The Battle of Midway was the Turning Point of WWII

Discussion in 'History' started by Buffalo Roam, May 9, 2010.

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,942
    Superior to whom?
    Kill/ loss statistics give a fairly consistent 5:3 ratio superiority of German troops over any of the Western powers and considerably higher when compared to Soviet troops. The fact is that German combat troops were better trained, better-led and generally deadlier.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Superior in training and equipment to the Russian soldier. And Im talking about the average one, I am aware that there were a few divisions from Russia that were much more well equipped than others.

    But Dyw, in that statement I was comparing the average US soldier to the average Russian soldier during the war.

    Im not contesting the quality of German troops.

    Now can we go back on topic?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,942
    Apologies, I missed that bit.
    Germans were (IIRC) 3:1 vs. Soviet troops in general and 5:3 vs. Western troops.
    Which, messing about with figures, would give 9:5 Western vs. Soviet. Which is ~2:1.
    More statistics here and here.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    So what is your opinion of the current debate. Which battle was more decisive (and I am distinguishing the term "decisive" to be different than a "turning point" in this case), Midway or Guadalcanal.

    I think Guadalcanal for:

    1. It was far more important strategically to both sides than Midway

    2. Far more Japanese were eliminated, 71,000 versus a little over 2,000 at Midway.

    3. Far more Japanese planes were destroyed, 600-800 versus over 200 for Midway.

    4. More Japanese ships were sunk, 38.

    5. The succesful thrust north into the Japanese home islands from Australia (not necessarily part of the island hoping campaign) can be attributed to Henderson field on Guadalcanal. Especially with the capture of Rabaul by Americans later on.

    6. At Guadalcanal we beat back Japan's best air, naval, and ground units.

    7. It was the first major offenssive in the Pacific.

    8. It put Japan on the defensive.

    9. It gave us the momentum to win the war.
     
  8. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    The only hope for Japan was a successful invasion of Hawaii and Midway. The turning point of the pacific war was Pearl Harbor. Japan committed it's fate, and it failed to take full advantage of surprise by attaining a lasting victory which would have bought them a lot of time for their Asian campaigns. The U.S Still would have eventually beaten them, but not if they managed to completely make China capitulate and bring a second front on Russia.

    So Hawaii was a requirement for that and they failed to do that. The rest is denouement. U.S Victories at Midway and Guadalcanal did shorten the war considerably though.
     
  9. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    Hokkaidō, Honshū , Shikoku and Kyūshū, those are the main islands, they weren't touched during the campaign. Guadalcanal is a part of the Solomon
    Islands, which was never a part of Nippon home islands.

    They weren't all elite troops. They contained some of the best.

    Things to take into consideration. Well, you can't always determine a battle's significance from casualties, take into account troop strength and casualties on the allies' side, also strategic advantages .ect. Guadalcanal is definitely the turning point, I agree with that, but just to point out some facts....
     
  10. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    No, they had far more options. If they gained complete control of East and Southeast Asia, they are well set to be a superpower. Also, they will gain the numbers and the resources to beat Russia. If they gained control of East and Southeast Asia, then in a short period of time, they can take on USA no problem.

    It was an requirement if they wanted to take USA out sooner then later. It wasn't their only option.
     
  11. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    USMC is by far not. The USAF is

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Casualties, you mean on the allies' side? The combat efficiency of the allies in the Pacific is far greater then that of the Eastern Front. Japan was arguably more dangerous the Germany.

    You were joking with standard engagements right?......

    :wallbang:

    You must be joking....

    Right......:facepalm:
     
  12. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    Nippon and USA doesn't fight like that, it is not their style. The territory ( including the waters ) contested in the Pacific was greater, it was between two naval powers, and it is every bit as interesting ( arguably more interesting ) then the Eastern Front.

    Racial stereotypes huh?
     
  13. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    Japan was arguably more dangerous the Germany.
     
  14. flakeyairportchunks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    71
    Christ.

    No 70% of all total combat casualties of ww2 occurred on the Eastern Front. How was Japan more dangerous than Germany? It was less industrialised and had a far less effective military doctrine than Nazi Germany.

    No I was not joking, exaggerating a little bit but alas no jest. Iwo Jima is a pathetic battle compared to Kursk, the battle could have gone either way, can't say the same for Iwo Jima.

    Does that analogy not work for you? Why not?
     
  15. flakeyairportchunks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    71
    The Pacific war was a clash between a giant and a midget, the whole thing from day one was a forgone conclusion. If you think that makes for an interesting war you have problems.

    Oh and last time I checked 'American' doesn't quite constitute as a race.
     
  16. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    The fundamental thing I hate about people like you is that you ignore the Pacific war purely for politics.

