Groundhog Thread v. 2.0 - The most important battle of WW2
- Thread starter NightHawk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
No single battle on its own can be said to be the most important.
Stalingrad is always said to be the turning point, but I fail to see how. The Germans didn't actually lose offensive capability until the Ardennes Offensive 1944. Kursk and the Ardennes Offensive must be two of the most important.
Battle of Britain definately has to be up there because it was the first time Germany had been beaten. And it halted their onslaught in Europe.
Stalingrad is always said to be the turning point, but I fail to see how. The Germans didn't actually lose offensive capability until the Ardennes Offensive 1944. Kursk and the Ardennes Offensive must be two of the most important.
Battle of Britain definately has to be up there because it was the first time Germany had been beaten. And it halted their onslaught in Europe.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
they're all important for different reasons............
Felipe
Recruit
NightHawk said:
Ídem...
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
- Thread starter
- #6
NightHawk
Senior Airman
Stalingrad is too hard to say. It would have provided an excellent garrison, industrial base and access to the Caucasus oilfields. On top of that an open route to the Caucasus would have given an open route to Persia. That said the Soviet Union could have held up defences further East, if desperate times even on the Ural Mountains. It was an important battle though.
El Alamein if won by the Germans would not be assurance of a complete victory in North Africa. The supplies of Rommels Afrika Corps was running low due to Royal Navy blockades. Had the British 8th Army retreated from the area surrounding El Alamein and set up defences further East then Rommel would still have the troubles of the 8th Army from the East, and the American-Anglo Armies landing in the west.
Had the Normandy Landings never happened, or been wiped out. The Germans would have, at least, been able to hold on for months, or even years after they did. The greatest of the German Army was present to defend against the Normandy Invasion (11th and 21st Panzer Divisions), had the 10 Panzer Divisions and 48 Infantry Divisions been in the East the Soviet Union would not have been able to achieve the great advances they did in the dying months of '44 and early 1945.
On top of that, due to the Western Invasion Gen. Balck possibly the greatest Panzer generals of the war was moved Westward to halt the advance of Allied Armies.
El Alamein if won by the Germans would not be assurance of a complete victory in North Africa. The supplies of Rommels Afrika Corps was running low due to Royal Navy blockades. Had the British 8th Army retreated from the area surrounding El Alamein and set up defences further East then Rommel would still have the troubles of the 8th Army from the East, and the American-Anglo Armies landing in the west.
Had the Normandy Landings never happened, or been wiped out. The Germans would have, at least, been able to hold on for months, or even years after they did. The greatest of the German Army was present to defend against the Normandy Invasion (11th and 21st Panzer Divisions), had the 10 Panzer Divisions and 48 Infantry Divisions been in the East the Soviet Union would not have been able to achieve the great advances they did in the dying months of '44 and early 1945.
On top of that, due to the Western Invasion Gen. Balck possibly the greatest Panzer generals of the war was moved Westward to halt the advance of Allied Armies.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
all very good points, i agree, no one battle can claim to be the most important..............
- Thread starter
- #9
NightHawk
Senior Airman
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Im not even going to comment...
- Thread starter
- #11
NightHawk
Senior Airman
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
'Je ne commez pas'.....
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
does nighthawk realise russia's man and military power??
No he's right. The German Army crushed the Red Army with ease in 1941. By 1943 the Red Army was reaching the extents of its manpower, German soldiers were capturing children and old men in the Soviet ranks. The Red Army did not have unlimited resources or manpower.
They realised that the Soviet army if subjected to a great defeat in 1943, would collapse. And they were right but unfortunately (for them) they chose the wrong day, wrong place and wrong time at Kursk.
Had Germany took A) Moscow B) Stalingrad or C) Kursk then the Soviet would be in deep trouble. None, however, were an assurance of victory.
They realised that the Soviet army if subjected to a great defeat in 1943, would collapse. And they were right but unfortunately (for them) they chose the wrong day, wrong place and wrong time at Kursk.
Had Germany took A) Moscow B) Stalingrad or C) Kursk then the Soviet would be in deep trouble. None, however, were an assurance of victory.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i realise no country can have unlimited man or military power, but the russains won but ion was no walk in the park, it was partly russia's might that caused the german downfall in the east...............
I would say, more of German (mainly Hitlers) mistakes. The Russian Army was at its limits in 1943. Had the German Generals been allowed to have freedom of thought and action, then the Red Army would have been crushed.
On top of that, the Red Army wouldn't have even been able to move as a mobile force without the 500,000 trucks sent as Lend-Lease from the West.
On top of that, the Red Army wouldn't have even been able to move as a mobile force without the 500,000 trucks sent as Lend-Lease from the West.
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
With the size of Russia, the Germans already exceeded their ability to resupply their frontline;- they'd never have got much further than they did, and isn't it historically fascinating that these types like Napolean and Hitler seem doomed to repeat failures.... Both Germany and Russia ended up throwing young n' old into the fray... makes y'wonder about a Power far bigger than all this 'earthly' stuff, the way things turned out...
- Personally, the BoB was I believe, the more important, as by August 1940, Britain faced Germany's 2,600 aircraft with 52 Fighter Sqn.'s with 660 aircraft and 1,300 pilots.....At a cost of 510 fighter pilots killed, winning the BoB was decisive to the outcome of the War......
- Personally, the BoB was I believe, the more important, as by August 1940, Britain faced Germany's 2,600 aircraft with 52 Fighter Sqn.'s with 660 aircraft and 1,300 pilots.....At a cost of 510 fighter pilots killed, winning the BoB was decisive to the outcome of the War......
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
I dont think the BoB would have been won if the German (Hitlers) plan of attack had stayed with the bombing and attacking of airfields...
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
but we would have won it allot earlier if we had the mossie.............
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
I dont believe that... Alot earlier would have meant alot more Mossies burning on the ground from German attacks....
Round what time did the Germans change their strategy from airfield bombings and start bombing London and the cities???
Round what time did the Germans change their strategy from airfield bombings and start bombing London and the cities???
