Greatest Battle of WW2

[Gen. Sandworm]

Just to start another debate.........What do you think the greatest battle of WW2 was? Size doesnt matter just what you think and why.

It would probably be something in the Pacific....Iwo Jima maybe.

[FW-190 Pilot]

It would probably be something in the Pacific....Iwo Jima maybe.
i would say battle of kursk, the number of tanks involve is just scary

[Radooh]

Kursk probably. I think I heard somewhere that the German tiger machine gunners got shell shock from shooting all the Russians running directly in front of their tanks. Basically the Russians were dead either way those poor bastards, if they didn't rush the tank they'd get shot by their own guys for desertion and if they rushed it they'd get slaughtered.

[South African Military]

Tricky one to decide, very debatable. I know I know im not very origional, but id have to say DDay, youll be surprised in all the planning that went to make that succeed. For instance, the reason why the Germans did not fully make a counter attack was because they thought that it was a diverson, congrats to great intelligence by the British. And the unified effort by the Special forces to secure main bridges etc.

[Komissar Ombrok]

Kursk was a great battle, but two battles at Prokhorovka (2 days later after Kursk battle) and at Baranovichi ( Jule, 1941) was greatest. Numbers of tanks using in them was be more thn eve Kursk...

[FW-190 Pilot]

dont forget normandy too, it would be much intense if rommel put his tank group in there with good air defense

[Gen. Sandworm]

This is kind of a hard one. I had to narrow it down to Battles Midway, Wake Island, Kursk and Stalingrad. But ill have to say for the moment that the battle of Midway is one of the greatest battles.

Ill give it a few more days and let some more people get some posts in here and then ill start a Poll on the battles like I did with the commanders.

[HEINRICI]

Just to start another debate.........What do you think the greatest battle of WW2 was? Size doesnt matter just what you think and why.
If by 'greatest battle' you mean the most important in it's effect on the war, then I'll have to consider the Russian Front only. Only Germany for the Axis had any chance to win. Even if Japan had won Midway and wiped out the three U.S. carriers, they would have only gained time. In November of 1942, the U.S. commissioned ELEVEN essex-class carriers, and the war for Japan was lost at that point. America's industrial output was ten times that of Japan, and the japanese army could not get at America's industrial heartland, with it's army tied up in China.
On the Russian front, where the war was decided, Germany only had a brief chance of victory during the first summer, because of Russia's greater industrial base, resources and 3-to-1 superiority in manpower. In order to win, Germany must take the Moscow area by October, which breaks up the Soviet railnet that runs north-south west of the Volga, brings Germany to at least parity in industrial capacity, and ends supply and communication with the Southwest Front in Kiev and the Northwest Front in Leningrad. It would force both of these fronts to retreat, because the enemy would be across their lines of supply and communication. By moving a panzer group south along the Volga from the Moscow-Gorki area to the area east of Kursk, the Germans would threaten to completely cut off all Russian forces retreating from Kiev.
This was the original plan of Barbarossa, but Hitler changed the plan in
November of 1940 to make Leningrad the first priority. Army Group Center was to help Army Group North take Leningrad, then they could move on Moscow. Hitler didn't understand that Leningrad lost it's strategic value once Moscow was taken, as did Kiev. As it happened, Army Group North moved so swiftly in June/July of '41 that Hitler decided not to interfere with Army Group Center. The result was the second 'leap' of the panzers to Smolensk. Meanwhile, in the south, Hitler forced Von Rundstedt to use his panzers in a direct assault at the teeth of Southwest Front's defenses before Kiev, rather than using a wide envelopment from the southern end of the front. This wasted too much time, and Hitler became impatient with Kiev still resisting in August. He wanted a continuous front north-to-south with no exposed right flank. He didn't understand that, in the age of blitzkreig, as long as you held the initative, and kept the enemy off-balance with your swift envelopments, flanks didn't matter that much.
Sending Guderian with Panzer Army 2 south from Smolensk on the Moscow highway to aid Von Runstedt at Kiev cost the Gemans their only chance at victory. If Guderian and Hoth had been allowed to attack Moscow in August-September, they would have succeeded, because the Russian forces could not move fast enough to form a solid front. In early August you had 65 Geman divisions facing 28 Russian on the Moscow highway. This situation only lasted for two weeks; then Russian reserves began to fill the gaps. Instead, while Guderian went south, Hoth and the
infantry cooled their heels for 7 WEEKS, giving the Russians more than enough time to construct their defenses.
While the battle for Smolensk was a difficult one for the Germans, it did not cause them to wait seven weeks. It was the protracted defense of the
Southwest Front that caused the fatal ( and unnecessary ) decision by Hitler to divert Guderian and make Hoth wait. Hitler's interference in the initial disposition of Von Runstedt's forces at the start of Barbarossa created the delay that caused Hitler to make his fatal decision.
Therefore, in terms of cause and effect, the battle for Kiev had the greatest importance for World War II. The subsequent battles for Moscow, Rzhev, Kharkov, Stalingrad and Kurst were all important; but only as to how long the war would last. The Germans couldn't seriously threaten Moscow after early October '41, and therfore couldn't win. Only if Hitler had given priority to develpment of the A-Bomb prior to Barbarossa would the latter battles have mattered.

