Most indecisive battles in history

  • #1
Stephen Tashi
Science Advisor
7,642
1,496
What are good candidates for the most indecisive battles in history?

There are plenty of lists online for the most decisive battles, bloodiest battles, largest battles etc. There ought to be a list of the most indecisive!
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
hutchphd
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,866
2,017
It is not clear what you mean. I will provide you with one of the most inept: The Penobscot Expedition in the American Revolution. I recommend i to any serious student of either history or farce.
 
  • #3
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
26,833
10,514
You're going to have to define "indecisive" better.

Is it the battles of the Isonzo? You have twelve battles between Italy and Austria in WW1. Indecisive because it took 12?

Was it the last battle of the battleship Bismarck? Sunk by the RN at substantial cost - but the Bismarck was not exactly effective in prosecuting the war. It was more useful as a threat than a weapon. ("Fleet in being" is the term of art.)

Then there are battles fought after the war ended. The Battle of New Orleans (yeah, they ran through the briers and they ran through the brambles ) is one famous example.
 
  • Like
Likes caz and Astronuc
  • #4
Klystron
Gold Member
837
1,217
Depending on definitions most of the battles in America's modern wars against small countries ended without a decision.

Consider many of the incursions into central Vietnam, particularly following 1968 Tet offensives by the NVA. American Allied units fought bravely and destroyed many enemy at great cost, but with no clear end except an evasive negotiated peace. Memoires from combatants fail to list comprehensive objectives. Cynics might say the Vietnam War lacked decisive objectives beyond expending armaments, testing tactics and some technology, and granting professional military officers required combat experience.

Purists cite defeating global communism as the primary objective but I fail to remember a decisive battle in that regard. The nth battle for Hue from the perspective of the North Vietnamese? Air Marshall General Ky's book states that Allied victory was imminent by 1974 until President Nixon stood aside allowing the North to regroup and take Saigon in 1975.

Perhaps veterans or historians of the Middle East incursions can shed light on objectives and decisions for that combat. After the horrific example of USSR invading Afghanistan then leaving a shambles, how could the USA invade and repeat many of the same blunders? Without clear objectives, such wars never seem to reach a decision, making a long bloody list of indecisive battles.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes caz, BillTre and Astronuc
  • #5
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
19,209
2,662
What are good candidates for the most indecisive battles in history?

There are plenty of lists online for the most decisive battles, bloodiest battles, largest battles etc. There ought to be a list of the most indecisive!
There may be examples of stalemates, where there is no clear victor, but they may be hard to define.

Consider the Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg) during the American Civil War. One finds a statement "Although the battle was tactically inconclusive, the Confederate troops had withdrawn first from the battlefield and abandoned their invasion, making it a Union strategic victory."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antietam

I was thinking of Pyrrhic victories as possible examples, but they are often tactical victories, a series of which lead to strategic loss.

One historian has public a couple of books and covers "Decisive and Indecisive Military Operations in World War II".
http://universitypressblog.dept.ku....decisive-military-operations-in-world-war-ii/
 
  • Like
Likes caz and Klystron
  • #6
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
26,833
10,514
How about the US invasion of Japan in July 1945? Eight sailors from the USS Barb landed on Karafuto, blew up a train, and got the heck out. Success, but not much of an invasion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes hutchphd, Drakkith, Astronuc and 2 others
  • #7
DennisN
2020 Award
1,681
3,767
How about the US invasion of the Japan in July 1945? Eight sailors from the USS Barb landed on Karafuto, blew up a train, and got the heck out. Success, but not much of an invasion.
Wow, I did not know about that. Next time they brought nukes. Two, I believe.
 
  • #8
DennisN
2020 Award
1,681
3,767
Since I'm interested in history I did a quick search on Google and found this reddit thread:

What are some of the most balanced and indecisive battles in history?

The top reply was "Take your pick from most battles during WWI."

