# The most important battle of WWII



## cheddar cheese (Jan 25, 2005)

Continued from old thread. Now in archive forum.


----------



## MikeMan (Jan 26, 2005)

Stalingrad probably.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 26, 2005)

Give your reasons. Stalingrad only destroyed one German Army (6th Armee), it did not take away the offensive capability of the German Wehrmacht. I know it was important, and I don't think that any single battle was important. However, I'll say the Battle for the Atlantic.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 26, 2005)

Has to be the Atlantic, it was the only battle going from the first day to the last. It got incredibly close to starving Britain to death.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

I'm going to stick to Pearl Harbor as it brought the US into the war. As such, it effected both of the wars, the war against Germany and the war against Japan.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2005)

well think about it, you say it effected the war in japan, without the attack there was no war over the pacific!! well perhaps over australia and islands to the north..........


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well think about it, you say it effected the war in japan, without the attack there was no war over the pacific!! well perhaps over australia and islands to the north..........



Sure theyre was no war  Japan was just over running everything it could.


----------



## Udet (Jan 26, 2005)

As I have said before several times in this glorious forum, and here it goes again:

Perhaps the entrance of the USA into the war both against Germany and Japan is the definitive event of the war -notice I said perhaps-.

Why?

The military build up of the USA on both theathers is more than solid proof of this. And last but not least, the ability of its military industry (and of its other industries) to supply the soviets with huge amounts of war material and finally, to feed a good deal of the soviet union can certainly help clarifying the atmosphere.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 27, 2005)

We all know what you think the Soviet complete inability to fight without US support. Not like the British Empire devoted 14% of its war production to helping the Soviets or anything. 

Of course the entrance of the US is a major factor in the war. It doesn't make Pearl Harbour an important battle. For two reasons A) The US was going to enter at some point anyway B) Pearl Harbour wasn't a battle, it was a slaughter. 

Where's China, lanc? If it's not on the Pacific coast?


----------



## Udet (Jan 27, 2005)

Plan_D:

Did you know you could immediately get yourself a job in CNN?
You are excellent at distorting my comments.

I have never ever said nor suggested anything nowhere nearly similar to what you typed over there.

The soviets were more than capable to fight, and to do it with absolute determination.

MY idea was rather that without Lend Lease certainly the soviet union could have been defeated by Germany.

Lend Lease facilitated massive issues to the soviets. One of them, for instance, is that they did not have to produce any significant numbers of military transport vehicles. The USA supplied them with more than half a million of those (i.e. Studebackers, jeeps, etc.) and no matter what the soviets said, massive raw materials and laborce were instead utilized to produce more and more of their tanks, aircraft, artillery, etc.

No Lend Lease no mechanization of the red army, say, for the big summer offensive of 1944.

No Lend Lease and one can see the Wehrmacht facing far lesser numbers of T-34s, IL-2s, Katyushas and artillery.

If with their ultra massive resources, both domestic and Lend Leased, the red army had to take a rest for refitting due to the frightful losses they took after the big offensive of the summer of 1944 -when the Germans were pushed out of the USSR-, what could have happened if no Lend Lease had been available to the communists?

Perhaps no operation Bagration?

And last but not least, agriculture. The main barns of the soviet union, the Ukraine and Kuban, had been devastated both by the retreating Russians and the combat which took place in such areas.

The soviet union had had serious problems in feeding itself before the war. Ever heard of Stalin´s famines?
Now, try to picture the food situation in the soviet union once the Wehrmacht attacked, having its richest agricultural lands overran by the enemy and the destruction ans damages caused in those areas.

No Lend Lease and the soviet union is on the verge of famine, again; this time however it is famine with an extremely skilled and powerful enemy attacking you. What kind of scenario this would have made?

A starved army, Plan_D, can certainly be uncapable to fight.


P.S. Plan: do not forget to apply for a job at CNN.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 27, 2005)

Snore! What you don't understand is that I've told patriotic Russians about the lend-lease that helped them. What I don't like about it is the way you say it! Plus, only US!?! 

Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa...hmmm...USA..sprayed on the side of Russian vehicles...but lets see, 14% of British war production went to Russia. So, it wasn't only the US. LEARN to word things better!


----------



## Udet (Jan 28, 2005)

Plan_D.

Getting sensitive over there?

Ok, you are correct. My mistake to omit saying Britain also sent the soviets a percentage of war materiel that of course helped them. Very correct.

Luftwaffe reports during the Kuban airbattles of 1943, informed the VVS was fielding high numbers of Hurricanes.

What is it that you don´t like about my way of saying Lend-Lease was vital for the soviet union?