[South African Military]

Ya I wouldnt say that the battle of Midway was a turning point.

[lieutlienant Vorontsov]

I said blockade of Leningrad, battle of Stalingrad and fight for Normandy!!!

[Sturmtruppen]

I like EL ALAMEIN,but D-DAY in normandy was the most important battle,i think.

[South African Military]

I cant list one, but id go with, D-Day, Kursk, Stalingrad.

Leningrad wouldnt be called much of a battle. The German army just basically starved Leningrad, and cut out all water, lights etc. Stalin could of saved the whole population, but he didnt want to air lift all that food, he wanted to use it for military purposes.

[Komissar Ombrok]

When war made a question, answer might be very heavy. But Stalin did it. The German has an full air superiority in that region. Main transort ship of Red Army was an Li-2( copy of American C-47), good plane but it couldn't escape from germans fighters. The support to blocaded Leningrad with air - would be mistake. Only losses of transport planes.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Ya I wouldnt say that the battle of Midway was a turning point.

Yes it was a turning point. And it was a great battle. 2 sides pretty evenly matched and a clear victor. The battles on the Russian front didnt always have a clear victor after the turn at Stalingrad. Just mainly great battles that usually ended up in favor of the superior Russian might.

Wake Island was also a great battle. The Americans did a wonderful job holding off a superior Japanese task force but did in the end were forced to surrender coz of a retard and to cautious Admiral that could have relieved them.

My present choice of Midway may change when i do the poll but thats it for now. It was hard not to pick the battle of Stalingrad. And I mean the encirclement of the German 6th Army mainly. This was the Midway of the Eastern Front.

D-day and Elalamein were great as well but dont think they had the effect on the war that Midway and Stalingrad did. After Stalingrad ...even if the allies didnt open up another front I think the best the Germans could hope for is a peaceful conclusion there but we know Stalin wasnt going to go for that.

[HEINRICI]

[quote="Gen. Sandworm:

My present choice of Midway may change when i do the poll but thats it for now. It was hard not to pick the battle of Stalingrad. And I mean the encirclement of the German 6th Army mainly. This was the Midway of the Eastern Front.

D-day and Elalamein were great as well but dont think they had the effect on the war that Midway and Stalingrad did. After Stalingrad ...even if the allies didnt open up another front I think the best the Germans could hope for is a peaceful conclusion there but we know Stalin wasnt going to go for that.[/quote]
So....the conversation IS about the EFFECT on the war of a great battle.
I was beginning to wonder. Midway stopped Japan's offensives, and
Stalingrad marked the high water mark of German conquest, as everyone knows. BUT.... If Japan had won Midway, they still would have lost; and if
Germany had won Stalingrad, they still would not have won the war. As I
mentioned before, America commissioned eleven carriers five months after Midway, so Midway, great as it was, merely changed the timetable
for American victory. Similarly, a German victory at Stalingrad would have
allowed them to continue south towards the Baku oil fields; but the reality
of the situation was that they were overextended- using inferior Rumanian, Italian and Hungarian forces to hold a very long front. Meanwhile, in the year since Barbarossa, Soviet total mobilization had
raised over 360 divisions, and the factories in the Urals had built thousands of T-34's! Probably the most important ultimate effect of a German victory at Stalingrad would be a delay of the inevitable- with Patton's 3rd Army taking Berlin instead of Zhukov and Konev.

