On this D-day I think it appropriate if we ask ourselves which allied battle was the most decisive against the Nazi war machine?

>Stalingrad -1942
>Kursk- 1943
>D-Day- 1944

I vouch for Stalingrad, your thoughts?

I second Stalingrad, a tragic bloodletting that most in the US are much too ignorant of.

The non-battle of Dunkirk or the Battle of Britain.

Interesting take on the war, a non-battle scenario. The most important strategic move was Hitler's invasion of the USSR (obviously).

Kursk was the most pivotal the material loss for Germany was irreversible from there after Germanys fate was sealed . The offensive momentum of the German war machine was turned into a defencive tactic with no hope of ever mounting a credible military offence other than time delaying offencives .Stalingrad was a defeat for Germany in loss of men but that was easily made up . D-Day not to downplay its material acheivement was is in essence was a large mopping up opeartion . But I would like to venture one other battle which I think should of been there and that was the allied strategic air offensive .

If by "most decisive", you mean the battle which made it clear that the Nazi war machine was "out of steam", it's hard to argue with Stalingrad. After 1942, Hitler's army clearly moved to the "not-quite-dead-yet" category.

If Britain had lost the Battle Of Britain during the early years of the war then Germany would not have feared a second front. You must remember that Germany had no desire to attack Britain in the first place, he respected Britain, and Hitler's strongest desire was to ally himself with Britain. But as it was, Churchill's stubbornness denied this and Germany had no other option but to invade Britain out of the fear that Britain would have organised a second front in the west.

Germany lost the Battle Of Britain and were thus unable to employ a much stronger force in the East -against Russia - out of the deep fear that Britain and the people of it's Empire would orgainise a second front, which of course they did. In other words, Russia would have been up fuck's creek without a paddle much more than they were in reality.

whats so important about stalingrad. Sure, millions were lost, but even if the germans had won and conquered the rest of Russia, what difference would that of made. The war would of prolonged a few more years for the American/British troops to reach Berlin. D-Day is my pick.

If the Germans had won at Stalingrad and the Russian army had collapsed instead, Hitler would have had hundreds of thousands of troops to shore up the West Wall. The Americans, British and Canadians would never have made it across the beach at Normandy.

dunkirk, definatly.

Hitlers startegy, and his strength, lay in his speed and desiciveness. At dunkirk, however, and perhaps like antagonist said in order to find an alliance with britain, Hitler hesitated for the first time.

Had, at the time, hitler had been able to either 1.) secure an alliance with britain beforehand or 2.) wipe out the large of Britains army before they even got home to britain, then he would have had no 2nd front to worry about in the first place.

For anyone not aware, a quick summary of Stalingrad:
In the months of December and January, the German 6th Army fought a desperate contest against Soviet forces. Hitler ordered that the German Armies may not surrender, they must fight to the bitter end. Most of the soldiers followed Hitler's orders and fought heroically to the death. Finally, with no food and supplies, the situation for the Germans looked bleak. The Army was on the verge of starvation. Field Marshall Paulus had no choice but to surrender what was left of the 6th Army and 4th Panzer Army. The Casualties in the battle of Stalingrad were catastrophic for both sides. The Germans lost 147,000 men and 91,000 were taken prisoner. The Red Army paid a huge price for victory, some half million men were killed in the battle. The battle of Stalingrad showed to the world that the mighty German war machine was vulnerable. It gave overwhelming confidence and strength to the Red Army. Also, the battle became the turning point on the Eastern Front. The Red Army began to slowly push the invaders out of the Soviet Union.

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/webchron/easteurope/Stalingrad.html

If the Germans had won at Stalingrad and the Russian army had collapsed instead, Hitler would have had hundreds of thousands of troops to shore up the West Wall. The Americans, British and Canadians would never have made it across the beach at Normandy.

Getting accross the beach was bloody in some places but not really the most crucial part of the d-day undertaking. They needed to secure the land was behind the beaches, and push onwards.

They had lots of reinforcements (it was a logistics war) but if you can't put them anywhere then they are of no use.

So you are definitely right that it would have caused a problem, but I don't think the beach itself was a problem.

Dunkirk. Believe it or not, Dunkirk was the beginning of the end for the Germans.

Although nominally a loss for the British and French, it had quite a few major effects on the rest of the war. French and British soldiers in their thousands were evacuated across the channel, leaving the British well and truly in the war and paving the way for the Battle of Britain. If they had been truly defeated here, the British may have sued for peace, there would have been no Battle of Britain and the Russian front would have been a diferent story with the full might of the German war machine unleashed there. Stalingrad was pivotal, yes... but without the continued British resistance it would likely have been a Russian defeat. The Germans lost hundreds of aircraft during the battle of Britain, but more importantly, they lost thousands of their most experienced aircrew, crews blooded and experienced during the spanish civil war and later in France. It is not commonly known, but during the Battle for France and the blitzkreig, British air forces inflicted more damage on the Germans than during the Battle of Britain. The entire German strategy from the beginning, personified by blitzkreig, was for a short war, not the protracted affair it became. Those aircrew would have been invaluable at Stalingrad and in other battles. Throughout the entire war, German efforts put into the training of aircrew were of a lesser standard than the allied powers. Research into this has shown that German fighter pilots and bomber crews after the Battle of Britain, had far less experience and training than their allied counterparts, and it had far reaching effects not fully appreciated until after the war's end.

Stalingrad was vital to the German war effort because it provided access to the oil fields to the south and east. It was vital to the Russians because it bore the name of their leader and became a symbol of Russian resistance. If the German forces tied up in Europe and the Western Desert were free to attack Moscow, the resistance at Stalingrad would have been lessened in the face of a more important defence, and the city would have fallen far more easily, resulting in huge losses in terms of war materials for the Russians and gains for the Germans. There would also have been Italian armies, defeated and demoralised in the desert by the British, free to attack Russia and the Balkans. Not only this, but how much sooner would Hitler have ordered Barbarossa if the Battle of Britain had not occured, thus possibly capturing Stalingrad prior to the Russian winter?

Without the evacuation and defence at Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain would probably not have happened. Experienced German air crew and land forces would have been available for the assault on Russia - perhaps even another army available for an attack on Moscow at the same time as that on Stalingrad. The Western Desert would not have been an issue. It would have been highly unlikely that the Americans would have entered into the european war at all if the British and French were no longer in it (the French being an occupied nation and Britain being at peace with the Germans, therefore providing no jumpoff point for any allied invasion of France and Germany).

The seeds for Germany's eventual defeat were sown long before Stalingrad, before Normandy and before Anzio. They were sown at Dunkirk.

El Alamein or the battle of Britain

I agree with stalingrad. I think it is unfair to say that most Americans are to ignorant of Stalingrad and would say D-Day.

Although not a battle how about everything Jasper Maskelyne did? Thats fairly decisive.

While we're deconstructing the war, why not go back to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand at Sarajevo in 1914?

No assassination -> no WWI -> no Nazis -> no WWII

No big bang -> no WWI -> no Nazis -> no WWII

Antagonist Muslim your almost as stupid as PM......


what and the hell you dont think they ever happend and its all a cover up of some consparacy thats out to kill/steal from/rape/pose in some S&M photo's... man you need a life... the world is not out to get you... but the world would be a better place with out you...

I believe the Soviets could have very easily lost the war against the Germans even with the UK in the war. It is not commonly known but Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in July, a month late. The Italians (as usual) made a mess of the Greek invasions and pacification of the Aegean/Balkans. Hitler had to maintain the momentum in the South and fatally redirected his forces to mop up the resistance in the region. If Mussolini’s forces were competent enough to keep the Balkans pacified, and Hitler invaded the USSR in June as planned, the winter of ’41 wouldn’t have played such a big role. All the victories would have happened a month earlier, and Moscow would most likely have been captured by the Nazi’s. Stalin would have either been captured (he refused to leave Moscow), or he and the entire Soviet bureaucracy would have to move to Yekaterinburg. The momentum from the Moscow victory would have been lost. Lebensraum would most likely would have been accomplished, what one month can do.

Actually, Germany did invade Russia in June. 22 June. The original kickoff date was early May if I remember correctly. But you are correct about Moscow, and I wondered if anybody would mention it. Even with the late start because of the Balkans, the city could have been taken had Guderian been more of a team player. When Halder ordered Guderian to only send a part of his 2nd Panzer Group to Kiev, and keep the bulk of it for the assault on Moscow, Guderian used his favoritism with Hitler as leverage and turned his entire panzer group towards Kiev. While the move surrounded 600,000 Russians at Kiev, it meant Halder had to hold up his assault on Moscow, as the 2nd PG had been critical to the battleplan. It gave Stalin time to set up the defenses around Moscow and get in mre troops from Siberia. Moscow was key not so much because Stalin and the government might have had to relocate, but because Moscow was the central junction for Russia's entire rail system. Had Moscow fallen, it would have been virtually impossible for the Soviets to have moved her armies into position for the counteroffensive at Stalingrad. The Germans would have held at Stalingrad, and with the loss of those two key cities, the war on the Eastern Front would have been over for all practical purposes. With the Germans entrenched in those two cities, and controlling the railways, it would have been extremely difficult for the Russians to have mounted anything.

Interesting take on the war, a non-battle scenario. The most important strategic move was Hitler's invasion of the USSR (obviously).


I second that opinion.

Actually, Germany did invade Russia in June. 22 June. The original kickoff date was early May if I remember correctly.

My bad...

I still feel El Alamein was more important, the oil reserves and supply line rommel could have gained would have been significant, everything that happened in africa is much overlooked as it isnt in europe and so not considered important as its not the two fronts germany are most associated with.

