Most decisive European battle of WWII??

The most decisive battles?

Kursk- This broke the back of the German Armys. Alot of people think it was Stalingrad. Stalingrad only gave way to the battle that broke the German army. After Stalingrad the Germans were still putting up a good fight, the Russians could not break the German lines. But after Kursk the Russians had an easy ride to Berlin. The Germans had no chance in Kursk, both sides inflicted heavy casualties on each other but Russia had a large supply of dedicated reserves.

Midway- This was the "Kursk" for Japan. The US already knew Japan was coming so they sent out a large number of fighters to attack before the Japanese, the Japanese were ready for the US though, the Japanese destroyed every single fighter the US sent at them except 1. So now come the high level dive bombers, they caught the Japanese at a very bad time, every single Japanese fighter was refueling or rearming, a no-no in the war books, the dive bombers quickly destroyed 4 of the carriers for little loss. This was quite some luck though, as only 10 of the 100 bombs dropped managed to hit the carriers.

 

The dive bombers disposed of 3 carriers they have to wait a little bit to find the last one, and 10 bombs only? they hit the kaga with 4, , do not remember the others, and the thing is that they did not sink them, they where left in flames, useless anyway, and the jap sink them

 

Three decisive moments in WWII were:

1). When Germany failed to eliminate Britain and her Commonwealth from the war. This being that the British navy does not retire it's government and ocean forces to Canada, the "first arnsenal of democracy".
2). Not taking the Suez Canal, in N. Africa and eliminate war materials going to the allied war effort, both in Europe and Asia.
3). The day Germany invaded Russia was the day Germany sealed its fate, to lose the war, in the way it fought the war on the Eastern front.

Remember when you read these points that they are just decisive moments, not battles as a single identity.

Cheers!

 

There are many dates on which Germany sealed its fate, but you have to look at it contemporarily; at that time the Germans were thoguht invincible. The decisive battle is the one in whioch it is made clear that they are not invincible, and that they are going to lose in the ned. That battle is either Stalingrad or Kursk.

 

Delay of Germany's Defeat

Ok, lets put this a different way. Germany defeats the Allies at Normandy, drives them back into the sea. What you are saying is then:
1. Germany gets two more years to be in the war, and in this span has complete control of the air because of the uncontested development of the jet fighter and bomber. :bang: :bang:
2. The Germans now have enough night vision equipment to control any battle field at night. :bang: :bang:
3. 60 German divisions now on the Eastern front don't make a fifference, you are mad. :bang: :bang:
4. Germany's industry which the Allies bombed day and night, without rest doesn't slow the German war machine. :bang: :bang:
5. The Russians took staggering losses driving the Germans back, Germans were forced to retreat due to the attrition factors after the battles.

To say that Normandy was not a decisive battle holds about as much water as a frog's water tight ass.

Cheers!

 

That is absolutely not true.

D-day would never have been as decisive as you present it, and the question is if it had any strategical significance at all. The germans were in the process of being smashed to a pulp in the east, and there is nothing any army could have done about it. Within a month after D-Day the Soviet summer offensive started, ripping up Army Group Centre and throwing the Germans back hundreds of miles over the entire line.

Menawhile the German air superiority is contained by the Soviet air force and the need to defend Germany itself against unremitting air attack form the west. The Allies march on in Italy, towards the Po valley and victory in this theatre; Germany itself is being closed off from the world by western allied naval powers. There is no way in which German technology could have held this back.

 

I would say a draw between the Battle of Britain and Stalingrad.

The Germans' original intention was to drive straight for the caucases oilfields. This would have cut off a large portion of Russian oil supply, which in turn would limit the effectiveness of their tanks, which in turn would have had made Kursk a German victory since the Russians would never have the ability to create a large tank force. But Hitler's obsession with Stalingrad was the death knell for the badly-supplied Germans who needed a decisive victory - fast. Stalingrad was exactly what the Germans coldn't afford. It was exactly the kind of war which destroyed Napoleon's empire. Hitler obviosuly had a lot to learn.

The Battle of Britain, on the other hand, depleted the Luftwaffe and gave the Allies a base of operations to launch D-day. If the Germans invaded Britain, the Americans would have had to make their way across the entire Atlantic to reach Germany, which in turn would make it harder to bomb the German industries. Morever, the Luftwaffe would have been in a position to oppose Allied air superoity. Had Germany's industries been intact, it probably would have had the ability to produce sufficent equipment to counter the Russians. The war would then have dragged on for a while, which would have allowed the Germans to develop their technologically advanced late-war weapons.