[Gen. Sandworm]

So....the conversation IS about the EFFECT on the war of a great battle.
I was beginning to wonder. Midway stopped Japan's offensives, and
Stalingrad marked the high water mark of German conquest, as everyone knows. BUT.... If Japan had won Midway, they still would have lost; and if
Germany had won Stalingrad, they still would not have won the war. As I
mentioned before, America commissioned eleven carriers five months after Midway, so Midway, great as it was, merely changed the timetable
for American victory. Similarly, a German victory at Stalingrad would have
allowed them to continue south towards the Baku oil fields; but the reality
of the situation was that they were overextended- using inferior Rumanian, Italian and Hungarian forces to hold a very long front. Meanwhile, in the year since Barbarossa, Soviet total mobilization had
raised over 360 divisions, and the factories in the Urals had built thousands of T-34's! Probably the most important ultimate effect of a German victory at Stalingrad would be a delay of the inevitable- with Patton's 3rd Army taking Berlin instead of Zhukov and Konev.

Your right and wrong........if the Japan had won the battle of midway it would have bought them alot more time. You have to remember that America was fighting a two front war. At this point Japan would have completely smashed our Pacfic naval forces. We would then have to transfer much needed ships from the Atlantic to help resupply. Yes America production would replenish the forces there but Japan could have really used that time to strenghten there grip in the pacific. So who knows exactly what would have happened. America probably still would have won but would have taken much longer.

Your also right that a German vicotory at Stalingrad would not give the Germans victory but would have greatly helped. I just find the battle interesting and dont see how the Germans allowed such a disaster to happen. Anyone could have see what the Russians where going to do and Hitler had an idea that they might do that but didnt do much about it. Nonetheless the Russians did a great job encirlcing the Germans and then holding off the releif effort.

[South African Military]

If America lost the Battle of Midway then, it will only take time before America would recover. They had most of there navy in the pacific, and the British and Australians were there too. The Japanese navy can hardly make any more battleships and aircraft carriers, after their fleet is destroyed. So only matter of time.

Now if Germany took Stalingrad, not only would Moscow be in danger, but the oil fields would be in German control. They also had control over Lenningrad, so thats two ways of advancing to Moscow. Stalin knew that if he lost Stalingrad, it was most likely that he would fall from power. Hitler also knew, that if he lost Stalingrad, the Germans would have no chance of taking Russia. Also, If the allies lost El Alamein then it would really be hard to recover from that, as alot of commonwealth forces gave all their forces for that battle, and Africa might of been lost. If the Allies lost D-Day then it would be much harder to take Germany. Now, Id have to say that the three dicisive battles would be Stalingrad El Alamein, and D-day. If Germany beat all of these battles, then that would do terrible things to the Allies, theyd possibly be beat. If Hitler won one but lost two, there was still hope, and therefore you getting the picture. You might also want to add the Battle of Britain, as if that was lost, who would of known the outcome, since it was early in the war. And Hitler might not of been fighting two fronts after all.

[Komissar Ombrok]

Hm... Not think so about Stalingrad. The strategic position of Stalingrad wasn't such great. After such battle german troops wouldn't able to attack in the Moscow direction, and oil plants can be used under constant fire of BM-13. But this town had name of Stalin. Primary, that was question of pride to both sides. Stalingrad was a simbol of the Stalin's power.

[South African Military]

Hm... Not think so about Stalingrad. The strategic position of Stalingrad wasn't such great. After such battle german troops wouldn't able to attack in the Moscow direction, and oil plants can be used under constant fire of BM-13. But this town had name of Stalin. Primary, that was question of pride to both sides. Stalingrad was a simbol of the Stalin's power.

Yes, greatest achievment of communist power. But more important than oil and Moscow, Stalin would have fallen from power, as Stalin new, and historians.

[Komissar Ombrok]

As I told you, Moscow was in safety. Even the germans captured the Stalingrad, they can't do it without big losses. And they wouldn't have enough power to the attack of the Moscow. Also, SU have a lot anothers oil plants, but Hitler would be in need to build the the installations to reach the oil. And that installation would be very vulnerable. It's not good idea to have an oil plants in the frontline.

[South African Military]

As I told you, Moscow was in safety. Even the germans captured the Stalingrad, they can't do it without big losses. And they wouldn't have enough power to the attack of the Moscow. Also, SU have a lot anothers oil plants, but Hitler would be in need to build the the installations to reach the oil. And that installation would be very vulnerable. It's not good idea to have an oil plants in the frontline.

Yes but you do not getting what I am saying they dont need to get to Moscow, if Stalingrad fell to the Germans Stalin would of fallen from power.

[Komissar Ombrok]

Not a chance. You don't know psyhology, or at least psyhology of russian. Than more danger from outer intervention, than more people begin to believe in own goverment and help with all forces...