I'd say Stalingrad, but in the Far Eastern war Midway was both lucky and pivotal. Put that on the list!

The Battle of the Bulge.


or perhaps the stave-off of German forces going to reclaim the bridge just before D-Day?


or maybe D-Day itself.

It's fairly difficult to point to one particular battle as the defining moment in the war, Stalingrad, El Alemein, Midway were all significant in that they turned the aggressors into defenders, on the Eastern Front, in North Africa, and in the Pacific for the remainder of the war, but in each of those cases earlier events had a significant impact on the outcome of each of those battles, or even whether the battle took place at all, as at Stalingrad. The Germans failure to take Moscow before winter settled in and cut off rail movement; it is likely the Russians couldn't have mounted a counteroffensive at Stalingrad had they lost rail access through Moscow; the failure of the Luftwaffe and the Italian Navy to knock out Malta and those British subs in the Mediterranean meant fuel and supplies continued to the British in North Africa, while those British subs played havoc for the Axis to resupply Rommel's forces, which finally spelled his doom at El Alemein; and the loss of all of those carrier planes and experienced pilots in the stalemate in the Coral Sea meant the Japanese could only outfit 4 of the 6 CVs that had been scheduled for the Midway invasion. Each of those seemingly less notworthy events set the stage for what are considered today as crucial the 'turning points' in the war. And if you go back even further in the war, and look closely, you can find other significant events that set the state for those events, Britain holding on during the Battle of Britain, the attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the US into the war. Every event at every stage of the war seems crucial when you begin to break it down.

I hate saying "What if?" but If Japan had invaded Russia on a second front? The Japanese wouldn't have to Advance and grab alot of ground just grab enough to force the Russians to send troops both directions. I'm not an expert but the U.S. is the only country that won on two fronts in WW2 could Russia have done the same?
As for most pivotal battle I'm not sure, I'm sure that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were most important in future events.

If Japan had invaded Russia on a second front? The Japanese wouldn't have to Advance and grab alot of ground just grab enough to force the Russians to send troops both directions.

Well I don't think that the Japanese could really pull it off during the winter months, especially in Siberia. If the Japanese weren't advancing into Russian territory then Stalin would have focused on the Germans. The war in the East would have been fought almost exclusively along the Trans-Siberian, and so the war would have been easier for the Russians there. The Japanese would have been easy prey for the Russians who could have easily done a pincer on the Japanese on the rail lines. The terrain and the climate in Russia always favor the defender. The real war would have been fought in the West, and Mother Russia is in the West as well. I think the Russians could have temporarily lived without Siberia, its not like the Japanese would be able to hold it for long.

Japan's Kwantung army in Manchuria mixed it up with the Russians along the Siberian border in a series of skirmishes in 1938-39 and got roughed up pretty badly, which is one reason they turned their attention to Southeast Asia. The Soviets exposed a glaring weakness in the Japanese - their failure to fully invest in heavy artillery, something the Soviets had fully developed. The Japanese very briefly considered a northern front instead of a southern one in 1941, but then dropped the idea.

Do you think a war along the Trans-Siberian would have been somewhat analogous to the North African Campaign? That is, the two antagonists at opposite ends of a long, indefensible supply line?

Japan would fail...in essence.

The most crucial battle was not fought with tanks and planes. I think that inhumane treatment of the occupied soviet territories and prisoners of war have cost Germans a war. Soviets realized that it's life or death war. Before realization has come, ineptly lead soviet troops surrendered by hundreds of thousands almost without fight. Survivors of 1931-33 famine, collectivization, purges (the bulk of soviet troops) had no reasons whatsoever to fight for the survival of the soviet regime. Germans gave them the reason. 600,000 of mostly Russians fought on the German side anyway (+tens of thousands soldiers of other nationalities) As for Dunkirk, the loss of 400,000 troops would not matter much for British survival (unless Germans would have attempted an invasion of islands, which was not the case). Considering overwhelming strength of British navy and the fact that most of the lucky escapees did not fire a shot until D-day, natural population growth would have compensated for the loss of 400,000. But Germans would have had 400,000 mouths more to feed. Had Germans occupied Soviet Union in 1941 (and they could), British would have been crashed before massive American help could arrive. 400,000 of Dunkirk survivors would not have helped much. Battle of Britain was lost by Germans because of German’s (Hitler’s) stupidity. Germans would not have repeated the same mistake twice. On the other hand, existence of unoccupied Britain did not matter much to Soviets in 1941.

I believe the Soviets could have very easily lost the war against the Germans even with the UK in the war. It is not commonly known but Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in July, a month late. The Italians (as usual) made a mess of the Greek invasions and pacification of the Aegean/Balkans. Hitler had to maintain the momentum in the South and fatally redirected his forces to mop up the resistance in the region. If Mussolini’s forces were competent enough to keep the Balkans pacified, and Hitler invaded the USSR in June as planned, the winter of ’41 wouldn’t have played such a big role. All the victories would have happened a month earlier, and Moscow would most likely have been captured by the Nazi’s. Stalin would have either been captured (he refused to leave Moscow), or he and the entire Soviet bureaucracy would have to move to Yekaterinburg. The momentum from the Moscow victory would have been lost. Lebensraum would most likely would have been accomplished, what one month can do.

Two interesting plans about a potential attack taking place 1-2 months before july. You have to understand that A: those months were rainy, wet and muddy, thus any attack would have probably flounderd just like the advance on moscow in november. B: leaving the balkans intact would have assured british intervention and a possibility for an attack from behind german/soviet lines.

NOT Dunkirk. The miracle of Dunkirk was that we lifted a third of a million soldiers off the beaches.

But it wasn't the soldiers who kept the Germans out of Britain in 1940: it was the RAF.

If we hadn't saved the expeditionary force then, sure, we'd have been much less likely to have been able to repel the Germans had they got here (although as it was I'm not sure that a defeated army minus its heavy equipment was actually going to be much of a deterrent) but the Germans would STILL have needed to win the Battle of Britain ... which, notoriously, they didn't.

Of the ACTUAL battles, I woudl favour El Alamein. Had we lost, Egypt would have fallen. Hitler woudl have had the middle eastern oilfields to himself. There woudl have been no need for Army Group South to divert its thrust in a desperate drive for the oilfields of the Caucasus. The Russian front could have taken a VERY different turn.

But that actually implies, to my mind, that by far the most significant event was in fact one of the non-events. It was Mussolini's decision, right at the outset of hostilities, NOT to take Malta. It would only have taken a couple of battalions in June 1940. And then ... what?

The RAF operating out of Malta took such a toll on Axis shipping that at one point only one in three of Rommel's supply ships was gettting through. Give him all those ships ... and put the stranglehold on Monty's Mediterranean supply lines (not to mention the prospect of Italian submarines slipping through Suez and raiding allied shipping in the Indian Ocean) and NOW say who's going to win at El Alamein ...

How about Eisenhower's decision to fuel Montgomery into Antwerp instead of giving it to Patton? It allowed the Germans to regroup. Something like 3/4 of Allied casualties occured following that decision, and Patton felt he could have gone all the way to Berlin.

Of course, the flip side is that if Patton had gotten the fuel and failed to reach Berlin, the allies could have been rolled all the way back to the sea. Talk about a tough decision....

NOT Dunkirk. The miracle of Dunkirk was that we lifted a third of a million soldiers off the beaches.

Of the ACTUAL battles, I woudl favour El Alamein. Had we lost, Egypt would have fallen. Hitler woudl have had the middle eastern oilfields to himself. There woudl have been no need for Army Group South to divert its thrust in a desperate drive for the oilfields of the Caucasus. The Russian front could have taken a VERY different turn.

..


Germans were not starved for oil at any time prior to the late 1943. They had Romanian oil fields, they had western Ukrainian oil fields, they had undamaged synthetic fuel plants, they had lots of coal, they had neutral Sweden supplying German army with gasifiers trucks capable of running on straw. Middle Eastern oil fields were quite undeveloped/undiscovered during WWII. On the other hand, transcaucasian oil fields supplied around 90% of the oil for the soviet war machine. Without them, soviets had no chance to win the war. In two words, undeveloped reserves of Middle Eastern oil did not matter much. Hitler stuck German nose in ME just to save Mussolini’s butt (it would have been better for Germans to have Italians as an enemy). All ME skirmishes had quite limited significance for the overall outcome of WWII. Stalin reacted very coldly on Churchill’s attempts to represent ME battles as an equivalent of the second front (promised to be open in 1942). Probably, Uncle Joe was quite dull not to appreciate the “pivoting” battle of WWII fought in ME.

How about Eisenhower's decision to fuel Montgomery into Antwerp instead of giving it to Patton? It allowed the Germans to regroup. Something like 3/4 of Allied casualties occured following that decision, and Patton felt he could have gone all the way to Berlin.

Of course, the flip side is that if Patton had gotten the fuel and failed to reach Berlin, the allies could have been rolled all the way back to the sea. Talk about a tough decision....

Considering that Soviets would have won even without D day landing, Patton's desicions did not matter much for the overall outcome of WWII. I am quite sure that occupation zones were agreed upon in Yalta or even in Tehran. Therefore, tough Patton's words did not matter unless US was prepared to fight soviets in 1945 (Patton was). Berlin was agreed to be taken by Soviets.

It's an interesting point, although one can hardly hypothesize that the Russians would have attacked the British and American forces just because they came a little farther East than they ended up coming, and certainly the Patton and Monty weren't about to attack them. There's a good case here for the map of Eastern Europe turning out very differently. Most historians put the division of territory in a later time-frame, but I think you have a valid point for debate, certainly.

