Most Important Battles Of Wwii?

Discussion in 'General' started by Vanilla Coke Kid, Jan 8, 2005.

  1. sappernz

    sappernz Member

    The Battle of Britain was the most important and as it was fought so early seem,s to be given a backseat. None of the other battles would have been fought with the same outcome as by then Hitler was fighting a war on two fronts. A fatal error.
     
  2. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    In my post I did not give the Battle of Britain my nod either however I can see where Sapper is coming from because it's decisiveness has nothing to do with volumes of losses or logistical involvement that did occur on the Russian front.

    With Britain in his "pocket" as early as he intended, Western Europe was a "fait accompli" and would not be undone easily. There were statements that "Hitler could come to Britain, he just couldn't come by sea" however wasn't given the invitation.

    Germany & Italy would not have declared war on the United States and North Africa would have been much more interesting.

    FDR would still have not been able to involve the US in the European theatre until much later and as previously posted, the stepping off point to arrest Europe from Hitler's grasp would not have been available.

    The attack on Sicily would not have occured as the Italians would have been in control of North Africa as the British in theory would have capitulated with the result that the Afrika Corps would have returned and be fighting on another front.

    With this complete, the Japanese may have assisted Hitler in the invasion of Russian from the East then set about attacking the United States interests together.

    Pearl Harbour may never have had to happen and the US would not have been threatened and pushed into war until 1943 or later.

    There are many holes in this crazy Hypothesis however Britain did resist and Hitler had to fight on two fronts without the Russians having to protect their eastern line.

    What if's are interesting to discuss but history is real.
     
  3. hunter07

    hunter07 Junior Member

    I am not trying to take away from the importance of the battle of Britain. However, in response to spinge, if Hitler decided to invade Britain and defeated Britain it would have given Soviet Union more time to prepare for war against Germany. With the "Britain in his pocket" Hitler still could not have defeated Soviet Union. But if Germany won the battle of Stalingrad they would have had a straight shot to Baku oil fields. With these kind of resources the outcome of the war could have been different.
     
  4. Field Marshal Rommel

    Field Marshal Rommel Junior Member

    El Alamein and Bagration (though it doesn't really count as a battle so just every battle that resulted from it).
     
  5. Field Marshal Rommel

    Field Marshal Rommel Junior Member

    Originally posted by hunter07@Jun 27 2005, 07:21 AM
    But if Germany won the battle of Stalingrad they would have had a straight shot to Baku oil fields. With these kind of resources the outcome of the war could have been different.
    [post=35878]Quoted post[/post]

    Not true, and Stalingrad was more of a symbolic victory for the germans then material.
     
  6. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    Originally posted by Friedrich H@Jan 12 2005, 08:15 AM
    The Luftwaffe could not achieve absolute air supremacy over Great Britain in autumn 1940. The Kriegsmarine could not land and supply 10 German divisions across the Channel. The Battle of Britain convinced the Germans and the British of that and showed the world that Germany was not invenceable.

    As for the most important battles:

    Guadalcanal (first and greatest defeat on land by the Japanese)


    Hi Friedrich H,

    Was doing a bit of browsing though posts before I joined and noticed this post of yours in Important Battles of WW2.

    The Australians were first to defeat the Japanese on land!


    The Battle of Milne Bay was a battle of the Pacific campaign of World War II. Japanese marines attacked the Australian base at Milne Bay on the eastern tip of New Guinea on August 25, 1942 and fighting continued until the Japanese retreated on September 5, 1942. The battle was the first in the Pacific campaign in which Allied troops defeated Japanese land forces.

    The British Field Marshal Sir William Slim, who had no part in the battle, said:

    Australian troops had, at Milne Bay, inflicted on the Japanese their first undoubted defeat on land. Some of us may forget that, of all the allies, it was the Australians who first broke the invincibility of the Japanese army.



    Regards

    Geoff
     
  7. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    The Australians were the first to defeat the Italians (Bardia), the Germans (Tobruk), and the Japanese (Milne Bay). Pretty amazing, huh?
     
  8. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    The Luftwaffe could not achieve absolute air supremacy over Great Britain in autumn 1940.

    Stuffy Dowding during a talk to the Staf College at bracknel in 1956, admitted that up and including 15th Septmeber the Luftwaffe had achieved air-superiority over 11 and 12 group.

    Given that these groups covered the most import part of the landing grounds, had germany invaded during that period then they would have been able to establish temp landing grounds to give their aircraft more range over GB.
     
  9. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Jul 8 2005, 04:14 PM
    The Australians were the first to defeat the Italians (Bardia), the Germans (Tobruk), and the Japanese (Milne Bay). Pretty amazing, huh?
    [post=36258]Quoted post[/post]



    lets no forget they contirbution the Diggers made in the rest of the war. There is also, the fact 77 Sqn, RAAF were one of the first units into action in the korean War.