Quite true, the stalemates of World War I are legendary. The power of the machine guns and artillery made infantry quite immobile, and thus it developed into prolonged trench warfare. Which then led to experiments with chemical weapons (gas) and the development of early tanks in order to try to break through and gain ground.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby, Klystron and pinball1970
  • #9
BWV
834
850
But a stalemate can be a win depending on the respective political objectives of the combatants- cannot look at battles in isolation like they are some sort of sporting event. For the side with greater manpower and material a stalemate can be a victory. Indecisive battles in the Overland Campaign like the Wilderness were really Union victories as the CSA could not afford the attrition while the Union could. Same with WW1 and WW2.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes DennisN and Klystron
  • #10
pinball1970
Gold Member
773
826
Since I'm interested in history I did a quick search on Google and found this reddit thread:

What are some of the most balanced and indecisive battles in history?

The top reply was "Take your pick from most battles during WWI."

Quite true, the stalemates of World War I are legendary. The power of the machine guns and artillery made infantry quite immobile, and thus it developed into prolonged trench warfare. Which then led to experiments with chemical weapons (gas) and the development of early tanks in order to try to break through and gain ground.
In Terms of “stalemate” and or “futile” The Somme crops up a lot in searches.

Huge casualties on both sides over several years not much ground gained during that time.

The Iran Iraq war also, many casualties on both sides with no border changes and similarities to trench warfare of WW1 is mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby, Astronuc, DennisN and 2 others
  • #11
Klystron
Gold Member
837
1,217
The battle(s) of two early ironclads, the Monitor and the Merrimac (USS Virginia), during the American Civil War remain a fixture of indecisive but intensely chronicled naval encounters.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes caz, Astronuc, pinball1970 and 1 other person
  • #12
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
26,833
10,514
How would one characterize the Battle off Samar? Sprague had the stuffing knocked out of him by Kurita, but ultimately Kurita withdrew. Who won that?
 
  • #13
BWV
834
850
Or the Battle of Smolensk that began in July 1941 and continued through September? On the surface a German victory that inflicted nearly 760K Soviet casualties at the cost of around 115K German ones - however the delay and attrition it caused led directly to the failure of Barbarossa later that year, which essentially guaranteed Hitler’s eventual defeat
 
  • #14
caz
Gold Member
318
250
Battle of Cannae. Decisive victory that did not produce decisive results.
 
  • #15
caz
Gold Member
318
250
Then there are battles fought after the war ended. The Battle of New Orleans (yeah, they ran through the briers and they ran through the brambles ) is one famous example.
It resulted in this song. That‘s pretty decisive.



It probably also won Jackson the presidency.

Is it the battles of the Isonzo? You have twelve battles between Italy and Austria in WW1. Indecisive because it took 12?

Was it the last battle of the battleship Bismarck? Sunk by the RN at substantial cost - but the Bismarck was not exactly effective in prosecuting the war. It was more useful as a threat than a weapon. ("Fleet in being" is the term of art.)
There is also ”Sink the Bismarck” by Horton. I loved these songs as a kid. Did he also do a song about Isonzo?

 
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes Klystron and FactChecker
  • #16
FactChecker
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,216
2,410
Perhaps it is legitimate to make a list of the decisive battles and say that any battle not on the list is indecisive.
 
  • #17
caz
Gold Member
318
250
Perhaps it is legitimate to make a list of the decisive battles and say that any battle not on the list is indecisive.
We would still need to define what decisive is. In World War II, one could argue that Germany and Japan lost when the US entered the war, so nothing afterwards would qualify as decisive. In this line of thought major/important does not necessarily mean decisive.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
  • #18
FactChecker
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,216
2,410
We would still need to define what decisive is. In World War II, one could argue that Germany and Japan lost when the US entered the war, so nothing afterwards would qualify as decisive. In this line of thought major/important does not necessarily mean decisive.
Would that make the attack on Pearl Harbor decisive in the defeat of Japan?
 
