Most important ww2 battle?

Are you forgetting that to keep docile little Norway under control the Nazis kept nearly 300,000 occupation troops in that tiny, underpopulated nation?

How many do you think they could afford to NOT keep in Britain? That place would most surely be a more difficult occupation zone than Norway. And the Brits weren't going to make a "deal" with Hitler, like Vichy France did. Just not going to happen, at any rate. And even if by some magical stretch of reality in which the Brits did fall, then the Nazis could ill afford to not leave a substancial occupation force in the British Isles.

It's a no-win situation for Hitler, no matter how it plays out.

 

People always cite the Battle of Britain as one of the most important/the most important battle but nobody every really explains it. They all just say oh well if the Germans had won the BOB, with Britain out of the war, the Germans would have clearly won.

But what exactly does winning the BOB mean. Does it mean maintaining air superiority? Does it mean the complete destruction of the RAF? Does it mean the complete destruction of the RAF and succesfull invasion? Does it mean the complete destruction of the RAF and Britain signing a peace treaty for some reason?

People just say "winning" the BOB means that Britain is out of the war, but they don't explain how. And I don't see how one can just say that Germany "winning" the BOB means Britain is out of the war. Especially if someone is thinking that with the BOB won Germany easily launches a succesful Sealion. And if that is their opinion than I think they ought to look into a little thing called the Battle of the Atlantic...

 

I'm saying that if brition did fall to hitler,my grandfather would be laughing all the way to berlin.(no offence to war vets and other members on here)
I am saying that briton was the stepping stone to hitler's winning the war or losing the war.
Hitler wanted to knock out briton before attacking Russsia,knock out briton and the war was over.
Only one front for the germans to fight the Red army,redarmy advantages are all gone and lost.(no attack from behind germans back)

Since Briton stood her ground and survive,it advantage the Redarmy!
Hitler attacked Russia,and the allies from behind attack germans.

germans invaded the channel islands,and that never effected the german warfare,so you cant' use that excuse either! (another memebr mention something about that topic)

I don't understand why you guys don't take any notice of the british war fare compaines! i'm german,and even i aknowledge the britsh war effect.
It's like briton was not even there in you're eyes! Why is that?

With you guys, it always America and russian and german warefare,and i don't understand why?
Of cause i need to stop being byiest towards germany,i work on that for you guys.

 

Well because all of the discussion that revolves around Brittain's war effort takes place at WW2talk.com. This is like the "Fox News" version of WW2.........

I apologize in adavance to: urqh, Von Poop, sapper, Black Snake, Stephen, Passchendael,the population of Great Britain and everyone else on my ww2talk friends list.

 

the only fly in the ointment of your post is ..... facts .....
fact ! battle of normandy was a set piece battle
fact ! the germans were shockingly bad at set piece battles
fact ! the british loved set piece battles above all other kindsand in fact specialised in them
fact ! the americans werent bad at it either
fact ! the british army of 1944 was vastly improved from the 8th army in north africa in 41 and 42 with AGRA`s bringing unprecedented firepower to the battlefield
fact ! the main german opposition in normandy was panzer divisions not infantry
fact ! most of the german army was NOT involved in battle of moscow

 

im sure she isnt but the garrison troops could be massively reduced and no heavy units/artillery airpower etc would ne needed in western europe also resources directed towards u boat production could be put twards something of use to the heer or luftwaffe ..

 

who supported the resistance movements > who dropped agents to rabble rouse ? who dropped weapons and equipment ? ireland ?

 

the reason the germans garrisoned so many troops in norway was hitlers paranoia about possible british and later allied landings

 

It could go both ways here,what you have mention,may not cause briton to be fully out of the war.
I actually never thought it that way at all,i see were what you are meanning.

