Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The most important battle of WWII

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Jonny Starcraft View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 14-Feb-2007
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Jonny Starcraft Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The most important battle of WWII
    Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 03:32
How do you think? The most important  was: Stalingrad, Kursk, Moscow,
Al Alamein, Tobruk, Midway or .......Geek

Edited by Jonny Starcraft - 21-Feb-2007 at 16:17
Kaczyński is the biggest LOSER. HiS handicapped clone too!
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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) Battle of Prussia June 22, 1944 to August 16, 1944.
3) Battle of
Stalingrad August 23, 1942
to February 2,
4) Battle of
Vistula January 12, 1945
to March 30, 
5 Battle of
Moscow November 17, 1941 to January 28,

6) Battle of Berlin April 16, 1945 to May 7

7) Battle of Kirovograd January 5, 1944 to January 17,

8) Battle of Chang-te November 2, 1943 to November 17,

9) Battle of Manchuria August 8, 1945 to August 16,

10) Battle of Poland September 1, 1939 to September 29

 
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.
 
 


Edited by Paul - 21-Feb-2007 at 05:14
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Jonny Starcraft View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 14-Feb-2007
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Jonny Starcraft Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 07:37
Originally posted by Paul

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) Battle of Prussia June 22, 1944 to August 16, 1944.
3) Battle of
Stalingrad August 23, 1942
to February 2,
4) Battle of
Vistula January 12, 1945
to March 30, 
5 Battle of
Moscow November 17, 1941 to January 28,

6) Battle of Berlin April 16, 1945 to May 7

7) Battle of Kirovograd January 5, 1944 to January 17,

8) Battle of Chang-te November 2, 1943 to November 17,

9) Battle of Manchuria August 8, 1945 to August 16,

10) Battle of Poland September 1, 1939 to September 29

 
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.
 
 


Only land battles? What about Midway and Battle of England
Kaczyński is the biggest LOSER. HiS handicapped clone too!
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Jonny Starcraft View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 14-Feb-2007
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote Jonny Starcraft Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 08:42
Originally posted by Paul

Air and sea battle didn't have millions of participants, 100,000's of artillery and tanks.

Yes, but other battles were also important.


Edited by Jonny Starcraft - 21-Feb-2007 at 09:01
Kaczyński is the biggest LOSER. HiS handicapped clone too!
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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'.  
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 21-Feb-2007 at 10:33
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 13:46
Originally posted by Paul

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) Battle of Prussia June 22, 1944 to August 16, 1944.
3) Battle of
Stalingrad August 23, 1942
to February 2,
4) Battle of
Vistula January 12, 1945
to March 30, 
5 Battle of
Moscow November 17, 1941 to January 28,

6) Battle of Berlin April 16, 1945 to May 7

7) Battle of Kirovograd January 5, 1944 to January 17,

8) Battle of Chang-te November 2, 1943 to November 17,

9) Battle of Manchuria August 8, 1945 to August 16,

10) Battle of Poland September 1, 1939 to September 29

 
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.
 
 


many of those are not battles but campaigns. i'm not even sure what some of those names mean...
Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
  Quote Ahmed The Fighter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 14:34
Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

 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.
 
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. 


Edited by Cryptic - 21-Feb-2007 at 14:36
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 14:59
 
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

 
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.
Carrier planes are no use without carriers (Smile). 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.
 
Guadalcanal and Tarawa and Iwo were riveting, emotional campaigns, but not decisive in themselves.  And small scale in relation to Russia.
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.
 
 
 
 
 
 
[/QUOTE]
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 15:12
 
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

 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.
 
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. 
 
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.
 
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2007 at 18:30
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Originally posted by Cryptic

 
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. 
 
That's exactly why El Alamein is so important. 
 
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.
 
 
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) 


Edited by Cryptic - 21-Feb-2007 at 18:40
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Isbul View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2005
Location: Korea, North
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 542
  Quote Isbul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
  Quote Ahmed The Fighter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Feb-2007 at 11:57
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Originally posted by Cryptic

 
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. 
 
That's exactly why El Alamein is so important. 
 
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.
 
 
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) 
I agree with Cryptic.
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
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Feb-2007 at 15:15
Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Originally posted by Cryptic

 
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. 
 
That's exactly why El Alamein is so important. 
 
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.
 
 
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) 
I agree with Cryptic.
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.
 
In terms of tank generals, Rommel was the closest being to God during WWII...LOL
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.