    Flake, if it weren't for the fact that Britain was there in Europe we would not have cared 10% as much about what Hitler did as we do right now.

    Would you like to know why the Pacific has been delegated to a sideshow? Because of G-d damned politics, because we have to bend over to kiss the ass of the European countries.

    You know what pisses me off? Is when I read through a history textbook and it ONLY MENTIONS PEARL HARBOR, THE CORAL SEA, MIDWAY, AND THE ATOMIC BOMBS. And sometimes Iwo Jima. The amount of info they put on the Pacific war is maybe a paragraph or two while the European conflict gets several chapters. Flake, your arguement would make sense if Europe were the sideshow, but the fact is all the history of WW2 is in Europe. Ask the average person, most people can only name off Pearl Harbor, the Atom Bomb, and possibly Midway as the major conflicts in the Pacific. There was so much more to it than that.

    four out of five movies that are made about WW2 take place in the European conflict.

    Stop pretending like everyone in the US thinks that Europe was the sideshow, we don't. And you know what? Were proud of the Pacific because other we were the ONLY major power that participated in it. Along with China, the filipinos, Australia, and Korea we fought the most gruesome war imaginable.

    The horrors of war experianced in Europe were a mere fraction of what happened in the Pacific. The American Marines and soldiers along with their allies in the Pacific and the Japanese soldiers had to survive in conditions that you and the other allies' soldiers couldn't dream up in your worst nightmares. Japanese would practice with their bayonets on civilians and prisoners of war. They cut open pregnant woman's chests to see how long the infant could live outside the womb. They would break every bone in your body to see how many they had to break until you would die!

    Do you think the war in Europe was gruesome? That war was not nearly as horrifying as the Pacific war.
     
  17. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    Dude...Bushido ( military doctrine )

    Japan had the best navy at the beginning of the war and greater territory. Japan was very industrialized as to produce the I-400 and Yamato. Not to mention their numerous carriers.

    Actually US casualties was huge in Iwo Jima, and it wasn't a standard battle.

    There were some great commanders of the Japanese Army. The fact is that the Japanese commanders was not as cruel to their own. They also didn't have the logistics and numbers at their disposal.
     
  18. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Are you stupid? That's the same idiotic assumption that many Americans and Europeans had about the Japanese.

    The Japanese at the beginning of the war had the greatest navy of any other power. They practically invented effective aircraft carrier warfare. They arguably made the world's first supercarrier.

    Flake, the war in the Pacific's fate was in the balance more times than you can count. Just because your pathetically inadequate ludicrous knowledge of the Pacific war is lacking does not mean those things never happened.

    The war in Europe was not nearly as gruesome or as violent as that in the Pacific. What would you ever know about it?

    Tell me, what do you know about the war in the Pacific? Midway, Pearl Harbor, the Atomic boms, maybe the Coral Sea, Iwo Jima? I doubt much more than that.

    I know more about the Pacific war than you do. your pathetic knowledge of it proves it.

    If you knew what the Pacific war was really like you wouldnt be making these hideously idiotic arguments.
     
  19. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    Nippon had a formidable air force and Navy. Nippon was a giant ( and still is ). Zerg rushes with cannon fodders are not that interesting....

    It is a culture.
     
  20. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Please, Flake. That battle could not have gone either way and we both know that. The Russians threw man after man into the conflict, they would not have lost kursk

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    So what? Who cares if 70% were on the East? The fact is they tossed them into the conflict thousands and millions of men at a time. Of course they lost a lot, they were god damned cannon fodder. The Russians had no skill, no strategy, they only had a lot of people, that is the only advantages the Russians had and the only one they needed.

    It wasn't even a really dificult battle, it was the Germans mowing down hundreds of Russian troops at a time and the Russians just coming back with more. Do you think that Russia could have ever actually lost?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    They just threw man after man after man being thrown to their deaths and if you sacrifice a whole regiment for ten feet of ground who cares? You only have a hundred more regiments worth of soldiers to toss around.
     
  21. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    Learn something about Nippon-koku before making any absurd points. I believe skilled maneuvering is more interesting then watching cannon fodder getting wiped.
     
  22. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    So shogun what do you think after reading Buffalo's and my arguements, Midway or Guadalcanal, and if you say Midway how can I persuade you otherwise

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    jk.
     
  23. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    Guadalcanal was certainly more costly in Japanese casualties ( Americans too, but Japan had it worse ). It also gave the allies a very good strategic position to attack the main islands. It was both a decisive tactical and strategic victory. Midway means that Japan won't have the ability to invade USA for quite a while, but Guadalcanal means that it will be game over for Japanese expansion, which forced them on the defensive. It also installed a strong allied presence in Southeast Asia.
     

Share This Page