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 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."

2 and 3 need the heavy bomber to accomplish, the mediums couldn't carry the bomb weight, and they didn't have the range, even the British recognized that the medium wasn't big enough, they went to the Lancaster, Halifax, Sterling.

One Bomb, and the accuracy level?
Accurate enough to take out a particular bridge with ONE aircraft after continued mass bombing, or destroy a prison wall without damaging the building behind it so that POWs could escape...

2 and 3 need the heavy bomber to accomplish
Actually number 3, the destruction of railways, was mostly Typhoons and P-47 interdicting rail traffic...

Oli, no Oli, the P-47 and Typhoon could destroy rolling stock, but they couldn't destroy a marshaling yard, it took aprox. 4 hours to repair a section of track hit by a 500 lb. bomb, it took weeks to repair a switching yard after a heavy strike, you have to move your stock to make the deliveries, and the Germans took to moving their stuff only at night, the P-47 and Typhoon could not operate at night, I don't belittle the tactical, I have great respect for the tactical pilot,but he could not achieve the Strategic, look at the Germans in the battle of France, they had full tactical, but they lacked strategic, and the British evacuated Dunkirk, won the Battle of Britain, and continued the war, and developed their strategic forces and with the Americans destroyed the Third Reich.

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."

No. Kohima was a rail head. Ledo/Lido Road is farther north..

Mostly constructed by Black Americans as a matter of interest.

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.

Not the only reason..

America produced from vast numbers of aircraft and had limited time training of crews.. especially navigators..

Thus daylight flying Follow that plane ( usually a brit )

Oli, no Oli, the P-47 and Typhoon could destroy rolling stock, but they couldn't destroy a marshaling yard
But the quote states "bring one single railroad train across the Rhine" i.e. destruction of rolling stock, not marshalling yards - therefore TacAir.

I'd say the most pivotal battle of World War II was the Propoganda Battle, and winning over the media and press........clearly our experience since has shown this to be central to winning a war.

...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 targetThat old WWII guy did admit that sometimes they missed "a little," but only because the weather guys gave them the wrong wind data.

Oli

But the quote states "bring one single railroad train across the Rhine" i.e. destruction of rolling stock, not marshalling yards - therefore TacAir.

Have you ever looked at the rail maps of any country, they all hub at cities, taking a train across the country is not like driving a car, they have to be scheduled, so there aren't two trains on a single track going in opposet directions.
The rolling stock have to be loaded, bundled, and staged on the proper sides for the Engines to pick them up. And then they are headed out to the lines, and on to the next yard.
At the next yard, they unload, switch cars for other destinations, pick up new cars for their next destination, and the situation is the same as I described above, as to the loading, bundling, and staging,
And it is still a fact that to effectively stop rail transportation, you have to destroy the Marshelling yards, yes you can intrdict the lines, but that is a simple repair for the repair crews, a single track, at most 2 or 3 , a area of 15 to 20 yards of line.
In a yard if you care to look are hundreds of lines side by side, hundreds of switching points, hundreds of switches, the repaire yards, the turn tables to help the engines change direction, the loading areas and ramps, the unloading areas, and a masisve ammount of material on rolling stock, and in short term storage prior to shippment.
And it still is a fact that from the Middle of 1944, June, that all production of the Third Reich fell preciptiously, and the reason for that was the steadly increasing stratigic bombing of the German means of production, at the end of the war the industries of Germany had ceased to produce anything.It is something that you don't whish to understand, you don't win a war all at once, it is a process, of many small, and continous, and cordinated thing that finally result in victory, and the ability to provide the gass, oil, and material to move and supply your troops in the field, to win a war all of these things have to be accomplished, and at the same time, in cordanation, so that is my point that all of the battles in WWII were pivitoal, and that everything that was developed, tactics and materials, was needed to win the war.

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#tgwe

The Attack on Oil

With the reduction of German air power, oil became the priority target in the German economy. The bomber force for several months had been adequate for the task. A preliminary attack was launched on May 12, 1944, followed by another on May 28; the main blow was not struck, however, until after D-day.

The German oil supply was tight throughout the war, and was a controlling factor in military operations. The chief source of supply, and the only source for aviation gasoline, was 13 synthetic plants together with a small production from three additional ones that started operations in 1944. The major sources of products refined from crude oil were the Ploesti oil fields in Rumania and the Hungarian fields which together accounted for about a quarter of the total supply of liquid fuels in 1943. In addition, there was a small but significant Austrian and domestic production. The refineries at Ploesti were attacked, beginning with a daring and costly low-level attack in August 1943. These had only limited effects; deliveries increased until April 1944 when the attacks were resumed. The 1944 attacks, together with mining of the Danube, materially reduced Rumanian deliveries. In August 1944, Russian occupation eliminated this source of supply and dependence on the synthetic plants became even greater than before.

Production from the synthetic plants declined steadily and 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.

November 20. Although there were 6 more heavy attacks in November and December (largely ineffective because of adverse weather), production was brought up to 15 percent of capacity in January and was maintained at that level until nearly the end of the war. From the first attack to the end, production at Leuna averaged 9 percent of capacity.

Consumption of oil exceeded production from May 1944 on. Accumulated stocks were rapidly used up, and in six months were practically exhausted. The loss of oil production was sharply felt by the armed forces. In August the final run-in-time for aircraft engines was cut from two hours to one-half hour. For lack of fuel, pilot training, previously cut down, was further curtailed. Through the summer, the movement of German Panzer Divisions in the field was hampered more and more seriously as a result of losses in combat and mounting transportation difficulties, together with the fall in fuel production. By December, according to Speer, the fuel shortage had reached catastrophic proportions. When the Germans launched their counter-offensive on December 16, 1944, their reserves of fuel were insufficient to support the operation. They counted on capturing Allied stocks. Failing in this, many panzer units were lost when they ran out of gasoline. In February and March of 1945 the Germans massed 1,200 tanks on the Baranov bridgehead at the Vistula to check the Russians. They were immobilized for lack of gasoline and overrun.

Further Dividends From the Oil Attack

The attack on the synthetic oil plants was also found to have cost Germany its synthetic nitrogen and methanol supply and a considerable part of its rubber supply.

Germany, like other industrial countries, relied on synthesis for its supply of nitrogen and the synthetic oil plants were by far the largest producers. Sixty percent of the nitrogen production and 40 percent of the methanol production came from two synthetic plants. Monthly output of synthetic nitrogen in early 1944, before the synthetic plants were attacked, was about 75,000 tons. It had been reduced by the end of the year to about 20,000 tons.

Nitrogen, besides being indispensable for explosives, is heavily used in German agriculture. Allocation for the 1943-44 crop year was 54 percent of the total supply; allocation for 1944-45 was first planned at 25 percent and later eliminated altogether. Nitrogen for munitions was maintained by reducing the allocation to agriculture, but by the end of 1944 this cushion had been substantially exhausted. The supply of explosives then declined with the reduction in supply of nitrogen. It became necessary to fill shells with a
mixture of explosives and non-explosive rock salt extender. There was a general shortage of ammunition on all fronts at the end of the war. There was an equally serious shortage of flak ammunition; units manning flak guns were instructed not to fire on planes unless they were attacking the installations which the guns were specifically designated to protect and unless "they were sure of hitting the planes!"

All of this was as a result of Stratigic Bombing, and Stratigic Bombing affected the out come of the fighting on the front lines.

And it is still a fact that to effectively stop rail transportation, you have to destroy the Marshelling yards, yes you can intrdict the lines, but that is a simple repair for the repair crews, a single track, at most 2 or 3 , a area of 15 to 20 yards of line.
But if you read your books it was the TRAINS themselves that were hit, not the lines...

Oli

But if you read your books it was the TRAINS themselves that were hit, not the lines...

And if you also read the books it didn't take long for the Germans to switch to moving their trains only at night, and the Germans had hundreds of thousands of slave laborers to repair the tracks in hours, stationed around occupied Europe and Germany, and it took Hundreds of thousands of personnel to repair the marshalling yards,and weeks to repair the damage, again yes the Tac Air kept thing from moving during the day, but it took Strategic Air to keep it from moving at all, or have anything worth moving.

And if you also read the books it didn't take long for the Germans to switch to moving their trains only at night
Yep, as YOU quoted:
First, the unheard-of superiority of your air force, which made all movement in daytime impossible.

Oli

Yep, as YOU quoted:

“ First, the unheard-of superiority of your air force, which made all movement in daytime impossible. ”

Hay your learning! So how to stop the movement at night? hit the marshalling yards, and nothing moves, day or night, and that takes strategic heavy bombers.

So how to stop the movement at night? hit the marshalling yards, and nothing moves, day or night, and that takes strategic heavy bombers.
For a disproportionate cost it could be done...

Oli

For a disproportionate cost it could be done...

1, You have the numbers to prove this, a cost analysis? please provide such?

2, Wars are not fought as a cost effective enterprise, they are fought to win at any cost, if you want to win you pay the cost.

3, We won the war by doing exactly what we did, and how we did it, that is a proven fact and your and anybody else's after the fact, monday morning quarterbacking don't mean jack shit, your is the might have been, not the as it was done successfully, by people with far more experience than you will ever have in solving the problems of winning a war.

Actually found the book:
Britain 1939-1945: The Economic Cost Of Strategic Bombing, guy called Fahey. He applied actuarial methods to the whole bomber campaign and concluded that not only was it ineffective cost-wise (money, men and material) but that it also destroyed the British economy and held back post-war recovery. That's about as brief a summary I can provide of the 500 pages he wrote.
I believe there is the pdf available on the net somewhere if you want to read it.

by people with far more experience than you will ever have in solving the problems of winning a war.
Actually that's crap - at the time no-one had the requisite experience, otherwise we'd have done far far better. Most of the war effort was ad-hoc reactions to the situation at the time. If it wasn't so we'd have been far better prepared...

Oli

Actually that's crap - at the time no-one had the requisite experience, otherwise we'd have done far far better. Most of the war effort was ad-hoc reactions to the situation at the time. If it wasn't so we'd have been far better prepared...

No your assertions is crap, you are trying to refight a successful battle with no proof that your way would win, and the funny thing is that since WWII no one has won a war with tactical bombing, we didn't do it in Vietnam, the Russians didn't do it in Afghanistan, the Israeli didn't do it in Lebanon, the closest was in Korea, and their we use strategic bombing, and we won a peace, but once we stopped strategic bombing it became a stale mate.

As for Mr.John Fahey, he included many thing that weren't involved in the strategic bomber mission, such as, Firms Financed by Government Capital SchemesCumulative Total of Capital Commitment for Buildings, Officers Mess, Nissan Hut, Water Tower, British Tanker Losses 1939-1945, Registered Heavy Goods Vehicles in Britain, 1937-1945 all of these would either have been expended because of the need for 4 mediums to replace one heavy, or what is the connection of British Tanker Losses with the cost of the Bomber war? those tankers would have been lost any way, and what would this have to do with the bomber war at all?

No your assertions is crap, you are trying to refight a successful battle with no proof that your way would win,
No we're saying that cost of the bombing effort outweighed its advantages..

As for Mr.John Fahey, he included many thing that weren't involved in the strategic bomber mission, such as, Firms Financed by Government Capital SchemesCumulative Total of Capital Commitment for Buildings, Officers Mess, Nissan Hut, Water Tower, British Tanker Losses 1939-1945, Registered Heavy Goods Vehicles in Britain, 1937-1945 all of these would either have been expended because of the need for 4 mediums to replace one heavy, or what is the connection of British Tanker Losses with the cost of the Bomber war? those tankers would have been lost any way, and what would this have to do with the bomber war at all?
Because all of those things were needed for the strategic bomber effort.. he looked at THE OVERALL COST to the country of mounting the bomber campaign. Read the damn book. :D

Oli



Hay your learning! So how to stop the movement at night? hit the marshalling yards, and nothing moves, day or night, and that takes strategic heavy bombers.

Nonsense, He was talking about Germans tanks etc had to move at night or under overcast because fighter bombers would interdict movement.

You are talking about interdicting movement by rail. Don't cherry pick comments you are knowledgeable enough to not have to do that.

Oli

Because all of those things were needed for the strategic bomber effort.. he looked at THE OVERALL COST to the country of mounting the bomber campaign. Read the damn book.

All of those thing would be required to run a war anyway, I have read large amounts of the book over night and this morning, his numbers and conclusions are crap, as to much of what he list as cost would have been expended any way, and to accomplish the destruction necessary to the enemy with mediums and tactical air would have required 4 time the numbers of mediums and tactical aircraft to do the job, so were its the cost saving? Two mediums use more fuel on a long mission with less bomb load than One heavy does on a longer mission and with more throw weight.

You are talking about interdicting movement by rail. Don't cherry pick comments you are knowledgeable enough to not have to do that.

I will talk about the Bomber War on Oil, Manufacturing, Military supply points, what ever you wish to bring up, but it is still the same, mediums, and tactical, didn't have the range, or the bomb load to destroy the oil production capability, manufacturing centers, or transportation facilities of the German Home land, and to defeat Germanys forces in the field we had to interfere in the Manufacturing, of their fuel supplies, war material, and their deliver and distribution systems, they could not reach Germany with a use full bomb load.

Please explain how not interfering with the production of oil would help end the war, if the Germans had uninterrupted fuel supplies they would have had the fuel to use all of those Fighters, and Tanks, move their troops in the field, and produce the ammunitions and explosives, needed by their forces in the field, They would have had enough gas to increase their pilot training programs, keep their fighter over the front line, to intercept the Tactical and Medium Bomber over the front lines, and keep them from interfering with the trains, oil production, manufacturing, the reason that the tactical fighters were so successful was the fact that much of the German air force was occupied with trying to stop the Heavy Bombers, The fact is most of the German Luftwaffe was committed to stopping the Heavy Bomber forces, and protect the oil and manufacturing centers, and transportation centers, to be able to contest the tactical fighters effectively, we spread them to the point were they couldn't cover all of the points of attack, and the final pay off was after June of 1944 the Germans ran out of fuel, That made it imposable for them to put Aircraft into the air, Move their tanks, move their Troops, re-supply their troops, move manufactured war supplies to their troops in the field, and the destruction of the rail yards meant that they couldn't load those supplies, switch the trains to get to their destinations, around the country, or even have the rolling stock to do so, repaired that rolling stock for use, because the repair facilities are at the yard, and the heavy bombers had totally destroyed those targets, it all was needed to defeat the Germans, it was all necessary, and if you want to you can after the fact prove that anything could be done better, but the problem is that you are doing so after the Fact, as a Monday Morning Quarterback, who already knows the out come of the War, now lets see you do it under the gun, with the war and the deaths, and the destruction going on around you every day, every hour, of the war, under the pressure of the now not at your leisure with all the facts known. The fact is that the War was won with the method we instituted, and your is the might of been, a wet dream that you have that you could have done better, the fact is that you can't even prove that your method would have won the war, and in the years after WWII their hasn't been a war that has bee won with Tactical Air, they all have been draws, or just held in abeyance until one of the party's is ready to resume the war again, so all of your squawking is just bull shit, because you have no real world examples to prove that your wet dream would win a war.

Oli


“ Because all of those things were needed for the strategic bomber effort.. he looked at THE OVERALL COST to the country of mounting the bomber campaign. Read the damn book.

All those thing are needed to run a war, not just a bomber campaign.

Read the book: everything he took into account was DIRECTLY attributable to heavy bombers - better load-bearing runways etc.
I have read large amounts of the book over night and this morning, his numbers and conclusions are crap,
Wow, now who's second-guessing?

Read the book: everything he took into account was DIRECTLY attributable to heavy bombers - better load-bearing runways etc.

Wow, now who's second-guessing?

Both you and He, after the fact, after we won the war, you have no proof that yours and his supposition would have worked, His conclusions are a work of fantasy, they have not been proven in reality, in combat, in war, everything is nothing but the fantasy of a man who wanted to make some money and advanced his theory on how the war might have been run more efficiently, Don't you get it, wasn't done in the real world, under real conditions, with all of the marbles on the line, and that if your wrong your country will be destroyed, your family will be enslaved, and there would be a great possibility that you would end up on the Train to Auschwitz.

Oli

May be this will make a dent in you cranium, If the war had been done as he suggested, and won, I could come in and using the numbers from the running of the war to prove that it would have been more cost effective to have had heavy bomber to end the war earlier, it can be done with any subject, as long as your don't have to do it in reality, you can use the numbers to say anything you want, and prove anything that you want, but does it work in reality, that is the one thing that you and he cannot prove because it didn't happen that way in reality, the war was won with heavy strategic bombing, so in the end it was cost effective, Why?you say? because we won that is why, it worked.

battle of al almain sry if i spelt it wrong

Changed my mind. Not Dunkirk, probably Khalkin-Ghol.
I was thinking too much from a western perspective at the time.

