PDA

View Full Version : WW2s greatest battles



RifleMan20
03-30-2007, 09:23 PM
What were the greatest battles of WW2,I have to say(even though its an invasion)D-Day

GermanSoldier
03-30-2007, 09:52 PM
i would have to say that Stalingrad was the greatest battle of World War 2. It is the battle that changed the outcome of the war on the Eastern front. Next would be the battle of Kursk. That is what i think.

RifleMan20
03-30-2007, 10:00 PM
they were great battles of WW2.Stalingrad was a big come back for the russians and well i dont know much about kursk

RifleMan20
03-30-2007, 10:04 PM
I would also say that the battle of St.Lo was a geat battle,the battle was mostly street fighting and i think it was D-Day+3 or 4 i dont know

Digger
03-31-2007, 04:02 AM
Yair, fay to say Stalingrad was the turning point, but I believe Kursk was the most influential battle for a number of reasons.

It was Germany's last shot of the dice as they had expended so much in resources to rebuild their shattered armies from the Stalingrad battle and much faith was placed in new weapon systems and tactics.

While the northern assault was bogged down in the Soviet defensive belts, the southern attack force spearheaded by the SS divisions nearly pulled off a miracle. Some sources suggest Hitler's decision to call off the battle after the Allied landings in Sicily, was a grave mistake as the SS had almost rebuilt their Tiger force which had been so effective. Soviet casualties had been extremely high and there was a despair over the difficulties in destroying the new Tiger tanks.

SS commanders believe one final push was enough to break the final resistance of the Soviet reserves.

Of course we will never know.

Regards Digger.

FW-190 Pilot
03-31-2007, 04:05 AM
how about the battles in the lower country? i mean its amazing that german gliders can trap over 1000 soldiers in their fort, with only less than 100 soldiers!

RifleMan20
04-01-2007, 11:31 PM
what battle was that

alephh
04-02-2007, 06:10 AM
Kursk, Stalingrad, D-Day. All were critical in their own way.

Winner at Kursk got hold of the battlefield and could repair large number of battle tanks. Stalingrad is eternal 'what-if' topic. D-Day was pretty one-sided because of allied airpower limiting german units moving like 5km/day, while allied units could move 50km-500km/day. ;-)

My personal favourite maybe 1942 counteroffensive (including Third Battle of Kharkov) by von Manstein.



_

jacobtowne
04-02-2007, 11:53 AM
Meanwhile, an almost entirely separate war from the one in Europe was being waged in the Pacific.

Guadalcanal was a major turning point in the Pacific Theater. After that, the Japanese were on the defensive for the rest of the war. I believe that it was also the first occasion in the 20th Century that the Imperial Japanese Army suffered a defeat.

JT

Egorka
04-03-2007, 02:27 AM
So how do we define greatness of a battle? What are the criteria? Troops involved? Casualties? Impact on the course of the war? What is it?

Or each of us can just take a pick?

RifleMan20
04-03-2007, 03:08 AM
Troops that were involved were british,canadian,and american, the total of troops were more then 150000.
Casulties on each beach Juno-1,204,gold-413,sword-630,utah-197,and omaha with the worst of around 2000.
It effected the war by entering the captured area that let the allies to cose in to berlin concluding to the capture of the city thus ends the war in the european therter

Egorka
04-03-2007, 03:20 AM
Troops that were involved were british,canadian,and american, the total of troops were more then 150000.
Casulties on each beach Juno-1,204,gold-413,sword-630,utah-197,and omaha with the worst of around 2000.
It effected the war by entering the captured area that let the allies to cose in to berlin concluding to the capture of the city thus ends the war in the european therter

Rifleman,

I guess you answered my post.

Do you understand that on all of the points you mentioned the D-Day can not be defined as THE greatest battle of the WW2. It was neither the biggest nor the bloodiest. It was not decisive as it did not change the course of the war, only accelerated the fall of Germany.

Chevan
04-03-2007, 03:40 AM
Yair, fay to say Stalingrad was the turning point, but I believe Kursk was the most influential battle for a number of reasons.

It was Germany's last shot of the dice as they had expended so much in resources to rebuild their shattered armies from the Stalingrad battle and much faith was placed in new weapon systems and tactics.

While the northern assault was bogged down in the Soviet defensive belts, the southern attack force spearheaded by the SS divisions nearly pulled off a miracle. Some sources suggest Hitler's decision to call off the battle after the Allied landings in Sicily, was a grave mistake as the SS had almost rebuilt their Tiger force which had been so effective. Soviet casualties had been extremely high and there was a despair over the difficulties in destroying the new Tiger tanks.

SS commanders believe one final push was enough to break the final resistance of the Soviet reserves.

Of course we will never know.

Regards Digger.
Hello dear Digger. I/m so gald to see your post again.:D
I/m agree with you the Kursk was the last case when the Germas tryed to get strategic initiative back and losed it finally in the East. By the of enourmous losing of tanks the Red Army could stay under the giant tanks blow of Germans. And after the retreat the our tanks troops could captured the all the hited Germans and soviet tanks and many of them was repaired.If befor the battle we have about 3000 tanks - right after the battle about 800 - then through three month - already about 2 000. This was resault of operative repearing of damaged tanks and which could be easy repeared . And vise versa - the Germans could not to use the losed tanks and the after the Kursk battle they could not fully restore its tank troops.
About the SS tanks which could save the the germans from the defeat - i don't think so. Certainly the SS tanks parts were better equpmented then the other wermacht units. They were fully complected by the first Tiger and Panther but both of those tanks were far from ideal at that period of war (mid 1943). Hitler ordered to move the 2 tank SS corp to the Italy when the battle had come to the end. Moreover to the Italy was send only military personal. The all hard equipment ( tanks and selph-propeller guns) was stayed near the Rostov.

Cheers.

Chevan
04-03-2007, 03:43 AM
i would have to say that Stalingrad was the greatest battle of World War 2. It is the battle that changed the outcome of the war on the Eastern front. Next would be the battle of Kursk. That is what i think.

The Stalingrad ( jan 1943) and African ( may of 1943) surrenders of Germans were the turning moment of the WW2 IMO

Chevan
04-03-2007, 03:49 AM
Rifleman,

I guess you answered my post.

Do you understand that on all of the points you mentioned the D-Day can not be defined as THE greatest battle of the WW2. It was neither the biggest nor the bloodiest. It was not decisive as it did not change the course of the war, only accelerated the fall of Germany.

Mate i also think the D-day wasn't serious battle. It could not especially help the Red Army in summer of 1944 couse the most of Germans army was busy in the East.
But D-day was importain political moment which demonstrated the day's of Nazy HAS come to the end.
From this momen there were no any doubts the Germany totally losed this war and the compromiss or armistice of the Nazy with the Western allies ( as it dreamed some of Germans generals) was no more possible.

Chevan
04-03-2007, 04:01 AM
My personal favourite maybe 1942 counteroffensive (including Third Battle of Kharkov) by von Manstein.
_

Yea alephh
The active defence of Manstain after the collapse of 6 army in Stalingrad was the brilliant.
He really saved the rest of German troops from the total surrender in the South ( Caucaus and Crimea). He let them calmly evacuated from theis regions and saved the combat abilities.
But honestly speaking soviet comman tactical abbilities was still far from excellent in the 1942. And wrong commanding of soviet troop helped the experienced Mainstain to hold the defence.

Rising Sun*
04-03-2007, 04:32 AM
Mate i also think the D-day wasn't serious battle. It could not especially help the Red Army in summer of 1944 couse the most of Germans army was busy in the East.
But D-day was importain political moment which demonstrated the day's of Nazy HAS come to the end.
From this momen there were no any doubts the Germany totally losed this war and the compromiss or armistice of the Nazy with the Western allies ( as it dreamed some of Germans generals) was no more possible.

Mate, what have you been smoking while you've been away? Whatever it is, it's powerful mind-altering stuff. :D

If the Western Front didn't matter, and if it couldn't help the Red Army (not that that was the primary consideration in the formulation of the other Allies' operational decisions on every occasion as they had a bit on their own plates) why was Stalin getting his panties in a twist from 1942 onwards demanding that the UK and US open the Western Front?

