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
Well either way the whole victory in WW2 was accomplished by many different nations and there contributions.
Good we finally agree on this topic, well atleast until RG posts again.
DerAdler:
One thing is, in my opinion, crystal clear and would hardly admit any doubts or questions:
The entrance of the USA into the war is perhaps the definitive event of the war.
Not because its army was the best. After all, and I usually repeat this, on the first ground clash between Germans and USAers, the German troops taught the GIs a very very harsh and tough lesson, inflicting them a smashing defeat.
The central issue lies on the size of the country, its number of inhabitants, industrial capability and geography -far away enough to not be raided, attacked, bombed or savotaged-.
Any reasonable doubts on this? The military build up of the USA on both theathers: Pacific and Europe is proof more than clear and enough to validate this point.
The poor USSR was absolutely uncapable of conducting similar operations in the dimension displayed by the USA. Against Germany -and I digress: with the essential help of the Lend Lease- they conducted a massive effort throwing everyone and everything to the battlefield. Had Japan, however, attacked the USSR with its large but modestly equipped army from the far east the USSR would certainly had been placed in a coffin ready to be nailed and sent below the ground.
Let´s say of a scenario where the USA remains neutral to death. In such event Germany and the UK reach a stalemate (lucky sods to have the channel and the Royal Navy), but the USSR is brought down to its knees, forced by Germany to sign an armnistice and the Reich is certainly expanded eastwards for good.
One thing is, in my opinion, crystal clear and would hardly admit any doubts or questions:
The entrance of the USA into the war is perhaps the definitive event of the war.
Not because its army was the best. After all, and I usually repeat this, on the first ground clash between Germans and USAers, the German troops taught the GIs a very very harsh and tough lesson, inflicting them a smashing defeat.
The central issue lies on the size of the country, its number of inhabitants, industrial capability and geography -far away enough to not be raided, attacked, bombed or savotaged-.
Any reasonable doubts on this? The military build up of the USA on both theathers: Pacific and Europe is proof more than clear and enough to validate this point.
The poor USSR was absolutely uncapable of conducting similar operations in the dimension displayed by the USA. Against Germany -and I digress: with the essential help of the Lend Lease- they conducted a massive effort throwing everyone and everything to the battlefield. Had Japan, however, attacked the USSR with its large but modestly equipped army from the far east the USSR would certainly had been placed in a coffin ready to be nailed and sent below the ground.
Let´s say of a scenario where the USA remains neutral to death. In such event Germany and the UK reach a stalemate (lucky sods to have the channel and the Royal Navy), but the USSR is brought down to its knees, forced by Germany to sign an armnistice and the Reich is certainly expanded eastwards for good.
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
Similar posts have been made before.
Lucky to have the Royal Navy. Not really luck when it built the thing up from the dawn of its Empire. The Royal Navy was the first official arm of the English armed forces, it's the senior service.
And you're forgetting the RAF, they stopped Hitler not the Royal Navy.
And you're forgetting the RAF, they stopped Hitler not the Royal Navy.
I will agree with you on those points Udet. Yes the US entering the war was the definitive point and I think the way may have turned out a little bit different had they not, however I still stress the point that all the allies contributed to the whole victory in one way or another.
A
Anonymous
Guest
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
No, even I agree with this statement
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
but at the same time america would be useless without the british, where else are you gonna launch an invasion from??
cheddar cheese
Major General
Luxembourg...
A
Anonymous
Guest
Well, if the USA were inclined to do so after the fall of Britain, the answer would be Africa. First you'd take Africa and then maybe Spain. From there you'd launch an invasion anywhere along the south med. coast, or perhaps to the south part of western France.
Of course, this would only be doable if the Germans were badly hurt in conquering Britain (which I think is a given), and were not able to defend Africa or respond to Spain. It would also probably depend a lot on the disposition of British forces, would the RN and foriegn deployed British forces have gone "Free British" or become "Vichy British"?
My guess is Churchil would have fled to the USA and carried on the fight, and the British would have fought on till none were left... can you imagine the Brits as partisans? The Brits are a very stubborn peoples, I doubt they'd ever have given up.