El Alamein, in my opinion, was a crucial point during the conflict. Not because the Allies secured the oil but because it actually showed everyone that we could win. The German war machine could be beaten. And a victory against the Desert Fox was not one to be sniffed at either.

The Battle of Britain was crucial too. If the RAF (with airmen of various nationalities) had not thwarted the Luftwaffe then Great Britain may have fallen. Hitler wanted to rule the skies. THe RAF stopped this from happening. If Great Britain had fallen then the US would not have entered the European theatre, D-Day would not have happened (due to no staging post) nor any other operation afterwards.

The Soviets could well have defeated Germany without the other allies. But with GB gone and the US putting all it's resources in the unavoidable Pacific Theatre the Axis would've put all it's might into the Eastern Front. Whether the Soviets would've been crushed or not, I do not know. But if they hadn't why would the Soviets stop at Berlin when they have the whole German Empire infront of them. The Soviets could well be control of most of Europe today. Wow, I'm rambling. Time to end.

El Alamein, in my opinion, was a crucial point during the conflict. Not because the Allies secured the oil but because it actually showed everyone that we could win. The German war machine could be beaten. And a victory against the Desert Fox was not one to be sniffed at either.

.

It's not quite correct because Soviets inflicted the major defeat upon the German troops during Moscow battle (late fall-winter of 1941). Moscow defeat was by far more painful to Germans than El Alamein. Soviet paid heavily for it though. BTW, Desert Fox just ran out of supplies, he was not defeated in the pure military sense, Italians were.

Okay then, a revision to my previous post.

"because it showed everyone that the Western Allies could win."

El Alamein was the perfect ambush. Rommel thought Monty was retreating his 8th army back further then they actually were and then Monty unleashed a great, not perfect, ambush. If I recall Rommel was chasing Monty so he was not out of supplies yet.

It wasn't perfect at all. Rommel was goaded into action in the sure knowledge that the US had entered the war and that a quick victory was required before they had a chance to have an impact. Witness Kasserine.

If you want your enemy to make a mistake, push him into doing something he doesn't want to do. It worked. Rommel knew it but there wasn't a damn thing he could do about it. He was forced into using what he had in a desperate gamble which failed to come off.

Rommel was an asset the Germans failed to utilise effectively, a good general who might have shaved a year off the entire war had he been fighting on the other side. Montgomery had the advantage of supply and time, the knowledge that all he had to do was hold on, he had reinforcements, and political commitment. He was, in a word, overrrated - a man who used his advantages effectively but otherwise not notably militarily brilliant.

I might add that the Western Desert wouldn't have even been possible without Dunkirk, but I've been there and apparently wasted time.

Monty's brilliance lay not so much in the fact that he won an important battle by sitting on his arse and letting the enemy throw their inferior forces against his well-defended positions: it lay more in holding a demoralised army together, re-energising it, avoiding giving battle when he would lose, and getting himself into a position where he could win before accepting battle.

In short, he forced Rommel to give battle on his terms, and only on his terms.

Given that Rommel was arguably the finest general in the world at the time, this is not what I would call the achievement of an inferior general.

But back to the non-events: if only Mussolini had taken out Malta when he could, Rommel woulf NOT have been starved of supplies whereas Monty WOULD. And Rommel would have been in Cairo, no questions asked.

Imho it was Dunkirk -had the germans captured the transports and troops they could easily ride straight across La -Manche and capture britain very easily - British land Army was no competition for germans whatsoever.

Without Britain there would be no place for americans to act from . Russia balanced on the verge of defeat quite a few times and with germans ruling whole Europe I dont think we would have a chance.

But then again americans were first to have A-bomb and that could the victory into their hands even if germans conquered whole europe.

As about D-day.... -I think it actually contributed very little to germany defeat - at this point Russia would win even if they would have to fight allies and germany together. D-day allowed usa though to keep influence in europe.

Except that the Germans didn't think they COULD transport an army across La Manche without first destroying the RAF.

While that belief existed, the Battle of Britain was always goign to happen no matter how victorious the Germans had been at Dunkirk.

Wrong. Britain would not have been in a position to fight on had it lost the bulk of its army at Dunkirk, regardless of whether they had the will to do so or not. As I mentioned, RAF fighters shot down German aircraft at a rate of 4:1 during the battle for France prior to the battle of Britain - had this not been achieved, the RAF would not have been in a position to fight the Battle of Britain at all (during which, incidentally, they only managed about 2.5:1).

The Germans were not truly "victorious" at Dunkirk. They failed to eliminate Britain from the war, and allowed too many British and French troops to escape across the channel to Britain. The BEF held the Dyle River alongside the channel until it was clear that French forces to the south east had collapsed and they were in danger of being encircled - only then did they retreat. Bear this in mind - the blitzkreig did not have the same effect on the British forces as it had on the French.

Do yourselves a favour and have a look at this animation - it's significant when you see how the BEF along the Dyle were not overrun in the same manner as the French, blitzkreig or no blitzkreig. :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/launch_ani_fall_france_campaign.shtml

I reiterate : Perhaps the most important and most often overlooked effect of the blitzkreig and the Battle for France was the loss of far too many experienced German aircrews at the hands of the RAF. Not only this, but in failing to eliminate Britain's capacity to fight on, they changed the battlefield from a relatively equal one over France, to one of a extreme disadvantage for the Germans over Britain. One of the overriding factors of the Battle of Britain was the overall innaccuracy of the German bombing - even on those occasions where the RAF failed to stop them from reaching their objectives, they didn't do as much damage as they should have. They failed to destroy radar towers and fighter bases repeatedly, even in the face of limited opposition. This is often laid at the door of panicked German aircrews, but those same aircrews were no longer experienced survivors of the Spanish Civil war - they were hurriedly trained replacements for losses suffered in France.

Consequences, consequences...

Except that the Germans didn't think they COULD transport an army across La Manche without first destroying the RAF.

While that belief existed, the Battle of Britain was always goign to happen no matter how victorious the Germans had been at Dunkirk.

Loss of troops at dunkirk most probably would resulted in Churchill governement political collapse . And even if not Germans at that point would easily storm shores of Britain - with naval support ,aerial support and overhelming Germany army advantage britain simply had no way to counter major offencive operations on their shores.

Quite so.

That is more or less what I have been saying all along.

Even WITH the miracle fo Dunkirk, Britain had no way of countering a major offensive operation on her shores.

BUT a major offensive operation on her shores could not be conducted until the necessary forces had GOT TO her shores. If the Germans had reckoned that they had the naval and air superiority necessary to do this in the late summer / autumn of 1940, do you not think they would have done it? They didn't because they didn't. They understood that they needed to control the skies over the channel in order to protect their invasion fleet and THEY NEVER WON THAT CONTROL.

Whether they would have done, had the Fuhrer not ordered the offensive to change its main target from the airfields to London is an interesting question. Quite possibly they would. However ...

Whether Churchill's government could have survived the Fall of France without the success of the Dunkirk evacuation is an intrigueing question. You may be right in saying that it couldn't - but I am not entirely convinced. If the country would rally round while a defeated army that had lost all its heavy equipment was rebuilt, would it really not have equally rallied round while a wholly new army was built?

If the country would rally round while a defeated army that had lost all its heavy equipment was rebuilt, would it really not have equally rallied round while a wholly new army was built?
The question becomes more one of "Would it have had time to do so?".

Time. Time to reorganise, time to train and replace losses, time to make sure your pilots are capable of doing the job they've been asked to do.

Now read again what I've said regarding the German air losses during the Blitzkreig. All coming together now? Do you see it?

No - the question does not become that at all.

The RAF clearly DID have the time to train enough additional airmen to win the Battle of Britain, because it did so.

It would still have had enough time if the army had been left on the shores of Dunkirk and the task had been to build a whole new army rather than to reorganise and re-equip a defeated and disorganised army.

Yes, the period during which we would have been vulnerable to an invading army HAD IT REACHED THE SHORES would have been greater. But the crucial question would still have been COULD THAT ARMY REACH OUR SHORES.

And the answer would still have been that the German perception in 1940 was that the answer was "We cannot be confident of it until the RAF has been neutralised and we have mastery of the skies".

And the answer to the question "Could the Luftwaffe neutralise the RAF and gain mastery of the skies?" would still have been no - as history shows they did not - PROVIDED the other historical events such as the switch to daylight bombing of London are not tampered with.

And the answer to the question "Could the Luftwaffe neutralise the RAF and gain mastery of the skies?" would still have been no - as history shows they did not - PROVIDED the other historical events such as the switch to daylight bombing of London are not tampered with.

Well the real switch was the switch from attacking British AB’s, and other military-industrial installations to the cities. Should Hitler have maintained his bombing of RAF bases things would have been much easier (for Hitler at least).

I change my vote. I think Stalingrad was the most important (before I said D-Day). Sure Dunkirk was important, but even if Germany had taken Britain, it would of only changed D-Day really. The Americans and Canadian forces would of went through Russia instead. If he had taken it, there would be very little change on the Eastern Front since most of the strongest and well-trained soldiers were there anyways.

Cob, generally when one is having a discussion, you would read what the other has written. Clearly, in this instance, you have not done so.

I've read it, Mr Wolf.

And found it to be incoherent.

I think it's you that needs to go back and re-read what has been said, if anybody does.

The Americans and Canadian forces would of went through Russia instead.

Why would the US even care about the European theatre? They were only really in it because the brits wanted them there. The US would have concerntrated on the Pacific theatre and let the Soviet Union deal with the european axis.

Surely though, if the RAF had been wiped out, the Royal Navy could have launched a 1 way ticket assualt on the ports that were harbouring the invasion craft????