D-day was just a nail in the coffin. The aforementioned battles were the lid. Kursk was merely a result of Stalingrad.

Alternatively, you could say that the Axis were doomed once the Americans had the nuke. After all, a few nukes would be more than enough to finish the Wermacht once and for all.

 

I doubt that they would have thrown a nuke on Hitler. The japanese were no problem, as they were seen by the Americans as some kind of non-human monsters; destroying them in such a way was just another means to the right end for humanity, in the vision of the day. But Germans were Europeans, and no matter what horrible things they did they were still human for the Americans, and public opinion would not sustain them being bombed to the ground, in the way the nuke can provide.

Another thing: I don't think that, even if they won the battle of Britain, the germans would have invaded England. They were unable, as was shown in the summer months of 1940, to organize and transport a sufficient invasion force and to put them ashore anywhere.

 

That is arrant nonsense, Roel. The reason the atomic bomb was not used on Germany is that the Germans surrendered over a month before the first A-Bomb was test-fired. I, for one, consider it poor form to nuke someone after they have already capitulated. I have heard this same argument from hordes of liberal America haters (quite a few of whom are Americans themselves) who have apparently never read history. I am *not* lumping you with them, Roel, but you might want to get the facts from some more balanced sources.

 

It would seem that your passion on the subject for D-Day not being decisive has blocked your earlier good sense of the 'entire picture of war; economy, logistics, technology, field experience, training and where numbers only make a difference when the tech on both sides is close to equal.

You are telling me that huge tech advances by the Germans, when in great numbers could not have changed the war in the east?
Are you mad Roel?!
Read my article a little closer, use a blank piece of paper and place my points into the areas I discuss. Think about each point carefuly, like I do with any point of argument I quote from to agree with or counter point.

It is quite clear that the Germans, or Hitler anyways vastly undersetimated the logistics involved in supplying his Eastern armies. The Germans also undereastimated tha values of the Russian army formed by Russians in German prisoner of war campsthat hated Stalin, and were quite willing to fight against the Stalinist soldiers.

The Russians threw away human life in such numbers that the Germans looked like choir boys.

Books on the way, this week.

Cheers!

 

i think the battle of britain was one of the most important because if the germans won the war would have bben over and because the british won the d-day landings were possible

 

I know that the first A-bomb was tested in the desert in july 1945, but in a previous post someone suggested that Hitler would have been nuked. I argumented that he wouldn't, in any situation. I wasn't implying that the Americans would have nuked anybody after surrender.
And I get my ideas of American ideas on the Japanese (this sentence...) from posters I have seen, printed in the US during the war. These propaganda pictures showed the Japanese, literally, as 'Enemies of mankind' who had to be destroyed. I'd say that is a source I can trust, as it was actual WW2 material.

Mr. Poodle, now. Indeed I may be overreacting in saying that D-Day didn't matter (I still think it hardly did). But the point I was trying to make was that the German technological superiority was present throughout the war, from the Fw190 to the Panther and the Me262 to the PaK43. This superiority won them nothing and got them nowhere, because of bad administration of resources and lack of standardization. With the speed at which the Germans made new developments, this standardization wa impossible and would remain so; meanwhile Hitler's empire was overrun by masses of the same, comparatively weak equipment. The German were ahead of everyone else but they didn't manage to handle this well, so it was useless to them in the end. I don't think they could have made that good, as Hitler was still ultimately in charge.

 

You give Hitler two more years of time because of no d-day invasion. I think that is rediculous. If it gave him half a year then it would have been a lot! One thing is as certain for me as the next dawn: Hitler would have lost the war against Russia, and he would have lost it soon. With D-day the war was shortened, by perhaps a few months, but never two whole years. With or without Overlord, Germany was doomed, and the bullet flying at her head was marked '1945'.

That's about as poetic as I can bring it

 

Nope, take those 60 divisions from France, their equipment, and place it on the front when Germany invaded Russia; Leneigrade and Moscow are now in German hands. Why?
Because the only thing that stopped the Germans was because they ran out of supplies, the logistics could not cope with the vast distance; the Russians new this.
A German army group, which if I remember right was 6-9 divisions; lets just say that with six new, fresh, well supplied, equipped army groups and replacements that the German war machine doesn't stop before Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad are now in German hands.
With this said the Russians would have no choice but to retreat, a fighting retreat, to the Urals.
This is in no way that the Russians are out of the war.
Germany then offers the olive branch to the English, as they were surprised that the English did fight them; according to the reported German high command after the war.
Why this is I don't know, I can read a treaty just like the rest of us, England knew full well the fallout from not honouring a mutual defence treaty or any other treaty. That would be very bad form.

Got to go, I'm not finished here; I will edit later.

Cheerios!
Before the war Churchill had no love for revolutionist Russia heade by the murderous dictator Stalin.

 

I'm afraid you misunderstood. What i was saying was that it didn't matter if any invasion plan was ever even concieved; the Germans were afraid of it anyhow, and they prepared to counter it anyhow. Therefore the german divisions would not be let out of France after considerable debate and the certainty that no invasion was being mounted. This is the case in 1943 at the earliest, when Germany has already lost all chances to march on Moscow and Leningrad by force; the latter city is still surrounded but is being bombarded, not taken, by Führer's orders.
The six fresh Army Corps themselves are of doubtful capacity; most of them are conscript infantry units without front line experience, only a few of them are really dangerous formations. And most of those have already served in Russia and were in France to rest and refit.
Have these sixty divisions transferred east, and what do you get? According to you, we now get a renewed march on Russia's major cities. Even though the question remains if that would have gotten the Soviets on their knees, I would say that this march would never even have been realized. The Germans were stretched to their very limits for the duration of the war in Russia, and every available unit was used as a fire brigade for gaps. So maybe some defensive positions would have been stronger, and maybe Zitadelle would have been more succesful, maybe even completely succesful. This would have stretched the war for a while longer, but how long? German casualties would have been even more horrendous, as even more men were ordered to hold the line against the Russian mighty firepower. Perhaps only a few months were won.

 

Or because they were vastly outnumbered, out gunned and fighting a battle 500+ miles from the home front. Sure the Germans were outnumbered when Barbarossa started but they had surprise on their hand, you could say they were very lucky the first year. Once the Soviet war machine was started, no matter what Germany could do would stop the Russians. These 60 divisions you talk of would certainly die the same way 2 million other Germans did.

But theycouldn't have produced the "technical advances" in large numbers because Germany was being bombed relentlessly and most of their oil as in Allied hands, let alone the fact Germany had great trouble mass-producing weapons. Also lets look at some of the "tech advances"

Tiger I&II- Big, bad mobility, very complex, hard to mass-produce and a reputation of breaking down alot (a tiger needed a new engine every month)

Me262- Sure it was a good plane but it had very limited flight time, small ammo capacity, and it was very fragile, not many bullets were needed to blow this thing up. And this plane was produced considerbly, there are accounts of the Allies coming across rows and rows of Me262, but being this, why didn't it stop the Allies??

Germanys tech advances hurt them more than it helped them. With so many different tanks and planes it was hard to mass-produce large numbers. For example, the Germans had over 350 types of tanks and over 420 types of aircraft while the Russians had maybe 10 types of tanks. There was a joke among German Generals that they would order 10 Tigers tomorrow, 2 mortars the next day, and maybe a plane here or there.

In the latter part of the war, the Allies increasingly shared a superiority in both quality and quantity, So matter what the Germans could come up with, it would by no chance be able to save them.

 

I agree with Roel and Zhukov, D-Day cannot be call the turning point of war,faced whole Allies army combine by American,most elite force of Brittain and Canadian are only 20 combat divisions wich already exhausted in Eastfront,others divisions are Checkslovakia,Russian Liberation Army,Hiwi,even some French,Belgium,Holand division can be seen in action,this kind of combine had no will to fight on and give up easily.That why Allies can go so far so fast in 1944.What happened when they reach German border??Allies hold off and the battle of Bulge is the best evidence to see the real strength of Allies,the battle American call by the bloodiest battle by shameless way despite million death at East front,insulted hunreds thousands man who fought bravery in Stalingrad,Kursk,Moscow,Leningrad and earlier in Brest Citadel. Even if Hittler can transfer 60 division from France to East front,they couldnot make any sense, not even turn the tide of Russian offensive. The real desisive battle in Europe is Kursk,where German never stand back again from the ash and forced to defend themself from avenger. Today,many one try to lower the valuable of Russian victory in oder rise up the tiny role of Allies in Europe during WWII,greeting D-Day as a Geat Victory wich bring the final victory.Bullshit,only when Churchill realized the truth is German will lose for sure he would agree for planning a D-Day,feared of Soviet may occupied whole Europe.