    In addition, there is the massive contribution made by the Diggers in Vietnam, especially the battle of long Tan where two companies defeated a reinforced NVA battalion.
     
  10. WorldWarFreak

    WorldWarFreak Junior Member

    Im not trying to gloat about my country and try to make it seem more important but I would have to add to the list the battle in Dieppe. The reason for this is because it did test how well the Germans were dug into Fortress Europe and it had a major impact into the planning of D-Day, too bad so many lives were lost.....
     
  11. Friedrich H

    Friedrich H Senior Member

    Originally posted by spidge+Jul 8 2005, 11:02 AM-->(spidge @ Jul 8 2005, 11:02 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Friedrich H@Jan 12 2005, 08:15 AM
    The Luftwaffe could not achieve absolute air supremacy over Great Britain in autumn 1940. The Kriegsmarine could not land and supply 10 German divisions across the Channel. The Battle of Britain convinced the Germans and the British of that and showed the world that Germany was not invenceable.

    As for the most important battles:

    Guadalcanal (first and greatest defeat on land by the Japanese)


    Hi Friedrich H,

    Was doing a bit of browsing though posts before I joined and noticed this post of yours in Important Battles of WW2.

    The Australians were first to defeat the Japanese on land!


    The Battle of Milne Bay was a battle of the Pacific campaign of World War II. Japanese marines attacked the Australian base at Milne Bay on the eastern tip of New Guinea on August 25, 1942 and fighting continued until the Japanese retreated on September 5, 1942. The battle was the first in the Pacific campaign in which Allied troops defeated Japanese land forces.

    The British Field Marshal Sir William Slim, who had no part in the battle, said:

        Australian troops had, at Milne Bay, inflicted on the Japanese their first undoubted defeat on land. Some of us may forget that, of all the allies, it was the Australians who first broke the invincibility of the Japanese army.



    Regards

    Geoff
    [post=36256]Quoted post[/post]
    [/b]
    Geoff:

    I stand corrected. Since I did not know that, I thank you for that, because now I do.

    However, as the topic says, on land, Guadalcanal may not have been the first Japanese defeat on land, but certainly the most decisive one: the first MAJOR defeat on land, when it became obvious that the Japanese simply couldn't outmatch the Americans.

    Stuffy Dowding during a talk to the Staf College at bracknel in 1956, admitted that up and including 15th Septmeber the Luftwaffe had achieved air-superiority over 11 and 12 group.

    Given that these groups covered the most import part of the landing grounds, had germany invaded during that period then they would have been able to establish temp landing grounds to give their aircraft more range over GB.


    Create a new thread, if you want, because I am not going to hi-jack this thread. But the Germans simply couldn't win the Battle of Britain. Period. And much, much less, invade.
     
  12. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

     
  13. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    Create a new thread, if you want, because I am not going to hi-jack this thread. But the Germans simply couldn't win the Battle of Britain. Period. And much, much less, invade.

    Just point out, that contary to you original statement, that the Luftwaffe did at one achieve air superiority over britian.

    Also, i was indulging in the "what if" type speculation
     
  14. MikB

    MikB Senior Member

    Originally posted by 8th KRI@Jun 17 2005, 10:09 PM
    From reading the views and talking to those who took part my vote goes to El Alamein, the first major victory giving both a strategic foothold and a well needed morale boost.
    Chris
    [post=35447]Quoted post[/post]

    The moral effect of the victory was certainly important, but I think its strategic effect has been underestimated for some time. Although it was only about 1/3rd the size of Stalingrad, it should be remembered that both sides were conducting it at the end of very long, complex and fragile supply lines, stretching their logistical resources to a pitch that no action in continental Europe or Eurasia would. Very substantial military resources were also committed to protecting each side's own supply lines and trying to disrupt the enemy's.

    The actions at Alamein and Stalingrad proved together that Germany was simply unable to deliver the military and logistic strength required for the tasks it had taken on.

    The certainty of Allied victory took most of another year to establish itself in the minds of the combatants, including the more honest of the German military, but with hindsight it's clear that, barring miracles, there was no real prospect of German victory after those two battles. Even had Paulus' army somehow escaped, it would have made little difference to that.

    Regards,
    MikB
     
  15. Cheshire Yeomanry

    Cheshire Yeomanry Junior Member

    The BoB

    Without a western front, which is what the BoB afforded us in later years, Germany would have held sway in Europe. It may have defeated Russia or maybe agreed a 'draw', but Russia without the western front would be extremely hard pushed to reach anywhere near Berlin
     
  16. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    Originally posted by Cheshire Yeomanry@Jul 11 2005, 01:21 AM
    The BoB

    Without a western front, which is what the BoB afforded us in later years, Germany would have held sway in Europe. It may have defeated Russia or maybe agreed a 'draw', but Russia without the western front would be extremely hard pushed to reach anywhere near Berlin
    [post=36309]Quoted post[/post]


    I concur.