I cant see the British army being beaten too easily if the Germans had of invaded.

Ah but what you have to consider is that the Germans could have invaded from any direction so the placement of troops is vital. Since it was impossible to determine where they would invade troops would either be spread too thin or bunched in one area then before they can counterassault, the germans would've had a foothold and been impossible to defeat.

Germany had no significant fleet to attact England. U-boat tactics was chosen because of the German naval weakness. Germany would have needed 3-4 years of the constant naval build up to have a chance with Britain. England had radars in 1940, Germans had little chances of the surprise attack. So they've decided to attack Soviets. There were no serious preparations to invade England.

No serious preparations? How come the invasion of the United Kingdom (GB back then) was almost implimented yet was not as the Luftewaffe took too long to gain air superiority over british skies (thanks to the airmen of GB and various other nationalities)? When I say 'almost' I mean if the Luftewaffe was like a few days to a few weeks faster there would've been hostile Germans on GB soil. Or summat.

Germany had no powerful fleet to launch an invasion. Germany had ZERO landing crafts. No serious ground preparations were made to invade England. How long did it take for British and Americans to prepare for D day? Close to 2 years. It's amazing considering overwhelming industrial, naval, air superiority of the allies. Why dou you think less powerful (industry-wise) Germans could have done all preparations in 2 months or less? Battle for Britain was fought by Germans not to occupy England but to force British government to come to terms. Hitler was very fond of British, he admired them. All what he's wanted was to have British as allies in the anti-communist crusade. It was not that delusional, considering Churchil's obsession with destruction of USSR and communism. It was delusional because Britain always fought (helped to) on the side of Europian underdogs not to let a single country to dominate continental Europe.

After USSR has invaded Finland in 1940, Britain seriously considered sending an expedicionary corp in Finland to fight red tide (=war with USSR). Poor Adolf was fooled, Brits did not hate commies as much as he thought after all.

Germany had ZERO landing crafts.

Are you sure? This approximation must be incorrect.

No serious ground preparations were made to invade England.

Really? They were going to land somewhere in Sussex (forget where, some marsh or summat) which would have paved the way to London. They had people working on an invasion of Britain since they joined the war. The actual German plans for invading GB is actually remarkably similar to the Allies D-Day plans.

How long did it take for British and Americans to prepare for D day? Close to 2 years.

D-Day was June 1944. US joined in late 1941. So obviously it would've taken at most two years.

Why dou you think less powerful (industry-wise) Germans could have done all preparations in 2 months or less?

Who said two months? The invasion plan was set into motion way before the Battle of Britain.

Battle for Britain was fought by Germans not to occupy England but to force British government to come to terms.

Hitler wanted the complete surrender of Great Britain. That was the key objective of the Battle of Britain. Other objectives included gaining air superiority over the British Isles so that they could land troops without much aerial resistance.

Hitler was very fond of British, he admired them.

True, he may have admired them but more than liekly only for their empire. This could be why he wanted a surrender, to show the world that they have brought the largest empire in the (then) modern world to it's knees without even setting foot on their soil. It would have been a huge PR success for the Nazi regime.

Britain seriously considered sending an expedicionary corp in Finland to fight red tide (=war with USSR)

So that's why Churchill and Stalin looked so chummy in those photographs.

I have revised my original suggestion. There were plenty of pivotal moments in WW2, but I now personally believe that the war was lost by the Axis due to Adolf Hitler's inability to lead an army and listen to his generals. He should have stuck to politics and let the military handle the war effort.

Germany had no powerful fleet to launch an invasion. Germany had ZERO landing crafts. That was why they wanted complete air superiority before they tried to invade. How long did it take for British and Americans to prepare for D day? Close to 2 years. It's amazing considering overwhelming industrial, naval, air superiority of the allies. Why dou you think less powerful (industry-wise) Germans could have done all preparations in 2 months or less? Because, although much of the British army and large parts of the French army had been rescued nearly all equipment had been left behind, and there was hardly any modern weaponry to resist an invasion in Britain, whereas the Germans in France had powerful front-line units. If- even with complete air superiority a very big if, given that the Germans would have to get past last ditch attacks by the Royal Navy and would be using improvised landinh barges- if the German army could land in sufficient numbers they would have no difficulty in defeating any defending British units. As you say, the main idea was to achieve air superiority and force the British to come to terms without taking that gamble, but the threat of invasion was more real than you seem to think.

In the winter of 1939-40 Admiral Raeder ordered his staff to make a study of the many problems which would have to be settled if Hitler were to demand an invasion of England. On 21 May, 1940, Raeder told Hitler of the conclusions of the study, which suggested any plans for an invasion of the islands would be "impracticable." Records show that Hitler was not interested in invading England at that time. He was not convinced that there was any real advantage in attempting to overthrow the vast British Empire, but rather hoped that either Churchill would "see sense", or his government would fall. Hitler stayed on his special train, Tannenburg, from 25 June to 5 July with a group of consultants, waiting to see if the situation would clarify itself. With reports that Britian had taken over France's military contracts with the US, and with arms factories increasing production, it was obvious that Churchill had not "seen sense." On 16 July Hitler signed Directive No. 16-Seelowe, Operation Sea Lion. But if you read the opening statements of this order it is obvious that even at this point an invasion was not inevitable, as Hitler notes that...

"Since England, in spite of her apparent hopeless situation, shows no signs of coming to terms, I have decided to prepare a landing operation, and if necessary carry it out.

"The aim of this operation is to eliminate the British homeland as a base for the further prosecution of the war against Germany, and, if necessary, to occupy it completely."

So even as Sea Lion came into existence, it still was not inevitable. And again, Admiral Raeder denounced it as too ambitious and impracticable. Lacking the necessary transports, his study the previous winter had concluded that even if he requisitioned every available private and commercial fishing vessel from the coastal and inland waterways he wold not be able to assure the landing of a first wave of 13 divisions (which Sea Lion called for), or even a reduced amount of that number (the compromise number was 9 divisons in the first wave). But Raeder noted that requisitioning the commercial fleets would have serious results on war production and civilian food supplies. It's no wonder that he quickly passed the buck onto Goring, placing responsibility for the success of the operation on the Luftwaffe.

On top of that, there was no German battle fleet to give heavy gun support, and the Luftwaffe wouldn't be able to guarantee total air cover, so it was decided to give the landing troops the benefit of tank fire-power, by converting some Mark IIIs and IVs, which required special landing craft (experiments proved successful). And there were also some batteries along the French coast with ranges up to 37 miles, but the real responsibility fell on the Luftwaffe to win dominance of the skies over the English coast.

* The above information was obtained from Illustrated World War II Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, pp. 244-246, Ed. Brigadier Peter Young, based on the original text of Lt. Col. Eddie Bauer, Swiss Army, retired.

A succesful German landing in the UK in 1940 would have resulted in the total surrender of the UK. Great Britain simply did not have the Military (army) strength to defeat a German assault. The Germans however 'first' had to land in the UK. The Germans had been very successful in Europe but the one super weapon the British possesed had not been involved. The Royal Navy in 1940 was still the supreme maritime force on the planet and all of it's power and might was concentrated in home waters.

The Royal Navy would have decended upon any German invasion force and destroyed it wholemeal. This is why the Battle of Britain was fought, the Germans hoped to repulse the Royal Navy by airpower over the invasion area.

Without domination of the air any invasion of the UK was doomed, the might and the overwhelming power of the Royal Navy made this a cast iron certainty.

So let there be no misunderstanding, the Battle of Britain was the most important battle of the 2nd World War (even more so than the battle of the atlantic). Without this British victory none of the other 'victories' in World War II would have been achievable. Before any of you Americans even begin to mention the pacific war, remember, had Britain fallen you would have had to ensure that your Atlantic Fleet was of sufficient strength to counter German power and that you would NOT have been able to provide the resources required by the Pacific fleet ( which I readily acknowledge was absolutely magnificent).

The Battle of Britain is the battle that saved the whole of mankind.

NEVER IN THE FIELD OF HUMAN CONFLICT WAS SO MUCH OWED BY SO MANY TO SO FEW

Winston S Churchill

I believe the Soviets could have very easily lost the war against the Germans even with the UK in the war. It is not commonly known but Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in July, a month late. The Italians (as usual) made a mess of the Greek invasions and pacification of the Aegean/Balkans. Hitler had to maintain the momentum in the South and fatally redirected his forces to mop up the resistance in the region. If Mussolini’s forces were competent enough to keep the Balkans pacified, and Hitler invaded the USSR in June as planned, the winter of ’41 wouldn’t have played such a big role. All the victories would have happened a month earlier, and Moscow would most likely have been captured by the Nazi’s. Stalin would have either been captured (he refused to leave Moscow), or he and the entire Soviet bureaucracy would have to move to Yekaterinburg. The momentum from the Moscow victory would have been lost. Lebensraum would most likely would have been accomplished, what one month can do.

The British would not have had to send a force to Greece and it is very likely that the war in the western desert would have been over before Rommel and the Africa Corps could have established themselves. This would have resulted in a British Empire army mid 1941, experienced, combat ready, confident flush with victory, with nothing to do, but a damn sight nearer to Malaya and Singapore than to the UK. Dare I suggest that the most humiliating diaster in British military history (Singapore surrender 1942) might have been avoided.

Before any of you Americans even begin to mention the pacific war, remember, had Britain fallen you would have had to ensure that your Atlantic Fleet was of sufficient strength to counter German power and that you would NOT have been able to provide the resources required by the Pacific fleet ( which I readily acknowledge was absolutely magnificent).