[South African Military]

I know im no phylosopher, but I do read history books. Think of it, its slightly logical, Stalingrad bears Stalins name.

[Dani]

SAM, I'm much closer than you to the Russians :D :D
We fought with the Russians and I want to tell you that I agree totally with Komissar Ombrok!!
Even if Stalingrad capitulated to the Germans and allies, Red Army outnumbered soldiers and tanks would strive any resistence.

[South African Military]

Ya, I would think this the right thing, but as I read History books about the Russian front, they disagree, how is this so?

[Dani]

Who are they? Western historians? Russian historians?
IMO the capture of Stalingrad by Germans could only boost their morale and nothing more. Stalingrad itself doesn't have a strategic importance. Hitler ordered that Stalingrad to be conquered. And I suppose that all we could agree about the lack of strategic abilities of Hitler...

[Komissar Ombrok]

Yep. Absolutely right. As I said, the Stalingrad was only question of pride. About Stalin... Hm... After he died, Chruschev very quickly ruined the country, and he want to find a victim to reload to it his personal sins. The victim was Stalin. Hundreds historians wrote books and downed Stalin in mud with all methods. Don't forget - the histoey in Russia always had written by order, not by facts...

[WildBoar]

Well the Battle of France could have stopped the War before it really got started if we had been ready. And the Battle of Britain was the first decisive victory against the Germans.

Stalingrad and Midway were both turning points but then so was North Africa.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Well please list any more battles that you think where important. Another battle that was very important was the British raid on Deippe. Although a great failure the British learned much from this and helped out greatly when the Invasion of Normandy finally came.

Again Please list any battles you can think of because i will be starting the Poll here in the next couple of days. :D

[Komissar Ombrok]

Battle at Baranovichi at the Jule 41. Because of foolish commanding of Jukov, Red Army lost about 12.000 tanks. (more 200 KV-1, about 1000 T-34, others was light, BT and PT series) German lost only about 300-400 tanks. Jukov sended tanks in baranovichi, where between houses they was destroyed by infantry...

That tanks was fully enough to stop ALL 3800 light tanks of Vermaht.

[South African Military]

Well please list any more battles that you think where important. Another battle that was very important was the British raid on Deippe. Although a great failure the British learned much from this and helped out greatly when the Invasion of Normandy finally came.

Again Please list any battles you can think of because i will be starting the Poll here in the next couple of days. :D

Yes, I guess you could say that because of that operation, thousandths were saved on D-day. And it was a good thing Montgomery planned it.

[Gen. Sandworm]

K started the poll. Hope i got all the ones you wanted. I grouped Kursk with Prokhorovka and Baranovichi coz i kinda felt that they were part of the same operation and battle. Please feel free to correct me if im wrong. I listed Leningrad because even though it was a seige the people inside the city actually did the fighting in a sense by holding out. Moscow wasnt a clear battle as some of the others but I found it important to list because all that took place to protect the captial. Please feel free to correct me on that one as well. ..........So please vote and lets see what happens.

[South African Military]

Do you want us to vote for favorite battle or for what you think was the most decisive?

[Gen. Sandworm]

Do you want us to vote for favorite battle or for what you think was the most decisive?

What you find the most interesting....therefore favorite. I picked El Alamein ......was hard to not pick Midway......just because of everything that was going on with it. Just my opinion. Im guessing you did too?

[South African Military]

Do you want us to vote for favorite battle or for what you think was the most decisive?

What you find the most interesting....therefore favorite. I picked El Alamein ......was hard to not pick Midway......just because of everything that was going on with it. Just my opinion. Im guessing you did too?

Yes Id have to say El Alamein, mostly because my grandfather fought there. And Im quite interested in the North Africa campaign. It was also very well played out, with dummy tanks to the south and so forth.

But I am also very interested in Tobruk, I believe that is the longest siege in history? It was a back and forth battle, with the Axis advancing forward, then losing it and so forth.

[IRONMAN]

My vote goes to both Midway and Kirsk.

I chose Midway for the sea war because it was a huge battle, the turning point in the war in the Pacific, and because it was a battle of incredible intensity and turmoil. Many terrible and amazing things happened in that tremendous battle.

On land I would chose Kursk, for the same reasons.

[Dani]

My vote goes for Kursk.
The battle of Kursk was monumental for numerous reasons but will almost always be remembered for being the largest clash of armor certainly during WW2.