Notwithstanding that, when saying i believe the soviets were unable to fight if allied material help hadn´t been available you were incorrect.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2005)

Actually, I know the Soviets would have been HARD-PRESSED without Lend-Lease. They had gone from a tank arm of 22,800 to 1506 in a matter of months. During those months (and a few after) Allied tanks were sent to Russia amounting to just over 4000. 

Lend-Lease suppiled 16% of all tank production of the Soviet Union, and 100% of all APC production. Even with that, the Soviets were still capable of fighting. 

And Hurricanes were serving almost from day one. There were Hurricanes over Stalingrad too. Not to mention the Spitfires that went out there. There were some 3000 Hurricane Mk.II B and C, about 40 Hurricane IID and IV. Then 1300 Spitfire Mk. V.


----------



## Udet (Jan 29, 2005)

Plan:

I agree with you.

Remember the Russians give the LL virtually no credit.

They will respond absolutely everything you might argue by showing tons of statistics and numbers that according to them will "prove" you wrong.

Globally speaking, it could be said the soviets have recorded Lend Lease in their files, as an aid that played no significant role whatsoever in the war -a small material aid-; furthermore, a small aid which included lots of "crap" they allegedly did not like at all -but that upon arrival, got immediately pressed into service though-.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 1, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Snore! What you don't understand is that I've told patriotic Russians about the lend-lease that helped them. What I don't like about it is the way you say it! Plus, only US!?!
> 
> Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa...hmmm...USA..sprayed on the side of Russian vehicles...but lets see, 14% of British war production went to Russia. So, it wasn't only the US. LEARN to word things better!



14% of British war production...

Not to diminish the importance of that, but as an overall % of lend-lease to the Soviets this was a relatively small fraction, perhaps 5%? And how much of it was based upon US lend-lease (raw materials) to Britain?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 2, 2005)

so what you're trying to say is that because we were gettin material off you and it was a small percentage to the russians that it was not significant, we were not making a contribution and it should be overlooked.................


----------



## Udet (Feb 2, 2005)

Lanc:

RG did not mean such a thing. "Not diminish the importance of that..."

Of course British material aid helped the soviets.

The soviets did not make distinctions on the procedence of the war toys they were receiving though, whether British or from the USA "it was a mere little help, mostly crap which we had available at a superior quality in our stock".

The curious things is the bulk of the equipment they received got immediately presses into service. (i.e. Spitfires and Hurricanes in numbers in the airbattles of the Kuban in 1943)


----------



## Napier Sabre (Feb 2, 2005)

Are we allowed the Battle of Britain? Or are we talking land and sea battles?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 2, 2005)

well yes air battle can be included as well, however there were, IMO, more importand battles at sea and land, however the BoB is easily the most important air battle of all time...............


----------



## Napier Sabre (Feb 2, 2005)

Well I'd argue actually, that it ranks along some of the most important. If the LUftwaffe had won that, you could forget anything about a defiant Britain and thus any thought of a staging post for liberating Britain. Like North Africa would have fallen as well in that circumstance.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 2, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> so what you're trying to say is that because we were gettin material off you and it was a small percentage to the russians that it was not significant, we were not making a contribution and it should be overlooked.................



No Lanc,

I'm not trying to say that at all. Every bit helped, and it was more of a harship for Britain to give what it gave than it was for the USA, despite the proportions.

I'm just trying to put it into some kind of overall perspective. I'm not saying it should be overlooked at all. It represented a significant sacrifice for the British to give anything.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 2, 2005)

Napier Sabre said:


> Are we allowed the Battle of Britain? Or are we talking land and sea battles?



I think that is too long a period. That was really a campaign, not a battle. "Battle of Britain" just sounds better than "British Campaign".

Just my opinion.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2005)

the battle of britian should definatly be considdered as a battle in this case, it'd be stupid for it not to be included..............


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

I disagree, the BoB was a series of Battles waged over a year's time. That makes it a campaign.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2005)

but any of the battles mentioned could be considdered a campain.............

stop being so sore, just because we did something amazing and you had little involvement that doesn't give you the right to say it can't be included as a battle.................


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but any of the battles mentioned could be considdered a campain.............
> 
> stop being so sore, just because we did something amazing and you had little involvement that doesn't give you the right to say it can't be included as a battle.................



It has nothing to do with the USA not being involved. It just does not really qualify as a battle in the sense that we consider most battles. Battles have a specific objective over a relatively short period of time, the BoB did not, it had a general objective to be achieved over a much longer period of time.