=S=
Lunatic
Of course, this would only be doable if the Germans were badly hurt in conquering Britain (which I think is a given), and were not able to defend Africa or respond to Spain. It would also probably depend a lot on the disposition of British forces, would the RN and foriegn deployed British forces have gone "Free British" or become "Vichy British"?
My guess is Churchil would have fled to the USA and carried on the fight, and the British would have fought on till none were left... can you imagine the Brits as partisans? The Brits are a very stubborn peoples, I doubt they'd ever have given up.
=S=
Lunatic
You got to be kidding.
If the Germans had launched Seelowe having as outcome an established beachhead with a reasonable number of men and war materiel, England is very likely to go down the toilet.
Even if the Germans would have sustained heavy losses of men and material while crossing the channel -the Royal Navy and the RAF surely take frightful losses as well- what did the British Army had available to launch any significant offensive against an established beach head?
Perhaps the shocked guys from Dunkirk resorting to harsh language?
They virtually had no artillery and no tanks.
Or do you think HMS Rodney, Nelson and the other heavy weights of the Home Fleet would have been allowed by the Luftwaffe to shell the beach head?
The BEF fled the continent arriving in England only in their trousers: absolutely all their war material was lost!!!
I am not a clairvoyant; Seelowe might have failed as well.
Assume that during the crossing of the channel by the invasion force, the Royal Navy launches the entire Home Fleet to intercept and destroy the enemy; the Luftwaffe launches virtually all its bombers and dive bombers to interdict the action of the Home Fleet units... I see a hell burning in the ensuing battle!
What would have happened to the British army if Htiler had ordered the panzer divisionen to slaughter the BEF around and in Dunkirk?
The RAF was a tough enemy and they made a brave stand; yet the RAF was not in best of the shapes during mid 1940 either.
If the Germans had launched Seelowe having as outcome an established beachhead with a reasonable number of men and war materiel, England is very likely to go down the toilet.
Even if the Germans would have sustained heavy losses of men and material while crossing the channel -the Royal Navy and the RAF surely take frightful losses as well- what did the British Army had available to launch any significant offensive against an established beach head?
Perhaps the shocked guys from Dunkirk resorting to harsh language?
They virtually had no artillery and no tanks.
Or do you think HMS Rodney, Nelson and the other heavy weights of the Home Fleet would have been allowed by the Luftwaffe to shell the beach head?
The BEF fled the continent arriving in England only in their trousers: absolutely all their war material was lost!!!
I am not a clairvoyant; Seelowe might have failed as well.
Assume that during the crossing of the channel by the invasion force, the Royal Navy launches the entire Home Fleet to intercept and destroy the enemy; the Luftwaffe launches virtually all its bombers and dive bombers to interdict the action of the Home Fleet units... I see a hell burning in the ensuing battle!
What would have happened to the British army if Htiler had ordered the panzer divisionen to slaughter the BEF around and in Dunkirk?
The RAF was a tough enemy and they made a brave stand; yet the RAF was not in best of the shapes during mid 1940 either.
Lightning Guy
Master Sergeant
- 2,511
- Apr 29, 2004
What about Greenland as a base to re-invade the Home Islands? Assuming Sealion was pulled off that is? To me that would be a more logical starting place than Africa.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Udet said:
Ummm... the Luftwaffe' was not effective at night. Neither were submarines against fast moving warships.
Facing the invading Germans were:
2 Territorial Divisions
1 Brigade from India
1 Brigade from new Zealand
1 Armoured Division
1 Canadian Division
1 Army Tank Brigade
And for Naval forces:
RN - 5 capital ships, 11 cruisers, 53 destroyers, 23 destroyers on convoy duty
Kriegsmarine - 1 capital ship, 1 cruiser, 10 destroyers, 20-30 submarines
As for the Luftwaffe' -
Please read this analysis of the farcical German fantasy called "Seelowe" (<--- click here). See what you think of Hitler's plan.