[Canaris]

I'm not sure whether the question is really a poll of the "favourite" battle of WWII or the most significant. But if it is about the most important battle I would have to disagree with...........well all of you as it goes! :lol:

I would agree that Kursk is more important than Staligrad. Even if the Germans won Stalingrad (and they did practically capture the city) its another question whether they could have got the oil-fields. The Germans were still on the offensive after Stalingrad. It was Kursk that stopped them dead - they never went forward after that.

El Alamein was a great battle for the British but still a sideshow as part of a global war.

Midway probably was the turning point of the Pacific War but more because of the loss of Japanese elite pilots than their carriers.

The greatest battle in terms of size and significance has to be the collapse of Army Croup Centre in July 1944. The Russians called it Operation Bagration. This battle dwarfed Kursk, smashed a whole Army Group and the German Forces on the Eastern Front never recovered from the ensuing chaos.

Two more points:

1. I don't think the Germans could ever had scored a knock-out blow in the East. Even if they had lost Moscow they had lost it before to Napoleon. (of course Moscow wasn't and Industrial or rail hub in 1812 but even so). The only way the Germans could have won was if someone in STAVKA put bullet through Stalin's face. I just can't see it happenning - Stalin was too cunning. He'd killed anyone with the balls enough to do it in the '30s.

2. For the British the most significant battle has to be the Battle of the Atlantic. the British took heavy losses in this battle and, once Sealion was shelved, it was Hitler's only chance to knock them out of the War.

Please add these 2 Battles to your poll.

[Sturmtruppen]

I still like EL ALAMEIN,erwin rommel is the best general of the history.

[2nd of foot]

Well the Battle of France could have stopped the War before it really got started if we had been ready. And the Battle of Britain was the first decisive victory against the Germans.

Stalingrad and Midway were both turning points but then so was North Africa.

As wildboar has said the only really important one was the BoB. If Britain had lost this it is unlikely that the US would have entered the war. Lend lease would have stopped to the USSR and Germany could have directed all its efforts to Russia. Normandy could not happen with out Britain and the Med would have been controlled by the Germens. They would have had access to oil and the black see. India would have gone independent and probably sided with Japan. Australia would have fallen most likely and Japan’s Empire would have been secure. What choice would the US have? The US was isolationist and would have stayed that way.

All the other battles after BoB would not have happened because Germany would have secure flanks.

[South African Military]

Well the Battle of France could have stopped the War before it really got started if we had been ready. And the Battle of Britain was the first decisive victory against the Germans.

Stalingrad and Midway were both turning points but then so was North Africa.

As wildboar has said the only really important one was the BoB. If Britain had lost this it is unlikely that the US would have entered the war. Lend lease would have stopped to the USSR and Germany could have directed all its efforts to Russia. Normandy could not happen with out Britain and the Med would have been controlled by the Germens. They would have had access to oil and the black see. India would have gone independent and probably sided with Japan. Australia would have fallen most likely and Japan’s Empire would have been secure. What choice would the US have? The US was isolationist and would have stayed that way.

All the other battles after BoB would not have happened because Germany would have secure flanks.

Not only that, there would be no resistance in the whole of Africa, thats a whole continent. They would seize the vital waters around the Cape of Good hope, and would control the main shipping lines. From there they probably could just hope over to South America.

[South African Military]

I still like EL ALAMEIN,erwin rommel is the best general of the history.

Yet, Montgommery still beat him.

[Dani]

I still like EL ALAMEIN,erwin rommel is the best general of the history.

Yet, Montgommery still beat him.

I like both Rommel and Monty...

[Sturmtruppen]

I still like EL ALAMEIN,erwin rommel is the best general of the history.

Yet, Montgommery still beat him.

I prefer the other montgommery (burns!) http://img168.echo.cx/img168/5571/bushburns0do.jpg
and his friend george

:lol:

[South African Military]

I still like EL ALAMEIN,erwin rommel is the best general of the history.

Yet, Montgommery still beat him.

I prefer the other montgommery (burns!) http://img168.echo.cx/img168/5571/bushburns0do.jpg
and his friend george

:lol:

haha, a bit off topic but still funny...