If D-Day wasn't a serious battle, or more accurately a number of battles, what do you think qualifies as 'serious'? It's by far the biggest landing in WWII, and ever, and represented a mammoth effort by the UK and US.

As for D-Day being important only politically, what does that mean? It didn't demonstrate Nazis had come to an end. That happened months later, and probably not until after the Ardennes, after a lot more grinding battles by the UK and US forces advancing towards Germany. The D-Day landings could have been repulsed if the Germans had acted differently. It's not like the opinion polls turned against Hitler on 7 June 1944 and it altered his conduct of the war. The only thing that mattered was the military wins on and after D-Day.

P.S. Whatever it is that you've been smoking, can you send me some? It's top gear. :mrgreen:

Egorka
04-03-2007, 04:57 AM
RisingSun!

I can recognise the lawyer talk in every bit of your post! ;)


Mate, what have you been smoking while you've been away? Whatever it is, it's powerful mind-altering stuff. :D

If the Western Front didn't matter, and if it couldn't help the Red Army (not that that was the primary consideration in the formulation of the other Allies' operational decisions on every occasion as they had a bit on their own plates) why was Stalin getting his panties in a twist from 1942 onwards demanding that the UK and US open the Western Front?
Do not twist his words. Chevan did not say that the Western Front did not matter or that it did not help Red Army. He said D-Day it self did not helped much in the "Bagration" offensive.
Stalin did ask for western front all the time from the begining.
He would had ask in any case, even if the situation was much better. Because it is clear he wanted to push as much burden to Western Allies as possible. Of course Churchill was not a naive puppy and was not easy to trick.


If D-Day wasn't a serious battle, or more accurately a number of battles, what do you think qualifies as 'serious'? It's by far the biggest landing in WWII, and ever, and represented a mammoth effort by the UK and US.

D-Day was serious battle and indeed the biggest landing operation that was the result of lots of very hard work.
But can you see the difference between the biggest landing operation and the biggest battle? It is deemed that the later one is bigger than the former one per definition.
The german losses was not very high. The allied losses were low as well. There is almost no material gain after the D-Day battle, but what it did it oppened the new chapter in WW2 and enabled western Allies to enter the land war in Europe which dramaticaly accelerated the defeat of Germany and saved many-many lives of Soviet soldiers.

That is waht, I think, Chevan ment by political importance. It is not D-Day it self, by what it made possible after.


As for D-Day being important only politically, what does that mean? It didn't demonstrate Nazis had come to an end. That happened months later, and probably not until after the Ardennes, after a lot more grinding battles by the UK and US forces advancing towards Germany. The D-Day landings could have been repulsed if the Germans had acted differently. It's not like the opinion polls turned against Hitler on 7 June 1944 and it altered his conduct of the war. The only thing that mattered was the military wins on and after D-Day.
I agree with all of your statements here, which still does not show D-Day as the greatest battle of WW2. Nor the most important one either! Very important - yes, THE most important - no.

Rising Sun*
04-03-2007, 06:10 AM
RisingSun!

I can recognise the lawyer talk in every bit of your post! ;)

That's what you think! Wait till I start throwing the Latin around, ejusdem generis, mutatis mutandis, sui generis, post hoc propter hoc, a fortiori, ad colligenda bona, nemo dat quod non habet, fieri facias, me old Russian mate! :D


I agree with all of your statements here

This isn't the first time I've had to point out to you that if you keep this up we'll have nothing to talk about. :D


which still does not show D-Day as the greatest battle of WW2. Nor the most important one either! Very important - yes, THE most important - no.

The thread is greatest battles, not THE greatest battle.

I read Chevan's post as being dismissive of D-Day. Yours isn't. Yours is a better assessment of its significance, or perhaps better expressed than Chevan's assessment. Maybe because your post is longer and is able to present an argument rather than a couple of assertions that don't make much sense on their own.

Still, we wouldn't want to encourage longer posts that explain things rather than just making assertions, would we? ;)

Egorka
04-03-2007, 06:19 AM
That's what you think! Wait till I start throwing the Latin around, ejusdem generis, mutatis mutandis, sui generis, post hoc propter hoc, a fortiori, ad colligenda bona, nemo dat quod non habet, fieri facias, me old Russian mate! :D

This isn't the first time I've had to point out to you that if you keep this up we'll have nothing to talk about. :D

The thread is greatest battles, not THE greatest battle.