If it did succeed losses would have been staggering. By the time the Germans did establish an operational beachhead they'd be hard pressed to continue the fight much past that point. And their beachhead would be attacked ferociously every night by the RN and RAF, so functional "operational" status would be highly doubious. The Germans would have had a very hard time landing any heavy equipment (like tanks).
I seriously doubt Seelowe had any chance of success. In fact, I think it is very likely it would have failed without any British intervention whatsoever. And all it would take would be a few destroyers or other fast RN boats to break into the area of the barges during the night and they'd have easily swamped them just by creating wakes. In the meantime, the German soldiers on the barges, ordered to defend themselves against unidentified vessels would have probably opened up on each other finishing the job.
SeeLowe was a German fantasy, nothing more.
=S=
Lunatic
Give me a break.
As I said before, Htiler did not launch Seelowe simply because he was not interested in doing so and not because he came to his senses and realized chances of success were very limited.
Actually the British army got gutted by the Germans everywhere with the exception of (i) El-Alamein, due more to the very little interested placed by the German High Command in the African theather of operations and (ii) their return to the continent in 1944 -not without nasty local defeats though-.
The British record:
Fall Gelb in 1940, having the BEF arriving shocked in trousers to England.
Norway? Good bye British army.
Greece? Another complete defeat.
Crete? What were the odds of the German fallschirmjager armed mostly with light weapons against the very well stocked British commonwealth/Greek garrison? The outcome was a smashing German victory.
The RAF even when making a tough brave stand over England during 1940, got smashed by the Luftwaffe over the Mediterranean and in North Africa.
What was the treatment the Royal Navy received from Wolfram von Richtofen´s stuka fliegerkorps during Merkur?
Rommel on his initial arrivial in North Africa with a very small korps smashing and routing the British Army...
So I have no idea if Seelowe was a fantasy; my point is, the German army proved to be a far better army than the British counterpart, and in 1940 the Germans kept, by far, the upper hand. Had Seelowe been launched boldly by the Germans, whatever the cost might be, the blackest scenario certainly falls upon England.
As I said before, Htiler did not launch Seelowe simply because he was not interested in doing so and not because he came to his senses and realized chances of success were very limited.
Actually the British army got gutted by the Germans everywhere with the exception of (i) El-Alamein, due more to the very little interested placed by the German High Command in the African theather of operations and (ii) their return to the continent in 1944 -not without nasty local defeats though-.
The British record:
Fall Gelb in 1940, having the BEF arriving shocked in trousers to England.
Norway? Good bye British army.
Greece? Another complete defeat.
Crete? What were the odds of the German fallschirmjager armed mostly with light weapons against the very well stocked British commonwealth/Greek garrison? The outcome was a smashing German victory.
The RAF even when making a tough brave stand over England during 1940, got smashed by the Luftwaffe over the Mediterranean and in North Africa.
What was the treatment the Royal Navy received from Wolfram von Richtofen´s stuka fliegerkorps during Merkur?
Rommel on his initial arrivial in North Africa with a very small korps smashing and routing the British Army...
So I have no idea if Seelowe was a fantasy; my point is, the German army proved to be a far better army than the British counterpart, and in 1940 the Germans kept, by far, the upper hand. Had Seelowe been launched boldly by the Germans, whatever the cost might be, the blackest scenario certainly falls upon England.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
now that's what you call a bias post.............
He has some good points though. Most of what he said I agree with but I do however am not sure the Germans would have been able to logisticaly sustain an invasion force in England. It take quite a bit to feed, resupply with ammo, equipment and such. I dont think they would have been able to sustain that. In an all out battle though I think the British forces would have put up one hell of a fight but at the time as Udet said the German forces were better equiped and a better fighting force. Wheather it could have succeeded though I dont know either.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
yes but he didn't even mention the fact that we beat the luftwaffe in the BoB and blames the germans for loosing El Alemain, not giving us credit for winning it...............
Hello Lancaster Kicks Ass:
That is not correct. I am not a biased individual and can say my brain is free of that crap or of any other kind of preconceived ideas.
