as an attempt to create or reinforce the concept of a unified nation.

Ass blasted Canadians and Aussies also talk shit about the American revolution

Barbarossa was just the initial push into the Soviet Union, not the entire theater.
The core issues that prevented Germany from winning off of that push alone would still be there if the Soviets had a different leadership position, and that different position may have mobilized the forces earlier which would make the initial push falter sooner.

>That had me wondering,were there ever instances where gear and leadership were of high quality but the fighting force failed due to the poor morale or other qualities of the soldiers?
Iran Iraq War. Iraq had good equipment, a massive materiel advantage, and a competent high command. But their rank and file were just so. Fucking. Bad.

t. buttblasted american angry that he's inferior

Arabs.

Constantly getting their shit pushed in, no matter the equipment, training, or leadership. Iraq had one of the largest armored forces in the world, yet got their shit pushed in by Iran.

Or that egyptian special forces team that defused a hostage situation, by blowing up a plane, and then use sharpshooters on the panicking passengers as they ran away.

was more that a popular insurgency is impossible to defeat without going full anglo and pulling a mau mau or sepoy rebellion.

poor morale, poor training or poor loyalty all cause soldiers to fail

>But their rank and file were just so. Fucking. Bad.

This is what happens when you count on God to win your battles for you.

Exactly. Argentina, in comparison to Chile, didn't got a defining moment early on. Along with massive immigration, both external and internal, this formed a people with a tenous sense of "argentinidad". Chile on the other hand, as early as 1833 displayed signs of a nation already formed.

>Constant coup d'etats and meddling in internal politics by different factions on the armed forces weakened them from day 0 almost.
Extremely ignorant. Between 1860 and 1930 Argentina was the most politically stable nation in South America with 70 years of unbroken constitutional succession, which is a better record than most European nations at the time. The political meddling of the armed forces only begun in 1930 and was largely a problem caused by the Great Depression and exacerbated by Peronism and the Cold War.

>There's no cohesive sense of nation even today in Argentina. There was no conflict or predicament before the Falklands War for to coalesce the peoples in Argentina in a common sense of being. Even today this is discussed on academic circles on Argentina.
Also revisionist nonsense. 19th century Argentina had to deal with two Brazilian invasions of its territory, one by Paraguay, a war against Bolivia-Peru Confederacy and an Anglo-French blockade of its ports. It surmounted all these challenges and emerged as a very prosperous and successful country in the early 20th century.

All this revisionist nonsense it's simply a result of """academics""" trying to make up simplistic explanations and excuses instead of putting the blame where it belongs, Yrigoyen's appointment of his friends as army generals in the 1920s destabilized the apolitical and meritocratic nature of the army and plunged the nation into a cycle of political turmoil which was exacerbated by peronist authoritarianism.

The two largest political figures of 20th century Argentina - Yrigoyen and Peron - were two populists that ruined the institutions of the country.

Nobody expected a war to happen nor did they have the stomach for one, the army was unprepared and the navy basically rebelled and refused to leave port after the Belgrano was sunk. Only the air force performed as was expected of them.

No big mystery about it. Falklands was a political gamble went wrong, which was cooked up after seeing the Portuguese surrender Goa to India just a couple of months before after a similar move.

More sociologist revisionist bullshit.
Chile has even less of a national identity than Argentina. I don't know where the fuck do you come up with this drivel.

Then why 11000 argies surrendered after a couple of weeks on "their" land. Only the air force had balls.

They surrendered because they were cut off from their supply lines and they ran out of ammo, with no way to get more.

Nobody expected a war to happen nor did they have the stomach for one, the army was unprepared and the navy basically rebelled and refused to leave port after the Belgrano was sunk. Only the air force performed as was expected of them.

No big mystery about it. Falklands was a political gamble gone wrong, which was cooked up by the military regime as a copycat of the annexation of Goa by India which resulted in the Portuguese giving up the territory.

They expected a quick political victory at home, not a war overseas.


More sociologist revisionist bullshit. The US is a nation of immigrants just like Argentina and it has a strong national identity, so does Argentina.