There was nothing really magnificent about the Pacific Fleet for the first two years of the war, since it was vastly inferior in both numbers and weaponry. What was magnificent was the navy's codebreaking abilities, and coupled with some extremely gutsy naval leadership and within the ranks, and some very inept Japanese decision-making, meant the Pacific Fleet held its own until American industrial capacity and attrition within the Japanese navy overwhelmed Japan's capabilities.

And as an American I would never downplay the significance of the British winning the Battle of Britain, but I'm not so sure I agree with your assumption of whether the US' Atlantic Fleet could counter German power in the Atlantic. For that to have happened it would have to be assumed that a successful German invasion of Britain would have also seen either the capture or destruction of the Royal Navy's Home Fleet, and quite frankly, I see neither of those being a real possibility. It is more likely to assume that the Royal Navy would have evacuated British leadership to the US, where they would have conducted the Royal Navy's operations in coordinated operations with the Atlantic Fleet. What would have been a serious problem for the Allies was that the loss of the British Isles would have meant the loss of a forward base for conducting long range bombing operations over Germany.

It is more likely to assume that the Royal Navy would have evacuated British leadership to the US,

No, they had plans for the British navy,and royal family to come to Canada, and the RN would be based in Halifax.

No, they had plans for the British navy,and royal family to come to Canada, and the RN would be based in Halifax.

OK. The point is, British leadership would have been removed to North America, and the Royal Navy would have remained intact and under British leadership.

I would say D-Day. SO much happened there..........

I would say D-Day. SO much happened there..........
Might I ask what the fucking point is in you coming in here and writing one line, without reason, without explanation, without anything other than an unsubstantiated pile of words? Obviously Aghart hasn't read a damn thing prior to his post either, but at least he gave some backup for his point of view.

All there is in here is a bunch of kids saying "it's this - no it's this.." without even understanding what the hell they're talking about. I wouldn't be surprised if Stalingrad and D-Day are the ones mentioned more often because they're the ones that the fucking movies have been made out of.

Wow, that was harsh.

I agree, a little out of control. These are all just opinions, and even eminent historians can't agree about this necessarily.

I based my opinion on a PBS documentary series called Battleground, that covered the battle of Stalingrad in some detail. While I'd known that the Russian front was fierce and bloody, until I saw that series in 1995, I hadn't known how bad it was.

Enemy At The Gates really gave you a distorted impression of the battle. The German movie Stalingrad is much better at conveying the misery and tragedy.

Many believe Stalingrad to be the turning point of the war. The Nazi war machine proved to be fallible as it spread itself too thin for a cause that was born more from arrogance than practicality. The Germans never recovered, and its weakened defenses were no match for the Allied invasion of 1944. We know little of what took place in Stalingrad or its overall significance, leading Beevor to humbly admit that "[t]he Battle of Stalingrad remains such an ideologically charged and symbolically important subject that the last word will not be heard for many years." This is true. But this gripping account should become the standard work against which all others should measure themselves. --Jeremy Storey

http://20th-century-history-books.com/0140284583.html

Personally, I don't think Germany could have pulled off an invasion of Britain even if it had won the battle of Britain, and I think both the Germans and British knew it. What the Germans knew:

1) They simply didn't have the transports necessary, even if they had procurred every capable barge and fishing vessel from the inland waterways. The most they could have brought over in the first wave was 9-10 divisions, with very little firepower (armor and artillery) to support it.

2) Even assuming they could have gotten that first wave of troops landed, it would have been next to impossible to have established a beachhead and then to have opened a supply line. Without heavy firepower and supplies within 24-48 hours the initial landing force would have been pushed back into the sea.

3) They didn't have the necessary warships to support the transports.

4) They didn't have the naval planes to seriously block the Royal Navy. They didn't have torpedo planes, and most of their bombers were level bombers, releasing from high altitude, which were proven in both the Atlantic and Pacific to be very ineffective against warships. They had the one dive bomber, the Stuka, but it had no range, meaning it couldn't have harassed British warships coming south from Scapa Flow, and by late 1940 it was vulnerable to British fighters, particularly the Hurricane.

What the British knew:

1) If the British had decided they couldn't win the air battle over Britain, they had plans to pull all surviving air groups to air bases in northern England, out of range of German fighters, where they could have been used to strike any German invasion force.

2) The Royal Navy would have been sitting in the middle of the English Channel if an invasion became imminent. While certainly it would have taken some losses, it nevertheless would have wreaked havoc on a slow invasion force. U-boats, while effective against unprotected convoys, were less effective against protected convoys, and even less effective against warships, and were especially vulnerable in the confines of the Channel.

3) Canada would have sent several divisions to Britian. Also, Britain would have had some nasty surprises for an invasion force, such as flaming oil spills in the Channel, not to mention that the British planned to use poison gas if necessary.

Spyke according to conventional thought the Brits didn't have a hope against a German Army(assuming the Germans be able to invade the Island). Supplies would run out because unlike the resistance in Continental Europe, there was no other "base" left.

Spyke according to conventional thought the Brits didn't have a hope against a German Army(assuming the Germans be able to invade the Island). Supplies would run out because unlike the resistance in Continental Europe, there was no other "base" left.

Well, the key point to what you just said is "assuming the Germans be able to invade the Island." My whole post was concerned with why I believed the Germans couldn't successfully invade the island.

to be honest i think the battle of britian if it had been lost then the troops would have been pulled out of the eastern and african fronts germany would have gained the largest fleet of them all, america would have had no steping stone to start there d-day atack. that is just my opinion however and please corect me if i got any of the facts wrong

ashpwner,

No the British would have sent their fleet to Canada or America, they would have never let it fall into the hands of the Germans, if that became a certainty they would have scuttled their own ships, that I believe from all the histories I have read.

ok but i still think that the u.k played one of tha major roles in ww2 one of i am not discredating any other country and i think austalia dosent get a mention and canada hardly wich is kinda sad what are ur views on if the british had fallen tho?

oh and what d u mean they would have scuteld there ships?

i would stil have to say battle of britian i mean come on when we won that battle it showed the rest of the world that the axis were not undefeatable this also trigured america joining the war otherwise i dont think they would have botherd oh well you stole al the credit anyway even tho we fought for 6 years and if britian had fell the troops on the eastearn fronts would have been pulled out same as the african ones.

ashpwner

oh and what d u mean they would have scuteld there ships?

The would have sunk their own ships, the English would never have allowed their ships to fall into Nazi hands

oh ok were a bit of a proud nation then to do that lol

what do u think was the most inportant event on ww2

Stalingrad was the most important WW2 battle in the Euro theater.

Stalingrad was just stupid - it didn't NEED to happen.

El Alamein needed to happen and was the most important.

Cairo would have been MORE important, but Rommel didn't get that far. After the suez - all gravy and oil.

rusia was important i just think if britian fell it would have ended there than again the canadian and all other nations would carry on the fight i hope but i dout america would have joined but the british fleet would be under canadian control so maybe victory was posible after we fell we will never no posible but shit loads harder

Well in classic Sun Tzu theory, WWII was decided before it started. Hitler had planned to attack Russia even before he invaded Poland. It was a "faulty" strategy. He miscalculated Churchill's growing support, Commonwealth strength/resolve and gear-up ability. He should have known from WWI the capabilites of Britian/Canada/ANZACS to fight him. He should have realized that factor would not let him hit Russia with everything. He just plain thought the brits would give up after the fall of France, a gross miscalculation shared by many staff officers(yes men).

So if you want to go into details of what is the most important battle for the overall outcome of WWII then it must be a strategic argument with the likes of Hitler VS Rundstat, Rundstat VS Guderian, von Leeb VS Hitler VS Jodl or some such thing in the early planning stages.

I know a polish vet whom spent time in POW camps, he said most German soldiers would sum it up like this:

"Too many enemies, not enough friends."

But of actual battles that happened and the STRATEGIC importance - El Alamein El Alamein El Alamein.

Rommel + Oil = Victory.

Taking oil from U.K and giving to germany = major strategy.

Iraq and other arabs would have joined axis at even the hint of autonomy(this was a problem for Hitler to promise though). Turkey might have thrown in against Russia, for a slice of caucuses oil. Don't forget Hitler was a master politiker previous to being warmonger.

Also seizing Suez would have had a big time plus effect for taking control or at least naval superiority of the Med. Certainly in the East Med. Would also make more choke points for U-boat crews to harvest. I could go on and on and on.

Stalingrad was an ego battle of Hitler and Stalin. Ask any vet - it was just stupid. Of little importance to Russia and of NO importance to Germany. Russia just played it smarter and decided if Germans want to trade man for man, tank for tank, then "sure why not" Russia always had more.

thank you that was very informative sorry i was thinkin that film you know enemy at the gates was a litle more historicaly corect lol and i also thought that taking rusia would have gained them oil to the east

i got a qeustion what would have happend if britian fell in the battle of britian

there were many battles of WW2 that deserve merit i almost feel ashamed to name just 2. for america the pacific theater battle would be the battle of midway. the battle of midway was the turning point for japan. she suffered a defeat there that she would never recover from.
in the atlantic theater the battle would be the u-boat battle. germany was decimating the supply lines to britain with 10000 tons sunk a month not being uncommon. the defeat of the u boats signaled the end of germany, it was just a matter of time.

Most of Russia's oil was in the Caucuses (south of Stalingrad), or far out to the east(scattered somewhat).

Russia was always going to have enough oil to power it's toys. Even the goal of grabbing the caucauses oil was a faulty one. For one, Russians would just burn it(and they did burn quite a few wells), For two, transporting to German refineries, would tie up rail lines, be exposed to increasing partisan activity and turn into a defensive war which the germans HATED to do and Hitler would always interfere with. Germans were pretty good at ad-hoc procedures, they might have made use of the oil anyway in some sort of mobile procedure, but I digress.

Basically the strategy should have been Moscow Moscow Moscow. Forget all these side adventures. Leningrad - siege, with NO ASSAULTS. Cut em off, fight only in open country, be nice to ukranians, ouilla! LOL Stalingrad wasn't even that big a factor if they absolutely HAD to get to the caucuses. Good god - prolly cost more oil/gas/resources/energy to drive to the Caucuses than you'd get from it. Thank the gods, the Germans had Hitler lol.

i think america take to much credit for the war and austrila new zeeland south africa and canada get to lilte oh and poland

would hitler have been good if he dident h8 jews wasent war beant he rebuilt germany and made it great again so i wonder how differnt the world would have been without hitler bieng a hell bent world domination lunatic

would hitler have been good if he dident h8 jews wasent war beant he rebuilt germany and made it great again so i wonder how differnt the world would have been without hitler bieng a hell bent world domination lunatic
if hitler hadn't screwed it up germany was poised to be the next super power.
german scientist were the best in the world, eclipsing anything america had.

as a matter of fact german scientists were so good that america was willing to compromise its security by "operation paperclip" where german scientists would be brought, covertly, to america. werner von braun was part of that operation. some of those scientists were loyal to the nazi regime and to the party and NEVER would have been allowed in the US.

Well the Jews did a lot of "work" during the war. Slave labour is very nice to have during war. He should not have killed them(other than moral reasons), it was quite detrimental to his own war efforts. It's a good point. Also he would have faced far less partisan activity in Russia, Yugoslavia, the Ukraine had he not demanded them shot on sight or abducted.

Poland is often overlooked, it's true. The top allied ace of the battle of britian was a pol and all the pols captured by russians in '39 were given over to General Anders and attached to the British 8th army...which fought at...yes El Alamein! What a battle! A smorgeousborg of Allied units, pols, brits, aussies and kiwis ...oh god the kiwis, way to shine it on!

it's a shame germany fuked it up with hitler i mean to be fair the u.s is corupt in my opinion then again would germany be aswell the jews were just scaped goated due to the efects of ww1 and treaty of vesigh sry if i spelt that wrong so people just blamed them for the down falling of the country am i right?

Have all of you fools ever heard of the LONGEST battle of WW2? The biggest battle, with the most monetary damage and losses. Also with massive losses of lives, SHIPS AT A TIME! The Battle of the Atlantic!??!?! If Germany had completely won, the Allied effort would have crumbled. If the Allies had won, Germany would have lost in weeks. Both powers rely on their shipping!

i think that people should not claim that the u,s did evrythink and vice versa with the u.k

Have all of you fools ever heard of the LONGEST battle of WW2? The biggest battle, with the most monetary damage and losses. Also with massive losses of lives, SHIPS AT A TIME! The Battle of the Atlantic!??!?! If Germany had completely won, the Allied effort would have crumbled. If the Allies had won, Germany would have lost in weeks. Both powers rely on their shipping!

That's a campaign, not a battle. Yes you are right, it was very important. However Germany never had the strength to completely cut Brits off, nor were the allies ever able to completely wipe out U-Boat threats.

i think if japan had dogzilla we would have lost!

Have all of you fools ever heard of the LONGEST battle of WW2? The biggest battle, with the most monetary damage and losses. Also with massive losses of lives, SHIPS AT A TIME! The Battle of the Atlantic!??!?! If Germany had completely won, the Allied effort would have crumbled. If the Allies had won, Germany would have lost in weeks. Both powers rely on their shipping!
i think i mentioned that. the battle of the atlantic, the u-boat menace.

That's a campaign, not a battle. Yes you are right, it was very important. However Germany never had the strength to completely cut Brits off, nor were the allies ever able to completely wipe out U-Boat threats.
if america and britain did nothing the u-boats would have starved the british.
it was more than a campaign, it was a battle.

if britian had been defeated u rekon the war would have been lost?

if britian had been defeated u rekon the war would have been lost?
no.

who do think would have won it
i think it would have been bad the african and the eastern fronts wouldent be there any more u would not have had the royal navy nor england to luanch d-day from

if america and britain did nothing the u-boats would have starved the british.
it was more than a campaign, it was a battle.

Of course they did something.

Ok so a series of naval engagements from 1939 to 1945 is a "battle" now? Why not just call WWII a "battle"?

your dates are correct but the u-boat menace only covered the years 42, 43, 44, mid 45.
42 was the most devastating to america with over 7 million tons lost
43, 44, 45 didn't even come to half of that.

was it a "battle"? good question. i guess it would not be classified as a battle in the traditional sense.

your dates are correct but the u-boat menace only covered the years 42, 43, 44, mid 45.
42 was the most devastating to america with over 7 million tons lost
43, 44, 45 didn't even come to half of that.

was it a "battle"? good question. i guess it would not be classified as a battle in the traditional sense.

heh, uh the war started in 39' not 42' like you 'mericans seem to sometimes think. Yes 42' was a "happy time" for u-boat commanders as neophyte American Captains were making the same mistakes brits made in 40'. They were even sinking carriers, battleships and DESTROYERS in 1940.

If you call sinkings almost every day fighting and a battle, then yes, it was a battle. And if Britain was taken, and if Hitler didn't invade Russia, the Americans could have been pushed into the sea. On the Eastern front, 85% of German troops were stationed there. What if there was no Eastern front? Think about 85% of German troops knocking on Big Ben? And with 15%, look at the time Hitler gave the allies. A bloody slaughter would have happened, with Germany the clear victor and America huddling on the other side of the Atlantic. :D

And I didn't say that it stared in '42. I SAID '39!

Germany made some crucial mistakes, such as letting the British troops that were captured (forgot which battle) go back to Britain and had they not, they would've taken england. Also, breaking the pact with the soviets, that was probably the largest mistake made, since the Soviets did most of the fighting in WWII

heh, uh the war started in 39' not 42' like you 'mericans seem to sometimes think.
the war started for america december 7 1941.

it started at different times for other countries.

If you call sinkings almost every day fighting and a battle, then yes, it was a battle. And if Britain was taken, and if Hitler didn't invade Russia, the Americans could have been pushed into the sea. On the Eastern front, 85% of German troops were stationed there. What if there was no Eastern front? Think about 85% of German troops knocking on Big Ben? And with 15%, look at the time Hitler gave the allies. A bloody slaughter would have happened, with Germany the clear victor and America huddling on the other side of the Atlantic. :D
the war could very well have been lost if only britain fell.
the reasoning is that it's would be next to impossible to maintain a 3000 mile supply line. as it turns out america used britain for a gigantic warehouse and floating drydock to launch the invasion from.

Germany made some crucial mistakes, such as letting the British troops that were captured (forgot which battle) go back to Britain and had they not, they would've taken england.
dunkirk.
Also, breaking the pact with the soviets, that was probably the largest mistake made, since the Soviets did most of the fighting in WWII
russia outright humiliated the germans at stalingrad. millions of russians died in that battle but stalingrad wasn't taken.

Tough to say. I'm going with Stalingrad. I think that bloody mess really turned the tide. Well over a million dead. Hard to believe even after all this time.

Tough to say. I'm going with Stalingrad. I think that bloody mess really turned the tide. Well over a million dead. Hard to believe even after all this time.

I think Stalingrad was, in fact, an important battle in the eastern war with Russia, but could you consider it a/the "pivotal" battle of World War II?

I'm not sure just how much affect the defeat at Stalingrad had on the western front, the war with the allies? I think that might be damned difficult to gauge.

But that being said, I'm not sure that anyone could really "prove" that any action was "pivotal" in the war ...they were all important in their own way and had the battles gone differently, many things would have changed. But, ....pivotal?

Baron Max

the battle of midway could be seen as pivotal.
japan lost all of her aircraft carriers there, without the carriers she could not defend the outer islands of her empire.
even that did not prevent japan from putting up a defense.
the island hopping by the americans was one bloodfest after another.

if only britian fell we would all be fuked they would have also won if they hadent fought the russians by doing that they were fighting on 2 fronts hitler should have left the fighting for the genrals and have you notised the germans have been quite for to long!

you no what i have notised no germans ever talk about this i heard they dont even leanr about it in there country

dunkirk.

russia outright humiliated the germans at stalingrad. millions of russians died in that battle but stalingrad wasn't taken.

nonetheless, wouldn't you agree that those were some stupid mistakes? They ambition of the Germans got to their heads. Had he been smart (let's say he was wining) he should have first taken what he wants of Europe then sent all his forces at the Soviets

you no what i have notised no germans ever talk about this i heard they dont even leanr about it in there country

ya they dont, in fact I think you get a ticket or something if you mention the holocaust

leopold99

the battle of midway could be seen as pivotal.

It was.

japan lost all of her aircraft carriers there, without the carriers she could not defend the outer islands of her empire.
even that did not prevent japan from putting up a defense.
the island hopping by the americans was one bloodfest after another.


Check your facts, Kaga, Akagi, Hiryū and Sōryū, were the carrier losses at Midway for Japan, They still had Shinano, Junyo, Hiryu, Chitose, Shokaku, Unyru , Taiyo, Chuyo, Shinano, Taiho, Hiyo, and Ryujo. The losses of pilots at the Coral Sea and Midway was the biggest hit for the Imperial Navy, as these were the best of the Navy at that time, and their loss and experience were never replaced.
And as for your bloodfest, the Japanese contributed far more than their fair share to make it so.

Norsefire

he should have first taken what he wants of Europe then sent all his forces at the Soviets

Hitler had taken all of Europe, he just didn't finish Britain, and that was his mistake, and no there were other battles that took place after Stalingrad that if not won, would have made all the Russian sacrifice vain. Pivotal Battles build one upon the other, they all are interconnected.

