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.
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
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.
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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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
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.
dunkirk. 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.
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!
