The most important battle of WWII
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: All Battles Project
Forum Discription: Forum for the All Battles military history project
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18011
Printed Date: 20-Apr-2024 at 07:54
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The most important battle of WWII
Posted By: Jonny Starcraft
Subject: The most important battle of WWII
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 03:32
|
How do you think? The most important was: Stalingrad, Kursk, Moscow, Al Alamein, Tobruk, Midway or ....... 
------------- Kaczyński is the biggest LOSER. HiS handicapped clone too! |
Replies:
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 03:40
|
Most important? It depends on the nation's point of view, but in general... Battle for the Britain was the most important war in WWII. If Germans successfully landed in Britain, Britain would have fallen soon if Germans attacked at their fullest strength, become unchallenged power and head all the way to Middle East for oil, and with good coordinations and fewer mistakes, they could start Operation Barbarossa that could overwhelm Russian defenders. America would find difficulties to barge into Britain, and same goes to Canada. Once Russia falls, everything's over. Nazi Germany wins. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 03:51
|
Halting of the Japanese advance in the Pacific was very important, by the Australians and Americans. The Americans and Australians et al defeated the Japanese at Coral Sea and Midway, but the first defeat of Japan on land was even more important for morale and progress. A small Australian force of mainly new recruits managed to defend the air field at Milne Bay, PNG, against jungle veterans of the Japanese. The effect was monumental and the Kokoda trail saga saw many gallant defeats by the Australians, while the Japanese were forced backwards over the Owen Stanley ranges only to be attacked by Americans and Australians at Buna and Gona. This campaign saw the retreat of the Japanese in the Pacific, a pivotal point in WWII. The German defeat and Withdrawal from North Africa by British, Australians and other allied forces was another important campaign. ------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 05:05
|
10 Largest battle of the war according to one source, are as follows, (with the 1st 4 being overwhelmingly larger than the rest ) were.
1) Battle of Kursk July 5, 1943 to July 13, 1943 2)
3) Battle of 4) Battle of 5 Battle of 6) Battle of 7) 8) Battle of Chang-te 9) Battle of 10) Most were in Russia as expected, However two China battles, one Japanese/Chinese and one Russian/Japanese is a bit of a surprise. Showing how inportant the Chinese theatre was to the downfall of Japan.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Jonny Starcraft
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 07:37
Only land battles? What about Midway and Battle of England ------------- Kaczyński is the biggest LOSER. HiS handicapped clone too! |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 08:31
|
Air and sea battle didn't have millions of participants, 100,000's of artillery and tanks. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Jonny Starcraft
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 08:42
Yes, but other battles were also important. ------------- Kaczyński is the biggest LOSER. HiS handicapped clone too! |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 10:00
|
There are two distinct issues here, one being which battle most influenced the course of the war, and the other which battles will be seen as the mist important turning point in the history of warfare.
The first I'm undecided about, but for the second I think the Battle of Midway is the most significant, in that it changed the face of naval warfare for ever. The only momentary doubt I have is that the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse foreshadowed it, but that hardly merits the title of 'battle'. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 10:27
|
The scope and scale of the war was so monumental that one battle cannot (IMHO) be THE most important. There were crucial campaigns and engagements that tended to suggest that the tide might be turning, but some battles were more newsworthy (read propaganda) than decisive. For argument, let's break it down to land and sea. Air being just a tactical support for each. On land: Moscow (in December) 1941 into '42. After being turned away, the Germans were almost exclusively on the strategic defensive the rest of the war.
Stalingrad grips the imagination more, and Kursk was really just the last gasp of German forces.
At sea: Midway. As gcle says, there were previews that naval warfare was changing (Taranto, P.Wales/Repulse, Pearl Harbor), but Midway knocked out 50% of Japan's ability to wage this new naval war. Japan could hardly replace such losses, not to mention pilots, while the US built 30 Essex class carriers and all the escorts and support needed. Japan made no further offensive moves at sea or in the south Pacific after Midway.
Some may say the air power was the key here, but carrier planes are of small use and short range without the carriers and the other ships to make them lethal.
Guadalcanal and Tarawa and Iwo were riveting, emotional campaigns, but not decisive in themselves. And small scale in relation to Russia.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 13:46
many of those are not battles but campaigns. i'm not even sure what some of those names mean... ------------- |
Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 13:47
|
Kursk,the Germans couldn't recover their losses after Kursk,they started a hard retreat.
In eastern front Midway was the key for the American victory. ------------- "May the eyes of cowards never sleep" Khalid Bin Walid 
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 14:34
I agree.