Al-Amein? No way. For one, the results would not have been extremely pivotal, since North Africa was only a sideshow.

Khalkin-Gol? Wasn't the Nomonhan "incident" prior to WWII?

Axis El Alemein victory would have possibly led to closing of Suez to Allies(and OPENING FOR AXIS!!!), Drive up to Turkey, Iraq and Persia. The result could have been Turkey declaring on the axis side and possible Iraq(or conquest), and Persia probably would have given aid to Axis as well. If not, a route to India(the Rommel fantasy scenario).

In Europe, I can understand why Stalingrad was the most pivotal battle. The Germans pretty much lost their entire Sixth Army and their Caucasus front pretty much halted.

Although, Stalingrad proponents have to understand that after Stalingrad, the Soviets lost a major battle at Kharkov, which enabled the Germans to recover their confidence. I believe the Germans were outnumbered in this battle, especially their tanks, yet Manstein still defeated the Soviets under Golikov and Vatutin.

This set the stage for Kursk, the last great German offensive attack against Soviets.

I don't know honestly, both are equally pivotal in hindsight. It could go either way.

Khalkin-Gol? Wasn't the Nomonhan "incident" prior to WWII?
Barely. Khalkin-Gol was fought in August 1939, the "official" start of WW2 was September 1st. The Russo-Japanese conflict had been going on for months before this as well.
Again, world war two is viewed primarily from a European (and/or American) perspective where in fact the most of the participants had been in conflict for some time before that.

Fought a month before the official start of world war two, you cannot deny Khalkin Ghol's ultimate impact on the war. Would Japan have ever attacked the USA had they held out and been able to expand into Eastern Russia?
Russia would have faced not only the Nazis but Japan in the east, therefore Stalingrad would have had a completely different outcome, the Urals would have been directly endangered, thus limiting Russian war production... the possibilities are myriad.

If you're going to be nitpicky regarding dates I'll stay with Dunkirk - again, long term effect seems to be something which most posters here have very little idea of. Britain's crisis management and eventual ability to stay in the European war had serious long term consequences on Germany's ability to carry out a prolonged conflict with Russia, although not generally recognised by the Nazis at the time.
Had Britain been forced to surrender, it is questionable whether or not the USA would ever have entered the European war, and without US participation ,and British stubborness in remaining a threat, Nazi Germany would have been in a better position to conquer Russia than they actually were. I've already mentioned the pilot casualty ratios (more in Britain's favour than in the Battle of Britain which followed) and the effect this had on the Luftwaffe in the long term - in particular on the Battle of Britain itself.
There are times when a defeat is actually a victory.

Stalingrad, an oft suggested "pivotal" battle, was certainly important but so many prior factors contributed to its outcome that I cannot consider it be pivotal in its own right.

Fenris Wolf

Well thought, well put.

i know this may sound a stupid question, but did rusians use gurila tactics becuase i heard it's near enough imposible for an army to beat that kind of warfair.

It's impossible for any modern army to fight guerillas because they do not conquer any longer... they invade, and then attempt to apply bandaids.

It's impossible for any modern army to fight guerillas because they do not conquer any longer... they invade, and then attempt to apply bandaids.

I'm not sure what you've said in the above. Who does not conquer any longer?

However, with the assertion that modern armies can't defeat guerilla forces is because guerilla forces don't capture and hold land area ...they just kill people, then run away and hide. What's to "defeat"?

Guerillas are like someone who whacks you on the back of the head with a big club, then runs away before you can recover and fight back. He's wounded you, sure, but what has he won? ...the satisfaction of hitting you on the head?

What did he gain by whacking you on the head? Ahh, but if he keeps whacking you from behind and running away, soon you might get tired of being whacked on the head and leave the area.

But you'll notice that even if you leave the area, and he moves in to take over the country, he then has taken property ....so you can move your army back into the country and drive him back out. See? With guerilla forces, they can't capture and hold territory/property ....they're just little kids whacking you behind your back and running away.

Baron Max

I'm not sure what you've said in the above. Who does not conquer any longer?

However, with the assertion that modern armies can't defeat guerilla forces is because guerilla forces don't capture and hold land area ...they just kill people, then run away and hide. What's to "defeat"?

Guerillas are like someone who whacks you on the back of the head with a big club, then runs away before you can recover and fight back. He's wounded you, sure, but what has he won? ...the satisfaction of hitting you on the head?

What did he gain by whacking you on the head? Ahh, but if he keeps whacking you from behind and running away, soon you might get tired of being whacked on the head and leave the area.

But you'll notice that even if you leave the area, and he moves in to take over the country, he then has taken property ....so you can move your army back into the country and drive him back out. See? With guerilla forces, they can't capture and hold territory/property ....they're just little kids whacking you behind your back and running away.

Baron Max

You're still of the conventional military thinking, which is good for fighting large divisions of a national army in an open field battle, but guerrilla warfare is entirely different.

It is one reason why the US military cannot defeat the insurgency (currently), despite fighting them for 4 or 5 years. Any other military would've folded by now (e.g. China's or North Korea's army).

I'm assuming you're not a fan of the Chindits, Lawrence of Arabia's Arab Irregulars during WWI, and our very own Green Berets.

..., but guerrilla warfare is entirely different.

You didn't read my post at all, did you? Or if you did, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.

It is one reason why the US military cannot defeat the insurgency (currently), ...

The US is not trying to defeat the insurgency, it's trying to quell the Muslim-against-Muslim violence and death. It's trying to prop up the Iraqis so they can defend themselves without our help.

Baron Max

You didn't read my post at all, did you? Or if you did, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.

No, you play down guerrilla warfare as if it is insignificant, and this statement of yours proves it:

Guerillas are like someone who whacks you on the back of the head with a big club, then runs away before you can recover and fight back. He's wounded you, sure, but what has he won? ...the satisfaction of hitting you on the head?

If that's all you view guerrilla warfare, you're playing it down. Which is why I'm saying you're of the conventional military type, which isn't meant as an insult at all. Remember, you're the one who also doesn't believe in the "hearts and minds" campaign either, so it's no wonder guerrilla warfare doesn't wet your whistle. But as I said, that's not a bad thing. Conventional warfare is very important.


The US is not trying to defeat the insurgency, it's trying to quell the Muslim-against-Muslim violence and death. It's trying to prop up the Iraqis so they can defend themselves without our help.

And to quell the Muslim-on-Muslim violence and prop up the Iraqis, they are trying to defeat the insurgency, which is the biggest threat to the Iraqi government.

Anyways, that can be discussed in another thread. Totally off-topic.

well wont't gurila tacitcs pull an army out as u say hit and run eventuly they will pull out becuase of the inafectivness of ocuying the country and not geting no were?

well wont't gurila tacitcs pull an army out as u say hit and run eventuly they will pull out becuase of the inafectivness of ocuying the country and not geting no were?

No, not necessarily. I mean, in a smaller sense, criminals in large metro cities are like guerilla forces ...would you suggest that the police "pull out"?

The Indians of America were a guerilla force for hundreds of years. Would you have suggested that the settlers "pull out"?

Guerillas are nothing more than criminals against a society or nation. To call them anything else is wrong or delusional or, worse, rooting for them because they're the underdog going up against a larger force.

Guerillas can be defeated in any number of ways if one wishes to use those methods of warfare. [deleted trolling/baiting comment]

Baron Max

yea but it is hard

yea but it is hard

Oh, well, geez, we wouldn't want to do anything that was hard, would we? Let's just let the criminals take over in New York City 'cause it's just too hard to fight it?

Baron Max

No, not necessarily. I mean, in a smaller sense, criminals in large metro cities are like guerilla forces ...would you suggest that the police "pull out"?

The Indians of America were a guerilla force for hundreds of years. Would you have suggested that the settlers "pull out"?

Guerillas are nothing more than criminals against a society or nation. To call them anything else is wrong or delusional or, worse, rooting for them because they're the underdog going up against a larger force.

Guerillas can be defeated in any number of ways if one wishes to use those methods of warfare. [deleted trolling/baiting comment]

Baron Max

Again proving my point.