I don't know where the fuck do you come up with this drivel.

mediocre fighters, same as the wops you claim to descend from

Because they were poorly trained conscripts, cut off from their supply lines and the top Navy brass did NOT want to fight, did you not read what I wrote?

>1860 and 1930 Argentina was the most politically stable nation in South America with 70 years of unbroken constitutional succession, which is a better record than most European nations at the time. The political meddling of the armed forces only begun in 1930

Lies or ignirance. Let me tell you something about your own history, Diego:

Up til the late 1860´s Sarniento was still wrestling for territory with the last caudillos.
Buenos Aires was srtill constantly threatening seccession, and actiually secceded and had to be brought back by the army in 1880.
In 1890 another coup/revolution narrowly failed to topple the government and actually succeded in forcing the president to step down.
10 years later, Rocas second presidency was characterized by constant unrest, Buenos Aires on the verge of Revolution (again) and frequent, brutal and massive interventions of the army.
Then you chose to forget the whole fucking semana trágica, with thousands of casualties, a failed coup attempt and, as usual, brutal military intervention. As a result, the whole 1920´s where a big slaughterfest between anarchists, communists and nationalists and fascists, which lead to Uriburus coup. And then things got worse...

bumping for butthurt argies

>Lies or ignirance.
Nothing about what you wrote contradicts what I said. Between 1860 and 1930 there was 70 years of unbroken Presidential Constitutional succession which makes it unique among Latin American and most European countries at the time. The army did not meddle in politics during this entire period.

>In 1890 another coup/revolution narrowly failed to topple the government and actually succeded in forcing the president to step down.
It wasn't a coup, it was an insurrection attempt by Alem's Civic Union. The President resigned because of the Barings Crisis which was a world depression that brought down the largest banking house in London.

>Then you chose to forget the whole fucking semana trágica, with thousands of casualties, a failed coup attempt and, as usual, brutal military intervention. As a result, the whole 1920´s where a big slaughterfest between anarchists, communists and nationalists and fascists, which lead to Uriburus coup.
That repression was ordered by Yrigoyen. Again, the army before 1930 was not politicized and there were no coup attempts. Yrigoyen fucked up because he begun appointing his cronies as army generals which pissed off the entire country, even his own party members. (Alvear's Anti-Personalist UCR faction)

Also stop pretending to be Anglo by calling me Diego, your use of Spanish accent symbols and poor spelling suggest you are a fellow South American, probably Chilean.

Nobody here is butthurt, you are just attempting to "troll" with poorly researched facts about the country, and an unrelated point to what I wrote.

*looks at arkhangelsk*

I guess ignorance it is. Pic related.

Protip: If an army is involved in heavy domestic fighting every couple of years it is, almost by definition, a politicized army.

t. german that speaks spanish (shocking, I know)

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-11 at 22.34.27.png (626x1464, 190K)

"Great at retreats" LMAO

Still doesn't invalidate my point.
Celman's resignation was constitutional.

>Still doesn't invalidate my point.
>The army did not meddle in politics during this entire period.

shure thing.

They also didn´t try it again 15 years later...

You really should read up on your countries history, Facundo. :^)

Seriously though: Look, don´t take it personal, but what said in his first two points was true, even if point three was completely bogus. Argentinian military had been entangeled in its politics almost from day one.

Also:
>Celman's resignation was constitutional.
Two post ago you still said
>The President resigned because of the Barings Crisis which was a world depression that brought down the largest banking house in London.

funny.

I hope you get the joke and dont get all butthurt again ;-)

Serbs in Yugoslav wars.

Top equipment
Top leadership
Shitty soldiers

Ok, I'll concede... I didn't know the army took part in the Revolución del Parque. You learn something everyday I guess.

Still, 1930-1983 army meddling and 19th century army meddling are two different beasts IMHO. I still believe Yrigoyen and Peron were two terrible rulers that de-stabilized the country. If only we had listened to Alvear... best President this country ever had.

That much is true in the sense that it caused his own party to force him to step down as well as the attempted revolt.