Check your facts, Kaga, Akagi, Hiryū and Sōryū, were the carrier losses at Midway for Japan, They still had Shinano, Junyo, Hiryu, Chitose, Shokaku, Unyru , Taiyo, Chuyo, Shinano, Taiho, Hiyo, and Ryujo.
the shinano and taiho wasn't commissioned until late 44.
i can't find anything about chitose, unyru, or the taiyo.
the ryulo was sunk roughly a month after midway.



And as for your bloodfest, the Japanese contributed far more than their fair share to make it so.
it wasn't MY bloodfest.

leopold99

the shinano and taiho wasn't commissioned until late 44.
i can't find anything about chitose, unyru, or the taiyo.
the ryulo was sunk roughly a month after midway.

OK, so take the Shinano and Taiho, out of the mix Japan still had 10 carriers after Midway,

even that did not prevent japan from putting up a defense.
the island hopping by the americans was one bloodfest after another.

Your statement.

Just how many of those Islands were Japans National Territory before the Start of WWII? the Japanese seemed to have expanded as far south as New Guinea, and as far west as the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, and Wake Island, both U.S. territories. And when we ask them to leave nicely they told us the go fuck our honorable selves, now lets look at their expansions in the East, now those were blood baths, very cold blooded ones at that.

Japanese Army's Atrocities -- Nanjing Massacre
Factories of Death : Japanese Biological Warfare 1932-45 and the American Cover- ... and other atrocities committed by Japanese army in China during WW II. ...
http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/

Japanese War Crimes
This page is for the memorial of the victims of the Japanese atrocities in the ... In its 14-year aggression war against China, Japanese army and Japanese ...
http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/

Don’t know already mentioned (have not read much of thread) and in some ways it was not even a "battle" (thanks, in part, to Hitler's trusting astrological advice) but it was very decisive. The successful Dunkirk evacuation, which made it possible for US to later supply a still free England.

WWII would have turned out very different, if instead of stopping his tanks to conserve fuel (and to wait until the stars were more favorable) he had pushed forward, destroyed the British army, and soon there after conquered England and divided Eastern Europe with Stalin. - I.e. made peace on the "Eastern Front" to free up troops to occupy and control England.

WWII would have turned out very different, if instead of stopping his tanks to conserve fuel (and to wait until the stars were more favorable) he had pushed forward,
Err, or maybe because, as actually happened, Goering interceded on behalf of the Luftwaffe because he wanted the destruction of the Brits and French in the Dunkirk pocket to be an air force victory rather than the panzerwaffe's.

Just how many of those Islands were Japans National Territory before the Start of WWII? the Japanese seemed to have expanded as far south as New Guinea, and as far west as the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, and Wake Island, both U.S. territories. And when we ask them to leave nicely they told us the go fuck our honorable selves, now lets look at their expansions in the East, now those were blood baths, very cold blooded ones at that.

Japanese Army's Atrocities -- Nanjing Massacre
Factories of Death : Japanese Biological Warfare 1932-45 and the American Cover- ... and other atrocities committed by Japanese army in China during WW II. ...
http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/

Japanese War Crimes
This page is for the memorial of the victims of the Japanese atrocities in the ... In its 14-year aggression war against China, Japanese army and Japanese ...
http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/
exactly my point.

another pivotal battle, if you want to call it that, is the capture of a fully operational u-boat with a working enigma machine and codes.

Many battles were decisive to the outcome of WW11.

My pennies worth.

Kohima. Mostly unknown about. " Hold on at all cost " was the order.
All air transport of supplies were halted over the Himalaya's to China.
Kohima was the first battle to be entirely supplied by air.
The percentage losses were probably one of the highest.
Only about 200 survived ( My father was one ).

If it had fallen. India would have been wide open and probably would have greeted the Japanese as liberaters.

ya they dont, in fact I think you get a ticket or something if you mention the holocaust

omg that is stupid they done unspeakable evil and they don't even face up to it!

omg that is stupid they done unspeakable evil and they don't even face up to it!

If you are referring to the holocaust, it is drilled into all Germans 24/7 and it is a crime to question any aspect of the official (tm) version.

nonetheless, wouldn't you agree that those were some stupid mistakes? They ambition of the Germans got to their heads. Had he been smart (let's say he was wining) he should have first taken what he wants of Europe then sent all his forces at the Soviets

Some people think that Stalin was about to invade Germany which explains why Stalin had so many of his forces along the Polish border.

I dont think so. Stalin, unlike hitler, wasn't an idiot. Had he done what hitler had, he would've succeeded.

I dont think so. Stalin, unlike hitler, wasn't an idiot. Had he done what hitler had, he would've succeeded.

Well why did Stalin have a ton of his forces on the Polish border which the Germans blew the shit out of in the first couple weeks of the war including most of his air force? Was that a smart move on Stalin's part? Was it smart of Stalin to kill most of his best generals before the war? Was it smart of Stalin or Lenin to starve to death 7 million Ukranians who then hated Russia and initially welcomed the Germans as liberators?

Actually, every battle in WWII was the pivotal battle, they built one upon the other, and if any of them had gone different, the whole situation could have changed, a war is won by the constant pressure of battle against the enemy, some things go well others don't, but you can't judge the out come of a war on a single battle or campaign, as they are part of a whole that is victory, and it takes the ability to maintain the pressure of the battle against any enemy, and destroy his supplies, and cut him off from his supplies, and the financial support.
WWII was won in the last year of the war by the combined pressure of all of the battles that came before, and the absolute destruction of the Germans, oil, industrial, transportation, and economy, and most of this was due to the Bomber Campaign, and precession bombing of the U.S. Air Force, at the end of the war, Germany had no oil production, its manufacturing ability was non existent, they could not move the weapons that they produced, or the supplies that were needed by its army in the field, and their economy was in a shambles, so it all goes together, the Air War gave the ground forces the ability to move on the ground, which held the territory, so it and its resources were unavailable to the enemy, and the Navy kept the sea lanes open so we could supply our forces in the field, and deny the enemy from importing the raw materials needed to supply their war machine.

and most of this was due to the Bomber Campaign
German production INCREASED during the bomber campaign, and economically did very little harm. The bomber campaign (training of crews, building of large bombers, losses etc) actually cost the Allies approximately ten times more than the overall damage done to the Germans.
Not a cost-effective weapon at all...

Oli,

German production INCREASED during the bomber campaign, and economically did very little harm. The bomber campaign (training of crews, building of large bombers, losses etc) actually cost the Allies approximately ten times more than the overall damage done to the Germans.
Not a cost-effective weapon at all...

Until the mid 1944,

In the word of the Germans themselves.

http://karbuz.blogspot.com/2006/10/fuel-logistics-lesson-from-wwii.html

By July 1944 every major plant had been hit. These plants were producing an average of 316,000 tons per month when the attacks began. Their production fell to 107,000 tons in June and 17,000 tons in September. Output of aviation gasoline from synthetic plants dropped from 175,000 tons in April to 30,000 tons in July and 5,000 tons in September. Production recovered somewhat in November and December, but for the rest of the war was but a fraction of pre-attack output.

Leuna was the largest of the synthetic plants. From the first attack to the end, production at Leuna averaged 9 percent of capacity. To win the battle with Leuna a total of 6,552 bomber sorties were flown against the plant, 18,328 tons of bombs were dropped and an entire year was required.[5]

Generaleutnant Adolf Galland, Chief of Fighters, GAF: "In my opinion, it was the Allied bombing of our oil industries that had the greatest effect on the German war potential. Even our supplies for training new airmen were severely curtailed--we had plenty of planes from the autumn of 1944 on, and there were enough pilots up to the end of that year, but lack of petrol didn't permit the expansion of proper training to the air force as a whole.

General Jahn, Commander in Lombardy: "The attacks on the German transport system, coordinated with the serious losses in the fuel industry, had a paralyzing effect not only on the industries attacked but on all other German industries as well."

Generalmajor Albrecht von Massow, A.O.C. Training, GAF: "The attack on German oil production opened in 1944 was the largest factor of all in reducing Germany's war potential."

General Feldmarschall Karl Gerd von Rundstedt, Commander-in-Chief in the West before German surrender: "Three factors defeated us in the West where I was in command. First, the unheard-of superiority of your air force, which made all movement in daytime impossible. Second, the lack of motor fuel oil and gas -- so that the Panzers and even the remaining Luftwaffe were unable to move. Third, the systematic destruction of all railway communications so that it was impossible to bring one single railroad train across the Rhine. This made impossible the reshuffling of troops and robbed us of all mobility. Our production was also greatly interfered with by the loss of Silesia and bombardments of Saxony, as well as by the loss of oil reserves in Romania."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_ World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_production_during_WW2

Combat vehicle and aircraft production rose in '43 and '44 and had '45 not finished early for them they may well have increased even more.
The quotes about air force superiority and daylight travel being made impossible refer, of course, to fighters and fighter-bombers roaming over Europe, taking pot shots at anything they didn't like the look of - not the bomber campaign.

Nice example:
Leuna was the largest of the synthetic plants. From the first attack to the end, production at Leuna averaged 9 percent of capacity. To win the battle with Leuna a total of 6,552 bomber sorties were flown against the plant, 18,328 tons of bombs were dropped and an entire year was required.
And how much did that effort cost the Allies?

Oli, my quotes were from the German leadership, at the end of the war, as compiled in

The Air Campaign
Planning for Combat
by
Col John A. Warden III

And how much did that effort cost the Allies?