I guess according to you, Americans and British were criminals, because they also ran guerrilla campaigns. Google "Office of Strategic Services" for the US and "Special Operations Executive" for the British during WW2. In fact, the OSS helped train Communist guerrillas in China (Red Army) and Vietnam (Viet Minh). OMG! NO WAY!

Guerrilla warfare was used during the American Civil War.

The US (under Reagan) even funded guerrilla contras against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

Why do you hate America so much? ;) :p

Guerilla warfare helped Jewish forces/terrorists (or "criminals" by your definition) successfully fight for independence from the British to create the Israeli state. Google "Lehi" and "Irgun".

tht guy al i was saying is it is fuck hared to defeat that kinda tactic and moving back to the point if britian had been invaded u rekon that they would have fought on in that way?

moving back to the point if britian had been invaded u rekon that they would have fought on in that way?
There was provision made for what were called "stay behind groups". Weapons caches, special training in insurgency and demolition, etc. in case Seelowe ever actually happened.

aka dad's army the somthink army dam it i forgot the name thts it the home guard.

Different thing altogether. Home Guard/ LDV/ Dad's Army were people too young, too old or too unfit to join the regulars. The stay behind groups were all volunteers of military age, no uniform, no parades. Trained as guerrillas for the one event.

wow those brits were stuborn makes me proud :) to be english

if britian had fell poentrialy the end to world as we know it

if american hadent had come we wouldent have won the way but we would not have lost it.

I think it was Pearl Harbor. If that hadn't happened Germany might have had a fighting chance. After that they were doomed.

Kursk was the turning point, where the red army got rolling, stalingrad was just a
needle in the foot of the blitzkreig.

I think it was Pearl Harbor. If that hadn't happened Germany might have had a fighting chance. After that they were doomed.

Germany would have been screwed either way. If the US hadn't entered after pearl harbour however, the outcome with Japan would have been unknown.

It's revealing to read the first page of a thread and then the sinuous route the discussion flows after that. It's akin to picking 'the most decisive battle'..so much depends on other variables and 'what ifs'.

I'd weigh in on Stalingrad. It may or may not be the battle that broke the German military machine physically but it did so morale wise. Back in the early 1970's I was a student overseas in Germany and spoke with a couple German WW2 vets who were on the Eastern Front. The loss at Stalingrad was a pysychological blow. The defeat did not mean that there would not be total German victory against the allies (that as in doubt already) but it did mean there could actually be a German defeat. German soldiers and the nation suddenly came face to face with the potential of the unspeakable...loss to the Soviets and all it could entail for one's own family.

Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, etc. are difficult to measure because the consequences of other alternatives never playing out. Although he Battle of Britain was 'mostly'a victory for the allies it's unclear what a loss would have meant. Despite the propaganda at the time, it's very questionable if the Germans could have mounted any serious invasion of the UK. Germany just didn't have the naval capability and not a fraction of the power that the allies had in 1944 in Normandy. Some historians see Operation Sea Lion as a non-starter and would have been a disaster for the Germans.

I'll pick Stalingrad. In the Pacific War I don't pick any battle (not even Midway, Coral Sea etc.) because the Americans had so much infrastructure and techological superiority that they could have regrouped and regrouped as necessary. Perhaps the most disastrous defeat for the Japanese in WW2 was their limited victory, Pearl Harbor...it sealed Japan's fate.

Good Post(I agree with the Pacific war - it was won with the oil embargo), Welcome to the Forum.

Good Post(I agree with the Pacific war - it was won with the oil embargo), ....

Huh? Right up to the end, the Japanese navy was still sailing their ships, using oil fired boilers, and the factories were building more ships and airplanes, using oil for fuel and generating electricity.

What are you talking about? ...oil embargo?? Please explain.

Baron Max

I don't think the intent of the posting was that Japan was depraved of petroleum but that the freezing of Japanese assets was an economic act of aggression (a necesary one) by the USA against the Japanese Empire. Japanese assets were frozen and precluded import of petroleum products from (Dutch) Indonesia, etc.

The die was cast. The USA was drawing a line in the sand after Japanese aggression in Munchuria, Indochina, etc. Dean Achenson convinced FDR that Japan could not be allowed to consolidate it's newly expanded Empire. Fortunately the Japanese got their back up and jingoistic militarists outshouted the more restrained calls for Japan to build it's infrastructure before standing up to the USA.

Here is a stat that is quite astounding and shows just how out of touch Japan was with reality. In 1939 the Japanese were outprducing the USA in military production of ships, planes, etc. BUT...Japan only had 14% of the USA's industrial capacity. By 1941 the USA was out producing Japan over 5 to 1 and by the end of 1944 by 32 to 1.

One of the unexplained but often speculated upon events is just what the heck the Japanese were thinking when they took on the USA. the top leadership of Japan both civilian and military were not around long after the war to explain the actual thinking of the Japanese leaders before the provocations against the USA began. Japan had no allies and were literally in a position to have fight the USA, the AnZacs, British and nationalist movements in China, Indochina, Malaysia, Burma etc. There was a lot of rhetoric(think of Iran today) often quoted but the Japanese seemed dumb enough to push forward.

My wife's mother is Dutch indonesian. They were put into concentration camps after the Japanese occupation of Indonesia. Even my wife's mother, only 12 at the time, knew that the Americans would take back the Dutch colony eventually. The only question for them was whether or not they would survive the horrendous conditions before the Americans or British arived one day. The women in the family survived....the men (my wife's grandfather, etc.) were murdered. To this day my wife's mother has a picture of General Macarthur in her kitchen as a reminder to how much it meant to them (their lives) that the Americans had the resove that they did.

the warsaw uprising

Northern Africa. Rommel. Getting the Nazi's to shift that many resources and personnel to a hopeless situation really let the air out of their bags.

Northern Africa. Rommel. Getting the Nazi's to shift that many resources and personnel to a hopeless situation really let the air out of their bags.

Huh? The main reason that Rommel lost in Africa was that Hitler did NOT supply him with resourses and personnel! Sure, the Brits sunk lots of supply ships from Italy to Africa, but Hitler left Rommel without the supplies he needed to win ...even though Rommel begged him for it.

Many historians believe that had Hitler fully supplied Rommel's forces, he'd have taken all of the oil-rich Middle East ...which just might have won the war for Hitler.

Baron Max

Good Post(I agree with the Pacific war - it was won with the oil embargo), Welcome to the Forum.

i talked with me grandfather much of the axis powers milatary drives were to get the oil they needed to fuel their forces. romania and the caucus which both had large oil feilds in them hilter tried to optain

Huh? The main reason that Rommel lost in Africa was that Hitler did NOT supply him with resourses and personnel! Sure, the Brits sunk lots of supply ships from Italy to Africa, but Hitler left Rommel without the supplies he needed to win ...even though Rommel begged him for it.

Many historians believe that had Hitler fully supplied Rommel's forces, he'd have taken all of the oil-rich Middle East ...which just might have won the war for Hitler.

Baron Max

Yup. I agree. Thus why I think El Alamein was the most important(though people do make a damn good case for Zhukov's battle in the east! I discount it, as it was previous to sept 39' ;)).

Regarding my Oil embargo comment - I mean the strategic decision forced Japan to give up on China(and Siberia - possible Germany/Japan two front war on Russia) AND force them to give up waging war OR pick a fight with a major power. Actually It forced them to attack both the dutch(thus Britian) and the U.S.

They did have oil but had to transport it back to japan all over the south/east pacific. Thus the very exciting U.S submarine campaign. They were short on oil many times, sometimes keeping fleets in port rather than out influencing the increasing U.S naval superiority.

They did have oil but had to transport it back to japan all over the south/east pacific. Thus the very exciting U.S submarine campaign. They were short on oil many times, sometimes keeping fleets in port rather than out influencing the increasing U.S naval superiority.

Ahh, yeah, okay .....now I understand your post much better! Thanks.

But surely you also see that we had Hitler in exactly the same dire situation with all the bombing of his oil facilities and distribution means. So ...I'm not sure I'd call that "embargo", know what I mean?

Baron Max

Ahh, yeah, okay .....now I understand your post much better! Thanks.

But surely you also see that we had Hitler in exactly the same dire situation with all the bombing of his oil facilities and distribution means. So ...I'm not sure I'd call that "embargo", know what I mean?

Baron Max

Hence why I hold the El Alamein battle as more critical than Stalingrad, despite being much much smaller. Yes it was the same oil situation for both after the war was in full gear. The diplomatic and strategic options played beforehand were different, however.