I read Chevan's post as being dismissive of D-Day. Yours isn't. Yours is a better assessment of its significance, or perhaps better expressed than Chevan's assessment. Maybe because your post is longer and is able to present an argument rather than a couple of assertions that don't make much sense on their own.

Still, we wouldn't want to encourage longer posts that explain things rather than just making assertions, would we? ;)

You are right (Ghhrrrr!!!) it is "battleS".

I again agree with you... I will give it a though, that the lawyers and dentists are maybe not the most evil people on the face of the Earth after all.

I share your opinion that D-Day belong to the top 100 most important battles of WW2. ;)

Chevan
04-03-2007, 06:30 AM
Mate, what have you been smoking while you've been away? Whatever it is, it's powerful mind-altering stuff. :D

No smoking only a little vodka ;)


If the Western Front didn't matter, and if it couldn't help the Red Army (not that that was the primary consideration in the formulation of the other Allies' operational decisions on every occasion as they had a bit on their own plates) why was Stalin getting his panties in a twist from 1942 onwards demanding that the UK and US open the Western Front?

Sorry mate but panties of Stalin was wet in the 1941-42-43 when alles prefered to send the the 1/3 part of lend-lise but not a real combat in the France. But not in the mid of 1944 the fate of the war in the east ( and in the world) WAS clear. The Germany retreated in the whole Eastern and south ( italy ) front and the allies was afraid the Stalin take for itself the whole Western Europe - this is more "danger" then the bombing of London and Battle for Atlantic.
In the 1944 the Churchill getting his panties in the fear the Stalin could took the whole Europe.


If D-Day wasn't a serious battle, or more accurately a number of battles, what do you think qualifies as 'serious'? It's by far the biggest landing in WWII, and ever, and represented a mammoth effort by the UK and US.

The serious mean the persentage of troops - which could send the Germany for defence.
May be you don't know but the tupical landing operation was for instance the boosting the river like of Vistula or Dnepr where the whole fronts ( 500 000 -1 000 000 of men) lands to the opposite side under Germans fire.


As for D-Day being important only politically, what does that mean? It didn't demonstrate Nazis had come to an end. That happened months later, and probably not until after the Ardennes, after a lot more grinding battles by the UK and US forces advancing towards Germany. The D-Day landings could have been repulsed if the Germans had acted differently. It's not like the opinion polls turned against Hitler on 7 June 1944 and it altered his conduct of the war. The only thing that mattered was the military wins on and after D-Day.

The Ardenn battle was much more importaint then the D-Day becouse in those battles Germany losed about 250 000 of soldiers. D-Day is not so "seriouce" from this view.


P.S. Whatever it is that you've been smoking, can you send me some? It's top gear. :mrgreen:

No it just for me :)

Egorka
04-03-2007, 06:35 AM
No it just for me :)

Yea! Australian imperialistic lawyers, keep your fingers off our bottles! The national resources of Russia belong to our people!

http://www.davno.ru/img/posters/antialcohol/poster_01_20.jpg

Chevan
04-03-2007, 06:39 AM
Yea! Australian imperialistic lawyers, keep your fingers off our bottles! The national resources of Russia belong to our people!
Not so ;)
I just don't know will the vodka has the effect at the our australian mate who as we saw prefer to "smoke the something" :D

Digger
04-03-2007, 07:02 AM
One small point. At the Battle of Kursk the new Panther tanks only served with the Heer, not the SS. Though plagued by mechanical faults the Panthers still managed to claim 25% of all Soviet tank casualties on the northern front of the offensive.

I think one of the most overlooked, but terribly important battle of the Eastern Front was Leningrad. This siege/battle not only tied down an enormous amount of German resources, but was also expertly used for it's propaganda purposes.

The defenders of Leningrad always served as a reminder, Soviet forces were indeed capable of resisting the Nazi invader.

Oh, vodka has a wonderful effect on us Aussies!

Regards Digger.