You cannot see that the BoB or the Battle of the Atlantic were a different sort of thing than the Battle of Bulge or Kursk or Midway or even Okinawa?

It's kind of like calling the Battle for Africa a Battle. Tobruk was a battle. El' Almien was a battle, but taken together, they are parts of a campaign.

Besides, I don't see how the distinction dimishies the valor or accomplishment of the British in winning that campaign one bit!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Feb 3, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I disagree, the BoB was a series of Battles waged over a year's time. That makes it a campaign.



I don't know what you call the Battle of Britain, but historians say it happened between 10 July and 31 October 1940. You can mince words if you want, but everyone else calls it the Battle of Britain.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 3, 2005)

It was the Battle of the Atlantic, not the Atlantic campaign aswell, the only time when the war could have been lost for the allies


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> It was the Battle of the Atlantic, not the Atlantic campaign aswell, the only time when the war could have been lost for the allies



Come on... it lasted 4+ years. That's a campaign by anyones definition.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

but the BATTLE of britian was most cirtainly a battle..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Yeah I agree. If it wasnt a Battle, why is it known as the BATTLE of Britain and not the CAMPAIGN of Britain?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

and all other battles mentioned so far didn't just take place in one day did they?? some took several weeks................


----------



## Napier Sabre (Feb 5, 2005)

It was also a battle in my book because the positions were more or less static, in a campaign you tend to have movement and then battles in order to extend or keep the ground won.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

As far as I can see, Operation Sea Lion (Is that the one?) was the campaign, the BoB was a Battle in that particular Campaign.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 5, 2005)

The history books, all history books, call it the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic. 
And they are rightly called that. The Battle of Britain was fought over one place, with the same occurances day in day out., with only one objective. 
The fact is, an operation is a string of several battles which each have a objective, an operation is under a campaign which is a collection of operations all with a different objective. The TIME span does not dictate it being a battle or operation, the obejectives do. Example, Battle of Son Bridge, Operation Market Garden, NW-Europe Campaign. 

The British War Production was actually, British EMPIRE war production. It includes Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Which is pretty large, and the fact is the British were supplying the Soviet Union in their darkest hours. "Not to diminish the US aid..."


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The British War Production was actually, British EMPIRE war production. It includes Canada, New Zealand and Australia.



Yeah, that's right! We "colonials" rock!


----------



## evangilder (Feb 5, 2005)

Of all the adjectives to describe you, I think colonial would not be in my top ten!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 5, 2005)

I'll assume that's a good thing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)




----------



## Medvedya (Feb 5, 2005)

There's also the alliteration with Battle Britain, but whatever. Funny though isn't it, that Barbarossa is usually refered to as the Eastern Front, rather than the Russian Campaign.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 5, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yeah I agree. If it wasnt a Battle, why is it known as the BATTLE of Britain and not the CAMPAIGN of Britain?



Because "Britain" starts with a B and it just sounds good.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 6, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> I'll assume that's a good thing.



Yup. 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 6, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I agree. If it wasnt a Battle, why is it known as the BATTLE of Britain and not the CAMPAIGN of Britain?
> ...



But "Battle of the Atlantic" doesnt alliterate


----------



## plan_D (Feb 6, 2005)

Barbarossa was the German invasion only. Citadel and Typhoon are also on the Eastern Front. Typhoon is attack on Moscow, and Citadel was the Kharkov offensive...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2005)

just face it, the BoB was a battle...........


----------



## trackend (Feb 6, 2005)

Collins dictionary definition of the word Battle:
Fight between large armed forces.
Conflict or struggle.
I think that a battle can be over an extended period indeed very few battles just start and finish . If you regroup does that mean one battle has finished and another is about to begin, even though direct engagement with the opposing force is temporarily broken.
For example the Battle of the Bulge was not two armies facing off in one big free for all but consisted of many engagements (same goes for Kurst, Stalingrad,Monti Cassino etc) all have a defining moment when a conclusive result is obtained this then is the end of the battle, I think the word is used in these contexts to describe a goal rather than one engagement ie domination of the sea lanes, (Battle of the Adlantic) domination of an area of ground (Battle of the Bulge) (Battle of Kursk) or even the domination of the skies over the UK (Battle of Britain).This means of course that most battles in the strictest sense of the word are actually campaigns but lets face it the Campaign of the Bulge just don't sound right does it. And the soldiers,sailors and airmen who didn't see the end of these actions (if they could come back to life) I am sure would have some other names to call them.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2005)

very good point...........


----------



## trackend (Feb 6, 2005)

The most important battle of world war 2. 
Their wasn't one each played it's part in the over all run of events and without even some of the lesser know battles perhaps the conclusion of the conflict may have been very different .