Even after Stalingrad, the Germans, still could have either forced a cease fire with the allies or perhaps evenl won the war (in theory). The victory at Kursk made the German defeat inevitable.
Kursk also was the first battle where the allies were able to fight massed, rested and elite German armoured formations on equal terms and win. This clearly demonstrated that the Germans no longer had a monopoly on armoured warfare techniques.
This win against elite, well supplied and rested German units at Kursk is incontrast to El Alimaine (sp) where the allies won because of a big supply and numerical advantage against an exhausted foe.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 14:59
Carrier planes are no use without carriers (
 ). The important change is that after Midway battleships are no longer important: carriers are all important. While there was a hint of this at Matapan (one British carrier, no Italian carriers: the torpedoing of Vittorio Veneto) Matapan was in the end still a capital ship encounter.)Guns had been all important at sea since the 14th century or so. The last battle I can think of that didn't involve guns was Sluys in 1340. After Midway they didn't matter much any more. Way after WWII. missiles would later change the picture too, but the only naval engagements that have seen much use made of missiles were during the Falklands War and not very big.
A battle can involve large numbers of troops and cause great numbers of casualties, without being very decisive in either the short or long term.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 15:12
That's exactly why El Alamein is so important. In the summer of 1942, German and Italian forces in North Africa still outnumbered the British. By El Alamein the Commonwealth forces had a 2-1 advantage over Rommel in men and tanks, because the Commonwealth was finally managing to get itself pulled together, and because Germany was becoming overstretched and weary.
El Alamein showed once again that the good big'un always beats the good littl'un in the end.
It was Nathan Bedford Forrest who said that winning battles was getting there 'fustest with the mostest'. From 1942 on the Germans would never again have the mostest and rarely get there fustest.
------------- |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 18:30
El Alamien is important, but Kursk is far more so.
El Alamein demonstrated that the Germans could be beat, but only if they were out numbered, exhausted and under supplied. After their defeat here, it was still possible for the Germans to regain the strategic initiative. (they never did, as you pointed out.)
At Kursk, the elite, fresh, well supplied Germans were beaten at their own game (armoured warfare). After their defeat at Kursk, it was impossible for the Germans to ever regain the strategic initiative.
Also, at El Alamein, the Germans were outnumbered by 6-1 in tanks. (Maybe 3-1 in infantry). Most of the Germans still got away. This furhter illustrates why Kursk is more important (Russians beat rested Germans without a huge numerical advantage)
|
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 20:05
|
Battle of Midday was important, but Americans with her allies would have won eventually anyway. Battle of Britain was probably the most important battle. If Britain's taken out, Germans can now fight Russia without interference. Russia would face greater number of German invaders, and the supplies that the Allies sent to support Russians would be significantly less, since Allies no longer dominates the European sea. Without Britain, Germans led by Rommel could push into Nile and to Middle East and possibily create another Russian front. Take out Caucausian Mountain and Baku... Russia now has no access to Allies other than through Pacific, where Japanese navy could easily check. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Isbul
Date Posted: 22-Feb-2007 at 06:40
|
I rather wouldnt say that battle for britain was so important.Even they had won the germans will still have invade england and to do so they will have deal with the home fleet aswell.And even if they did that they land somehow on Britain they will have to fight and the whole campain will take time and delay the invasion of the USSR.That time will be enough because for every pasing moment the soviets were getting stronger and eventualy will launch offensive of their own.And ocupation of England wont help much in north africa but even if the axis forces somehow get their asses to iraq their number were not enought to trie to open southen front to the soviets.
And for almost all battles for the periond of 41-42 in USSR are somewhat important but the most one cant say ------------- 
|
Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 22-Feb-2007 at 11:57
El Alamein was an important battle but it didn't break the German's back,the Germans were outnumbered as you wrote,no fuel long supply routs as well as their bad stratigic postion.
the Germans had 12 planes only against 1200 to the allied forces 200 panzers against 1000 tanks for the allied.
the fresh forces that came from middle east and india played a major role in the battle and I must mention the poor trained and weak Italian forces which made a disaster to this campaign from it's begining.
all Germans Generals told Hitler that if we want to win in north Africa we must send more troops but Hitler answer was the Italians are there we should send elite troops only.