Rising Sun*
04-03-2007, 07:04 AM
I again agree with you... I will give it a though, that the lawyers and dentists are maybe not the most evil people on the face of the Earth after all.

You're only saying that because you've been to a dentist recently.

The difference between lawyers and dentists is this:

Dentists observe careful hygiene measures before inflicting pain on you and putting their hands in your pocket to take your money.

Lawyers don't worry about the hygiene. :D

Egorka
04-03-2007, 07:13 AM
Not so ;)
I just don't know will the vodka has the effect at the our australian mate who as we saw prefer to "smoke the something" :D

Right! RisingSun, listen to what a smart man says. Smoking will affect yout brain activiry and make you think like some one else. Like this guy:

http://1001.vdv.ru/books/borev/images/04.gif

Rising Sun*
04-03-2007, 07:19 AM
No smoking only a little vodka ;)

Crystal or powder? I just tried it with schnapps (no vodka - the wife drank it all) but the cigarette won't light. :D



Sorry mate but panties of Stalin was wet in the 1941-42-43 ... In the 1944 the Churchill getting his panties in the fear the Stalin could took the whole Europe.

I know this is serious, but you can be bloody funny. :mrgreen:


The serious mean the persentage of troops - which could send the Germany for defence.
May be you don't know but the tupical landing operation was for instance the boosting the river like of Vistula or Dnepr where the whole fronts ( 500 000 -1 000 000 of men) lands to the opposite side under Germans fire.

Seriously, no, I didn't know that. I didn't think that Russia / USSR had undertaken amphibious operations on that scale. Do you have any links to tell me more about it?


The Ardenn battle was much more importaint then the D-Day becouse in those battles Germany losed about 250 000 of soldiers. D-Day is not so "seriouce" from this view.

I think this is another example of where our thinking and assessments differ.

I think you tend to look at the scale of individual events.

I tend to look at what happened before to allow the events to occur and to assess the whole sequence leading to an event. The Ardennes would not have occurred without D-Day which, ignoring lots of events in between, would not have occurred without Churchill (wet panties though he may have had) deciding to fight Germany alone.



No it just for me :)

Well, be careful with it, because it's strong stuff. I still think there's enough for two

Rising Sun*
04-03-2007, 07:45 AM
Yea! Australian imperialistic lawyers, keep your fingers off our bottles! The national resources of Russia belong to our people!

http://www.davno.ru/img/posters/antialcohol/poster_01_20.jpg

Keep your bottles.

We imperialists down here have a famous beer called Foster's Lager and an ice cream called Peter's which had the slogan "The health food of the nation" which had its advertising jingle corrupted by beer drinkers.

Foster's Lager
Foster's Lager
Comes in bottles cans or glasses
It's the health food of the nation
Stick your ice creams
Up your arses.

Anyway, Aussie imperialists don't need brawny men to portray their national drink. We feed it to our kids, because it's cheaper than chemical laden American infant formula with the special McDonalds taste implants in it and easier than breast milk. As my father used to say, 'Beer builds better babies'.

http://www.rhylljetty.com/beer-before-bed.gif

redalb2253
04-03-2007, 10:22 AM
Least we forget Sevastopol, El Alamein and Djemansk.

RifleMan20
04-03-2007, 10:58 PM
oh yea el alamein was a great battle between britain and the "Afrika"Corps,i think it was the turning point for britain.
Oh and D-Day wasnt the greatest battle but it was great

2nd of foot
04-04-2007, 03:55 AM
battle of britain, if that was lost all the rest would be uniportant. after that pearl harbour, as that changed the war.

alephh
04-04-2007, 04:03 AM
The active defence of Manstain after the collapse of 6 army in Stalingrad was the brilliant. ... But honestly speaking soviet comman tactical abbilities was still far from excellent in the 1942. And wrong commanding of soviet troop helped the experienced Mainstain to hold the defence.

But I don't think there are too many cases where brilliant victory was achieved against brilliant commander(s)? ;-D

Mistakes and bad leadership of enemy are seeds of brilliant victory.



Leningrad. This siege/battle not only tied down an enormous amount of German resources, but was also expertly used for it's propaganda purposes.

Excellent point. This type of "battle" often goes unnoticed.