Germans (and Japanese actually) got pretty cagey about other methods of creating petrol. Necessity, mother of invention.

Hence why I hold the El Alamein battle as more critical than Stalingrad, despite being much much smaller.

Agree wholeheartedly.

Yes it was the same oil situation for both after the war was in full gear. The diplomatic and strategic options played beforehand were different, however.

Agree again. But this thread is about battles, not political strategy.

But I'd also like you to take note of why I consider "diplomacy" a dipshit ideal that's never worked in all of history ...and the before-the-war embargo is just another of many such examples of failed "diplomacy bullshit".

Baron Max

Persian gulf oil was not fueling WWII period, it's just was waiting there to fuel fat arse SUVs later on. Stalingrad, on the other hand, was a city on the banks of river Volga. Volga river was the main transport artery delivering Caspian sea oil (#1 source of Soviet oil at the time) to the fighting armies. Besides, as a sideline to the Stalingrad battle there were attempts of Germans to occupy Caspian sea oil fields. Had Germans succeeded in the interrupting oil flow, Soviets would have went belly up in the matter of months.

Need I mention that British won El Alamein solely because Hitler has thrown all he could spare in the 1942 summer offensive culminating in Stalingrad Battle? Rommel was left on his own. Brits sucked arse militarywise in WWII to deal with Germans (and Japanese too) on equal terms.

Huh? The main reason that Rommel lost in Africa was that Hitler did NOT supply him with resourses and personnel! Sure, the Brits sunk lots of supply ships from Italy to Africa, but Hitler left Rommel without the supplies he needed to win ...even though Rommel begged him for it.

Many historians believe that had Hitler fully supplied Rommel's forces, he'd have taken all of the oil-rich Middle East ...which just might have won the war for Hitler.

Baron Max

Incorrect. I've seen too many WWII documentaries where there was even public outcry among the German population, that their hero was left in such disdain. With not enough resources.

They were called the Desert Rats because they were utilized, and mazed. Quite vicious, but that is war.

From Wikipedia on 'North African Campaign':

The British forces were greatly outnumbered, 35,000 compared to a total of 200,000, and only half of the British were combatants. Nevertheless they launched a counter-attack, Operation Compass. It was far more successful than expected and resulted in the surrender of the entire Italian army and the advance of the Allies to El Agheila. The stunning defeat of the Italians did not go unnoticed and soon German troops, the Deutsches Afrikakorps under Rommel (The Desert Fox), were sent in to reinforce them.

which is something I happened to locate while looking for numbers. 200k + others not mentioned here is a good bit of resources, considering the remainder surrendered in '43.

The Desert Rats were the British Seventh Army, The symbol of the Division was the Desert Rat, a Jerboa.


7th Armoured Division (United Kingdom) - Wikipedia, the free ...
Composed of regular British Army units, the famous "Desert Rats" division was ... The Desert Rat divisional flash was adopted about the same time. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_7th_Armoured_Division

Incorrect. I've seen too many WWII documentaries where there was even public outcry among the German population, that their hero was left in such disdain. With not enough resources.

That's odd ...we seem to agree fully, yet you say I'm incorrect. Care to explain that odd comment?

Baron Max

The stunning defeat of the Italians
word stunning doesn't apply to Italian defeats since they were defeated by just about anybody whom they've fought.

More than that, Italian allies probably cost Hitler a victory over USSR. Their Balkan Invasion was untimely (and suprising to Germans). Italian Balkan failure forced Germany to redirect its armed forces "to help" and, the most important, it cost them time. Had Hitler attack USSR in May of 1941 not in June, Russian mud and "General Frost" wouldn't been fighting Germans near Moscow. In their cocksureness Germans had not made preparations for the winter war, which cost them dearly.

i'm sorry but for you to say that the british sucked i think is our of order.

i'm sorry but for you to say that the british sucked i think is our of order.


Churchill has used much harsher words than "sucked" after Singapore defeat. Brits were sitting "tight" throughout WWII, constantly cooling off American Battle Plans and betting that mutual German-Soviet bloodletting will win war and peace. Brits and French are two countries which have lost less men (counting civilians) in WII than in WWI. One could do it only by sitting on ones arse, either because of the fast defeat, "fear" of one's military inferiority or deliberate intent to wait things out and save.

so every time you edit, it creats another post?

"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.."

The Germans had more than enough transports & barges to ferry the first wave across over the course of a couple of days. This invasion fleet counted 4000 barges , boats and ships. These were 9 infantry divisions each reinforced with amphibious engineer battalion, bicycle recon detachment, & Tank/Panzer Jagger companies, more than enough to defend each bridgehead. Each army would also have reinforced heavy artillery ,Panzer and engineering detachments. The 7 waves would cross taking 2-4 weeks.

In Battalion exercises, 200 tons of supplies were transported along with the troops weaponry and vehicles. Given that each division required 300 tons a day attacking [1/2 that in defense] , a battalion [1/12th division ] is unlikely to consume much more than 15-20 tons per day in defense. So that 200 tons supplies is ~ two weeks supply.

The Stuka could reach all the way along the English Channel meaning they could savage the RN squadrons in their ports much like they did at Dunkirk. After just one week of Operation Dynamo [Dunkirk evacuation] the RN had only 13 out of the original 40 destroyers operational. Most were damage and many in the last couple of days ,through sheer exhaustion by there own sides.

Over the course of 10 days fighting before and during Dynamo, the Allies lost 22-28 destroyers crippled or sunk and another 22 damaged. A damaged warship is out for days to week while a crippled warship is out for weeks to months. Over Dunkirk the Luftwaffe only had 200 Stuka and many of their attacks were on land targets not ships, for Sealion they planned to use > 300 Stuka.

. The ‘Anti invasion’ fleet was ordered on Sept 18th to remain in port with all warships at the ready to patrol at night. That meant these ships spent the day in port sitting ducks for Dunkirk style Stuka attacks. The German Sealion plan envisaged at least 8 days of air attacks on RN ports/warships prior to launching the cross channel invasion. But given the ease with which they shifted such deadlines this could easily extend into weeks.

During the fighting over France the Allies had lost ~ 1490 planes while the Luftwaffe lost 1284 planes although another source puts the figure closer to 1625 German planes lost. Its not known how many other allied planes were lost but the exchange rate looks pretty even. Even at Dunkirk its reported the allies lost 170 plane to the Luftwaffe 130 reported lost planes.

While the Stuka was vulnerable to RAF fighters over southern England the British Radar range was insufficient to detect such bombers crossing the channel in time to intercept them before they reach ports. This is true for Plymouth as much as Dover and Portsmouth etc. In the summer of 1940 the Luftwaffe bombed Dover until the RN were forced to abandon it. This is what they would have done to the Anti Invasion fleet before the cross channel attack was launched. It should be noted that, while the Germans didn’t have any armor piercing bombs at this time , the existing GP bombs of 250-500 lb were still capable of penetrating the armored decks of cruisers, before detonating. Only Battleships could penetrate that screen and not without suffering damage and possible crippling from Uboats or mines.

The RAF could try to fly CAP over these ports but this consumed 2-3 times as many planes and that would allow the rest of the Luftwaffe bombers to get through to other targets through out Southern England and destroy the airfields/radar stations and attack the troop barracks etc.

The Anti Invasion fleet counted on 56 Destroyers and ½ dozen light Cruisers. Its likely the bulk of these could be damaged crippled, or sunk prior to any invasion. But even if they survived they would have to fight their way through German fleet. The planned German invasion fleet counted 4000 vessels plus 320 naval vessels. At the high end ½ dozen heavy and light cruisers would be involved in deception maneuvers designed to draw off the Home Fleet prior to invasion. This could be aided by ½ dozen long range Uboats savaging the convoys. One of the deceptions involved over a dozen fast transport ships moving an SS & Mountain division to land on the east coast of the UK. These were to be escorted by a dozen captured and WW-I Torpedoboot, which were similar to British DE. In practice this was planned as a deception maneuver but it could also be included as a diversionary attack depending on how things went.

Roughly 15 x German destroyers and heavy Torpedoboot guarded the Channel. These were similar to RN destroyers of the day and fought many battles in the channel in the first years of the war. The Germans sank/damaged twice as many RN destroyers as they lost. Clearly the Narvik massacre was an exception. Each British RN port was covered by a flotilla of Uboats to ambush RN flotilla dashing out at night to attack the German convoys. Backing this up was a extensive mine barrier that stretching from coast to coast.