How much did it cost the Germans? they lost.

And if we'd put the money and effort into more tanks or fighters, or even medium bombers they would have lost sooner; or we could have just saved the money.
The bomber campaign as a campaign was a win for the Germans in terms of effort put in for results achieved.

Oli, please enlighten us with your wisdom, citation of fact is needed,

And if we'd put the money and effort into more tanks or fighters, or even medium bombers they would have lost sooner; or we could have just saved the money.

And pray tell how? if Germany had the oil it would have had the ability to move it forces, and the infrastructure to do so, the industry to supply and keep their forces supplied in the field. Yes the production levels rose right up to 1944 but after that it fell like a rock, the information is available if you take the time to find it.

The medium bomber didn't have the delivery weight to cause the destruction level that a Heavy bomber was capable of, it didn't have the range to even hit Germany, and if we had stayed with the mediums we would have had the same problem that the Germans had, they couldn't interfere with the production capabilities of Great Britain, let alone reach the U.S., and the U.S. was producing as many aircraft a month as Germany was a year. Producing in a year the amounts of tanks, as the Germans produced through out the war, and more ships during the war than Germany ever had in their fleets. You don't have any idea of just how much the U.S. produced by its self, it out produced all of the rest of the allies on its own.


The bomber campaign as a campaign was a win for the Germans in terms of effort put in for results achieved.

Have you looked at the pictures of the German cities after the war? the campaign was a win for the allies, it was a decisive part of the whole campaign, and with out it the war would have lasted till today.

Now your opinion is nice but how about backing them up with some research? and citation?

Kohima. Mostly unknown about. " Hold on at all cost " was the order. All air transport of supplies were halted over the Himalaya's to China. Kohima was the first battle to be entirely supplied by air. ... If it had fallen. India would have been wide open and probably would have greeted the Japanese as liberaters.Was this related to the closed "Burma road" /construction of the "Lido Road" re-connect? Note Burma Road is back in the news and important again - see my thread: "Burma Road with trucks again."

The bomber campaign as a campaign was a win for the Germans in terms of effort put in for results achieved.
no, it wasn't.
it wasn't a win for the allies either.

the bombings were effective, but only because we were able to put 1000s of planes in the air. a 1000 plane bombing raid was not uncommon in the latter stages of the war. we not only had to use 1000s of planes but also resorted to carpet bombing.

Strategic bombing for sure is not worth the "effort" however to deny it had any effect on German production or logistics is quite ignorant.

Also even if 4 resources(or more even) were used to kill off 1 equivalent german resource, "Bomber Harris" was all for it.

Yes, I agree that if they even took half the production of level bombers and put it into typhoons/mosquitos/Thunderbolts/lightnings etc.... would have paid far larger dividends and also made for less money spent to rebuild a destroyed Germany after the war.

Strategic bombing really should have been limited to truely "strategic" targets, Oil, fuel dumps, refineries.

leopold99

but also resorted to carpet bombing.

I would like to see the citation for this, in Japan yes we did carpet bombing, but we also maintained precision bombing of industrial targets, but in Europe it was precision all the way. The British were doing carpet bombing, their aircraft were developed for it massive bomb loads, and they attacked after dark.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/lastraid.htm

Troubled or not, the bomb-loaders went on with the job. A few hours later, 131 of the long silver planes with even longer wings set out for Toyokawa; 37 others went to mine the Shimonoseki Straits. ("I have listened to intelligence officers briefing pilots on how to approach Japanese cities whose names they could scarcely pronounce," Murphy mused. "In the morning those cities were gone.") On Wednesday, August 8, 412 Superforts voyaged to Yawata, Fukuyama, and Tokyo. On Thursday, 95 bombed an oil refinery at Amagasaki, and Bock's Car dropped a plutonium bomb on Nagasaki.


Amazon.com: The Last Mission: The Secret History of World War II's ...
More than a fascinating firsthand report of the last bombing mission over Japan, ... After a moratorium on bombing raids over Japan, the raids began again. ...
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Mission-Secret-History-Battle/dp/0767907787

Yes the production levels rose right up to 1944 but after that it fell like a rock, the information is available if you take the time to find it.
Of course it did. For one reason we were over-running their territory and production facilities and the thing was over after a few months of '45.
The medium bomber didn't have the delivery weight to cause the destruction level that a Heavy bomber was capable of,
But cost for cost mediums could drop more bombs. A mossie was quite capable of carrying a 4000 lb cookie.
Producing in a year the amounts of tanks, as the Germans produced through out the war, and more ships during the war than Germany ever had in their fleets. You don't have any idea of just how much the U.S. produced by its self, it out produced all of the rest of the allies on its own.
So what. We're talking about the cost-effectiveness of the bomber campaign.
Have you looked at the pictures of the German cities after the war? the campaign was a win for the allies...
Not when viewed from what it cost us in raw materials, production capability. man power and losses compared to what it cost the Germans.
...it was a decisive part of the whole campaign, and with out it the war would have lasted till today.
You mean destruction of towns won the war? Is that why Britain surrendered during the Blitz? Oh wait, we didn't.
we not only had to use 1000s of planes but also resorted to carpet bombing.
We HAD to resort to carpet bombing because the accuracy was so crap.
As for sources, you've got me. I had the book on my hard drive as a pdf. Read it two years ago and now I can't find it. But there were several long-running discussions that contributed to my feelings on this (including relative costs of manufacture etc) here:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

As soon as I find the book again I'll give the title etc. Damn! I hope i haven't deleted it.

nietzschefan

Strategic bombing really should have been limited to truely "strategic" targets, Oil, fuel dumps, refineries

Look at the target list for the Army Air Forces in Europe for WWII, that is exactly what they went after.

but we also maintained precision bombing of industrial targets, but in Europe it was precision all the way
Oh yeah?
Germany’s Armaments Minister, Albert Speer commented that ‘The RAF night attacks are considerably more effective than the US daylight attacks, since heavier bombs are used, an extraordinary accuracy in attacking the target is reported.’
In European weather, Bomber Command ended the war achieving better accuracy than the USAAF’s supposedly daylight precision bombing campaign.
from http://www.ospreypublishing.com/content2.php/cid=66
"Precision bombing" was not what happened, except on odd occasions.
And also from the same site:
In the end, the Strategic Bomber Campaign did eventually bear fruit, and it did make a major contribution to the eventual Allied victory. But many assessments question the extent of its contribution, and highlight its failings and cost. Many believe that had the same level of resources been dedicated to fighter-bomber and tactical bomber operations, the results might have been even more spectacular.
My italics - I'm one of those that believe it.
And the "Accuracy of level bombing. Who knew?" thread at http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ gives many figures for "accuracy" hits on the intended target were flukes as often as not...

leopold99
I would like to see the citation for this,
The phrase carpet bombing refers to the use of large numbers of unguided gravity bombs, often with a high proportion of incendiary bombs, to attempt the complete destruction of a target region, either to destroy personnel and materiel, or as a means of demoralizing the enemy (see terror bombing)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_bombing

one word comes to mind: dresden.

Oli

But cost for cost mediums could drop more bombs. A mossie was quite capable of carrying a 4000 lb cookie.

One Bomb, and the accuracy level? why do you think the U.S. went to the mass formation and drop on lead?

B-24
BOMB LOAD
5,000 lbs on a normal range of 2,850 miles or 12,800 lbs(!) on shorter missions

B-25
Range: 1,350 miles (2173 km)
Bomb Load: 3,000lb (1361 kg)

B-26
Range: 1,150 miles (1851 km) with 3,000 lb (1361 kg) of bombs
Bomb Load: 4,000lb (1818 kg)

Now remember combat range is less half of total range.
The cost of producing a medium was not that much less than a heavy, and it would take 4 mediums to replace the carry load of one B-24, at any range, so how would that be more cost effective, and the fact is that the mediums couldn't even reach many of the targets that needed to be hit, they didn't have the ability to absorb the damage a heavy could and return with the crew, a heavy could loose one or two engines and make it back, a medium loose two engines and guess were you end up, POW city. Remember the cost of training a combat crew, and the loss of experienced crews.
That is what really killed the Luftwaffe, and the Japanese air force, the loss of their experienced crews, and the lack of fuel to train replacements.

...We HAD to resort to carpet bombing because the accuracy was so crap....Quite possibly true. I do not know, but there was this WWII bomber man at work who never tired of telling about the "Norden bomb sight." He looked thru it and was in control of the plane. - Telling the pilot how to fly (he said) on the final bombing run. The cross hairs were spider web, etc. on and on he went. Was he full of it? If yes, it was just ignorance as to the results he and others were achieving - I am sure he believe we won the war with precision day-light bombing.

Was he full of it?
yes and no.
the norden sight was a great improvement over naked scopes. it was even touted as being able to drop a bomb on a dime. in actuality it was not precise, bombs hardly ever hit their targets, the major reason we had to put large numbers of aircraft over a target

leopold99

And if you take the time to do the research, you will find that the British carpet bombed at night and the U.S. went after the marshaling yards and transportation hubs during the day.

leopold99

And if you take the time to do the research,
why do you keep telling me this buffalo?

why did the british decide on night raids?

answer is because they believed in low level bombing.
they suffered terribly because of it.
this is the reason they switched to night raids.
now, do the research and prove it wrong.

Oli

The quotes about air force superiority and daylight travel being made impossible refer, of course, to fighters and fighter-bombers roaming over Europe, taking pot shots at anything they didn't like the look of - not the bomber campaign.

And in the words of:

General Feldmarschall Karl Gerd von Rundstedt, Commander-in-Chief in the West before German surrender: "Three factors defeated us in the West where I was in command. First, the unhear