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 6, 2005)

trackend said:


> The most important battle of world war 2.
> Their wasn't one each played it's part in the over all run of events and without even some of the lesser know battles perhaps the conclusion of the conflict may have been very different .



I agree, if the Battle of Arras had gone the British way, maybe France wouldn't have fallen and the Germans wouldn't have invaded Russia


----------



## plan_D (Feb 6, 2005)

The battle of Arras was good for the British, lack of supply and two collapsing flanks caused a retreat.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 6, 2005)

I think we not need to restrict "the most important battle of ww2" to ETO, only. Battle of Midway is a turning point in the pacific, but the battle of Leyte would be more important in my views. From the german point of view Stalingrad was the most important battle in ww2 (but that depends more on emotions, everybody here have heard about that. From 200000 POW only 20000 (10%)survived their prisonship in Sibiria (I am fimilar with two of them, they still live). Charkov was (in the german view) a succesful operation after Stalingrad, but it leads to the operations of Kursks (Zitadelle), which can be seen as the biggest clashes between armed forces in history. Finally the russian forces destroyed the main german ground forces during 1944 and all these operations are considered to be more important than Battle of Britain, North Atlantic operations or the battle of Bulge or anything else. -As I told, from the german point of view (can be read in schoolbooks, too.)in general. I will not agree completely. The most important SINGLE OPERATION during ww2 belongs -in my eyes- to spy ops. The story of Dr. Richard Sorge had the biggest imaginabel influence on the curse of war from 1941 on. But that is not Battle under our definition.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 6, 2005)

Who's Richard Sorge?


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 6, 2005)

I still think that if we have to define the single most important Battle it would be Pearl Harbor. It turned the US from, I think it was, 78% Isolationist to 99% "kick their buts". Anything less and it would have been a longer more bitter war giving the Axis time to solidify their gains and produce the wepons it needed to continue the war.

The war winning "Policy" was Lend Lease. The vast majority of the tools and raw materials used to fight the war were shipped into the UK and the various theaters of the war. The UK has exactly 3 major natural resources: 1) People who don't quit. 2) People who think. And 3) Coal. Everything else came in by ship and with limited funds Lend Lease was the only way the UK could stay in the war. 

The Russians needed time and material and people to fight not manufacture - LL was criticle allowing them to concentrate of the fighting.

This is my opinion and the facts as I see them. It is in NO WAY ment to detract from the Brittish or their efforts durring the war indeed they were Instramental to winning the war. We always work better toghter!


----------



## delcyros (Mar 7, 2005)

I agree. The land lease was important for the surviving of the red army and the red army fighting (and binding) most of the german forces in the plains of eastern europe was important for the UK and US. Imagine a Rommel Armeekorps with 3 Armygroups (Heeresgruppen), making him 10-15 times (numerical)as strong as it was! Or a DDay with 5 million german defendes instead of 150000! Back to Sorge: He is nearly unknown to russians (because he was a german), to germans (because he was a traitor) and to US/UK (because he was communist). Let me point out the importance of Sorge, even if it has only baraly to do with the topic: As a german top author for Spiegel and japan expert he was from 1938 to 1943 in Japan, member of the german foreign relation group in Tokyo. He was close to high japanes officials, and some say even a little familar to the emperor (I couldn´t find a reliable source to proof that "familarity"). Japan and Russia had some border clashes during 1938, thus resulting in a military build up of russian forces in far east Sibiria. Later, there was a non agression pact signed between Soviet Union and Japan. The relationship remained difficult. Sorge was informed by german ambassadors and japanese friends of the operation Barbararossa at the time the emperor was informed. He gave all informations to Stalin. Stalin noticed that and did not take it for seriously. A major mistake. You wonder why Japan did not declared war on Soviet Union in 1941? Thanks to Dr. Richard Sorge. He decided not to be passiv. He took all his influence to take part in a political decision. Japan decided not to atack Russia and therefore to atack the US. As soon as Dr. Sorge noticed that, he informed Stalin. Stalin was able (thanks to Dr. Sorge) to relocate some 57 (experienced) far eastern divisions for the devense of Moscow (and the following winter offensive)in 1941. He was able to do that because Sorge told him that Japan WILL NOT atack the far eastern borders. Fighting on both borders, Stalin wouldn´t had a chance to survive, surely. And attacking the US brought the nation with the highest industrial capabilitys into the war. (He did not know about plans of Pearl Harbour because his active part made him suspicious for the germans. Late in 1941 he was prisoned, the Japanese however did not wanted to kill him, but Stalin was not willing to exchange him for another (unimportant) spy. Incredible. German pressure forced them to kill him in 1943).