The narrower West end of the Channel was to be extensively mined with multiple barriers totaling 18 layers, backed up by two dozen German Schnellboote [deadly fast Torpedoboot], plus several Uboats. In total 5500 mines were to be sowed in the weeks ahead of the invasion, along with another 5000-6000 decoys and protective devices. Historically the RN minesweepers lost one sweeper for every 50 mine cleared and another damaged. To clear a 1 mile wide path through these barriers, would cost the RN 2-3 dozen minesweepers and would take over 1000 sweeps.

While the RN had 300-400 minesweepers & Auxiliary Minesweepers in the Channel on any given day, combined they still would take 3-4 days to clear a path. This concentration of vessels would make the most inviting target for air/Schnellboote and Uboat attack and the ever present radar directed heavy coastal artillery barrages. Meanwhile the Germans had 10-20 minelayers that could reseed these barriers overnight, to say nothing of air delivered mines. One RN minesweeper captain pointed out that they would soon loose all there minesweepers, if they had to sweep in those conditions.

To further complicate this effort it was planned to mine the various RN ports at the start of the invasion, forcing the Minesweeping command to spread out their assets when they needed to concentrate them. This battle between minesweeper and minelayer would to more to determine the out come of the RN naval interdiction effort.

The actual German invasion fleet was to be spearheaded by ~70 x WW-I , Auxiliary and Modern minesweepers, all armed with a couple of 4” guns and escorted by another 130 auxiliary armed trawlers each armed with 1-2 x 88mm guns [not flak] and 50 smaller coastal craft. Each of these vessels had depth charge racks, mine clearing gear and several light flak. By comparison only about 1/3 of the RN minesweepers had guns usually a WW-I x 12lber or a single 4” gun on some minesweepers. The rest had only Machineguns and some depth charges. The British did have a couple dozen MTB but historically they only were successful 25% of the time.

Based on historical comparisons like the German invasion of Crete in 1941, even if these warships got in amongst the barges they would be unlikely to sink much more than one vessel per sortie. In these ambushes, the RN Cruiser Destroyer flotillas were sometimes driven off by a loan counterattacking Italian Torpedo boat, while the barge fleet evaded under cover of smoke and Luftwaffe bombers. That’s what happened at Crete.

Many people put undue faith in the RAF to exclude any invasion chance, however this faith is misplaced. The German invasion plan never required Airsuperiority over even southern England, only dominance of the Channel airspace. German warfare doctrine didn't indulge in luxuries like phased warfare based on logistical stockpiling. They had long recognized that speed and rapid descisions enbodied in bold maneuvers were the way to bring the enemy to crisis in land battles and airpower was always an adjuct to this combined arms method of warfare. The british doctrine had nothing that could match the German "Auftragstaktick" . Allies had nothing like it prior to the war and only developed a semblence of it through out the war.
Read more here. By the words of their own commander General Brooks, only 1/2 of his divisions had any chance in modern mobile warfare against the Wehrmacht veterans.


Historically the RAF had to fly 150 sortie to sink each ship in WW-II and in the anti invasion defense they were not spectacular either. Even against heavily packed barges parked row upon row in ports in the weeks prior to the expected invasion, they were still only able to destroy 65 barges/boats and damage another 150. Since the German 4000 strong invasion fleet had 2-3 thousand barges to choose from, only 1500 of which were needed in the first wave followed by maybe 1000 in each wave afterwards. In these conditions it would take weeks and weeks, before this combined RN/RAF counter attacks would make any dent in the German invasion fleet.

The British don’t have the luxury of time. The longer the Germans are able to fight on land and exert their hugh advantage in land warfare, the more likley the British situation would disintegrate along with the collective morale. How are the British RAF and RN squadrons supposed to function if the supply of fuel spareparts and ammo from the factories dries up when those factories fall into German hands? Then the fight or flight syndrome would take over. The Cabinate had already shipped the bulk of the gold and crown Jewels over to Canada before the invasion scare and set up plans for a shadow government to continue the war from Canada. Clearly gives an idea of the shape of things to come.

Huh? Right up to the end, the Japanese navy was still sailing their ships, using oil fired boilers, and the factories were building more ships and airplanes, using oil for fuel and generating electricity.
Baron Max
Largely true, but they had little in reserve for training, particularly in the case of pilots. Again, that might have been avoided if they'd won Khalkin Ghol (been there, buts its terribly hard to understand how often that one battle is overlooked completely - even after being mentioned, when had it gone the other way the entire face of WW2 would have been completely different).

Hitler had much the same problem after Dunkirk (been there too).
Basically, the Japanese were not able to use their navy and airforce, superior to that of the Americans for most of the war, as they would have liked to. That is where defeat ultimately lies - in the loss of intiative.


The Desert Rats were the British Seventh Army, The symbol of the Division was the Desert Rat, a Jerboa.
There is a difference between the Desert Rats and the Rats of Tobruk.
Quite simply, the British would not have survived as long as they did in the western desert campaign, and probably would have lost it, without the efforts of the colonials. The Australians at Tobruk and the magnificent New Zealand 2nd division (arguably the "best" individual allied unit of world war 2) both during and prior to the battle at El Alamein thwarted Rommel when he should have won the western desert. The moniker "Desert Rats" has become confused over time, and while it does indeed belong properly to the 7th, the appelation "Rats" given by the Afrika Korps to the mostly Australian Tobruk defence has become a symbol for the entire western desert allied force.

The colonial influence on the western desert campaign cannot be empathised enough - even the initial victories over the Italians, particularly at Keren (yet another unmentioned "pivotal" battle) were achieved mostly using Indian regiments of the British army (mixed units of British and Indian soldiers, officered by British and with the rank and file comprising about 4 Indian soldiers to one British), along with the Scottish Highland infantry.

It should also be mentioned that the Italians, largely derided as poor soldiers, actually fought very well at Keren. The blackshirt units and african "volunteers" held far longer than they should have against a more numerous British army.
It is quite possible the the initial Eritrian campaign and the Keren battle in particular broke the back of Italian morale, leading to their less than effective efforts later on. Add to that the fact that the Italians used colonial units made up of African soldiers who were conscripted and had no idea of who or what they were fighting for, thus breaking quite frequently in battle, and the legend of the unreliable Italian soldier is born. Granted, they didn't do so well in the Balkans - but an army comprised mostly of conscripts, invading an enemy country without really knowing why, rarely do.
While on the subject, the French, oft also derided as poor soldiers, were more a victim of circumstance than anything else. As I've mentioned previously, the Blitzkreig was held by British and French soldiers in Holland, and only retreated to Dunkirk when being in obvious danger of being outflanked. It was the first time that the British and French soldiers faced their German counterparts on equal terms (The lowlands of Holland were defensively flooded, thus nullifying the German tanks in that area), and proved quite conclusively that they could match him, and potentially outfight him. This knowledge was to serve the British well in later years, and it should be noted that these same French units, who fought alongside the British in Holland and were evacuated with them in equal numbers at Dunkirk (at Churchill's direction, and to the profound annoyance of the British officers), were to play their own part later in the war in the liberation of France. The French in WW2 weren't bad soldiers - they were simply taken by surprise, they had no direction or leadership after the initial shock, their armour, such as it was was, was clearly inferior to German armour, and their airforce was outdated and outmatched.

It is not the soldier who is necessarily a poor soldier, but more a case of strategy and leadership. But I digress.

During the fighting over France the Allies had lost ~ 1490 planes while the Luftwaffe lost 1284 planes although another source puts the figure closer to 1625 German planes lost. Its not known how many other allied planes were lost but the exchange rate looks pretty even. Even at Dunkirk its reported the allies lost 170 plane to the Luftwaffe 130 reported lost planes.
Yes, but its not aircraft which are of prime importance - it is the pilots, and the aircrew. During the fighting for the France, the air war was fought over French lines, albeit confused. British pilots escaping shot down aircraft often simply walked back to their airfields, and when the fighting was clearly lost, they flew their planes back to Britain. Germans were captured. In addition, the Germans were mostly losing medium bomber crews as opposed to fighter pilots. I've been through this before - those crews lost were the cream of the German airforce, experienced, many of them blooded in Spain before the war. Germany could replace aircraft well enough, and did so throughout the entire war. It could not replace the aircrew as easily. German to British aircrew losses over France prior to Dunkirk were at a rate of roughly 4-1, which is at a higher rate than in the Battle of Britain.
During the Battle of Britain, those losses were emphasized tenfold. British pilots shot down over England were back in their airbases, usually on the same day - Germans were taken into captivity.

