Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Stalingrad or North Africa? |
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 12> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|
Sarmat 
Caliph 
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Stalingrad or North Africa?Posted: 23-May-2009 at 04:21 |
|
|
60 thousand in one day seems much more terrible than 98 thousand in 3 months.
Edited by Sarmat - 23-May-2009 at 04:22 |
||
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
||
 |
||
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-May-2009 at 00:05 |
|
|
The losses at Gazala was 98,000 out of 170,000. The TOTAL losses on the Somme was 300,000 over 4 months, Gazala was 4 weeks.
|
||
|
||
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-May-2009 at 15:46 |
|
You need to read the confusing stuff you're writing by yourself and only then argue with the others.
British lost 57 thousand out 130 thousand in July, 1916 during the battle of Albert (40% casualites).
What was the casualty rate for the battle of Normandy? Higher?
|
||
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
||
|
||
|
Cezar
Chieftain 
Joined: 09-Nov-2005 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 1211 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-May-2009 at 11:50 |
|
|
Just to get back to the thread, maybe for Britain Stalingrad was less important than NA. After all, they did have their first real success against the Wermacht in NA. What was happening on the eastern front was not quite clear for Britain though I think in 1942 they were more confident that USSR could deal with the Germans.
AFAIK, Stalingrad, or better said operations Saturn and Uranus were conducted by the Russians by takink into account the lessons the English learned in NA, mainly that the best way to deal with the Wermacht was by mounting a counter offensive rather than starting an offenssive.
|
||
|
||
|
TheRedBaron
Housecarl 
Joined: 15-May-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 40 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-May-2009 at 09:24 |
|
|
Well if you read what I wrote...
The losses are based on a percentage of losses to troops deployed.
There was alot more men on the Western Front... But you would know that. Plus as pointed out the Battle for Normandy was over a very small timespan.
Of course... The rates were worked out by Dr. John Buckley, Head of War Studies at Wolverhampton University... So I guess you know better...
 |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-May-2009 at 21:13 |
|
|
Actually Battle of Normandy was from June 6th to July 20th. What followed was the Northern France campaign, where British divisions suffered their worst casualties.
|
||
|
||
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-May-2009 at 17:48 |
|
|
Hardly believable information cause as I wrote earlier there were 20 thousand Brittish killed only in one day during the battle of Somme on July 1, 1916 and they lost almost the same number of KIA during the whole Battle of Normandy from June to September 1944 (3 months of fighting).
|
||
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
||
|
||
|
TheRedBaron
Housecarl
Joined: 15-May-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 40 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-May-2009 at 12:30 |
|
|
Actually, you stood more chance of being killed in Normandy than on the Western Front.
Normandy had a higher casualty rate for troops deployed than any other theatre of war the British have ever deployed in.
|
||
|
||
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-May-2009 at 02:14 |
|
|
Well, I was writing about the heaviest day of casualties. But, anyway, talking about the largest losses. The war that brought the largest losses to the British army ever was WWI and this is out of question.
|
||
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-May-2009 at 23:01 |
|
|
The largest losses ever suffered by the British Army were the 130,000 troops including 80,000 British troops that surrendered in Singapore.
|
||
|
||
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-May-2009 at 20:51 |
|
|
The whole point is that the only real front close to the scale of British participation in WWI was the fighting on the Second Front in Western Europe that lasted roughly for 10 month starting from June 6, 1944 till the fall of Germany.
I wouldn't argue that by intensity it surpassed British military effort in some aspect during 1914-1918. However, during WWII it was only 10 months in 1944-45 of very intensive fighting, while in 1014-1918 it was the full four years of very intensive bloody fighting.
And it was the Somme that brough the single heaviest day of casualties in British military history not something else. Edited by Sarmat - 20-May-2009 at 20:56 |
||
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-May-2009 at 20:14 |
|
|
It was called the Great War in Britain in right after the War, as was true the world over until 1939.
Incidentally WWII in the Far East saw the greatest defeats in British military history, Singapore, the biggest retreat; Burma 1942, the worst single single defeat in British Naval history since 1781; the destruction of Force Z. ANd Britain WON the war in the Far East.
British losses per division and per regiment in WWII were higher than in WWI, 200,000 dead in the campaign of 44-45 alone, in just 10 months of fighting they suffered as many as many losses as they did in 2 years of fighting on the Western Front (for what its worth, British losses in WWI were 600,000 dead, the remaining 300,000 were empire losses).
|
||
|
||
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-May-2009 at 16:28 |
|
|
British military effort in WWI both in the Middle East and Europe surpassed that in WWII. Campaigns in Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine and Galliopoli landing were large operations which claimed more British lives that all the NA campaign of WWII. The same is obviously true about the European theater.