This is why i think Battle Of Briton was important battle-(before i read you're post)

With out Allied aircover,the lufftwaffe can take care of the R/N and there fore the Kreigsmarine could easly transport german troops over to Briton,that's what the battle of briton was all about wasn't it?
Even though that out of the Allies.Briton at that time had the biggest army,still was not as powerful th german army!
the germany army would have over ran the british army,when invading briton.(going by with no American involment)

 

Heidi. Could you please tell us how you think Russia losses any advantage she had against Germany without Britain? You mentioned, what I am assuming, D-Day and the allied assault on France. This took place in mid 1944. How does this help the Soviet Union in 1942-43? The fact of the matter is that there was nothing that could be done that would allow Russia to be completely and utterly defeated. By the time the rest of the Allies landed in Europe, Germany's fate had already been sealed. It was only a matter of time.

Again, There is no possible way for Germany to defeat Britain. The BoB, as we know it, is only the air battles above Britain. Germany still has to run the gauntlet that is the Royal Navy, land a sizable number of personnel to establish a beach head, take the nearest port for easy flow of supplies. All of this under attack from the RAF, Home Guard, and anyone else who feels like resisting. Germany did not have enough range on their planes to maintain air supremacy.

Yes, the Channel Islands had been invaded. The island however had been demiliterized and a large number of the population had been evacuated. Didn't one of the islands surrender to a single LW pilot who landed on the island? despite this, it does not mean that a successful invasion of mainland Britain was possible. IIRC the Germans attempted a practice landing in France for Sea Lion. In good weather, with no opposition, this dry run failed miserably.

Believe me, we take notice of the brave men who fought for Britain. Saying that we don't, I feel, is a slight against such members as Sapper or Ron Goldstein.
What about the threads on this site like
http://www.ww2f.com/battle-europe/22072-battle-britian.html
http://www.ww2f.com/atlantic-naval-conflict/27939-king-george-v.html
http://www.ww2f.com/north-africa-mediterranean/23362-first-ever-british-parachute-operation.html

To say we completely ignore the contributions of Millions of men and women who assisted in the effort to defeat Hitler, is insulting.

Now I ask you, What about the Greeks, Danes, Belgians, Dutch, Norwegians, Poles, Australians, Kiwi's, Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, and every other nation that fought? Many of these nations are often less remembered, But NEVER FORGOTTEN!

 

Not really especially not in the time required.

Even without the RN present the KM wasn't going to have an easy time transporting the neccessary troops and supplies. This is basicaly what a wargame played out some time ago with both German and British particiapants. IE that the Germans won the battle vs the RAF and were able to keep the RN off their backs while they conducted Sea Lion. The Germans were still defeated. The ability to get sufficient troops and supplies through was the main reason.

 

Yea well he can't do that. The short answer...

Because Britain had over 200,000 home guard troops plus regular soldier garrisons...

Because Britain had almost 500 warships to counter the invasion...

Because the invasion was poorly planned as it was given only a little over 90 days to plan...

Because Germany has never attempted a cross-sea invasion and they knew nothing about it...

 

The comparison was Luftwaffe loses in the BoB vs the Eastern Front.....


There really is no comparison.

 

BOB lasted a few months in 1940 and cost luftwaffe many highly trained experienced aviators not to mention thousands of aircraft ...

eastern front lasted from june 1941 to may 45 why ? because ussr was friends with fascist nazi germany and were sending trainloads of raw materials to the fascists right up to barbarossa ..... maybe if you were fighting fascism at the same time as uk instead of attacking defencless eastern european countries there would be no BOB ...

 

The Germans lost 1,733 aircraft and 3,363 airmen (Aug 40-Mar 41) in the Battle of Britain. Now I do not have the exact numbers for all of the eastern front planes losses but I do know that in 1941 alone they lost over 2,000 planes. Now yes the Eastern front was streached out much longer than the BOB but that was not Sloniksp's point.

As for the second part of your post, I really don't understand your point nor how it could be relevent. However, I feel that if you were making a slight at Russia or Sloniksp you are out of line.

 

What a well thought out and constructive post. You'll go far

 

in what way am i out of line ? did i lie ? did i accuse the ussr of something it didnt do ? or was it a gentle reminder of some uncomfortable facts ?

 

Well you did personalize it. Not really a good idea to say "you did" x when talking about WWII powers. Especially if the person you are referring to has avoided saying "we did" y. Remember attack the post not the poster.