Perhaps you did not enjoy my post because you are a British guy? I am half British as well, and it is not my intention to offend or the like!
Now, do you think any of the events I pointed are untrue?
As I recall someone saying "in love just as in war, everything is valid..." and that´s precisely what Great Britain -and all nations involved- did, to take advantage of all resources and circumstances which might favor the country!
It was not England´s fault Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht to stop and let the British go away, when everything was ready to close the jaws and to chew the BEF beyond recognition, but, they were thoroughly defeated on the battlefield!!
The same applies for Norway, Greece, Crete and the initial stages of the North African campaign, where is the bias here Lanc?
From Hitler´s orders the British simply took the benefits, very valid to do.
Isn´t of interest to notice that while the RAF was having a slight advantage over the Luftwaffe in British skies in 1940, they were getting obliterared out of the skies by the Luftwaffe over the Mediterranean and North Africa?
Could that lead to the question of what would have happened over England in 1940 if the range Bf109 had been much greater?
The thing is the BF109 did not have sufficient range to stay from a good deal time in the battle zone over England, and from that the RAF simply took the benefits. Again, very valid!
For sensitive guys, what the RAF pilots did during 1940 deserves all due honors. However, I do think their performance has been some what over inflated. Why do I say this?
My relatives in England include one cousin who happens to be a WWII buff. He told me, for instance, the radar system of the RAF during the Battle of Britain if indeed was of help, was not what it has been depicted. A very large percent of the times, the British fighter pilots taking off to intercept enemy formations, following the guidance of radar operators, simply found nothing. He explained me those were the very initial stages of radar and it was not duly interpreted by its operators most of the times. (there is a similar incident with radar issues when the Japs struck Pearl Harbor if I recall correctly).
Bf109 pilots running out of fuel over England or over the channel were as common as dogfight losses; sometimes the urge of staying there for some more little time lead to the loss of the plane: it ran out of fuel.
Seriously speaking Lanc, i am open to discussing everything and i digress, i am not biased.
Cheers!
That is not correct. I am not a biased individual and can say my brain is free of that crap or of any other kind of preconceived ideas.
Perhaps you did not enjoy my post because you are a British guy? I am half British as well, and it is not my intention to offend or the like!
Now, do you think any of the events I pointed are untrue?
As I recall someone saying "in love just as in war, everything is valid..." and that´s precisely what Great Britain -and all nations involved- did, to take advantage of all resources and circumstances which might favor the country!
It was not England´s fault Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht to stop and let the British go away, when everything was ready to close the jaws and to chew the BEF beyond recognition, but, they were thoroughly defeated on the battlefield!!
The same applies for Norway, Greece, Crete and the initial stages of the North African campaign, where is the bias here Lanc?
From Hitler´s orders the British simply took the benefits, very valid to do.
Isn´t of interest to notice that while the RAF was having a slight advantage over the Luftwaffe in British skies in 1940, they were getting obliterared out of the skies by the Luftwaffe over the Mediterranean and North Africa?
Could that lead to the question of what would have happened over England in 1940 if the range Bf109 had been much greater?
The thing is the BF109 did not have sufficient range to stay from a good deal time in the battle zone over England, and from that the RAF simply took the benefits. Again, very valid!
For sensitive guys, what the RAF pilots did during 1940 deserves all due honors. However, I do think their performance has been some what over inflated. Why do I say this?
My relatives in England include one cousin who happens to be a WWII buff. He told me, for instance, the radar system of the RAF during the Battle of Britain if indeed was of help, was not what it has been depicted. A very large percent of the times, the British fighter pilots taking off to intercept enemy formations, following the guidance of radar operators, simply found nothing. He explained me those were the very initial stages of radar and it was not duly interpreted by its operators most of the times. (there is a similar incident with radar issues when the Japs struck Pearl Harbor if I recall correctly).
Bf109 pilots running out of fuel over England or over the channel were as common as dogfight losses; sometimes the urge of staying there for some more little time lead to the loss of the plane: it ran out of fuel.
Seriously speaking Lanc, i am open to discussing everything and i digress, i am not biased.
Cheers!