_

32Bravo
04-05-2007, 07:52 AM
Imphal/Kohima. Defeated the Japanese offensive drive on India. Provided the 'springboard' for Slim to execute his counter-stroke against the Japanese which culminated in their defeat in Burma.

http://www.veterans-uk.info/pdfs/publications/comm_booklets/kohima_book.pdf

Polar
04-05-2007, 08:16 AM
In my opinion
For Europe theatre the greatest was Stalingrad
For Pacific Midway

32Bravo
04-05-2007, 12:27 PM
When discussing D-Day I presume we are really talking about the Normandy campaign, and what was probably the most decisive action of the campaign was the destruction of the German forces in the action at the Battle of the Falaise Gap. Could have been total if the Canadadians had closed the gap.... I blame Monty. ;)

http://www.directart.co.uk/mall/more.php?ProdID=129

http://www.aero-web.org/history/wwii/d-day/15.htm

Digger
04-05-2007, 06:23 PM
It's obvious there were many important battles which impacted on the course of the war. What were the most important is always open for debate.

Perhaps one of the most important campaigns was the Italians failed attempt to subdue Greece, thereby attracting Hitler's attention away from his prime objective, the Soviet Union. Ultimately Hitler's material aid to Mussolini was fatal for the German cause.

Another battle to consider in it's importance is the Battle Of The Atlantic. If Britain's supply line was strangled it was end game.

Regards Digger.:)

32Bravo
04-06-2007, 03:10 AM
It's obvious there were many important battles which impacted on the course of the war. What were the most important is always open for debate.


Absolutely. The whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts.

FW-190 Pilot
04-06-2007, 03:59 AM
How about pearl harbour then? That cause the americans to join the allies and create more trouble for the Germans.

Chevan
04-06-2007, 07:32 AM
And battle for Poland in 1939 ;)
If Hitler did not begin this war in 1 sep 1939 we could win the Germany and Japane ;)

RifleMan20
04-06-2007, 02:24 PM
yes,yes guys those are also very inmportant battles pearl harbour was a sad day to the pacific navi fleet and tha battle of poland was important but i have almost no idea about this battle

2nd of foot
04-06-2007, 03:21 PM
The battle for Poland brought France and the British Empire into the war, so started the main part of the war. Would Russia have attacked Poland if Germany had not and would Britain and France come to its aid?

RifleMan20
04-07-2007, 04:14 PM
how bout the battle of St Lo it was a crossroad for german resources and it was a important objective to the allies if am not mistaken

32Bravo
04-07-2007, 05:10 PM
There is no doubt that wars are won as a result of an agregation of events and details. It would be interesting if the battles mentioned could be given a place within the the wider sphere of a particular campaign and the effect they had upon it.

Chevan
04-09-2007, 12:19 AM
Would Russia have attacked Poland if Germany had not and would Britain and France come to its aid?
And should be the Stalin too stupid to attack the Poland and brought the USSR into the war with ALL Europe ;) ?
Becouse in this way the Germany, Britain and France declared the union Crusade to the East.

Egorka
04-09-2007, 12:41 AM
And should be the Stalin too stupid to attack the Poland and brought the USSR into the war with ALL Europe ;) ?
Becouse in this way the Germany, Britain and France declared the union Crusade to the East.

Yes. Interesting, would Poland let the German troops through its territory? ;)

Chevan
04-09-2007, 01:53 AM
Yes. Interesting, would Poland let the German troops through its territory? ;)
Why not . ;)The Germans didn't wish to steal the polish soul.
As i remember one of the polish politican said "With the Germany we lost our territory, but with Russia we lost our soul". It seems it was Pilsudsky if i'm right.