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 7, 2005)

wow, I didn't know he was so important. Anyway, even if America had come into the war they wouldn't have been able to help out in the ETO if they couldn't get their troops, tanks etc. over to Britain and North Africa


----------



## delcyros (Mar 7, 2005)

Without Sorge it would have made a big difference: The US would probably declare war to germany anyway, but it would happen later. And I seriously doubt that the SU could hold Moscow and Leningrad 1941 without additional divisions from the far east. Murmansk and Stalingrad would have fallen into german hands quite easily in 1942. And without possibility( e.g. without Murmansk) to help the red army, all LL wouldn´t take effect. That would have surely prolonged the war for years (Afrika...), causing even more catatstrophic civil losses for the UK and US as well as for Germany and other nations. Richard Sorge is quite a footprint in history, but a remarkable one.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 7, 2005)

A forgotten footprint who should be rememberd more


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 7, 2005)

delycros,

I doubt very much that Sorge was the primary motivator of the Japanese as you indicate. Remember, in Nov. 1939 the Japanese attacked the Soviets along the Manchurian boarder. They were bitterly defeated, loosing something around 50,000 soldiers while inflicting less than 10,000 losses on the Soviets. Reportedly Hirohito was furious with the Army for having instigated hostilities with the Soviets and ordered the action cease and the commander of the Kwantung army be sacked.

The Japanese were fearful of a land war with the Soviets, pure and simple.

What Sorge did do (I assume he was Stalin's spy in Japan but am not sure of this) that was pivital was to inform Stalin that the Japanese had no intentions against the Soviets in the East, freeing something like 40 divisions to move to the West in the Winter of 1941 allowing the Soviets to counter-attack the Germans effectively.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Mar 8, 2005)

Lunatic,

Doubts are allowed, of course. Sorge did not made the decision, that has to be underlined. He was, however, not the only person to take influence on the political decision, the japanese made in 1941. Yamamoto for example warned that a war against the US would be a very risky one. Documentations about Sorge are hard to get. (the soviets did not acknowledge him prior to 1964)I had acces to some russian documents which simply proof that he was member of NKVD (1933-34 first try to establish an information collective network in Japan), convinced communist (his uncle was secretary of Karl Marx!), member of the Nazi party (he worked for the german Embassy in Japan as an agent of the Abwehr (counterspy-that allowed him to double check all informations) However he did, but he managed to work with Ozaki Hozumi, who closely worked together with the japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye. I had a talk with the wife of the japanese ambassador in Berlin, Mrs. Aiko Takashima on january 24th. Dr. Sorge is well known to her. She told me, that he was even "familar" to the emperor himself. Whether his influence was remains unknown, he turned to be active and tried to influence others and he voted not to atack Russia. Tensions have been to both nations, the US as well as Russia. He did influence the prime minister via Ozaki (and by himself) . According to www. japan-101.com\history\richard_sorge.htm he also warned for the Pearl Harbour Attack, but no documents are delivered on that Site to proof it. I doubt that he knew much about that. He was suspiscious and some messages were intercepted by japanes secret service in middle 1941. Ozaki was arrested on October 14 and Sorge 4 days later. even the day of his death is not clear in all sources, some indicate it was late in 1943 others he was hanged in october 1944. To say the japanese were simply fearful of a land war against russia is only partly correct. Every nation, including the US is fearful to fight a prolonged land war against Russia, I agree. With the difficulties the russians faced at the early campaigns (Smolensk, Kiev) in mind, it would have been a different matter. Japanese military remained strong in the Manchurian until the russian attacked them in 1945 with numerical overwhelming and experienced forces. In 1941 the Manchurian Army was more a thread to the russians. (..resulting in an military build up along the border until the german attacked russia..) It would have been logical to attack russia instead of the US or not? The german ambassador in Japan was actually surprised that it did not happen. Who knows about Dr. Sorge in detail? I am no wizard. But even if his actions had no significant impact on the political decision regarding whether to atack the US or not (we simply don´t know all details), it remains that his informations allowed Zhukov to deploy needed forces to hold Moscow (both, numerical, experienced and -what seems to be more important- with good troop morale) and to counteratack in the winter. That happens to a dangerous time (for the soviets, when the Stalin tried via the rumanien ambassador to make peace with Hitler, he was even willing to sacrifice Belorussia for that!).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I agree. If it wasnt a Battle, why is it known as the BATTLE of Britain and not the CAMPAIGN of Britain?
> ...



I am sorry but yes it was a compaign but it was a battle also. I consider it the BATTLE OF BRITIAN. And I consider it one of the most important battles. It is the same argument as the East front, West front, Med front, N. Afrika Front, South Front, North East front, etc etc, blah blah blah.


----------



## NightHawk (Mar 8, 2005)

Well, how about operation Overlord??? That was very important, without it the Allies would have never landed in Nazi Europe, and take the war to Nazi Germany.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

I agree Operation Overlord was one of the most important events of WW2. It relieved some pressure from the Russians.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 8, 2005)

delcyros,

It does not make sense for the Japanese to have attacked Russia rather than the USA and Britain. You have only to ask yourself the simple question - what was in it for them? - to see this.

Attacking Russia in 1941 in support of the German's would have helped the German's a lot, but it would not have done anything to help the Japanese resource situation which inspired them to make war on the US and Britain. Remember, the US and Britain had engaged in an embargo of oil and other critical war materials against Japan in response to the Japanese war in China.

Had the Japanese attacked Russia, instead of the USA, in 1941, this would have made them an Axis nation and brought them into war with Britain anyway - and the USA would have joined the war soon thereafter. But with no sneak attack at Perl Harbor the USN would have been powerful from the start, and there would have been no easy early gains in the Pacific for the Japanese.

It just didn't make sense for the Japanese to attack Russia. What perhaps made sense was for Japan to focus it's efforts on Burma and India. Had the Japanese been able to "liberate" India, it would have cost the British several million troops, and that needs to be multiplied by 2 because the troops would have been switching side - several million less for Britain, several million more for the Axis. From India, the middle east would have been open to a futher attack. I think the Japanese would have done this except they rightfully knew that if they attacked the British the USA would enter the war.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Mar 8, 2005)

Lunatic,

to debate about what motivations might drove the japanese into a US-japanese war or not is an interesting matter, but I doubt that we have enough reliable informations to come into an overall agreed solution. It is true that Japan would gain more if it concentrate on the Phillipines because it faced nearly the same resourceproblems that Germany had. And after the knowledge of the late 30´s there wasn´t much known about oil reserves in central Sibira. But it was also much more risky for them (compared to a short joint Blitzkrieg against Soviet Union). They had to think strategicly, we are not talking about local conflicts, but about a world wide war! I agree, that an India focussed campaign would be more in the Axis interests, but that would also be much easier, if Stalin have been defeated earlier (no soviet forces would make a difference of up to 500 divisions, according to german estimations in 1940). The japanese were indeed awaiting an enter of soviet forces much earlier than 1945,so the red army remained a danger in their background. Not to imagine the impact it would have on ETO. But that is, however, pure speculation. You know about the history. There was very much a debate about the targets for the next Years in 1941 between military and high politicians in Japan. Even high ranking Admirals (Yamamoto to name one) favoured a later atack on the US. But that special conflict against the US was, what Japan was building it´s fleet for. All the carriers and cruisers would be of limited worth in a conflict against the Soviet Union, true. And a war against the US wouldn´t have been postponed, just delayed. With all my respects, Lunatic, I think that Dr. Richard Sorge´s work is underestimated by historicans in general (..as it is hard to proof..). 
Back to operation Overlord:It was simply the major attack of the western Allies against german forces. But I think it´s effect is overrated much. By mid 1944 the war was already coming to an end with major german ground forces already been destroyed by the red army and german military loosing control over large areas in eastern europe. It was a very carefully planned operation, but still most of the german forces have been in the east to stop the red army advancing (..and failed..). Even without DDay the result would have been the same, I think: Soviet forces encircling Berlin in April/May 1945. I do not doubt about it. Overlords biggest benefit, however, was to help the western allies to manage an acceptable post war Nations architekture and -probably- to shorten the war a little. Imagine all central european nations (including France) beeing "liberated" by Stalin! 
Battles are, as it was shown earlier hard to define, so what about the oil bombing campaign? It reduced the german capabilities to counteratack and relocate forces greatly and it did shorten the war for months. (fuel shortness became critical as soon as mid 1944, by late 1944 Germany could only support one very limitid Ardennes-offensive (Battle of the Bulge), which stopped thanks to fuel shortage and countermesures by the allies. It affected the german forces against the red army, too.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2005)

although i wouldn't class operation overlord as a battle........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2005)

You can classify it as a series of battles though.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2005)

You know technically the D-Day landings actually started on 5th June?