for him it was only a secondary front with all these things and Rommel managed to destroy 500 tanks and made an impressive retreat(2000KM) even though the American landing in Tunisia he saved the African korps and I consider that a big accomplishment. ------------- "May the eyes of cowards never sleep" Khalid Bin Walid
|
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 22-Feb-2007 at 15:15
In terms of tank generals, Rommel was the closest being to God during WWII...  ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 22-Feb-2007 at 15:50
|
I agree that it is indeed Battle of Britain in terms of importance. ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2007 at 07:37
|
Battle of Britain for the western theatre, The Stalingrad Siege for the Eastern theatre of the war as far as WWII in Europe is concerned. ------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2007 at 08:01
|
Are there some excellent move clips for the Battle of Britain or the Stalingrad Siege? I have seen some short clips, but I was wondering if there's any clips that are well shown with respective amount of duration. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Tancrθde
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2007 at 13:41
|
For the western front
Battle of France 1940 Eastern front Battle of Stalingrad 1942 1943 |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2007 at 12:48
|
I think the Chinese front is largely underestimated as well. ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2007 at 13:09
Not underestimated, but think about it. The military potential between China and Japan don't have to be exaggerated. Seen the Japanese tanks in WWII? They are considered to be among the worst type of tanks produced, but their kill rate and battle performance in China proved as effective as other European tanks. Why? Because Chinese resistance was very unsuccessful, with some exceptions. Chinese resistances did not join forces together, and all Japan had to do is divide and conquer. It was like Hundred Years War before Joan came in. Furthermore, Japan held sea supremacy in all Chinese water, which was the most efficient method of transportation in China since railways were not available in China, and those that were available were all strongly controlled and defended by Japan.
Of course, many other Superpowers sent some elite forces to help out the Chinese resistance, but the number of the assistors were not enough to change the tide of war.
Even worse, some Chinese warlords wanted power so much that they allied with Japan against the Chinese resistance. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2007 at 13:20
|
This is one of the light tanks produced by Japanese military during WWII. Over 2000 of them were produced despie its light armor and slow mobility. It proved to be successful in Chinese front, but the quality of the tank was no match for the European tanks. Type 95 tank http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Type_95_Front_3-4_view.JPG">  ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Crusader3943
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 12:36
I think that the most important battle of WWII was Stalingrad. If the German juggernaut hadn't been stopped, then Russia would have had another German army down to the south to cope with, not to mention that up north, other Germans were preparing to drive on to the capital.  ------------- Crusader3943 |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 18:29
|
Hitler always suprise me. He can be so brilliant, but he can be so stupid. It's almost as if there were Hitler twin. His attitude and personality in the early WWII and near the end of WWII seems as if they are completely different man. Who knows, maybe Hitler got this Hyde's potion or something... ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 19:11
And your next statement shows why you think that.
He was achieving his ideals "in the early WWII" and started failing near the end.
Allow me to quote excerpts from your picture of the world if he continued the success you speak positively about:
|
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 22:34
And that, Hellios, would not be far from the picture... if Germans won the war. Thank heavens for his loss. Who knows, I might have been in the gas chamber for all I know... And just because I am pointing out the good side of Nazism DOES NOT MEAN I SUPPORT NAZISM! One must admit the enormous potential that Nazi Germany had... but it nevertheless is mankind's nightmare. It's suprising (Some may argue otherwise) how I am viewed as antisemetic or whatever you are accusing me of. I happen to have several Jewish friends, some I am very close to. I will not make another futile argument, but I assure you (And for others that are viewing me suspeciously) that I am not racist, or antisemeitc or anything like that. I may bring some positive sides of the undescrible evil... but only because we must learn the good things in order to move ahead, even if it means from the enemies. As Tzu said, One must know the enemy to conquer it.
Again, please don't see me as some fanatic crazy kid who wants genocide and hatred. Though world domination has been my dream, it's only for amusement... like when we play Rise of Nation or Age of Empires. If you are concerned about my actions... please pm me and I will try to answer as best as I can. (I did not pm this because there would be so many of you...)
Sincerely,
pekau
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 23:05
Your pro-Nazi picture. The anti-Nazi picture is Nazis being defeated by combined forces from other continents.
You do more than point out "the good side of Nazism".
You should follow Decebal's advice & think more about this "enormous potential that Nazi Germany had".
|
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 23:19
That's the reality if Germans won the war. Period. How could there be otherwise, unless Hitler finally crack and start to act like normal human being for a change... History confirms that Nazi Germany is taken out of the history by combined Allied forces attacking from East, West and South. (I am not sure about North now...)
More? Could you specify?
Decebal gave me advice? When? And where? I am afriad I can't tract all the post concerning me... I will comment once I read his "advice". ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 00:04
In "what if" scenarios there's no "reality" - just what your mind wants to picture.