RifleMan20
04-15-2007, 06:01 PM
how bout the great bombings or dogfights

for example the great bombimgs from the luftwaffe on london a dogfight well i have not heard of a dogfight in ww2 yet and also sea battles like yea midway the philppines sea

Rising Sun*
04-17-2007, 07:09 AM
Everybody has ignored the pivotal Battle of Los Angeles which, while often wrongly attributed to hysteria by American troops http://www.militarymuseum.org/BattleofLA.html
was actually the most important battle of WWII as it prevented the earth being invaded by aliens from outer space http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocasefiles/p/losangeles1942.htm :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

32Bravo
04-17-2007, 07:32 AM
Everybody has ignored the pivotal Battle of Los Angeles which, while often wrongly attributed to hysteria by American troops http://www.militarymuseum.org/BattleofLA.html
was actually the most important battle of WWII as it prevented the earth being invaded by aliens from outer space http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocasefiles/p/losangeles1942.htm :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


that was their second attempt. They almost succeed in 1938, but they caught a cold. :mrgreen:

http://www.transparencynow.com/welles.htm

Rising Sun*
04-17-2007, 08:13 AM
that was their second attempt. They almost succeed in 1938, but they caught a cold. :mrgreen:

http://www.transparencynow.com/welles.htm

This would explain the virulence of their reaction on the second attempt. :mrgreen:

AllHailCesar
04-18-2007, 10:47 AM
Everybody has ignored the pivotal Battle of Los Angeles which, while often wrongly attributed to hysteria by American troops http://www.militarymuseum.org/BattleofLA.html
was actually the most important battle of WWII as it prevented the earth being invaded by aliens from outer space http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocasefiles/p/losangeles1942.htm :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

I highly recommend for viewing a very insightful documentary. "1941" directed by Steven Spielberg. I enjoyed it very much.

32Bravo
04-18-2007, 12:08 PM
I highly recommend for viewing a very insightful documentary. "1941" directed by Steven Spielberg. I enjoyed it very much.

I'm not familiar with that one, but I found this:

http://www.scruffles.net/spielberg/movies/1941.html

AllHailCesar
04-18-2007, 03:20 PM
That would be the one! It's very funny.

32Bravo
04-18-2007, 04:07 PM
That would be the one! It's very funny.

Thank you. I'll ook out for it.

RifleMan20
04-18-2007, 04:17 PM
u two i really dont care if u talk about that but stay on this topic or that topic you guys are talking about k

AllHailCesar
04-18-2007, 06:24 PM
Don't qoute me. It's 32Bravos fault.....he brought it up.
I'll consider myself warned. :)

RifleMan20
04-20-2007, 06:48 PM
dont worry if you do get troble by a mod i can talk to him but i think talking about aliens is cool like the roswell incident

ww2artist
09-05-2007, 06:13 PM
What about aerial battles?

The Battle of Britain was one of the greatest, for the sheer fact that if Britain hadn't beaten the Luftwaffe back, Operation Sea Lion would have begun and that most probably would've been that; no D-Day, no bases from which to carry out a round-the-clock bombing campaign.

Also there are aerial battles such as the ones which occurred as the Eight Air Force fought its way to Schweinfurt and back on August 17th, 1943, with appalling losses I might add!

As for those that say D-Day wasn't that much of a bid deal, it was only the largest invasion force ever assembled! Man-made harbours being towed across the Channel, fuel lines being run across to ensure the armour remained operational...... There are just too many things to list that make this day into one of the most colossal in history!

Digger
09-14-2007, 07:55 AM
Certainly the battle Of Britain was one of the most pivotal battles of the war. Most importantly the events of summer 1940 clearly exposed the deficiencies within the Luftwaffe, of which many were never rectified, much to Germany's cost and ultimate defeat.

Regards digger

bwing55543
09-14-2007, 08:44 AM
I'd have to say the battle of Kursk. It is credited as the biggest tank battle in history.

AM_R.A.D.6th
10-24-2007, 02:43 PM
3 stand out for me, i will include reasons.

1) Stalingrad : Losing the entire 6th army was a demoralizing blow and one of the most important turning points of the war. It wasnt over yet, but set the tone for the remainder of the war.

2) Kursk : The last hurrah, basically fought to a stalemate which meant Russian victory. There were no replacements available for the masses of equipment and manpower lost here by the Germans. The retreat all the way to Berlin began here. This battle was Russias D-day.

3) Ardennes, the Battle of the Bulge: Hitlers plan to force the allies back into the sea. If it had been successful and peace made with the Brits and Uncle Sam more troops would have been available for the eastern front and the German industrial belt may have been able to keep turning out new Tiger tanks. Of course at this point it may have already been too late but who knows.