The loss of those experienced German pilots and aircrew were a blow from which the Luftwaffe never fully recovered, and the effects were felt when the Germans later invaded Russia.

Secondly, those "allied" loss figures also take into account an overmatched French airforce flying outdated planes. The British themselves, flying Hurricanes and Gladiators for the most part, did far better than those figures indicate. Their medium bomber crews, however, proved themselves just as vulnerable as their German counterparts - leading to the philosophy of sending heavy bombers on night raids over Germany rather than using medium bombers during daylight. Again, far reaching effects.

The RAF could try to fly CAP over these ports but this consumed 2-3 times as many planes and that would allow the rest of the Luftwaffe bombers to get through to other targets through out Southern England and destroy the airfields/radar stations and attack the troop barracks etc.
The success of the British in the Battle of Britain was not necessarily in the amounts of German bombers shot down - it was more in the breaking of large bomber groups by small groups of fighters. The British during that battle would often send in as few as 4 or 8 fighters against air raids comprising 20+ bombers escorted by fighters... a situation which numbers would suggest was beyond them. However, the effect was not in the destruction of these groups but in breaking them up, thereby reducing accuracy and sometimes forcing the abandonment of entire raids without dropping a single bomb on its target.
The German fighters had a limited range and could only engage for very short periods of time before being forced to run for home, low on fuel. All the British had to do was send a couple of fighters to tie them up for a few minutes, and their effectiveness was much reduced. In the meanwhile, a single group of four fighters would go after the bomber formations, causing panic and misdrops. Don't assume bombers are accurate - at this stage of the war, it required practised, trained crews to stay on target and remain calm in flying coffins while under assault... again, something the Germans had begun to run short of after France.
Also, the numbers of aircraft lost do not tell the full story. I've already been through the crew losses in aircraft destroyed, but what of those who survived? German bombers would often limp back to their French airbases during the Battle of Britain damaged, with several crew members dead or wounded. The effects on morale were devastating. A month into the battle, the Germans bombing effectiveness was becoming severely dented due to German nervousness.

It is often wondered why the Germans failed to hit their targets, or how small groups of British fighters were able to win the Battle of Britain. All of the above contributed. The loss of experienced airmen over France, aircrew losses in captured and killed while the British walked back to their bases... but perhaps most importantly, the loss of morale among German bomber crews.

The operational strength of RAF fighter command grew steadily during the entire battle of France and during the battle of Britain, while that of the Germans declined sharply. There's some more numbers for you, if you care to check them out. The Germans would have faced exactly the same problems bombing shipping in British ports as it would have trying to knock out their airfields and radar stations.

I agree with you in your last assessment that the British would not have been able to compete in modern land warfare, particularly considering the bulk of British heavy equipment had been left behind at Dunkirk. However, the initial phase of any German invasion would have relied almost completely on an infantry landing gaining a foothold - and the British and French had already proved in Holland that man on man, they were the equal of the German soldier. Given that those German soldiers would have been fighting for a beachhead with none of the supply lines or logistical advantage the allies had later in the war at Anzio and Normandy (and even then only achieved with horrendous losses), that situation would become almost untenable.
The allied experience at Dieppe was one the Germans already knew was a probable result of any such venture.

Laslty, there is the fact that Hitler himself neither wanted nor particularly needed to conquer Britain. He reportedly had an affection for the British, and probably still hoped they'd surrender or at least become neutral after Goering had had his way with their airforce. German invasion plans may have been meticulously detailed, but the answer to any question of whether or not they would ever have come to full fruition was probably lost in a bunker in Berlin in 1945.

That's odd ...we seem to agree fully, yet you say I'm incorrect. Care to explain that odd comment?

Baron Max

You said something that I interpreted as small forces involved, with demand of troops and equipment not being acknowledged.

There were significant losses in that theater of battle, and quite a bit of resources. I may have read you wrong.

But, I still claim it as pivotal because they hailed this as one of their greatest campaigns due to limited engagement from an enemy. They occupied great stretches of land quickly, that were rich in natural wealth; ie, minerals, energies from coal and natural gas, and also building materials.

But, when they became engaged with the British/American forces, they quickly became trapped in the desert. And, as I stated, it was very deflating for their ego.

In fact, in one of his tyrannous fits, Hitler cut off Rommel and wouldn't acknowledge him further. Which is contrary to being a good commander.

Persian gulf oil was not fueling WWII period, it's just was waiting there to fuel fat arse SUVs later on. Stalingrad, on the other hand, was a city on the banks of river Volga. Volga river was the main transport artery delivering Caspian sea oil (#1 source of Soviet oil at the time) to the fighting armies. Besides, as a sideline to the Stalingrad battle there were attempts of Germans to occupy Caspian sea oil fields. Had Germans succeeded in the interrupting oil flow, Soviets would have went belly up in the matter of months.

Well this is a good point and why I think Stalingrad cannot possibly be considered even close to the most decisive battle. It was a total waste of time. Why the germans would want to slug it out in a city, when all of their great victories were in wide open spaces...boggles the mind. They should have made the drive to caspian or as you allude to cut the volga further south(there was also a rail line running along the sea to siberia). Now the battle of THAT, WOULD have been the greatest battle of WWII.

You have a point that Irak and Persian oil was not a factor in WWII, but it COULD have been....again El Alamien El Alamien...
Some of that oil and product did find it's way to use in Commonwealth and free french forces.

To me the most pivotal battle was Pearl Harbor.

To me the most pivotal battle was Pearl Harbor.

I would have to agree ....except for one thing, can we call it a "battle" of World War II? I don't think anyone thought of the conflict in Europe as "World War II" until the US was bombed and entered the war in Europe.

But pivotal? Oh, most assuredly. Because Americans weren't so hot on going back to Europe to fight another war. Had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbor, the USA might not have entered the European war. Then what?

Baron Max

I agree with you in your last assessment that the British would not have been able to compete in modern land warfare, particularly considering the bulk of British heavy equipment had been left behind at Dunkirk. However, the initial phase of any German invasion would have relied almost completely on an infantry landing gaining a foothold - and the British and French had already proved in Holland that man on man, they were the equal of the German soldier. Given that those German soldiers would have been fighting for a beachhead with none of the supply lines or logistical advantage the allies had later in the war at Anzio and Normandy (and even then only achieved with horrendous losses), that situation would become almost untenable.
The allied experience at Dieppe was one the Germans already knew was a probable result of any such venture.

Laslty, there is the fact that Hitler himself neither wanted nor particularly needed to conquer Britain. He reportedly had an affection for the British, and probably still hoped they'd surrender or at least become neutral after Goering had had his way with their airforce. German invasion plans may have been meticulously detailed, but the answer to any question of whether or not they would ever have come to full fruition was probably lost in a bunker in Berlin in 1945.


Here is a list from Peter schenk "Invasion of England 1940".This was what the typical first wave infantry division was expected to land with over the first two days of the landings. The figures in barrackets are for regular German infantry divisions and motorised infantry divisions.

8 x Nebelwerfer [0/0]
28 x Light 105mm Howitzers [36/36]
12 x heavy Howitzers [12/12]
8 x Gebirgskannoe 15cm mountain guns [0/0]
6 x Heavy150mm Infantry guns [6/6]
23 x light 75mm Infantry guns [20/12]
72 x Heavy 80mm mortars [54/24]
54 x light 50mm mortars [84/84]
75 x Pak [75/?]
49 x Pz-II/III tanks [0/0]
9 x Karetten halftrack [3 armored cars/30 armored cars]

19,138 troops [16,860/13,364]
116 x heavy machine guns [110/130]
496 light machine guns [425/?]
12 x FlaMG AAMg [0/0]
854 x cars & jeeps [394/989]
740 x motorcycles [340/1323]
317 x motorcycles with side car [190/621]
794 x lorries [536/1687]
2072 x bicycles [500/0]
933 x wagons [ 895/0]
11,189 x horses [5375/0]

Elsewhere it refers to each of the first 9 divisions getting 12 x 20mm flak & 1 company of 47mm PAK on Panzer-1 chassis [JgdPz-I]. All first line infantry divisions had 47mm PAK instead of 37mm PAK. Each infantry and engineer battalion had one company on bicycles. All mounted units exchanged horses for bicycles

By comparison churchill memiours suggest UK infantry divisions had the following sketch of TOE.