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 9, 2005)

Probably the British 6th Airborne taking Pegasus bridge was on the 5th but the main landings were on the 6th


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 10, 2005)

The Aircraft and Gliders carrying the American and British paratroopers took off from England on the 5th of June, however when the airborne troops and the gliders actually reached Normandy it was already the 6th. Some time between Midnight and 0100 in the morning of the 6th. This account says 0100 in the morning but I have read some that say just after midnight.



> Just after 0100 on June 6, 1944, the first air and glider-borne troops landed in Normandy. The drops were not going according to plan at all. The pathfinders that came about an hour before them had not been dropped in the right places because the pilots had swerved around the cloud banks and had taken unnecessary evasive action around the light German anti-aircraft fire. This problem was compounded by the orders to maintain radio silence. Only one of the eighteen American pathfinders landed in the right place. But the pathfinders did manage set up their Eureka sets, ADF radios, and other beacons to help guide the paratroopers that were coming in. This was extremely necessary because this was going to be the largest drop ever of paratroopers (almost 20,400 Allied paratroopers were dropped32).
> The markings that the pathfinders did make weren't much help anyway because when the gliders and the paratroopers came over France, they too, ran into the same cloud and anti-aircraft problems. More than one stick (planeload of paratroopers) was dropped in the Channel or marshes. The immense weight that the paratroopers were carrying caused many to drown when they landed in water.
> Small rag-tag groups of paratroopers did manage to capture the most critical of their objectives. These included the bridges across the rivers that surrounded the invasion area, cutting off the German's support. The paratroopers also managed to hold the causeways that led off the beaches. The protection of these causeways was critical because they were the only way to get troops off the beaches and onto the roads that lead to Caen, Paris, and Germany. The groups and individuals who accomplished this without large-scale organization are some of the greatest heroes of the invasion.
> http://www.princeton.edu/~ferguson/adw/d-day.shtml#june


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 10, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Probably the British 6th Airborne taking Pegasus bridge was on the 5th but the main landings were on the 6th



Yep. I think the first Horsa touched down at something like 23.52pm


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 10, 2005)

no, it didn't, they landed just after midnight, and the first allied casualty of the day was at something like 00:23............


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 10, 2005)

Seriously, who cares. Even if a few men did hit dirt a few minutes before 23:59:59 hours on the 5th, is that significant?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> mosquitoman said:
> 
> 
> > Probably the British 6th Airborne taking Pegasus bridge was on the 5th but the main landings were on the 6th
> ...



Read my post above. 8) 



RG_Lunatic said:


> Seriously, who cares. Even if a few men did hit dirt a few minutes before 23:59:59 hours on the 5th, is that significant?



Nothing people say here is insignificant.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 11, 2005)

I have. I was told by our tour guide in Caen museum that the first Allied airbourne troops hit French soil just before midnight.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2005)

I dont know I may be wrong, but every report I have read has said after midnight, they all pretty much contradict each other. Some saying as early as a few minutes after midnight and some as a few minutes after one in the morning.


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 12, 2005)

I think any AAR has to be endlessly compared and cross-checked to even begin to approach the truth. The guys coming out of those gliders and transports probably werent watching the clock too closely when they hit the deck  And as Im sure Adler and you other military types can agree, when you're in a high-pressure situation, time seems to distort in wierd ways...the small exercises I did as a cadet are awfully blurred in my memory - just lists of events with no real timeframe. Im sure the real thing is much worse


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2005)

You are correct, in times like that you dont even think of looking at the clock. I found believe it or not the time went by pretty quick when things got hairy, it seemed like it was 5 minutes but was really like an hour.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 21, 2005)

The battle for Britain...Not only because it is the best known...putting their hands on the british sofisticated radar sistem and also because with britain out of the way USA would have had a harder job of sending it's planes across the Atlantic Ocean(NO European military airport was at their disposal)...The germans could have concentrate better on the war against URSS(even though I believe that with Britain conquered, Stalin would have made a pact with Hitler, probably for a few years after which one of the parts would break the pact...).
USA would have finished the war with Japan faster, not being attacked by Germany...
In the end...The war would have probably lasted for another 5 years(MAX). But I can't say would have won...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2005)

hellmaker said:


> USA would have finished the war with Japan faster, not being attacked by Germany...



I did not know that Germany actually attacked the USA.


----------



## Erich (Mar 21, 2005)

The Battle for Belin which was a series of many battles from Mid February 45 till wars end in the ETO. 3/4rs of the Reich air defence was drawn off from the end of January to protect the capital and associated industry, leaving the western regions completely open to a pounding by the Allies day and night bomber forces.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2005)

That battle was deffinatly intense and led to some of the worst attrocities commited during the war.