  • #19
caz
Gold Member
318
250
Would that make the attack on Pearl Harbor decisive in the defeat of Japan?
One could argue that. Stategically, the goal of Pearl Harbor was to convince the US to leave Japan alone in the Pacific. Instead it led to mass mobilization and total war.

Tactically, the oil tanks were not destroyed and the aircraft carriers were not there, so it was not a success there either.

A little off topic. If you are interested in the mobilization of the US economy, you might enjoy Freedom’s Forge by Herman. If you are interested in what the US army was doing to prepare for WW2, you might enjoy The Rise of the GI Army by Dickson.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0812982045/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0802147674/?tag=pfamazon01-20
 
Last edited:
  • #20
231
275
Or the Battle of Smolensk that began in July 1941 and continued through September? On the surface a German victory that inflicted nearly 760K Soviet casualties at the cost of around 115K German ones - however the delay and attrition it caused led directly to the failure of Barbarossa later that year, which essentially guaranteed Hitler’s eventual defeat
I have studied the Eastern front for most of my life, and I have come to the conclusion that the only way Germany could have knocked the USSR out of the war would have been to destroy the Red Army in battles such as they did Minsk, Smolensk, Uman, and Kiev. Barbarossa was flawed from the beginning, it was based on an unrealistic timeline born of overconfidence, and underestimating the industry and manpower of the USSR.

They stood a better chance if they focused on being able to get supplies to the front, and drawing the Red Army into costly counter-attacks and destroyed them using mobile Panzer forces, striking at their flanks and causing battles of annihilation. Even then, I think this is a long shot. Germany simply had everything going against it.
 
  • #21
34,897
6,639
Would that make the attack on Pearl Harbor decisive in the defeat of Japan?
One could argue that. Stategically, the goal of Pearl Harbor was to convince the US to leave Japan alone in the Pacific. Instead it led to mass mobilization and total war.

Tactically, the oil tanks were not destroyed and the aircraft carriers were not there, so it was not a success there either.
As I recall, at least one of the Imperial Navy admirals (Yamamoto?) believed that attacking Pearl Harbor was a very bad idea. And the fact that the carriers were not present at Pearl Harbor during the attack led to the destruction of a large part of Japan's carrier fleet in early June of 1942, with four of six carriers sunk during the Battle of Midway. American cryptographers had been able to decode enough of the Japanese encoded signals to determine that Midway Atoll was the target.
 
  • #22
caz
Gold Member
318
250
As I recall, at least one of the Imperial Navy admirals (Yamamoto?) believed that attacking Pearl Harbor was a very bad idea. And the fact that the carriers were not present at Pearl Harbor during the attack led to the destruction of a large part of Japan's carrier fleet in early June of 1942, with four of six carriers sunk during the Battle of Midway. American cryptographers had been able to decode enough of the Japanese encoded signals to determine that Midway Atoll was the target.

There is no proof for the famous “sleeping giant” quote but these seem relevant
“In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.”
“Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. I wonder if our politicians, among whom armchair arguments about war are being glibly bandied about in the name of state politics, have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices.”
-Yamamoto
 
Last edited:
  • #23
BillTre
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2020 Award
1,738
4,283
My son reminds me of the Great Emu War:

The Emu War, also known as the Great Emu War,[1] was a nuisance wildlife management military operation undertaken in Australia over the later part of 1932 to address public concern over the number of emus said to be running amok in the Campion district of Western Australia. The unsuccessful attempts to curb the population of emus, a large flightless bird indigenous to Australia, employed soldiers armed with Lewis guns—leading the media to adopt the name "Emu War" when referring to the incident.