[Canaris]

I have to disagree with both Wildboar and 2nd of Foot. Yes the conquest of Britain by the Nazis would have probably won them the war. (We could argue about what exactly would have happened once all Biritsh forces in the UK had surrendered but its so hypothetical I don't think it would be a usful debate)

So I do agree with you there. But lets define the Battle of Britain as: The campaign fought by the Luftwaffe to gain air superiority over Southern England in order to facilitate a seabourne invasion. Several points fall out of this:

1. The Germans never came close to winning air-superiority (i'm sure others will disagree)
2. Once they started bombing London and other cities, basically anythiong other than airfields, their aims had changed and they were never going to achieve 1.
3. Even if they had won (air superiority) that would by no means guarntee that the Luftwaffe would be in suficient strength to destroy the Royal Navy and allow the Kreigsmarine to effect a landing.
4. Then of course there is the British Army to think about. Agreed - not in a good state in June-July but much better by Sept - Oct when the Germans might expect to have finished the air campaign.
5. Would the Germans had been able to done D-Day going the other way in Autumn 1940. I imagine the weather might prevent it even if the Germans' unsophisticated logistics (compared to the Allies in '44) did not.
6. Even if they took London..........and so on, pretty much for ever.

You get my drift. I don't meant to be pedantic nor poor scorn on a hard fought victory But all the other battles in the list both sides had a good chance at winning and don't think the BoB falls into that category.

[2nd of foot]

Canaris I am afraid I would have to agree with what you say. I think my original point was to point out that BoB should not have been over looked in the starting line up. This was probably because it was an air battle and not land,

I also think that you are right in your point 5 you probably have the primary reason why the Germans could never do it. Anyone who has used the ferries in the channel would be able to confirm that it can be an interesting crossing in big ships let alone a canal barge even if they are the big continental ones. If you look at what was required for Overlord to work, all the people who think Sealion had a chance of successes do not know how armies work. You cannot live off the land in modern warfare.
I think that to remove Britain from the war they may not have had to invade, just get a surrender. There was a lot of opposition to the war by a number of senior political people. Halifax comes to mind. We also have the communists who toed the soviet line and they (soviet) had what they thought was a treaty with Germany at this time. The US was not interested to a great extent and that s**t Kennedy was talking Britain down at any opportunity. Churchill was also not in a very strong position at this time. If the British had lost the BoB and been offered good terms on their surrender they would have probably gone for it.
A lot of IFs and I think your right the Germans had a snow balls chance in hell of winning.
But my main point is that if the British in 1940 had not stood up to Hitler the rest would have been immaterial. The US would have never gone to war and Japan would have got their area of domination without troubling young Sam.

[Canaris]

All true but Hitler would still have fought Stalin in Summer '41 and eventualy lost.

[South African Military]

All true but Hitler would still have fought Stalin in Summer '41 and eventualy lost.

Who knows? The Russian Army in the beggining years of the war was extremely disorganized and poorly led. (He killed allot of his generals in one of his purges). The German Army advanced at amazing speed and soon reached Lenningrad, and other major cities. If Hiter used all his forces and advanced quick enough into Russia, and get it over and done with before winter, well just maybe.

But, debate, debate!

[IRONMAN]

3. Even if they had won (air superiority) that would by no means guarntee that the Luftwaffe would be in suficient strength to destroy the Royal Navy and allow the Kreigsmarine to effect a landing.

I agree, and I think this point is the maker-breaker had Germany been able to whip the British in the air. I can't see the Germans being able to make a sufficient landing with the Royal Navy on the job.

[LargeBrew]

The Battle of the Atlantic was the not only the most protracted but the most important of WW2. Without the ability to transport men and materials across the Atlantic D day would have been put back for years as air transport could not have coped until a bigger load capacity was developed.

[South African Military]

The Battle of the Atlantic was the not only the most protracted but the most important of WW2. Without the ability to transport men and materials across the Atlantic D day would have been put back for years as air transport could not have coped until a bigger load capacity was developed.

Deffinetely agreed. If the Allies had not of been able to control the atlantic waters, valuable supplies and resources to Britain would not of reached. I beleive Britain rellied allot on supplies coming from America, such as raw meterials?

here is a picture depicting the losses of merchant ships in the North Atlantic and other ocean regions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/WW2_war_losses_allied_neutral_merchant_ships.jpg

i reccomend wiki again for anyone interested in more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_the_Atlantic

[IRONMAN]

All true but Hitler would still have fought Stalin in Summer '41 and eventualy lost.