    Without success for Britain & her allies in BoB the entire European theatre would have changed.

    Could Germany have bombed Britain into submission?

    Was the defeat of Britain to be the catalyst for the German/Japanese agreement on the East/West invasion of the USSR?

    The scenarios are endless and possibly worth the time and effort.

    The USA possibly isolated in the short term politically & economically.

    The implications of a BoB loss...........hhmmmmmmmmmmmm!
     
  17. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    Could Germany have bombed Britain into submission?

    the simple answer to that is that they could not have bombed Britian into submission as they did not have the air assests required
     
  18. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    Did we know that at the time for sure? Was it certain they didn't have the "Air Assets" or was Hitler holding them back for his "Barbarossa"? Sure they did not replace their aircraft quickly enough however it must have been touch & go together with a bit of luck.

    How much longer could Britain have sent up fighters day after day?

    There were possibly enough aircraft - What about experienced pilots?

    Hugh Dowding was very concerned and he was the best you had at that time. It was reported on August 13th that Britain could only hold out another 3 weeks, but then Hitler ordered the bombing of London after the retalitory strike on Berlin. Only from there on did the situation improve.

    Dowding's "war" list was scoffed at in 1937 however it came to pass in 1938 when they realised what they were going to be up against. (not to late, but nearly)

    The Air Ministry and Churchill wanted to get rid of Dowding early days - Lucky they didn't! They gave him the boot 2 weeks after though.

    (Tactical nous versus Political blindness)
     
  19. Friedrich H

    Friedrich H Senior Member

    that the Luftwaffe did at one achieve air superiority over britian.

    May I know when and where exactly? :rolleyes:

    Without a western front, which is what the BoB afforded us in later years, Germany would have held sway in Europe. It may have defeated Russia or maybe agreed a 'draw', but Russia without the western front would be extremely hard pushed to reach anywhere near Berlin

    Without success for Britain & her allies in BoB the entire European theatre would have changed.

    Great Britain was of absolute importance, no doubt. But, given the actual experience of the Americans at the Pacific, I don't think Germany would have remained undisturbed in Europe, even with a conquered Great Britain.

    As for the USSR, it was simply too big a thing to bite and swallow for Germany. Maybe the two would have reached a settlement or the Red Army would have marched into Berlin by 1948, after milllions of casualities. With or without GB on the game, the result of the war would have still be decided in the east.

    Could Germany have bombed Britain into submission?

    Did the Western Allies bomb Japan and Germany into submission? Or were there necessary many titanic defeats on the field to achieve that, as well as the absolute destruction of all the military might of Germany and Japan? No. And, if we consider, how inadequate and ill-equipped (not to mention ill-leaded and incompetent in intelligence) the 1940 Luftwaffe was… :rolleyes:

    The implications of a BoB loss...........hhmmmmmmmmmmmm!

    Just a stalemate. The RAF is NOT going to be completely wiped out and the German pathetic invasion is going to fail miserably.

    Did we know that at the time for sure? Was it certain they didn't have the "Air Assets" or was Hitler holding them back for his "Barbarossa"? Sure they did not replace their aircraft quickly enough however it must have been touch & go together with a bit of luck.

    Not at all. Germany was building far less aircraft than Great Britain in 1940, was training less pilots and hadn't developed, nor did it have the industrial capacity to build and amass the 4-engine heavy bomber fleet and long-range fighters it needed to crack GB. And no, it was not saving planes for 'Barbarossa'. By the time the battle was lost the planning for 'Barbarossa' had barely even started, and, certainly, most of the Luftwaffe was thrown against GB. :)

    How much longer could Britain have sent up fighters day after day?

    For as much, much longer than Germany, my friend. ;)

    There were possibly enough aircraft - What about experienced pilots?

    Once the Poles, Czechs and others got into action, as well as the new 'rookies', there were just about enough (not a lot, that's for sure) to hold the Jerries, who, by the way, were losing more pilots more rapidly and getting new ones in small quantities very, very slowly.

    In other words, the British were in a more than critical situation, but never against the wall… specially if we consider that the German's actual capacity to launch an invasion was laughable.
     
  20. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    May I know when and where exactly? rolleyes.gif

    Stuffy Dowding during a talk to the Staff College at Bracknel in 1956, admitted that up to and including 15th Septmeber the Luftwaffe had achieved air-superiority over 11 and 12 group.
     

Share This Page