On 2 November the men travelled to Campion, where some 50 emus were sighted.[2] As the birds were out of range of the guns, the local settlers attempted to herd the emus into an ambush, but the birds split into small groups and ran so that they were difficult to target.[6] Nevertheless, while the first fusillade from the machine guns was ineffective due to the range, a second round of gunfire was able to kill "a number" of birds. Later the same day a small flock was encountered, and "perhaps a dozen" birds were killed.[2]

The next significant event was on 4 November. Meredith had established an ambush near a local dam, and more than 1,000 emus were spotted heading towards their position. This time the gunners waited until the birds were in close proximity before opening fire. The gun jammed after only twelve birds were killed and the remainder scattered before any more could be shot.[8] No more birds were sighted that day.[2]

In the days that followed, Meredith chose to move further south, where the birds were "reported to be fairly tame",[11] but there was only limited success in spite of his efforts.[2] By the fourth day of the campaign, army observers noted that "each pack seems to have its own leader now—a big black-plumed bird which stands fully six feet high and keeps watch while his mates carry out their work of destruction and warns them of our approach".[12] At one stage Meredith even went so far as to mount one of the guns on a truck, a move that proved to be ineffective, as the truck was unable to gain on the birds, and the ride was so rough that the gunner was unable to fire any shots.[2] By 8 November, six days after the first engagement, 2,500 rounds of ammunition had been fired.[6] The number of birds killed is uncertain: one account estimates that it was 50 birds,[6] but other accounts range from 200 to 500, the latter figure being provided by the settlers. Meredith's official report noted that his men had suffered no casualties.[2]

Summarising the culls, ornithologist Dominic Serventy commented:
The machine-gunners' dreams of point blank fire into serried masses of Emus were soon dissipated. The Emu command had evidently ordered guerrilla tactics, and its unwieldy army soon split up into innumerable small units that made use of the military equipment uneconomic. A crestfallen field force therefore withdrew from the combat area after about a month.[13]
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes sbrothy and caz
  • #24
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
19,209
2,662
You're going to have to define "indecisive" better.
This is a good point. One needs to clarify indecisive (or inconclusive) as V 50 indicates. Indecisive in what sense? Is a draw indecisive?

The attack on Pearl Harbor was indecisive (or not decisive) in terms of knocking the US out of the war, which seemed to be the goal of the Imperial Japanese Navy (i.e., they failed to achieve their goal of eliminating the US Navy and carriers). On the other hand, it forced the US to recognize the limits of battleships (vulnerable to attack from the air) and motivated the development of newer, more advanced carriers. In that sense, it was decisive, not for the aggressor, but for the defender.

In some battles, the aggressor did not achieve goals, but there was a cost to both sides. Such battles may be tactically indecisive, but they seem to be decisive strategically, although it might not be apparent until several battles later, or toward the end of a conflict. I'm thinking of the effect of attrition.
 
  • #25
Klystron
Gold Member
837
1,217
There is no proof for the famous “sleeping giant” quote but these seem relevant
“In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.”
“Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. I wonder if our politicians, among whom armchair arguments about war are being glibly bandied about in the name of state politics, have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices.”
-Yamamoto
Educated in Russia and USA Isoroku Yamamato spoke and read fluent English. From the encyclopedia entry:
He also opposed war against the United States, partly because of his studies at Harvard University (1919–1921)[9] and his two postings as a naval attaché in Washington, D.C.,[10] where he learned to speak fluent English. Yamamoto traveled extensively in the United States during his tour of duty there, where he studied American customs and business practices.

To me, 'sleeping giant' references Western folklore, specifically Arthurian, similar to the eponymous character in the modern novel "The Buried Giant" by British novelist Kazuo Ishiguro. Many Russian authors such as Sergei Lukyanenko include similar references to sleeping or buried giants and powerful entities entombed under hills, dormant until goaded into fierce retribution by stumbling unenlightened warriors.

If factual, Yamamoto not only cautions about the potential technological and economic might of an aroused America, but questions the shortsighted judgment of the arrogant Army leadership flush from easy victories in China.

{Edit 20210510: removed mention of William Safire.}
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Most indecisive battles in history

Replies
21
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
J
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
12K
Replies
4
Views
10K
M
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
2K
Top