----------



## reddragon (Mar 21, 2005)

It's a hard question to answer, there were so many important battles. I kind of lean toward the battle of Kursk, since it was this battle that took the initiative from the Germans in the east.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 21, 2005)

Atlantic, it could have ended it all in the days after Dunkirk


----------



## delcyros (Mar 21, 2005)

Umm, in general I agree, but in detail I denie. Yes it proved to be very valid for the allies to bring material to England but even with more subs in 1940/41 the Brits would only develop succesful countermesures for the sub thread more quickly. I don´t see much possibility for the germans to win the atlantic battle. Maybe with type XXI in early 1943 but that is pure fiction...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 22, 2005)

Sept 1 1939

The start date of the Battle of Poland. No BoP, no WW2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Sept 1 1939
> 
> The start date of the Battle of Poland. No BoP, no WW2.



Well if you put it that way then June 28, 1919 Versailles. No Versailles no WW2.

And as for the battle of the Atlantic. I dont think even with Type XXI or more U-Boots earlier Germany could have won the battle. They needed a much large Navy period.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 22, 2005)

sorry for the misstake, Adler,  ... I'm shure that Germany presented a threat to USA, but not an imediat one... Hitler would have rebuilt his army before engaging in a war over the atlantic ocean... It could have sustain itself in a war against URSS having no imediat enemy in the west... I'm preaty shure of this...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 22, 2005)

Did not know the Treaty of Versailles was a battle.

Do you want to go back to the 1870s? Naw, lets go back to Adam and Eve.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Did not know the Treaty of Versailles was a battle.
> 
> Do you want to go back to the 1870s? Naw, lets go back to Adam and Eve.



Well, Well, Well, I see some people can not take a joke!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 22, 2005)

> ="DerAdlerIstGelandet
> Well, Well, Well, I see some people can not take a joke!



Yes I can see that.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2005)

The Big Bang. If it wasnt for that, NOTHING would have happened


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 23, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> The Big Bang. If it wasnt for that, NOTHING would have happened



I seccond this... That was the ultimate battle...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

Until the bang comes back and destroys everything that it created.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2005)

i personally think it'll be the sun exploding that'll bring about the end of the world...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

Or how about a Giant Asteroid hitting the earth! That would be the way to go huh!


----------



## Erich (Mar 23, 2005)

ah ok interesting last couple of posts......  

for the Atlantic the Kriegsmarine in some way needed a blocking apparatus designed to knock out Allied sonar. Having your converstations intercepted/knowing your whereabouts for U-booten didn't help either. It was all interrelated. KM didn't have the fuels nor a large enough air to ship co-operation besides the destroyer and larger capital fleet was too few in numbers


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

And did not help that the RN captured a magnetic mine that washed up on there shore and came up with effective countermeasures for it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

yup and don't forget the ol' wimpies with the magnetic rings.......


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 24, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yup and don't forget the ol' wimpies with the magnetic rings.......



JU 52s had rings mounted as well for hunting mag mines.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

nay oics??

ok that was some of my worst typing ever, believe it or not that's supposed to say "any pics??"


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 24, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> nay oics??



Man...nice typing... I pissed myself laughing...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

yes i don't know what heppened there..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

Hey lanc here ya go.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

oh they so stole that from us...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

I dont know I would have to see when it first flew.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

why, you know damn well even if it flew before ours i'm gonna cliam it as our idea


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 24, 2005)

Nah, it was Canadian. :-"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

yeah cos all the best stuff's canadian..........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 24, 2005)

That's actually a rather broad statement, lanc. Everyone knows the _best_ stuff is specifically from Nova Scotia.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

And then stolen by the Brits along with everybody elses stuff!  


Just kidding Lanc!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 24, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Just kidding Lanc!


I'm not. 


(Yes I am.)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 25, 2005)

hang on a minute guys, is that a bit of respect coming through there??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 25, 2005)

Let's not be hasty.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

Yeah dont jump to conclusions


----------



## trackend (Apr 3, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And did not help that the RN captured a magnetic mine that washed up on there shore and came up with effective countermeasures for it.


That was at Shoeburyness Adler about six miles from where I live.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 3, 2005)

Do they still have any disarmed ones in any museums over there?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2005)

why does it have to be dissarmed??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2005)

Well you wouldn't want someone walking by with a metal baby carraige and then there goes Bye Bye Baby!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2005)

yeah but think how much more fun it'd be!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2005)

That it would be.


----------



## trackend (Apr 4, 2005)

I think theres one onboard HMS Belfast up by Tower bridge in London
as it had its back broken in 1939 by one. Adler


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 6, 2005)

Interesting I would love to see one.


----------