 

Decisive Land battles

1. "Me262- Sure it was a good plane but it had very limited flight time, small ammo capacity, and it was very fragile, not many bullets were needed to blow this thing up. And this plane was produced considerbly, there are accounts of the Allies coming across rows and rows of Me262, but being this, why didn't it stop the Allies"?

They ran out of trained and capable pilots, lack of fuel. Franz Stigler.

2. "I agree with Roel and Zhukov, D-Day cannot be call the turning point of war".

Who said this was the turning point of the war? This is about a decisive battle, not the turning point.

The German industry moved underground, out of site and out of harms way, from the allied bombing.

The manufacturing complexes, that were walled off after the war, are enormous and production was still rising up until the end of the war for Germany. This was the war industry and manufacturing processes that were streamlined and refined by Albert Speer; albeit much too late.

If you read my argument the sixty divisions that could have come out of France, because the British Commonwealth was in no condition to invade France until late 1943 at the very earliest, would have been able to suppliment the German army reserves in Russia at the BEGINING OF THE GERMAN INVASION OF RUSSIA!

Moscow would have fallen, Stalingrad is surrounded and by-passed, just like all the other times the German war machine advanced.
The Germans advanced and when stiff resistance was encountered they surrounded, contained theses pockets until the infantry could catch up, with the heavy artillery and eliminate cutt off, isloated Russian units/armies.

The port city of Lenningrad, in German hands, then supplies a vastly superior Northern German army groups, more than one snce a German army group was only about six divisions, would now threaten any Russian forces to the North of Moscow.
If you are awarer of 'attrition values' then you would then most likely agree that the Russian high command would have to surrender the area of Moscow or be surrounded, cut off. Then the Russian high command, which remained in Moscow, would then be cut off from communicating with its armies. Stalin would have had no choice but to leave Moscow to keep directing his vastly under lead and under trained, under equipped armies until such a better equipped, lead, trained army could burst out of the Urals. If these events happened thane it is easy to say that the war is extended by at least 18-24 months, which is my point. Never did I say that Germany would win the war, don't be silly, Germany lost the war when it first failed to eliminate Britain from the war, its fate was assured when it invaded Russia with all the problems I have talked about in earlier discussions.

I don't know where you get the idea that at the begining of the German invasion of Russia that all the untis in France were second caliber units, that would be a miss caculation on anybody's part.

So just remember that the point of 'The Battle of Normandy" was not the turning point of the war, it was a decisive battle, just like the Battle of Britain, The Battle of the Atlantic, The German failure to bring Turkey in the war on it's side, the failure of Germany to cut off the war materials streaming through the Seuz Canal, Germany's inability to streamline war production reducing man hours, assembly times etc., when Germany declared war on the USA, under estimating the British resolve over the defence of Poland, the failure to realize the huge oppurtunity lost when the German high command was offered an army of Russians, lead by a Russian Gerneral, that despised Stalin's Russia.

I could go on but what's the point, for some reason there is this persona of distorted history, with Russia winning the war, the Americans winning the war all by themselves. I pale, in my soul, to understand such narrow and ignorant realization of history.
The war was called a 'World War" for a good reason, a world war doesn't mean the next state, or the next bordering country; it means the entire planet. The conflict was vast, the conflict was fought in Parliments and other political forums where critical decisions were made, some good, some bad, some decisions were made by mad men salvating like dogs for power.

Wars are won and lost not only by numbers but the ability to put a well trained man, with enough courage, behind the joystick or that weapon of war.
Any army without refined and hyper organised logistics capabilities is lost before it rolls down the road or that farmer's feild. The Germans and Japanese found out the hard way in this regard; but then that's a different subject, for a time when my body does not crave the sleep it is craving at this late hour.

Cheers!

 

This may be, but the Allies production was even more enormous. What is strange is how much production the Germans where able to complete during their "bad" half of the war. In 1940 Germany produced less than 2,500 tanks, in 1944 Germany made over 22,000, thats more than the US and Britan together in 1944.

Could you imagine the chaos in France if the Germans took out those 60 divisions? Resistance would skyrocket until Germany would have to get those 60 divisions back plus some just to settle everything in France. Those 60 divisions played more of a police force than an invasion deterant.

Thats because of the Cold War, the US used whatever propaganda they could to make Russia look bad. The Russians probaly did the same...

 

Dragonswordsman, planning for D-Day began in 1942; the defeat of Germany was, at that time, far from certain. You might also, in the future, use more courteous language when disagreeing with someone.