Since you asked, here it is...
|
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 13:24
|
The most imprtant battle of World War II has been missed by each and every one of you! Some may call it a Campaign but it is recorded in history as a battle.
THE BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC. Lose that and the allies and I mean all the allies lose everything. ------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: Crusader3943
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 13:54
 ------------- Crusader3943 |
Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2007 at 04:03
|
Kursk!!! ------------- History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow! |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2007 at 13:01
The brilliant armor strategist Heinz Guderian once asked Hitler "Was it really necessary to attack Kursk and indeed in the East that year at all. Do you think anyone even knows where Kursk is?" to which Hitler agreed with him saying, "I know. The thought of it turns my stomach."
It was an unnecessary battle that just became important because of huge armed forces involved. Strategically, it had no significant value. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2007 at 13:04
Well, there's no way that Germans could have held the Atlantic anyway. If the battle of Atlantic was won by Germans, then the Americans and Canadians would be very angry due to the cut off trade routes to Europe, where they made huge profits that got them out of the Great Depression. They will become more serious about mobilizing navy to fight the Germans, which would bring America into war much more quicker. That would be bad for the Axis. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2007 at 08:39
Not all of us missed that.  I alluded to it in an earlier post, except I disagree that the Allies would have lost everything. Early in the war it was assumed by many Britons that Germany would invade England and plans were made with that reality in mind. All scientific advances, projects etc. were moved to the US and more.
What would have been the result of losing the Atlantic is that the war would have lasted much longer, with the Allies using the US as a staging area, Long range planning efforts went as far ahead as 1965. And the capture of england by the Nazis is more than casually mentioned in the decision to pursue the A bomb. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 22:17
|
after stalingrad the germans never again won any battle of any significance
|
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 22:49
Nope. Assault of Seelow was another huge blow to Soviet invaders. Though Soviet prevailed in the end, the delay and the casualty of Soviet armies was considerable, espeically in the condition the German armies had to endure at that time. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 12:40
|
ALTHOUGH SEELOW WAS EXPENSIVE IT WAS NOT A GERMAN VICTORY. FOR STALIN IT SEEMS THAT ANY COST WAS ACCEPTIBLE AS LONG AS THE SOVIET UNION WON. |
Posted By: Galahadlrrp
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2008 at 17:41
|
--In the grand strategic sense, the most important battle of WW2 was Pearl Harbor.
--Why? Because the US had--before mobilization--nearly half the industrial capacity of the entire planet at the time, and Pearl Harbor brought the US totally into the war bent on absolute revenge in the form of total victory. --That guaranteed that in the end the Axis powers were going to lose, because WW2 was a war of machines and machines were a product of industrial capacity. |
Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 01:14
|
I think it would have to be the Battle of Britain. If Britian had fallen in line with France, there would have been nothing to stop Germany in Europe and Italy in Africa. Italy would have likely broken through to the Suez and into the middle east, taking the valuable oil supplies. Without having to send help to the Italians in Africa, Germany would have had extra troops and supplies for invasion of the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union may have very well fallen. Without Britain's help, the United States may have given into Japan, and the world would have settled into a very uneasy peace. ------------- Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining. George Washington - March 15, 1783 |
Posted By: warwolf1969
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 10:29
|
To me the most important Battle was Operation Barbarossa. As much as I know it technically wasn't a battle. The invasion of Russia resulted in the eventual defeat of Germany. In spite of what anyone from the US might say, Russia beat Germany. FDR himself knew that the main threat was in europe, not the pacific. Which is why he agreed to make the defeat of Germany the main Allied priority. Japan was never real threat, her whole power was based on her navy which was very stretched.
I don't believe the Battle of Britain was that important for the simple reason that there was no way Germany could have invaded, even if they had won. With no navy to speak off any invasion would have resulted in a disaster. The Royal Navy would have sailed into the area and sent the invasion force to the bottom of the ocean. Hell, the German's didn't even have anything to transport the troops over with.