I agree. I think it's important to consider that the conflict with Russia tapped German'y resources, even their male population, and with American and British bombing of Germany, the Germans were not able to replace what was being used or destroyed at an equal rate. Even if Germany had managed to defeat Britain in the air:

1. Their male population had already been considerably reduced by the losses with Russia by 1943.
2. Thier manufacturing capability was already reduced by the bombing of Germany
3. The gain of the British Isles would have been moot by that point and would have only been a pit that absorbed that were needed to defend against Russia, because the US was shipping thousands of airplanes and supplies to Russia, which helped them to push the Germans back toward Berlin, and the US Navy would have finished what the Royal Navy started in destroying Germany's wolf packs, (new ships with depth charge abilities were developed and in use) thereby insuring that the US would have been able to continue it's shipping of supplies and machinery to Russia.
4. By late 1942 Germany's wolf packs were reduced and the end of their reign in the Atlantic was in sight.
http://www.usmm.org/images/shipsbuiltsunk.gif

[Bluffcove]

I agree with IRONMAN that the Germans would still have lost.

But IRONMAN for fucks sake, dont post graphs that you have drawn yourself as .gif images and then posted on an image server called
http://home.jam.rr.com/director/
right next door to your two irritating signature posters.
and that animated gif of the two assault rifles magically changing between Mp44. and AK47.

Creating sources doesnt help your case, if you cant use google!!! I despair...........

That said the USMC video is very good!

[2nd of foot]

Its quite simple. If Britain has lost the Battle of Britain the US would not have joined the war. The invasion of Russia would have started early and the Germans would have been in winter quarters as the snow came. Russia would not have got supplies from the US. There would have been no bombing of German industry. And no D-Day. Germany did not have to invade the UK just neutralise it.

[devilish]

Stalingrad. If you disagree then read any book on it and see. Possibly one of the hardest fought battles ever to be witnessed by man.

Towards the end it was so bad the soldiers resorted to canibalism to survive. Scary stuff.

[IRONMAN]

Its quite simple. If Britain has lost the Battle of Britain the US would not have joined the war. The invasion of Russia would have started early and the Germans would have been in winter quarters as the snow came. Russia would not have got supplies from the US. There would have been no bombing of German industry. And no D-Day. Germany did not have to invade the UK just neutralise it.

Germany abandoned "Operation Sealion", the planned invasion of Britain, before Hitler's decision to change the bombing of Britain from military facilities to bombing the cities. The idea of invading Britain was discarded before the Battle of Britain was near an end. However, if Germany were to defeat Britain in the Battle of Britain by some miricle, it could not have been done until at least some months after to the decision to switch bombing targets from military to civilian (Sept. 17th, 1941), and by that time, the Luftawffe had already suffered such losses that the required air support for an invasion would not have been sufficient. At that time, Germany's only hope in getting the British out of the war with them was to get Britain to make peace with Germany so that Germany could hold France without British intervention. The planned invasion of Britain was worthless before it could begin. Thus, the invasion of Britain was impossible.

These facts do even not take into account that had Germany managed to defeat the RAF and begin an invasion of Britain by some miricle, such an operation could not have taken place less than 1 year later because of staunch British resistance, at which time the US entered the war, and would have sent not only supplies, but it's air forces and navy to the rescue of Britain. Furthermore, Britain's navy remained strong throught the conflict, and would have helped if not insured onw it's own that an invasion of Britain would be a fruitless endeavour.

"On 17 September (1941), two days after the Luftwaffe's worst day in the Battle of Britain, Hitler cancelled Operation Sealion - the name of his plan for the invasion of Britain."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/battle_of_britain_05.shtml

Here is an article at the BBC that explains to you how an invasion of Britain could not have been undertaken, regardless of the decisions made by Hitler and his officers.

Enjoy!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/battle_of_britain_01.shtml

[Bluffcove]

IRONMAN can you tell me where you found the figures for the graph in your earlier post. Just a point of interest for me!

http://home.jam.rr.com/director

[Commando Jordovski]

Stalingrad was the Biggest Battle, loss of Millions of men in just one area from both sides.

[Hanz Lutz]

D-Day is biggest battle in ww2 :wink:

[StalingradK]

Stalingrad I think is the best battle of World War 2, without this, the Battle of Kursk would probably not even happen, and the number of tanks the Soviets destroyed helped the D-Day landings SO SO MUCH. Without this battle the German tanks that never were destroyed could keep the Allies at bay in Frances :idea:

[Hanz Lutz]

No man if the axis win in Stallingrad soviets lose the war ,do you know how time will need to transport panzers in rusia in france .
Germans can't stoped americans in france 180.000 alied been in france
8.6.1944 germans have offansive with 80.000 mans ,they never can't stop americans.

[StalingradK]

I'm saying with the tanks that were never destroyed by the Russians, and kept in France, they could have slaughtered the D-Day drops and Beach head, even if they took the SS 3rd Panzer Guard up to the Beaches, trust me, the 3 Sides D-Day alliance would have suffered so many casualties and probably not enough forces to break through the whole of France in the time they did if that makes sense :lol:

[Firefly]

I'm saying with the tanks that were never destroyed by the Russians, and kept in France, they could have slaughtered the D-Day drops and Beach head, even if they took the SS 3rd Panzer Guard up to the Beaches, trust me, the 3 Sides D-Day alliance would have suffered so many casualties and probably not enough forces to break through the whole of France in the time they did if that makes sense :lol:

What basis is this based on?

Bringing the Tanks closer to the Beach simply allows the Big Navy guns to wreck them faster. Ever seen any photos of Tigers after the 12 Inch Guns finished with them?

[Hanz Lutz]

I'm saying with the tanks that were never destroyed by the Russians, and kept in France, they could have slaughtered the D-Day drops and Beach head, even if they took the SS 3rd Panzer Guard up to the Beaches, trust me, the 3 Sides D-Day alliance would have suffered so many casualties and probably not enough forces to break through the whole of France in the time they did if that makes sense :lol:

What basis is this based on?

Bringing the Tanks closer to the Beach simply allows the Big Navy guns to wreck them faster. Ever seen any photos of Tigers after the 12 Inch Guns finished with them?

Battleship gun can destroyd any tank ,Firefly do you know something about germans elephant tanks .

[StalingradK]

Who said they had to be right up close to the beach, with that a butt load of tanks in the Normandy bocage and in the surrounding times, think of how hard of a time the Allies would breaking through German lines, I'm only saying it would extend the war a few months and with a lot more casualties, but the air power of the Allies would truly prevail :P

[Hanz Lutz]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: there youa'r in right. :lol: :lol:

[Minimalistix]

id say a turning point of the war would b Greece and its domino effect which led to my personal favourite battle of Stahlingrad

without a dought the Stahlingrad Battle was the Greatest Battle of WW2 (except for Normandy)

Scorched Earth tactics the Russians used surely did work and a little help from one of the most coldest Russian winters ever and no winter uniform for the Nazi's most DEFIANTLY contributed to the Russians battle success

[2nd of foot]

Your assuming that they know the location of the landing beach. How are they to get the tanks to the beach? By what day would they arrive? The task of the airborne landings was to secure the flanks and stop re-enforcement, which they did very well. The Germans would have had the same problems that 21st army had if they had attacked a defensive position. This was aptly shown in N Africa when the Germans attacked out of Medenine on 7th March 1943.

[Hosenfield]

kursk: greatest material battle. period.

read glantz's new battle of kursk book. it has new information from soviet archives.

it seems to me that the final showdown at pro..:) was a german victory instead of a tie.

[drummerboy]

Well I believe that not one battle led to the defeat of the Germans. But the combined resistence of the Allied powers. The RAF had stopped the German invasion of the continent that allowed the ETO a base of operations. The code Breakers at Bletchly Park, the lost momentum in North Africa and at Stalingrad. The resitence of Tito's partisans tying down 14 German divisions by the end of 1943 and the Invasion Italy tied up considerable German forces from being diverted to Normandy. Normandy relieved pressure from the Ostfront. The control of shipping lanes in the Atlantic gave the Allies vital American supplied men and materials. The destruction of the Luftwaffe over time and regaining of the skies choked rail and road transport. The continuos day and night bombing runs destroyed industry and large populated areas. The Italian campaign gave Allied bombers a base to attack the Ploesti oilfileds. This debate could go on and on. The point is is that Hitler lost the war the moment he started it. He had no strong European allies and interfered way too often in military affairs cusing the defeat of many operations. An example would have been his invasion of Russia. Instead of invading in April as planned he set back his move 2 critical months to deal with Italy's Balkan affairs which he originally condemned.

[Mechanized Warfare]

I voted for Stalingrad. In all senses Stalingrad was the greatest battle of WWII. The loss of life, how long the battle lasted, and the sheer importance of this battle. Stalingrad really wasnt a very stratigical city to capture, although it would have hurt the Soviet Union to a certain degree if the Germans would have. However, the city was important in a Soviet spirit sort of way. The city, that was named after the supreme ruler of the Soviet Union beared some kind of moralistic significance. If the city was lost, morale for the Red Army would have dropped dramatically. The German Armys defeat marked the first turning point in WWII. The German march came to a halt, and slowly but surely the Germans would be driven off Soviet soil.