11 infantry divisions each estimated with
13-14,000 troops
500 LMGs
65 Bren carriers
150 ATRs
25 ATGs [2 lbers]
100 mortars
58 Howitzers many 75mm and 25lb.
Each Armored division would have also had 200 tanks while motorized division would have added 50 tanks.

The biggest problem with the Brits was lack of experience. While their core survived, it was mostly rear area troops . So that could be expected to work well but the best troops were in the strategic reserve of 3 motorized and 3 armored divisions. The rest of the troops including the bulk on the front lines in the south coast, were mostly raw recruites and oldtimers. They would have been no match for the crack Wehrmacht Veterans. Dads army had maybe a couple of days ammo supply so they could not be expected to put up much resistance of the brigdeheads. My understanding is the Churchill wanted General Brooks to bombard the beachheads with mustard gas. Nothing like that to motivate the nazi to fight to the last man.

As long as the Luftwaffe can bottle up the RAF as they did in early September , and help to keep the RN at bay , the Heer should be able to do the rest. Again the plan didn't require the Luftwaffe defeating the RAF before the invasion commenced...that would have happend along side the invasion.

BTW I was wrong about the logistics fuel line...its 120,000 tons per week not 20,000 tons.

The reason none of this came to pass is because Hitler wanted a spectacular victory over the Brits since they were just the start of his wars of conquest. He was unwilling to risk chance of defeat and wanted a guarantee of succes. Since the plans were just begining and no branch had chance to flush out the expected problems on guarantee could be given...until Goering stepped in and told Hitler he could do it with his Luftwaffe alone.

Well this is a good point and why I think Stalingrad cannot possibly be considered even close to the most decisive battle.

After Stalingrad, Germans fled hundreds of miles (not speaking of casualties). That's a lot of farming land&raw materials&gun meat for the country whose agriculture relied mainly on the Southern regions + oil supply was secured + boost to moral and confidence. After Stalingrad, Germans never could master an offensive equal to the 1942 onslaught.


It was a total waste of time. Why the germans would want to slug it out in a city, when all of their great victories were in wide open spaces...boggles the mind.
Probably because Soviets were not letting Germans just leave to the open spaces by keeping great "pressure" no matter the costs in Stalingrad. Plus, fighting a (mechanized) war in the winter steppe covered with 1 meter high layer of snow, without any rail roads, buildings, wood, etc. would've been quite impossible.


They should have made the drive to caspian or as you allude to cut the volga further south(there was also a rail line running along the sea to siberia).Now the battle of THAT, WOULD have been the greatest battle of WWII.
They did try to break through to the Caspian oil fields through Caucasus Mountains (simultaneously with Stalingrad battle), they didn't try to do anything South of Stalingrad for the same reason you cannot run with a dog grabbing your leg with his teeth + damn 1 meter layer of snow and low temperatures on the flat, wild, open spaces.

You have a point that Irak and Persian oil was not a factor in WWII, but it COULD have been....again El Alamien El Alamien...
How, if not a secret? Germans running supertankers around Africa and England:)? Allies did not need extra oil. If El Alamien would've been so important, don't you think HItler would have sent there much more troops than ONE stinky army corp?

Had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbor, the USA might not have entered the European war. Then what?

Bull. In 1916 Americans were pacifists and didn't want to touch WWI with a long stick. In 1917, instead of the pacifists there were bloodthirsty, anti German bigots salivating for the war. American Propaganda is/was #1. State propagandists, etc. would have much easier task to drag Americans in WWII without any Pearl Harbors.

American Propaganda is/was #1. State propagandists, etc. would have much easier task to drag Americans in WWII without any Pearl Harbors.

...LOL! Prior to Pearl Harbor, practically the entire congress was against going to war against Hitler.

Propaganda??? What's with that? ...LOL!

Baron Max

Tell me Baron are you one of those people who think that America did evrything? Well the british involvement was crucial in the war battle of britian without out that there would be no stepping stone for d.day, and without britian i dout it's comon wealth would be involved.

Tell me Baron are you one of those people who think that America did evrything?

No.

Baron Max

America was sending escaping Jews back to Europe and pretending Japan was just a silly little country until it was brought to our doorstep. We have a history of that. We don't get involved in helping people til it effects us. We didn't bother with the Taliban til 9/11. I think we need to be in Darfur more than Iraq, but that won't happen.

Pearl Harbor was a WWII battle. It would be arrogant to think it wasn't a World War til we got involved. If we hadn't been brought into it, the Axis would have won. The Eastern front would have had more resources because they wouldn't have been dealing with us. The pacific was ruled by Japan's Navy til we got there.

...LOL! Prior to Pearl Harbor, practically the entire congress was against going to war against Hitler.

Propaganda??? What's with that? ...LOL!

Baron Max

You shall acquaint yourself with the history of American involvement into WWI before taking unwillingness of the entire congress as a constant. Yes, state propaganda agency was created to sway public opinion on WWI, back then they didn't use orwellian language.

We didn't bother with the Taliban til 9/11.
I would not call 700+ military bases abroad as "we don't bother anyone". Also, Clinton has ordered missile attacks on Afganistan long before 9/11.

Here is a list from Peter schenk "Invasion of England 1940".This was what the typical first wave infantry division was expected to land with over the first two days of the landings...
Well, there is your first problem. Come the day things never work out according to plan.
In France in 1944 after d-day the allies were very nearly thrown back off the beaches on more than one occasion - the regular history books fail to note in most cases how close things actually were. D-day itself was a much larger operation, landing more troops, more supplies and more weaponry than any potential German invasion of England. In addition, they had what some might call the advantage of surprise. Yet still, they nearly failed.
Germany, on the other hand, was up against a Britain completely convinced they were about to be invaded, and were without half the resources available to the allies 4 years later.
Also to be considered is that the British were defending their homeland, something the Germans in France were not doing. The Dunkirk survivors were not "mostly rear echelon troops", they were the same ones who'd survived the Blitzkreig in Holland and stopped it. They and their commanders already knew the Germans weren't invincible. Lacking heavy equipment, yes... but then any German invasion of England would have been in the same position until they'd consolidated a foothold. It's all very well to list expected equipment landed, but events will often lay waste to the best plans, and those Brits would have been fighting for something more substantial than they were in France.

My understanding is the Churchill wanted General Brooks to bombard the beachheads with mustard gas. Nothing like that to motivate the nazi to fight to the last man.
What... like it did in the first war?

As long as the Luftwaffe can bottle up the RAF as they did in early September , and help to keep the RN at bay , the Heer should be able to do the rest.
The Luftwaffe failed to do that during the Battle of Britain without also needing to support an invasion force. Normandy succeeded partly because of a huge air effort as well - would Germany have been able to provide that?
Unsupported bombers over england trying to support an invasion force would have met with an even worse fate than they did with fighter cover.
The ME109 was a good fighter, at least the equal of the spitfire of the time and superior to the Hurricane. It's achilles heel, however, was its lack of range and operational capability over Britain.It would have been completely unable to support any German bomber activity over Britain and it is extemely unlikely the Germans could have captured and held an airfield in Britain itself for quite some time.
An invasion without air support - good luck.

Again the plan didn't require the Luftwaffe defeating the RAF before the invasion commenced...that would have happend along side the invasion.
"The Plan" for the Battle of Britain also required that - but they couldn't do it.

I would not call 700+ military bases abroad as "we don't bother anyone". Also, Clinton has ordered missile attacks on Afganistan long before 9/11.


Just because we have military bases all over doesn't mean we are helping them. We are helping ourselves otherwise we wouldn't be there. If we were helping them, we would have a hell of a lot more bases in Africa.

And Clinton worked with the Taliban. During secret meetings with U.S. officials in 1998, top Taliban officials discussed assassinating or expelling bin Laden in response to al Qaeda's bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, according to State Department documents. We didn't care about any of them til it effected us.

Sorry about the hijack. This is a WWII battle thread right?

O.k im just going to say this, DIspite what baron was saying i still do think britian was as important as america in ww2.

O.k im just going to say this, DIspite what baron was saying i still do think britian was as important as america in ww2.

Without question. Europe would have been gone in a heartbeat in Britian hadn't held. You also can't count out Australia in the Pacific theatre. We swooped in at the end of it all and claimed a lot of glory. It may not have been won because of us BUT the war was ended because of us. :p