It's WWI that is called "The Great War" in Britain, not WWII; it says it all.
|
||
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-May-2009 at 01:15 |
|
|
I'll just make a point that I think Pikeshot had made above, in WWII Britains committments were much greater than in WWI, in WWI divisions sent to the middle east were those that were pretty much incapable of being used in France. In WWII the British had the whole mid east to garrison (tied down a field army plus) fight against Japan in the Far East, and oh by the way, beat the Germans. In 1914-18, UK fought to victory and was still the worlds most powerful nation, in 39-45 she was finished as a great power. As for enthusiasm, well the British were moving troops from one theatre to another througout the war, the 5th Divison for instance, fought in Burma, in Madagascar, in N Africa, in Italy then in NW Europe. It was pretty damn common for major formations to have fought both the Japanese and the Germans.
|
||
|
||
|
Peteratwar
Colonel 
Joined: 17-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 591 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-May-2009 at 08:44 |
|
|
prior to the Battle of Britain and the ensuing Blitz, no nation had had to endure such sustained and widespread bombing. Was there a choice, yes Britain could have requested peace, Hitler put out feelers. So yes we kept fighting alone hoping something would turn up. Which of course it did when Hitler invaded Russia and finally Japan attacked the US. Wven then with the U-Boat war nothing was certain. Hitler may have thought that Britain was no threat any more. Big mistake. Don't think the rest of his High Command agreed. No he made no attempt to invade Britain as the Battle of Britain ensured that.
|
||
|
||
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-May-2009 at 01:28 |
|
|
I reread your entire post and I'm still not able to understand what you mean. Germans never landed on British soil, and you still didn't clarify a point about bombing.
You say, "yet she kept fighting" but was there much choice? Britain controlled the seas and Germans couldn't seriously hurt her unless they could invade the British Isles. And, in fact, British military power and resources and were largely intact.
One would perhaps, could say that "Britain was able to survive" if she managed to defeat the German land operation and fight off the German landing.
But in this case, we just see that it were Germans who simply switched their attention from Britain to the East, cause they considered her threat insignificant and not dangerous any more, and they never, in fact, made any serious attempt to invade and conquer Britain.
|
||
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
||
|
||
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar 
Joined: 22-Jan-2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 4221 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-May-2009 at 00:15 |
|
Had you really read the entire post, you may have been able to get the point.
Edited by pikeshot1600 - 19-May-2009 at 00:27 |
||
|
||
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-May-2009 at 23:19 |
|
How could Britain survive that in fact never happened? Germany was never able to land and start Blitzkrieg in the British territory proper. So, what is the point? And about the Blitz bombings is the point that nobody was able to survive such bombings before or what? Edited by Sarmat - 18-May-2009 at 23:24 |
||
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
||
|
||
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 4221 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-May-2009 at 22:38 |
|
Along with Peteratwar, I would disagree here. As noted above, Britain needed coalition partners for any successful Continental strategy. In WW I, Britain had three major ones - France, Russia and Italy. In 1940 - 41, she had zero. Yet, she kept on fighting and holding her own, and survived the Blitz, something not experienced before.
In addition, the first war was basically European in scope. Yes, the Middle East was an important theater, but France was paramount - across the Channel. In WW II, the war effort was more truly world wide. Europe; the Middle East; major operations in east Africa; The Indian Ocean; the far East; Burma-India and the Pacific. This is not to mention the Atlantic and Arctic theaters.
In further addition
 , the war lasted 50% longer than the first one. That in itself resulted in more financial outlay and drain on resources than in 1914 - 1918. Britain dealt with it. She emerged from the war virtually bankrupt (I know gcle disagrees here), but she dealt with it.In one of those Cold War spy movies, I remember a British agent who would have been the right age for WW II saying something like "We were tested as no generation before us had been, and we were not found wanting." I have to agree with that. There is no question of Britain's commitment in WW II.
Edited by pikeshot1600 - 18-May-2009 at 22:54 |
||
|
||
|
Peteratwar
Colonel
Joined: 17-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 591 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-May-2009 at 08:44 |
|
Having lived through those times I would beg rather strongly to differ. On what do you base this hypothesis ?
|
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 12> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.