|
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 15:38
|
Is it that the Russians won it, or that the Germans lost it? A distinct difference after all. As for the Battle of Britian, how does the RN defeat an invasion force if Britian lacks air superiority over the channel in the first place? Cant have naval without air supremacy. ------------- |
Posted By: warwolf1969
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2010 at 00:16
| And how would the Germans have attacked the Royal Navy, they had no anti ship airplanes. All they had were the Stuka, which was even then slow. The Germans had no transports to get their forces across the channel. The commanders in the German Navy had washed their hands of Sealion even before the Battle of Britain. They knew there was no chance of protecting an invasion force, let alone protecting the supplies needed for such a force. The German army had even suggested using river transports to carry the troops over. Most of which would have sunk in the channel without even been fired upon. Sealion was never going to happen because the German army did not have the resources to carry it out. Therefore the Battle of Britain was a none event, totally overrated. And that comes from an Englishman. |
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2010 at 13:44
|
The Germans seemed to do fine with sinking RN ships at Dunkirk and aftwerwards, why not in an attempted invasion? Air power still trumps naval powerin the setting. Quality of invasions shipping is less importants if the sea isnt going to be contested in the first place. Sounds like the benefit of hindsight now declaring that it was never going to happen, surely at the time it was considered a major threat and possibility, so at the time the battle was of key importance? If it was never going to be carried out, why all the bother in the first place? ------------- |
Posted By: warwolf1969
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2010 at 03:01
|
There is a difference between Dunkirk where the ships were stationary in harbour or close to shore, and the situation for the invasion. There the ships are moving, more able to cover each other. German air attacks against mobile vessels are not known for their sucess. Also the transports do count, the Germans had no actual transports apart from River barges. These would have sunk in large numbers during the crossing. If you can't get your troops to the beaches how are you supposed to invade. Look at Normandy, even with proper transports the landings nearly failed. Look at Tarawa in the pacific. The marines landed with incorrect transports and were nearly destroyed in the sea. It was only luck that resulted in the landing not been defeated on the beach.
Also this whole tread is about Hindsight. At the time I'm sure all battles seem important, all of historical study involves hindsight, because it is looking back at the situation in full knowledge of the facts.
|
Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2010 at 03:20
|
Fair enough, just throwing ideas out there.
------------- |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2010 at 06:53
|
I would consider the Battle of Britain as one of the key events in WWII. In spite of the constant bombings, British industry was able to produce more fighter aircraft than was Germany! Germany it seems, was always spreading out its war production to too many companies, with too many competing aircraft, Germany got itself into a war between its own war producing industry. Shortly after 1942 or so, it became a logistical nightmare just to supply the correct ammunition and spare parts to its nightmare of war machines and weapons!
But, Britain continued to produce Hawker Hurricanes (the fighter that really won the Battle of Britain) and it stuck with the .303 Cal., as its main rifle round, etc. Standardization was Britian's friend! Germany on the other hand, was stuck with numerous rifle rounds, sub-machine gun rounds, assault rifle rounds, artillery rounds, etc.! About the only great weapon in the German arsenal was its famous 88 cannnon! This weapon was constantly revised and modified for differing usage, from cannon, tanks, to anti-aircraft use. In the air war, the Supersubmarine Spitfire, was a rather late addition! The Hurricane had basically destroyed Germany's attacking bomber fleets before the Spitfire became available in great numbers! Hail the Hawker Hurricane!
Besides, with the loss of so many aircraft Germany never really managed to catch up its production, since it found out how hard it was to protect its own manufacturing plants. With the loss of air-superiority Germany had condemed itself to defeat! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Nenonen
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2011 at 07:10
|
You must remember that Stalingrad was just one small part of whole Soviet offensive in winter 1942-43. It was part of Operation Uranus. And there were even more important amoung these: -Operation Mars (Zhukov's greatest defeat) -Operation Jupiter -Operation Saturnus Actually only Stalingrad was successful for Soviets. But these others - especially Mars - were just very sad and bloody lessons for Red Army given by Germans. Besides, there is strong evidence that elite unit, Leibstandarte, which was pulled from eastern front near the Stalingrad to Dieppe, west (Hitler's decision) could have eliminate Vasilevsky's offensive. On the other hand, there are other evidence showing that Friedrich von Paulus was remarkable obtuse as a Wehrmacht army commander. His demand to pull 2 panzer division from back to city of Stalingrad was real stupid and bloody decision. ------------- "Military history is nothing but a tissue of fictions and legends, only a form of literary invention; reality counts for very little in such an affair." |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2013 at 21:31
|
Stalingrad became a great loss to Nazi Germany because of Hitler! His ego defeated common sense! The smartest move was to merely destroy it and leave it to the survivors. The army was then free to march on its merry way to the Oil supplies, and "win one for the Gipper", so to speak! LOL
Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: salu
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2013 at 17:47
|
Number 1 in my opinion is the battle of sterligard
Because after the red army had won this battle it lead to them going into the offensive where nazis were forced to bring in renforcements which adventully lead to the allied forces landing on the normandy beachs and going on the offensive Number 2 in my opinion is the battle of mid way This battle resulted in the americans going on offense and defeating the jappenness |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2013 at 00:09
|
Well, salute', salu!
Ron ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |