PDA

View Full Version : The Most *Decisive* Battle of World War II



Pages : [1] 2

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-08-2006, 01:56 PM
(To me):
Atlantic theater:
1.D-day
2.Battle of Britain

Pacific Theater:
1.Battle of Midway
2.Marianas Turkey shoot

Eastern front:
1.Stalingrad
2.Kharkov

Mediterranean:
1.Operation Torch
2.Poetsi,Romania Raid

As for you?

T.Y. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-08-2006, 01:56 PM
(To me):
Atlantic theater:
1.D-day
2.Battle of Britain

Pacific Theater:
1.Battle of Midway
2.Marianas Turkey shoot

Eastern front:
1.Stalingrad
2.Kharkov

Mediterranean:
1.Operation Torch
2.Poetsi,Romania Raid

As for you?

T.Y. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

russ.nl
05-08-2006, 01:59 PM
When hitler started opperation Barbarossa.
Pearl Harbor

lowfighter
05-08-2006, 02:06 PM
Perhaps Stalingrad? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

BrewsterPilot
05-08-2006, 02:07 PM
Top_Gun_1_0_1 -> Aimail_101 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

horseback
05-08-2006, 02:10 PM
Yeah, I was going to ask-where are Stalingrad and Kursk on your list?

You also forgot the Battle of the Atlantic for the West-no way we even have a D-Day without stifling the U-Boat threat in the Atlantic.

cheers

horseback

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-08-2006, 02:11 PM
Victory at:
(battle of bri10) creates a carrier base for the USAAF

(D-Day) saves.......

....................................
(Midway)saves Australia,New zealand and lots of kangaroos

(Marianas)saves fuel lol

Von_Rat
05-08-2006, 02:14 PM
for the european theater, stalingrad.

for the pacific, midway.

DmdSeeker
05-08-2006, 02:15 PM
The retaking of the Sudentenland (sp?).

If the western allies had "butched up" and given Hitler a good smack there and then; 65 million lives could have been saved.

BrewsterPilot
05-08-2006, 02:16 PM
U-boat war, -Germany was just TWO WEEKS away from cutting all transports to England!

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-08-2006, 02:16 PM
umm...ok,the Russians diverts Hitlers attention
towards the east thus making the war on the west easier

GrinderX9
05-08-2006, 02:21 PM
Battle of brittan

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-08-2006, 02:56 PM
the most decisive battle of the war IMO is D-day,
its D-day that the allies finally gained a strong foot hold on western europe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

russ.nl
05-08-2006, 03:00 PM
If hitler didn't star op. Barbarossa then he would have britain probebly too.

ImpStarDuece
05-08-2006, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by russ.nl:
If hitler didn't star op. Barbarossa then he would have britain probebly too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about that.

June-July 1940 was the low point for comparative British air and land strength during the war. If the LuftWaffe couldn't decisively defeat the RAF at that point in time, when they had the advantages of nmbers and experiance, then an invasion probably wasn't ever going to be realistic. Germnay certainly would of taken Nthrn Africa away from the British though.

russ.nl
05-08-2006, 03:29 PM
The amount of resorses that went to the eastern front are mindblowing and germany could have taken on the raf while in a land battle.

I'm glad they didn't tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

crazyivan1970
05-08-2006, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
the most decisive battle of the war IMO is D-day,
its D-day that the allies finally gained a strong foot hold on western europe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it was...but it was about 2 years too late http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SUPERAEREO
05-08-2006, 03:31 PM
I think definitely Stalingrad.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-08-2006, 03:37 PM
As for the NAZI, &gt;BLITZKRIEG http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

thefruitbat
05-08-2006, 03:42 PM
Stalingrad hands down. after that the russians were generally on the offensive and the germans fate sealed. D'day just meant that western europe didnt become soviet states imo. During the war the western allies killed around 600,000 germans on the ground in ALL theaters. The germans lost 2 million on the eastern front, despite it kicking off around 1 1/2years later.

as to wether the germans could of taken britain, i think that shipping would of been the biggest problem. the royal navy en masse would of been a major headache, and there has been several questions raised about the availability and caliber on shipping available to be used for such an invasion. Remember how long it took for the dday preperations and all the custom vehicles made for it.

What i dont understand is, if oil was the supposed need for the drive south in the caucusses, leading to stalingrad, why didnt the germans pursue N africa with more vigour to secure the oil there, before turning there attention to the ussr. I can only think it was an underestimation of the ussr.

cheers fruitbat

Fox_3
05-08-2006, 03:48 PM
The battle for Greece. It delayed Barbarossa for nearly two months.

ImpStarDuece
05-08-2006, 03:52 PM
I'd say the most decisive battles are, in no particular order:

1. Battle of Britain (first major German reverse)
2. Siege of Stalingrad (bled Germany white)
3. Battle of Kursk (first succesful Soviet summer attack)
4. Battle of Tunisia (victory in the desert)
5. Battle of the Atlantic (ensured English survival)
6. Operation Bagration (destruction of Army Group Centre)
7. Battle of Midway (ensured US naval dominance in the Pacific)
8. Battle of Guadalcanal (began the Japanese army's death of a thousand cuts)

carguy_
05-08-2006, 03:54 PM
Stalingrad - the beginning of 3 milion army destruction.

MadRuski
05-08-2006, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:

before turning there attention to the ussr. I can only think it was an underestimation of the ussr.

cheers fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the reason of this is Hitler REALLY hated Lenin and Stalin, and couldnt wait until until bombarding their citys, and also of the elment of surpise, the Germans caught Russia with their pants down when they first struck, if they had delayed the attack on Russia, Russia would have realised that the pact with Hitler wouldnt of lasted long and started to compile troops.

Jaws2002
05-08-2006, 04:04 PM
Stalingrad.

From there on the war went only one way.

About D-day: The Russian army would have beaten Hitler either way. D-Day saved the Western Europe from many dark years of communism. Very important for Europe.

My 2 cents.

telsono
05-08-2006, 04:10 PM
In the Pacific:
a) Midway (mortally wounding of the Japanese carrier fleet)
b) Guadalcanal (ground down the remaining experienced IJN pilots - The Marianas Turkey Shoot only showed what happened when a large group of poorly trained pilots are sent against experienced and well equipped pilots.)

In the Med;
a) The Battle for Greece - delayed Barbarossa for two critical months
b) Malta - This little island was the knife to the supply jugular of the Axis forces in Africa restricting Rommel's reinforcements and supplies.

Russia:
a)Stalingrad
b) Kursk

Western:
a) Battle of the Atlantic
b) Overlord (Normandy)

OldMan____
05-08-2006, 04:35 PM
Stalingrad.. ended the first German offensive. and Kursk ended the second and last german offensive. After that.. no other of major operations were really required to defeat germany ( like operation overlord ).

Without these 2 victories none of the others would matter.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-08-2006, 04:46 PM
Another vote for Stalingrad here.
Imphal, Kohima, Midway and Keren get honourable mentions.

SkyChimp
05-08-2006, 04:46 PM
In the Pacific it was a toss-up.

Midway, which all but put a halt to Japanese expansion.

or

Guadalcanal, which was was the first step in retaking the Pacific.

CornbreadPattie
05-08-2006, 05:31 PM
I just want to let you commies know who won teh wor. Teh USA is teh ROXORRZZZ...


Teh best battles in teh hiztoryy of teh world were:


Teh Battle For Teh Memphis Bell
Teh Battle of teh Atmomic Bomb...(ROXOORRZZZZ PWWNNNNEED)
Teh Battle of teh Tukeegee Airman... they sure culd fly!
Teh battle of teh D-DAY...... hitler got pwned.....


we were so great we should have NuKeD teh Commies.....

WTE_Galway
05-08-2006, 05:36 PM
I agree that kursk needs to be added.

Also Tobruk and El Alemein

In some ways the battle of the bulge rates a mention as its failure pretty much exhausted what few resources the germans still had in the west.

MucusG
05-08-2006, 06:07 PM
My view is very simplistic.

The opening of the Eastern front by the Nazi's was a one way ticket to defeat. No nation can fight a major war on 2 fronts.

In their defense though it is this war that showed everyone that.

La7_brook
05-08-2006, 06:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
(To me):
Atlantic theater:
1.D-day
2.Battle of Britain

Pacific Theater:
1.Battle of Midway
2.Marianas Turkey shoot

Eastern front:
1.Stalingrad
2.Kharkov

Mediterranean:
1.Operation Torch
2.Poetsi,Romania Raid

As for you? got to be the battle of the kursk and the D DAY LANDING

T.Y. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

arjisme
05-08-2006, 07:00 PM
Stalingrad gets my vote. D-Day helped hasten the end of the war, but even w/o it, the USSR would have crushed Germany.

In the Pacific, I say Midway. The loss of four carriers for the Japanese confirmed to the Americans that Japan was doomed.

BfHeFwMe
05-08-2006, 07:07 PM
Battle of Poland, was decisive setting the stage for world wide war. Nazi-Soviet alliance confirmed with direct military cooperation. Both carrying out secret protocols carving up their neighbors. Lulling delusional Soviet leadership into thinking the front door was secured.

Hitler almost succeeded in breaking Russia from the western alliance. They were busy sitting it out with hostile land grabs while the rest of the world engaged in the Battle of France and Britian, where were you guys? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SeaFireLIV
05-08-2006, 07:44 PM
Quite a few intelligent people here. I remember a couple of years ago, most would`ve said D-Day or some other...

I agree on Stalingrad. After reading a couple of books on the incredible resources and life thrown into Russia, I am in no doubt that Stalingrad was pivotal on the Eastern Front.

Imho, it`s quite possible that D-Day may have been easily thwarted if Hitler had not gone insane on Russia.

Few people outside of this forum realise the magnitude that the Eastern Front had on basically helping the West win WWII.

LStarosta
05-08-2006, 08:05 PM
Battle of Berlin...

It kinda ended the whole war.

ForkTailedDevil
05-08-2006, 08:37 PM
In Europe the most important battle was the Battle of Britain. I don't think that Greece was as important because the allies were in no position to attack from Greece even if the Germans never intervened also it would have been very difficult for the allies to get supplies safely to Greece.

Germany lost the the war to USSR when Hitler ordered Army Group Center's Panzers split half to help the seige of Lenningrad the other half to close the Kiev cauldron. If they had kept up there center advance it is very possible the Germans could have captured Moscow.

In Africa, El Alamein was the most important battle. If Rommel had won that battle the Germans would have been in complete control of North Africa. That would have turned the Med in to a Axis lake. From there the Germans could have threatened the middle east and had nearly unlimted access to a very important resource.

The war in the Pacific was over when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and failed to attack the Oil and fuel refineries for the Pacific Fleet. Missing the 3 US Navy carriers was important to.

ibeagle
05-08-2006, 08:40 PM
Things went downhill for Germany when Hitler started personally commanding the army. He was a corporal telling Field Marshalls how to fight the war.

Ratsack
05-08-2006, 08:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
...

Few people outside of this forum realise the magnitude that the Eastern Front had on basically helping the West win WWII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed. In terms of the size of opposing forces, ferocity and casualties, the war between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany WAS the war Europe.

It was in the USSR that the Germans deployed the vast bulk of their army, and it was - in Churchill's memorable language - the Red Army that 'tore the guts' out of the Wehrmacht.

This is not to denigrate the contributions of all the other powers. The industrial muscle of the U.S. was critical to success, as was the initial defiance of the British Empire (as it then was). But we have to remember that while we in the West went about the long process of establishing the conditions for a successful second front, the Red Army actually fought the German's main force. This means that they were engaged with the main Axis force, too.

They paid the price, too:

* Out of more than 5 million Soviet soldiers taken prisoner, less than 2 million survived the war.

* The Soviets suffered more casualties in the siege of Leningrad than the combined war dead - in all theatres - of the United States and Great Britain.

* Total Soviet casualties, civilian and military, exceed 20 million. More than half were non-combatants.

This last figure is even more appalling when we remember that it includes: soldiers executed for cowardice, on a scale without precedent in any modern army; civilian dead in battle zones, who would and should have been evacuated but for the brutality of Stalin; and non-combatants of all kinds murdered in unprecedented numbers by German forces.

We shouldn't speak of this fighting as 'Operation Barbarossa'. It was not merely a new front or campaign: it was a whole new war, and by far the most brutal and destructive in recent history.

cheers,
Ratsack

shotdownski
05-08-2006, 09:00 PM
Battle of the Atlantic (sea lanes and lend lease)

Stalingrad (Hitler took his eye off the prize...Caspian oil)

WTE_Galway
05-08-2006, 09:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
.

Few people outside of this forum realise the magnitude that the Eastern Front had on basically helping the West win WWII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would go further and say the US won the war against Japan but its actually the USSR that won the war against Germany albiet with US lend lease help.

The russians would have eventually taken Germany even without D-Day .. what D-Day did was stop them rolling on through occupied France as well and setting up an "Iron Europe" rather than an "Iron Curtain".

Without D-Day we may have faced a very unpleasant alternate version of the cold war.

Adam906
05-08-2006, 10:08 PM
I am currently working on my thesis concerning certain aspects of German aerial operations during WWII, which is why I say the Battle of Britain in Europe is the most decisive battle, for several reasons.

1 - it broke the myth of Luftwaffe invincibility and supremacy
2 - it highlighted a lack of strategic planning, foresight and intelligence on the Germans part and forced them to a certain degree to improvise (Ie attacks on all RAF aerodromes as opposed to only those used by FC, thanks to minimal target info)
2a - The speed of improvisation and lack of strategic planning and foresight (as brought about by the rapid conquests of the previous 6 months) blinded them to a proper course of action commesurate with their capabilities (Ie, they were sucked into the main phases of the BoB over England, thus suffering heavier losses and not adequately achieving their goals when instead they should simply have carried on with the Kanalkampf concept - though on a wider scale - which brought lower losses, higher proportional casualties on the RAF and made imports and trade very difficult for the British - in fact they were able to achieve the closure of the Channel by mid August to British shipping)
3 - it severly weakend German aerial capabilites (Luftwaffe and Kuestenflieger) in the led up to Barbarossa and at the expense of the Med. theatre (by the end of October, Hitler was already focusing on Russia and as such the Luftwaffe was only 5th on the list of procurements, coupled with low a/c production losses sustained in crews and a/c were soarely missed in the other theatres)
4 - It failed to achieve any visible successes to the German nation (this is similar of the night intruder operations the Hitler cancelled in 1941 on the grounds that victories over England could not be photographed and show to the people, it was much better to shoot a bomber down over occupied territory for all to see than simply write a bunch of numbers in a newspaper column) [This relates to P. 2a which could be watched, to degree, from the French coast and filming the bombing of ships was a lot easier and had more entertainment value than gun cam. of a Spit going down.]
5 - Its failure instituted a spate of name-calling and blame-shifting amongst the High Command which blinded the Germans to the underlying lessons of the Battle (namely the role anti-shipping operations could play in strategic operations, the capabilities/failures of the Bf 109, the role of correct and up-to-date intel, use of radar, the effect bombing had on civilian morale and industries ability to recover, the vulnerability of medium level raids [up to 18,000 feet] combined with poor bomb-sights and bombing accuracy to name but a few)
6 - It absorbed a substantial quantity of raw materials and reserves in an unfocused bludgeoning of Britain in a half-hearted attempt to force a political decision

Those are the main ones, there are more, but they'll do. The BoB was not a turning point in the war but it was decisive for the Allies because Britain held on and thus became the unsinkable a/c carrier from which air superiority was gained during 43-44 to enable D-Day, it absorbed and blunted the Luftwaffe's war making capacity which had its effect particularly in the Med, but also in Russia. Without victory for Britain in the BoB then many of the battles in Europe/Russia you lot have listed would never have taken place, or at best would have been blimps on a German white-wash. (surely you don't need me to explain why)


As for the Pacific - I'm not entirely convinced that either Midway or Gaudulcanal were as decisive as the Australian victories on Kokoda which once and for all stopped Japanese expansion. But then, the ANZAC efforts in the Pacific are usually glosed over in preference to American battles.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-08-2006, 11:14 PM
^I agree^

BTW,I think the massive casualties inflicted on both the soviet civilians and military personnels by the germans motivates them to terrorize the Berlin poppulace in 1945 as well as other german cities.

Do you think the russians will do this if they did not suffer huge casualties?...i think they will,they R communist after all.

"No matter who wins,The civilians always lose"

Buzzsaw-
05-08-2006, 11:14 PM
Salute

There were four battles which REALLY determined WWII.

The first was the Battle of Britain, which allowed the Western Allies to retain a foothold in Europe, from which to launch an invasion. Without Britain as a base, the invasion would not have happened. More importantly, Britain being an enemy base, required the Germans to devote resources and energy to defend in the West while they were taking on the Russians. The resources required were not that much in the early days of 1941 and 1942, but enough to make the crucial difference.

The second was the Battle of Moscow. This was a very close run affair, essentially the Soviets were able to fight the Germans to a draw. If Moscow had fallen that first winter, then Leningrad would have followed, since the major supply routes and the railnet went through Moscow. By fighting the Germans to a draw at Moscow, the Soviets gave themselves time to regroup and rethink their strategy. Next summer, instead of counterattacking in suicidal waves, as they had done in the summer of 1941, they traded space for time, and drew the Germans on into the vast open space of the south.

The third was Stalingrad. This was the first HUGE victory of the war for the Soviets, and the first time the Germans suffered the type of losses they could not afford. Only 90,000 Germans were captured, but that is only a fraction of the real losses. The best equipped Army of the Werhmacht, the Sixth, over 300,000 strong, vast quantities of tanks and equipment, plus the losses incurred by the axis-allied forces, in all, over 500,000 troops were lost by the Germans at Stalingrad. That is out of an army of approximately 3 million.

The fourth and final decisive battle of WWII was Kursk. After Stalingrad, the Germans were able to throw the advancing Soviets back in Manstein's counterblow at Kharkov. The lines were still very deep in Russia, and the Germans still definitely had the tactical superiority, and close to numerical parity. The Soviets made the brilliant decision NOT to continue their offensive, but instead to wait, fortify their lines to maximize their defensive ability, (they were still not a match to the Germans in mobile warfare) block the German attack, and then after they had defeated it, counterattack. Kursk was the greatest battle of the war, the numbers involved on either side were enormous, the cream of the German army was committed, and it was decimated, and decisively thrown back. After the battle had been won, the Soviets began their counteroffensive, which drove the Germans back to the Dnepr.

After Kursk, the only thing which held up the Soviets was logistics. They alternated Summer and Winter offensives, only pausing when they outran their supply lines. Nothing the Germans did was of any effect in slowing them down.

The Western Allies could never have invaded at Normandy, and the Soviets would still have driven to Berlin. Their advance was unstoppable.

Of course, the Soviets owed a lot to lendlease, nearly all the trucks they owed their mobility to were supplied by the Western Allies, as well as most of the tanks in their Mechanized Corps. (not tank Corps) Huge quantities of fuel and other nessesities were also supplied. But the fighting was done by the Soviet people. (no thanks to Stalin) The Soviets were also helped by the fact that large numbers of German troops were tied up defending the Atlantic Wall. But by the time the Western Allies invaded on D-Day, the issue was already decided. After July 1943, there was never any doubt as to the outcome.

Japan was a minor player compared to Germany. It's economy was very small, and its producing power limited. Germany was the key player on the Axis side, and after it was defeated there was no chance Japan could survive against the combined might of the Allies.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-08-2006, 11:21 PM
Hitlers under estimation of the resources needed to conduct a world war ended his aryan dreams & myths.
If hitler declared war on USSR without touching some weak countries,the western allies won't give a damn about them killing each other & and destroying their countries!

Badsight.
05-09-2006, 12:03 AM
oh the Nimrodicity !

(but Buzzsaw - excellent post)

MadRuski
05-09-2006, 12:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CornbreadPattie:
I just want to let you commies know who won teh wor. Teh USA is teh ROXORRZZZ...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

another person that doesant no much.... also communism is a good thing in theory... just its one hell of a hard system to run,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by CornbreadPattie:
Teh Battle of teh Atmomic Bomb...(ROXOORRZZZZ PWWNNNNEED) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WAT ARE U F*CKING NUTS... WHAT GOOD IS IT TO KILL HUNDREDS OF INOCENT CIVILIANS, SERIOUSLY HOW OLD ARE YOU!

SeaFireLIV
05-09-2006, 12:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
^I agree^

BTW,I think the massive casualties inflicted on both the soviet civilians and military personnels by the germans motivates them to terrorize the Berlin poppulace in 1945 as well as other german cities.

Do you think the russians will do this if they did not suffer huge casualties?...i think they will,they R communist after all.

"No matter who wins,The civilians always lose" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree, if I understand you right. Much of the abuse and raping done by the Soviet soldiery in Germany was as a direct reaction to what was done to their people on Russian soil - And the Nazis did much, no wonder they so feared the Russians later.

Now Stalin would have still come into Germany and built his iron curtain, but the Russian soldiers would have behaved far better to the Germans when they entered it. They were soldiers entering Germany, the fact that they were Communists had no bearing on their actions.

Many Russians would have JOINED the Nazis in Russia against Stalin, but Hitler`s Nazis attitude made sure that he turned potential allies into deadly enemies.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-09-2006, 12:42 AM
German troops Rap*d russian women? I thought they were banned to do so?

Ratsack
05-09-2006, 12:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
I am currently working on my thesis concerning certain aspects of German aerial operations during WWII, which is why I say the Battle of Britain in Europe is the most decisive battle, for several reasons.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One could argue that the Germans lost the war when they lost that battle. The argument basically says that if the Germans failed clutch victory while the British were at the lowest ebb of their strength, they€d have no chance imposing defeat on a fully-mobilised Britain. The rest follows from there.

I suspect this would be drawing a rather long bow, but it makes for an interesting strategic discussion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
As for the Pacific - I'm not entirely convinced that either Midway or Gaudulcanal were as decisive as the Australian victories on Kokoda which once and for all stopped Japanese expansion. But then, the ANZAC efforts in the Pacific are usually glosed over in preference to American battles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would tend to agree with you on this point. I'd also point out that the contribution of No75 and No76 Squadrons RAAF in defence of Port Moresby is usually ignored as well.

But speaking of battles glossed over, what about the Japanese army in China? Imagine the size of the opportunity cost to Japan in maintaining that force (which remained unfought at the end of the war). Imagine what that cost might have translated into in terms of industrial output if they€d deployed those men to the factories instead.

Imagine, too, the millions of Chinese who might not have been put to the sword.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
05-09-2006, 12:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
German troops Rap*d russian women? I thought they were banned to do so? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you're joking.


Ratsack http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

WTE_Galway
05-09-2006, 12:59 AM
as far as the silly atomic bomb comments go .. was the US even capable of making any more bombs back in 1945 ?

I was under the impression the two bombs they dropped in Japan pretty much exhausted the supply of weapons grade fissionables for some time to come ?

Adam906
05-09-2006, 01:04 AM
SeafireLIV,
Although a lot of the hate-crimes perpitrated by the Russians as they entered German territory was, as you point out, a game of tit for tat, the Soviet regime and its propoganda machine was such that even without German excesses (to put it politely) brutalisation of the Germans would still have taken place. That is not to say that it would have happened at the rate and enormity with which it did, just that Soviet propoganda - even before widespread civilian/soldier knowledge (as opposed to scare-mongering and gossip) of German atrocities - was gearing towards a 'kill the facist pig wherever you find him' mentality.

The agreements of the 1920s did much to foster economic and military links into the mid 1930s but with the two states. However, Hitler's rise to power and the exploiting of propoganda, until the Non-Aggression pact of 8/39, the two countries relations deteriorated and state propoganda infested peoples minds and corrupted logical human thought and intellect concerning the other state's people. With less than two years of "friendly" behaviour between the two countries before war it is hard not to see the average Russian soldier avenging himself and his country on the population of Germany in 1945. Unlike the western Allies, the Russians had more to 'hate' in the Germans thanks to the Soviet propoganda of the mid to late 30s, and then with four years of bloody war in which a great many suffered (which to the average Russian soldier was viewed more as a result of German attack than command/Stalin ineptitude during the 30s and early war years). Consequently, by 1945 the Russians would have had a bigger spleen to vent, and as the French showed to a lesser extent, were more jubilant and spiteful in victory. I realise this is all based on gross generalisations but there isn't the space (or the need) for a full blown sourced examination of the topic here.

Also, you have to remember the type of soldier that would have been entering the greater Reich in 1945. After four long years of bloody war the average Russian soldier would have travelled, and if he was lucky enough to have lived that long, fought his way across a very bleak and desolate landscape - his landscape. Added to the years of propoganda and the almost certain loss of a great deal of his family to the ravages of war, his attitudes to Germany with its decidant style of living (as opposed to what Soviet communism offered) would have been very different to westerners. Granted, by 1945 Germany was in serious trouble and little was to be had, but stories abound of Russian peasant soldiers coming across things westerners took for granted and not knowing what they were, let alone ever owning one. Communism, like its facist relative, bred within itself the factors of hatred and excess, just in different ways.

But I agree, "Much of the abuse and raping done by the Soviet soldiery in Germany was as a direct reaction to what was done to their people on Russian soil"

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-09-2006, 01:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
German troops Rap*d russian women? I thought they were banned to do so? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you're joking.


Ratsack http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm serious, is it true?

Adam906
05-09-2006, 01:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
I am currently working on my thesis concerning certain aspects of German aerial operations during WWII, which is why I say the Battle of Britain in Europe is the most decisive battle, for several reasons.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One could argue that the Germans lost the war when they lost that battle. The argument basically says that if the Germans failed clutch victory while the British were at the lowest ebb of their strength, they€d have no chance imposing defeat on a fully-mobilised Britain. The rest follows from there.

I suspect this would be drawing a rather long bow, but it makes for an interesting strategic discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so, failure in the BoB did not mark the loss of WWII for the Germans, nor did it mark the high-water mark.. as 1941 showed. The loss of the BoB certainly made it harder for the Germans to follow Hitler's strategy, but it in no way did it guaranteed defeat. Even despite the losses suffered during the BoB and subsequent Blitz period, Germany was still in very strong position in 1941.

In June 1941 the Germans still had several viable options of grand strategy open to them, not least of which was invading Russia, which could have guaranteed victory.

Adam906
05-09-2006, 01:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
German troops Rap*d russian women? I thought they were banned to do so? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you're joking.


Ratsack http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm serious, is it true? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were actually rules and regulations concerning the fraternising with Russians and although rape was a punishable offence, it was seldom brought to trial (as a proportion of its occurrance)

Ratsack
05-09-2006, 02:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
German troops Rap*d russian women? I thought they were banned to do so? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you're joking.


Ratsack http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm serious, is it true? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were actually rules and regulations concerning the fraternising with Russians and although rape was a punishable offence, it was seldom brought to trial (as a proportion of its occurrance) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Top Gun,

There was a culture of rape as the Red Army entered German territory. It was not just a question of soldiers venting their sexual frustration, it was a punishment deliberately and systematically meted out to German civilians. It reached epidemic proportions by the time the shooting stopped.

When I say 'deliberately and systematically' I do not mean it was officially sanctioned by the Soviet government. What I mean is that squads of Red Army soldiers would systematically round up all the German (or Polish) women in a building or block, and then proceed to rape them.

Have a look at Anthony Beevor, Berlin - The Downfall 1945, (Penguin, New York).

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
05-09-2006, 02:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
I am currently working on my thesis concerning certain aspects of German aerial operations during WWII, which is why I say the Battle of Britain in Europe is the most decisive battle, for several reasons.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...

I suspect this would be drawing a rather long bow, but it makes for an interesting strategic discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so, .... the Germans still had several viable options of grand strategy open to them, not least of which was invading Russia, which could have guaranteed victory. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite right. As I said, it would be drawing a long bow, but it makes for an interesting discussion of strategy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

cheers,
Ratsack

Xiolablu3
05-09-2006, 02:03 AM
Battle OF Britain - Germans stopped
Stalingrad - Germans Stopped
Malta - Island suffered incredible hardship yet held out against overwhelming odds.
Kursk - Finally Germans pushed back
Africa/El Amlemain - Germans Pushed back again.


D Day and Torch are all too late and are really just attacks on a losing enemy. Necesarry but not vital. The great American victories came against the Japanese.

Badsight.
05-09-2006, 02:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
I was under the impression the two bombs they dropped in Japan pretty much exhausted the supply of weapons grade fissionables for some time to come ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>october , or november 45 they could have had another plutonium bomb

this thread is ranking high on the Nimrod scale

bazzaah2
05-09-2006, 02:25 AM
The Battle of Moscow.

It was feasible for the Germans to have taken Moscow in September 1941 had they not diverted Army Group Centre to the Ukraine.

The loss of Moscow would have made meaningful coordinated actions by the USSR very difficult and would have put Britain in a very weak position.

The loss of Moscow would most likely have won the European war for the Germans and their failure to take it therefore means that it was from January 1942 that their defeat was the most likely outcome of the war.

Wigwham
05-09-2006, 02:28 AM
Almost 250,000 Axis troops surrendered in Tunisia.... more than Stalingrad.It effectively made possible a second front on the Italian mainland.

Adam906
05-09-2006, 02:55 AM
Bazzaah, Not to burst your bubble but direct attack against Moscow in Sept. 41 was a risky proposition. It implied the 3-400,00 troops in Kiev were not to be engaged, thus leaving a very sizable and reasonably well equipped force on the Germans southern flank. Once word reached that Moscow was under direct attack it would not have sat idly by and not try to intervene. To attack Moscow in late summer early autumn 41 was to take a HUGE tactical, if not to say strategic, gamble. IF the Germans went the Moscow route then sufficient forces would have to have been left behind to contain the Kiev forces which would probably have needed re-inforcing if they chose to force the lines of the southern front.

Considering the successes the Germans had achieved thus far in the war against Russia there was no need for them to assume they could not first deal with the southern flank before focusing on Moscow. If the Russians were proving masters of battle and Moscow in 41 was an all or nothing chance that had to be taken, then, and only then, was Moscow going to ever get a look in as a priority gamble.

As for the loss of Moscow itself, it would have changed very little the outcome of war in Europe, beyond perhaps its length. Following your line of reasoning the Germans attack Moscow in September 41 and the city falls by mid-October. Negatiations follow which soak up 4-6 weeks, by which time winter has set in and much of the army and air force is either left as garrison in Russia (in mopping up excercises) or else returned to Germany to rest and re-fit. By this time Japan has bounced America thus inviting the US into the war. By January '42 the British have substantially recovered from the losses of Dunkirk and BoB and are considerably better equipped to deal with a cross-channel invasion. Besides which, American forces are pilling up in the Med to face off against Rommel, with lesser forces heading to England to face off an invasion or second BoB.

All the successful conquest of Russia in 1941 provides is the resources from which the Germans can fight a battle of attrition against the Allies. Given their faulty application of doctrine, inaccurate intelligence services and complete faith in the compromised ULTRA, plus perhaps a few hundred thousand Russian volunteers to fight the hard yards in N.Africa, very little changes. Certainly the war does not swing in favour of Germany, it merely makes it more difficult for the Allies.

The war in the Pacific still continues through the early months of '42 much as it did with Japanes forces finally being stopped by Australian troops on Kokoda and Milne Bay.

Moscow was only a decisive battle in that it created the conditions for future German/Allied success/failure. In itself it was neither a turning point or an omen of German defeat.


Edit***

As it was, the failure to take Moscow in 41 was not a big deal. The Germans simply refocused their attentions on oil, thus Fall Blau in the summer of 42. The failure to complete the operation successfully was due completely to Hitler's fascination with Stalingrad which was not even an original goal of the operation. The failure to capture Baku - which produced 80% of Soviet oil - was a strategic failure of the first order. Likewise the failure to destroy production there with concentrated Luftwaffe air attacks was a major failure, also. After Stalingrad it was not possible for the Germans to win the war. However, options still were available that the war could be brought to a "draw". After the failure of Kursk in July '43, although not a fore-gone conlcusion, German defeat was of a high probability.

Thus the failure to capture Moscow in '41 led to the campaigns in the Caucaus during '42. The failures of that campaign led to the Kursk of '43. The failure of that campaign so weakened the Germans that unless drastic action was taken (ie the complete withdrawal of units from Russia to the shortest possible defensible line) then defeat was reasonably well assured.
In this light, although Moscow was decisive in its influence of future campaigns in Russia, at the time there were too many imponderables to credit the Russian victory as decisive. German fail;ure at the gates of Moscow was only decisive for the Russians as it gave breathing space for their forces to re-group and re-equip (whether they used that time properly is another matter all together!)

The_Gog
05-09-2006, 03:51 AM
I am surprised that there are so many people here that have been so sucked in by Hollywood and the US propaganda machine.

There are 3 pivotal battles of WW2.

Stalingrad, because it signified the high water mark for the Third Reich and the ascendance of Russia,

Tobruk, because it was the first defeat of the German Army and shattered the myth that they were unbeatable, and

Kokoda, as it signified the first defeat of Japanese forces and also shattered the myth that Japanese soldiers were invincible.

Well done Aussies, for basically winning the war! 2 out of 3.....bluddy good stuff!!!

MadRuski
05-09-2006, 03:55 AM
The Russian weather really helped in defending the country.

bazzaah2
05-09-2006, 03:55 AM
all good points Adam, no bubble bursting, it's just opinion!


Must rush so this so just a quick point or two. With the USSR dealt with, the possibility for an invasion of mainland Europe becomes vastly more perilous for the Allies. Even if the Germans lose North Africa they still have oil from the Caucuses and Africa does not figure large in Hitler's own goals for Germany. With economic autarky achieved and the lebensraum won and secure to some extent, on paper at least Hitler gets what he wants. Whether the regime he put in place was stable enough to rule Europe for any length of time is another question.

My own feeling is that the war would have generated into an uneasy stalemate, perhaps without an outright victory for the Germans against the Allies but close enough for their purposes. I'm really not convinced that an invasion of Europe would have been feasible without the Wehrmacht having first been bled dry on the Eastern front.

Agree with you about the intelligence, the Allies were vastly better at this than the Germans. Ultra doesn't get the credit it deserves and I reckon it shaved a good while off the war, maybe a year or even two. Turing and everyone else at Bletchley Park were real unsung heroes.

I'll look at my documents to see the implications of Army Group Centre not diverting, but from what I recall the decision was Hitler's and his generals were against it and I suspect were relatively relaxed about exposing the flank to secure Moscow. Army Group South could have tied the Soviets down. Rational to some degree on a tactical level to divert to the Ukraine but on a strategic level it was a disaster.

Hitler's intervention cost Fall Blau as well. A waste of the 6th Army. It was a prestige thing, much better to cross the Volga and prevent reinforcements reaching the city. If it had been called Volgograd I wonder whether Hitler would have been so concerned to take it.

Hitler was the Allies best secret weapon in a way. He helped the Allies and was very reliable in making stupid self-defeating decisions, all part of his self-aggrandising death wish psychology!

WWMaxGunz
05-09-2006, 04:26 AM
Axis was not set up for any long war. Failure to take and secure objectives that made wide
areas safe spelled the defeat of the Axis.

BoB and the Atlantic battle combined left the door open to Europe and in need of defense.
The bombers that flew over Germany and savaged the German war effort could not have done so
from the US. That was long before D-Day. Hope that Russia appreciates what German fuel and
production losses there did for them. Also what the ships brought to Russia from almost the
start and the lives lost there. Not the same in numbers but really a great effect on the war.

Midway and Guadalcanal stopped Japan. Anyone know the plans of Japan? They were to take up
to India, maybe the Mideast and oil. Look at the world map. How would Britain have kept up
in Africa if the Japanese had sealed the Red Sea and sent ships in?

Britain stopped Italy and even Germany in Africa. US opened into west Africa and that did pull
German troops off Russia in a move that did not result in a pointless Allied loss as landings
in Europe would have done pre-44. It also spelled the doom of Axis getting and using Mideast
oil when coupled with Russia stopping Germany in the south.

Siege of Leningrad, one of the greatest unsung battles I know of did tie up and bleed Germans.
Almost THREE YEARS the Germans tried and failed. Russians starved to death regularly in the
siege, people did eat boiled leather and worse and yet they still defended the city, cost the
Germans casualties and resource drain all for no objective taken. Had the Germans pulled out
then the Russians could have advanced down and pincered the Germans at the supply lines. There
was a train line and even later roads made from Leningrad to Moscow never stopped by Germany.

Stalingrad really was the Swan Song for the Nazis and IMO the title goes there just by the
size of the loss to Germany.

Or was the most important battle when Hitler took control of the German Army, as stated already?

I also see by the numbers of troops that Russia had and the new equipment coming that if it had
not been for Hitler and WWII there would have been a bigger war started about 1945 by Stalin,
or was the plan for 1950? Literally, Germany was crushed until the Nazis got moving in very
bad ways stealing and selling treasures to pay for the complete turning-around that was done.
Crushed with inflation beyond imagining and people dieing in poverty. And Stalin would have
rolled right over that and kept on going. Hitler was never a saint but was he a tool of fate?

Ratsack
05-09-2006, 04:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
this thread is ranking high on the Nimrod scale </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's your second Nimrod reference.

Que?

Ratsack

joeap
05-09-2006, 04:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
the most decisive battle of the war IMO is D-day,
its D-day that the allies finally gained a strong foot hold on western europe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it was...but it was about 2 years too late http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You really think it could have taken place in 42? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Adam906
05-09-2006, 04:57 AM
The_Gog: there is a very big difference between pivital and decisive. However, I would agree with you that Stalingrad and Kokoda is pivitol.

With regards to Tobruk, it wasn't a decisive battle or even pivitol. The pivital campaign/battle in N.Africa was El Alamein which finally turned the Axis on their heels (hence pivot, pivotal). This battle was a result of the decisive Mediterranean battle for Malta.

As for the Aussies and our contributions to military history - you damn right there my friend!

joeap
05-09-2006, 05:07 AM
Wow, everyone forgets the longest running campaign of the war...the Battle of the Atlantic. Someone already mentioned the Sino-Japanese war which started before the European war ... but that is not a battle anyway.

As for Overlord, even if it came late, and just accelerated the end...it was one of the most complex operations in history. This was not least of which as all 3 elements, land sea and air had to be combined and coordinated on a huge scale. The sea element alone brought together possibly one of the largest invasion fleets in history.

WOLFMondo
05-09-2006, 05:10 AM
IMHO the first most important and decisive was the Battle of Britain. Regardless how it was won it meant that there was a launching point for the western allies for the rest of the war. No Britain, no D-day, no North Africa campaign etc. After that possibly Stalingrad or El Alamain.

There are too many important battles like Malta's defence, Midway, El Al, Kursk, Stalingrad, Leningrad, D-Day...all were decisive in there own way and if failed could have changed things decisively.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
the most decisive battle of the war IMO is D-day,
its D-day that the allies finally gained a strong foot hold on western europe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it was...but it was about 2 years too late http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You really think it could have taken place in 42? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think maybe the point was (assuming) that the Allies already had a foot hold in Europe. Its called the USSR.

Hitler was foolish to think he could take the USSR on and win. I think it still overlooked that during the late 20's and 30's Stalin took the USSR out of the dark ages and accelerated industrial output, especially heavy industry to a point Germany could never compete. Had the October revolution and Stalins return from exile never happened, Hitler would have steam rollered over Russia.

WWMaxGunz
05-09-2006, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
You really think it could have taken place in 42? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possibly if the US experience had not contributed to such strong isolationism, which was not
totally bad in itself. It hurt when Wendel Wilkie and his party dragged their heels so much
past the point when stepping in on the Allied side was reasonably indicated. The experience
of WWI and later did not make getting involved in what started out as yet another European
squabble seem like anything but a bad idea.

IMO between the Tri-Partite Treaty and the aggression from Poland on, the US should have
joined the Allieds at the latest by the attack on France. So 2 years sooner could have been
though what would have happened in the PTO from there is beyond me. Pearl on a war stance
would probably not have been hit and the Phillipines may have been much stronger. Or weaker
if the effort for Europe became a drain.

How many Euros and Russians take into account the US effort in the PTO and the gearing up
that went on? US was late to the war that others had already long before made ready for.

Adam906
05-09-2006, 05:32 AM
Bazzaah: I'm still not convinced of your logic. In late July to mid-August the German plan to advance on Moscow in the face of an unbroken enemy was not strategically sound, given that neither the northern flank (Lenningrad) or southern flank (Kiev) of Army Group Centre had been secured or that AGC had no strategic reserves. However, for purpose of argument I will assume the risk was taken and that Moscow, along with the Soviet state, falls. However, the entire Russian state does fall under Nazi rule and a new semi-autocratic 'Russia' (eastern provinces) comes into existance, still struggling with Japanese expansion. (There is no reason to think part of German peace demands would have been directed at benefiting Japanese war in Manchuria)

As stipulated in my previous post, Japan and America still enter the war and Kokoda and the defeat of the Japanese Army there still occurs due to time constraints with-holding the Germans from battle (if indeed they are inclined to join in). It can be assumed that next to no Russian volunteers join the Japanese cause. Also, with Stalin defeated (though talk about the fire or the frying pan choice!) Russians don't exactly flock to the Nazi flag either.


1942 still brings Malta. However, given massive re-inforcements Germany wins El Alemein and captures Cairo. Peace in the Med. ensues. American troops and material on their way for Operation Torch (Nov. '42) are redirected to the Pacific. German assistance there (assuming they are willing) takes time to take effect. Allied weight of numbers in the Pacific takes immediate effect and Japan crumbles quicker than it did historically. Assuming German intervention in the Pacific, it arrives in dribs and drabs until early '43, by which time the Allies have had at least 6 months enjoying the benefits of single focused attention in the region (First battle of El Alemein was July '42). Meanwhile Britain assumes the same position it did in 1940: massively defensive, holding war until Pacific theatre sorted out. American lend lease aide now flowing to Britain instead of Russia, Britain no longer burdened with supplying aide to Russia. All merchant shipping used in Russian convoys now directed to convoys to America. Attempts at a straqtegic bomber war all but halted in preference to fighter production and pilot training (as with BoB). American bombers sent to the Pacific instead

1943, given vast numerical advantage in the theatre, Allies overwhelm Japanes forces, knocking on the door of Japanese home islands by late '43. All that Germany can affer to Japan is oil, troops, aircraft and tanks. Convoys to Japan from Germany interdicted by massive USAAF bomber fleets (not burdened with the war in either Europe or the Med.) Little effect trickles through, in time for combined/US offensive on home islands.

1944, massive casualties incurred by Japan end with her knocked out of the war (either directly or thanks to peace negotiations). American intents now focused on Europe. Entire US/Canada/British Commonwealth economy now focused on defeat of Hitler.

1945. Advent of atomic bomb. Bye Bye Berlin (and most of western Europe, but hey....) Assuming Britain not willing to sanction such a weapon so close to her borders or because of MAD theory, Allies focus their attentions of the 'new' Russian state and supplying it with arms from which to launch an attack on the expanded Reich, all the while chipping away at outlying German acquisitions.

OK so it's full of holes, but the defeat of Russia in 41 no more guarantees German victory in Europe than my scenarios does for the Allies....

joeap
05-09-2006, 05:34 AM
Well you guys know the US wanted to go in in 1942 (Operation Sledgehammer) in France...but were talked out of it by the Brits. Perhaps correctly...but I have often wodnered what a 43 invasion would have accomplished.

Adam906
05-09-2006, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Hitler was foolish to think he could take the USSR on and win. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But for the adverse weather conditions '41 he could conceivably have taken Moscow. Given the Russian civilian and militarys low morale there is no reason to think the capture of the Soviet capital would have provided for anything but an entire collapse and ultimate defeat.

But for Hitler's personnal obsession and complete disregard for strategic necessity in 1942 (refering to Stalingrad), there is no reason to think why Baku could not have been captured and oil reserves secured for Germany (while at the same time denying 80% of Russian oil production). A state's war machine can't function without oil any more than it can function without orders.

Hitler wasn't foolish in thinking he could beat the Sovets. His rationale was sound. He wasn't necessarily foolish, either, to think he could do it before defeating Britain - he was naive to attempt it before Britain was out, though.
Perferming a holding war against Britain AND in the Med. whilst accepting the limitations that the war against Britain in two theatres of war AND war on the Russian necessarily meant on the Russian fron, with prudence and patience German ambitions in Russia could quite easily have been realised.

Adam906
05-09-2006, 05:58 AM
The Battle of the Atlantic wasn't so much a seperate campaign as the follow on from the Kanalkampf in July 1940 (in terms of aerial anti-shipping operations and the Condor Scourge, which pre-dates the U-Boat campaign). As such the Atlantic/convoy battles shouldn't be seen so much as a seperate campaign, but more an adjunct of the Battle of Britain and the German failure to adequately deal with Britain, which goes back to the arguments about the BoB in the first place. German naval documents from 1939 show the Kriegsmarine's intent of joint anti-shipping campaigns conducted with the Luftwaffe (this is backed up to a lesser extent by Luftwaffe documents of the period). Given the Luftwaffe's enforced role in Russia and to a lesser extent the Med. (Malta) the Battle of the Atlantic thus became a single force campaign of an originally intended two pronged strategy.

As for sledgehammer or a 1943 incarnation thereof, there was no chance, as Dieppe proved. The air superiority was not available to the Allies to cover the necessary areas required for invasion nor were sufficient numbers of land or naval forces available to perform continues re-supply and re-inforcement. German reserves were still such in 1943 that invasion was not a credible option. It would have been distracting for the Germans, no doubt, but it would have been more damaging for the Allies. Given the Dieppe failure, time was needed to a)make good losses, and b)assimilate the lessons learnt from the operation. The Americans, for their part, had no experience in waterborne invasions against well seasoned and equipped troops, supplimented by not insignificant air forces well versed in tactical operations/battlefield interdictions.

Xiolablu3
05-09-2006, 06:16 AM
I didnt actually realise how important Africa was until I studied a map.

If Rommel had broken through Africa, he could have attacked Russia from the South too.

IMO HItler should have commtied more to Africa if he wanted to win,maybe he took ROmmels victory for greanted, maybe his resupply ships were mostly sunk. Maybe he never even sent the resupplies Rommel was promised (as Rommel suspected) Malta was a big overlook for the Germans too. Rather than finishing it off, it remained to be a thorn in their side throughout the war.

I forget why Malta was so significant actually, but I know it was..maybe someone can add something here.

Study this map of the world and you can see just how important Africa was to WW2.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/map23eu.html

WOLFMondo
05-09-2006, 06:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Hitler was foolish to think he could take the USSR on and win. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But for the adverse weather conditions '41 he could conceivably have taken Moscow. Given the Russian civilian and militarys low morale there is no reason to think the capture of the Soviet capital would have provided for anything but an entire collapse and ultimate defeat.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The loss of Moscow wouldn't have mattered to Stalin since he was a true despot. Everything centred around him. As long as he was alive and there was a command structure, he would have full control. I bet he would have burned Moscow to the ground if it looked like it was about to be taken. Moral was a problem but even after the great terror, soviet citizens were more worried what state might do to them rather than what Germany might.

ForkTailedDevil
05-09-2006, 06:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I didnt actually realise how important Africa was until I studied a map.

If Rommel had broken through Africa, he could have attacked Russia from the South too.

IMO HItler should have commtied more to Africa if he wanted to win,maybe he took ROmmels victory for greanted, maybe his resupply ships were mostly sunk. Maybe he never even sent the resupplies Rommel was promised (as Rommel suspected) Malta was a big overlook for the Germans too. Rather than finishing it off, it remained to be a thorn in their side throughout the war.

I forget why Malta was so significant actually, but I know it was..maybe someone can add something here.

Study this map of the world and you can see just how important Africa was to WW2.

<A HREF="http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/map23eu.html" TARGET=_blank>http

://www.fsmitha.com/h2/map23eu.html</A> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finally someone is paying attention. After the failure of BOB, the only chance the Germans had to win the war was in North Africa. Instead of capturing Crete the German paratroopers should have captured Malta it was a fortress that was right in the middle of the German and Italian supply lines. RN submarines were based there fighters and bombers that could attack axis shipping it was a massive blunder by the axis to not pick up Malta.

If Rommel had recieved the support he needed it is very possible he could have driven the Brittish out of N. Africa. Captured the Suez canal driven north through Palestine picked up a few allies with Syria and Iraq, forced Turkey to either join the axis or let the Germans have passage and captured the Soviet oilfields.

MadRuski
05-09-2006, 07:09 AM
Yes, Russia has a LOOOOONG history of treating its people badley.. the pride i take in how Russia basicly won the war(Europe), i suddenly lose some of that pride at what expence it paid, and those expences happened through delibrate actions by the so called "Soviet Glory", but back then Russia was a power not to be reconed with.

thats communism for ya... all budgets go to the millitary and thats wat makes the power, sure feels bad to no that 4 G-grandfathers fought for the country to fall apart.

MrBlueSky1960
05-09-2006, 07:34 AM
Dunkirk.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Without a shadow of doubt.

It caused the nation of Great Britain take a sharp intake of breath. It made our little island realise just how dire our situation was and ultimately made us buckle down to fight for our lives through every up and down fate threw at us.

The UK was the only allied nation to fight the whole nine yards of the War... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif By the end, we were exhausted.

WWMaxGunz
05-09-2006, 08:18 AM
UK was there in Poland? I think not.

WWMaxGunz
05-09-2006, 08:19 AM
Any of you played Hearts of Iron or HOI2?

It gives me a sense of scale that says "They tried to do this then they were nuts!".

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-09-2006, 08:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
UK was there in Poland? I think not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read up on why Britain declared war...

MrBlueSky1960
05-09-2006, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
UK was there in Poland? I think not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read up on why Britain declared war... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers L_F http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Maraz_5SA
05-09-2006, 09:06 AM
My vote goes to battles of Moscow (winter 1941), Stalingrad and Kursk.

Greece: it has been written that this campaign delayed Barbarossa of some weeks, so it's an important achievements for the Allies.

The contrary is true: May 1941 was very rainy, so the delay saved the Germans from being stuck in mud. Attacking on June 22 with dry weather and roads allowed the fast advance that caught and encircled many Russian units.

Midway was decisive in the Pacific.

The MTO was a secondary front, but first Alamein (July 1942, under Auchinleck's command) was no doubt the decisive battle.

ETO: D-Day was only decisive in shortening the war and leaving western Europe out of Stalin's reach, but at that time war was already won (by the Red Army with the contribution of the Allied bombers) at that time.

I remember this saying, I don't know whose: "Churchill does not need a large Army, his Army is the Red Army. Stalin does not need a large bomber force, his bomber force is the Bomber Command".

Maraz

joeap
05-09-2006, 09:13 AM
Sorry to beat a dead horse Maraz, and the navy??? It's not a surprise Stalin sought to build up the Red Navy after the war when he saw what strategic advantages it gave the Anglo-Americans...it was dropped after his death (and Soviet industry could not handle it) but the USSR went for sepower in a big way after the Cuban missle crisis in 1962 when the USn palyed a big role in forcing the Russians to back down. None of this is meant to deny how hard Soviet sailors fought in the war however.

panther3485
05-09-2006, 09:45 AM
Hi guys,

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Now this is more the style! These are the sorts of threads I like and I usually jump in 'boots first', with great enthusiasm (but a lot of thought as well, naturally).

For now, though, I'm having a good time just reading. I see posts representing the usual mixture of attributes and qualities - always interesting to see the variety of viewpoints and perceptions out there.

Keep it up, guys!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards to all,
panther3485

panther3485
05-09-2006, 10:01 AM
Hi there, MrBlueSky1960

Quote:

"The UK was the only allied nation to fight the whole nine yards of the War..."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Hey, we (Australia) may not have come under attack on our home soil right away but I think we had sizeable contingents involved helping you guys out pretty much from the beginning...maybe not the entire 9 yards but about 8 3/4 at least!

Ditto for Canada and some other Empire/Commonwealth nations like New Zealand and South Africa?

Er, we are considered 'Allied Nations', are we not?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

P.S. Oooops! So much for my 'sit back and read only'!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

mynameisroland
05-09-2006, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MadRuski:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:

before turning there attention to the ussr. I can only think it was an underestimation of the ussr.

cheers fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the reason of this is Hitler REALLY hated Lenin and Stalin, and couldnt wait until until bombarding their citys, and also of the elment of surpise, the Germans caught Russia with their pants down when they first struck, if they had delayed the attack on Russia, Russia would have realised that the pact with Hitler wouldnt of lasted long and started to compile troops. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The USSR were planning an attack and were massing troops hence getting caught with their pants down.

mynameisroland
05-09-2006, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MadRuski:
Yes, Russia has a LOOOOONG history of treating its people badley.. the pride i take in how Russia basicly won the war(Europe), i suddenly lose some of that pride at what expence it paid, and those expences happened through delibrate actions by the so called "Soviet Glory", but back then Russia was a power not to be reconed with.

thats communism for ya... all budgets go to the millitary and thats wat makes the power, sure feels bad to no that 4 G-grandfathers fought for the country to fall apart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Russia did the majority of the hard fighting to wear Germany down but they definitely did not 'Win' the war in Europe. Without British and American aid Russia would have been defeated. The Russians simply did not have the tactitians or experienced troops to fight the Germans one on one after the Battle of France. The Allies won the war in Europe not one country.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-09-2006, 10:15 AM
I think "Operation Overlord" seals the deal(.)

BTW,Hitler is not the best tactitian around,why?

&gt;He prevents the development of heavy bombers,he thinks its irrelevant to his blitzkrieg doctrine,
he thinks medium bombers is well suited to team up w/ ground units when conducting short,tactical ops.

&gt;He thinks operation overlord will happen at the beaches of calais.He is fooled by the false radio traffic and bombing raids on that sector.
During the D-day landing,hitler stabornly insist ed that the real landing will take place at calais thus preventing reinforcement from the north to keep the allies from gaining a beachhead on the normandy coast.

&gt;his war plans are in-decisive on some occasions

mynameisroland
05-09-2006, 10:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
Bazzaah, Not to burst your bubble but direct attack against Moscow in Sept. 41 was a risky proposition. It implied the 3-400,00 troops in Kiev were not to be engaged, thus leaving a very sizable and reasonably well equipped force on the Germans southern flank. Once word reached that Moscow was under direct attack it would not have sat idly by and not try to intervene. To attack Moscow in late summer early autumn 41 was to take a HUGE tactical, if not to say strategic, gamble. IF the Germans went the Moscow route then sufficient forces would have to have been left behind to contain the Kiev forces which would probably have needed re-inforcing if they chose to force the lines of the southern front.

Considering the successes the Germans had achieved thus far in the war against Russia there was no need for them to assume they could not first deal with the southern flank before focusing on Moscow. If the Russians were proving masters of battle and Moscow in 41 was an all or nothing chance that had to be taken, then, and only then, was Moscow going to ever get a look in as a priority gamble.

As for the loss of Moscow itself, it would have changed very little the outcome of war in Europe, beyond perhaps its length. Following your line of reasoning the Germans attack Moscow in September 41 and the city falls by mid-October. Negatiations follow which soak up 4-6 weeks, by which time winter has set in and much of the army and air force is either left as garrison in Russia (in mopping up excercises) or else returned to Germany to rest and re-fit. By this time Japan has bounced America thus inviting the US into the war. By January '42 the British have substantially recovered from the losses of Dunkirk and BoB and are considerably better equipped to deal with a cross-channel invasion. Besides which, American forces are pilling up in the Med to face off against Rommel, with lesser forces heading to England to face off an invasion or second BoB.

All the successful conquest of Russia in 1941 provides is the resources from which the Germans can fight a battle of attrition against the Allies. Given their faulty application of doctrine, inaccurate intelligence services and complete faith in the compromised ULTRA, plus perhaps a few hundred thousand Russian volunteers to fight the hard yards in N.Africa, very little changes. Certainly the war does not swing in favour of Germany, it merely makes it more difficult for the Allies.

The war in the Pacific still continues through the early months of '42 much as it did with Japanes forces finally being stopped by Australian troops on Kokoda and Milne Bay.

Moscow was only a decisive battle in that it created the conditions for future German/Allied success/failure. In itself it was neither a turning point or an omen of German defeat.


Edit***

As it was, the failure to take Moscow in 41 was not a big deal. The Germans simply refocused their attentions on oil, thus Fall Blau in the summer of 42. The failure to complete the operation successfully was due completely to Hitler's fascination with Stalingrad which was not even an original goal of the operation. The failure to capture Baku - which produced 80% of Soviet oil - was a strategic failure of the first order. Likewise the failure to destroy production there with concentrated Luftwaffe air attacks was a major failure, also. After Stalingrad it was not possible for the Germans to win the war. However, options still were available that the war could be brought to a "draw". After the failure of Kursk in July '43, although not a fore-gone conlcusion, German defeat was of a high probability.

Thus the failure to capture Moscow in '41 led to the campaigns in the Caucaus during '42. The failures of that campaign led to the Kursk of '43. The failure of that campaign so weakened the Germans that unless drastic action was taken (ie the complete withdrawal of units from Russia to the shortest possible defensible line) then defeat was reasonably well assured.
In this light, although Moscow was decisive in its influence of future campaigns in Russia, at the time there were too many imponderables to credit the Russian victory as decisive. German fail;ure at the gates of Moscow was only decisive for the Russians as it gave breathing space for their forces to re-group and re-equip (whether they used that time properly is another matter all together!) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting post, however I totally disagree that Germany taking Moscow and therefore ending the war with Russia would have a minimal impact. Britain was scraping the barrel for men and resources even in 1942. It would be impossible to successfully beat Germany in Europe or in the Med theatre with the main body of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe still intact.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-09-2006, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi there, MrBlueSky1960

Quote:

"The UK was the only allied nation to fight the whole nine yards of the War..."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Hey, we (Australia) may not have come under attack on our home soil right away but I think we had sizeable contingents involved helping you guys out pretty much from the beginning...maybe not the entire 9 yards but about 8 3/4 at least!

Ditto for Canada and some other Empire/Commonwealth nations like New Zealand and South Africa?

Er, we are considered 'Allied Nations', are we not?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

P.S. Oooops! So much for my 'sit back and read only'!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Totally agree.

As far as I'm concerned 'Britain' would encompass all Commonwealth nations (that's not a colonialist attitude from me). It should never be forgotten that men from all over the then British Empire (and occupied nations) willingly fought and died for a common cause.

Blutarski2004
05-09-2006, 11:30 AM
Perhaps putting too fine a point on it, the question at hand is to name the &gt;&gt; most decisive &lt;&lt; battle. Let's consider it from the perspective of the degree/extent of the victory instead of how contextually influential or consequential over the long run of the war.

For me the most decisive battles in WW2 were -

Battle of Savo Island - The IJN efficiently wiped out the the Allied task force opposing it. I know they failed to get the transports, but from a purely tactical point of view it = a KO at 7 seconds into the 1st round.

Bagration - The Red Army rolled over Army Group Center like a tidal wave. Its advance was only brought to a halt when it reached the limit of its logistical tether.

Manchurian offensive of August 1945 - The Red Army simply crushed its Japanese opponent.

fordfan25
05-09-2006, 12:22 PM
Midway

ucanfly
05-09-2006, 12:43 PM
D day contributed heavily to the political lines of the post war world and the date at which VE day occurred.

The failure to take Moscow and the reversal at Stalingrad sealed Germany's fate.

The combined industrial might of the allies made the outcome inevitable.

Von_Rat
05-09-2006, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I didnt actually realise how important Africa was until I studied a map.

If Rommel had broken through Africa, he could have attacked Russia from the South too.

IMO HItler should have commtied more to Africa if he wanted to win,maybe he took ROmmels victory for greanted, maybe his resupply ships were mostly sunk. Maybe he never even sent the resupplies Rommel was promised (as Rommel suspected) Malta was a big overlook for the Germans too. Rather than finishing it off, it remained to be a thorn in their side throughout the war.

I forget why Malta was so significant actually, but I know it was..maybe someone can add something here.

Study this map of the world and you can see just how important Africa was to WW2.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/map23eu.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

HI XIABLUE.

i used to think the same thing, about rommel being able to attack russia from the south if he took n africa. but then i looked at a map and noticed the almost total lack of roads or railroads in that area of eastern turkey northwestern iran. that and the the rugged terrain, not to mention climate, would of made logistic support of a mechinized force in that area a nightmare.

rommel would of been better off to just go after the persian gulf, imho.

WOLFMondo
05-09-2006, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Britain was scraping the barrel for men and resources even in 1942. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't agree at all. The darker days of the Battle of Britain and the blitz were over. The US was in the war and supplies were coming over the Atlantic despite the Uboats. The UK was even in a position to start supplying equipment to the USSR. Things were not all rosey but the Royal Navy was still very impressive with more ships on there way, the RAF was getting stronger with new types of aircraft and 4 engined heavies and the British Army was getting good experiance in North Africa.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:


I think Russia did the majority of the hard fighting to wear Germany down but they definitely did not 'Win' the war in Europe. Without British and American aid Russia would have been defeated. The Russians simply did not have the tactitians or experienced troops to fight the Germans one on one after the Battle of France. The Allies won the war in Europe not one country. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, the USSR needed American trucks and boots! After the battle of France I don't think the USSR would have lost. There industrial and military output was secured through reforms in the 30's and even after the Great Terror, the Red Army was still strong, Stalin didn't kill everyone of any importance in the Red Army and he certainly didn't damage it to the extent some people make out.

lowfighter
05-09-2006, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
. Without British and American aid Russia would have been defeated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hm, this is a very strong statement http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-09-2006, 12:58 PM
^what are friends for^ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Von_Rat
05-09-2006, 01:05 PM
while i believe the russians probaly could of won all on their own. theres one thing im absolutly sure of.

they positivly did not want to win it all on their own.

they were paying a terriable price fighting hitler, so at the time they were more than willing to accept any help at all. and were rightly badgering allies to get in the fight as soon as possiable to help. stalin even told the u.s that he would be happy to have u.s troops fight on russian soil.


could russia win alone,,,,yes.

did russia want to win alone,,,,hell no.

Mjollnir111675
05-09-2006, 01:36 PM
I think by now, it is extemely apparent, that there wasn't *ANY ONE* decisive battle/s but more importantly a string of timely decisions which decided not only W.W.II but all wars 'fore and aft. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif &lt;Emphasis on the period! Thank ya very much in the left ear!)

S!


"Whoever claims he has never perceived an oppressive feeling of fear has certainly never been to the front. The prerequisite for bravery is fear,just as the fear of dying and the uncertainty of what follows this earthly existence are the prerequisites for the origin and existence of every religion." Otto Carius

DuxCorvan
05-09-2006, 01:36 PM
Battle of Alamogordo, where humankind lost the war:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Trinity_shot_color.jpg/480px-Trinity_shot_color.jpg

zugfuhrer
05-09-2006, 02:19 PM
Depends on what aspects you put in decisive, for a battle, for a front or for the whole war.

The war was probobly lost for Germany before it started, and certainly when Germany declared war to USA. If germany wouldnt attack the soviet union perhaps they could have forced England to a peace threaty. But with the american support of England it would have become impossible.

If you look at how many men you can call for military service and how much war material a country or countries cooperating can produce, you see that it was lost before it started.

For a front;
Fall Weiss.
The german attack on France/Belgium/Lowlands at the 10:th of may 1940.
Never have any armed force won so great over such a superior enemy. It was the minds of the german general staff that won this battle against the allied forces.

All other battles as I know are logical because a much larger force has been able to beat a smaller force, El Alamein invasion of Italy etc etc.
The heroic and stiff warfare of the Hellenic forces was decisive for war against the Albanian theatre but it didnt change the outcome of the balcan war.

If LW would have pinned down RAF, there where no invasion force available for the german army, no invasion.

Stalingrad; if the german 6:th army would have been rescued it wouldnt change the outcome of the war on eastern front only the common withdrawal of the german forces during the winter.

Normandy was failsafe, very few welltrained german forces, most overaged german troops, cosacks, polish conscripts and other forces not very motivated to fight for germany.
Total see and air dominance. Only a nuclear bomb could have change the balance of power there.

Brewster where do you got the information about the U-boat war? I have sources that contradict what you write. Please tell me the source, I am most interested.
I can give any serious reader references to scientific studies of what I am writing.

Agamemnon22
05-09-2006, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mjollnir111675:
I think by now, it is extemely apparent, that there wasn't *ANY ONE* decisive battle/s but more importantly a string of timely decisions which decided not only W.W.II but all wars 'fore and aft. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif &lt;Emphasis on the period! Thank ya very much in the left ear!)

S!

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif


IMO, the turning point came in summer 1942. Blue failed to reach virtually all of its objectives in the east, German forces ground to a halt with intermittent supplies and facing a numerically superior force. In Africa, Rommel was retreating for similar reasons, because Malta was not shut down in due time. And Hitler was rearranging his staff weekly, tossing out generals and field marshals.

No single battle was decisive, but the string of failures in that year, culminating in the loss of the 6ths Army put a steak through Hitler's hopes for victory.

Bo_Nidle
05-09-2006, 02:21 PM
I would venture the BOB was the most important as without the UK as a base the D-Day invasion of Europe would never have happened.

However I would also put forward the biggest mistake that Hitler made during the entire conflict was to treat the Russian people in such a barbaric fashion. They were initially welcomed by the Russian people as liberators and this had the potential to unite with them in overthrowing the despised Stalin regime.

If this had occured then Hitler would have ended up with an army so vast nothing could have stopped the Nazi's.

Lucky for us in the west the man was so deranged! Not so lucky for the poor people of the east!

Adam906
05-09-2006, 04:42 PM
The loss of Moscow in '41 would have been all but the end of the Soviet state. With the massive losses that had been suffered up until August the Russians were low on trained men and equipment. Considering the strategic and political value of Moscow everything would have been thrown in to its defence. Given the already low morale of soldier and civilian alike it is doubtful the Russians could or would have resisted for much longer in any meaningful way. In late June with the invasion Stalin in fact expected to be overthrown by the army, and from late July/early August the Soviets were sending out peace offers to the Germans. Taken together these facts all point to a highly probable collapse of the Soviet state with the fall of Moscow in '41.

The question of N.Africa, might on face value, seem like a very decisive area but it was not as decisive as people perhaps would like to think, although the 2nd Battle of El Alamein was very decisive in that theatre, but factors on other fronts contributed to it and thus dilluted its claim as 'the' decisive battle in the theatre. Why?
1 - The German commitments in Russia meant the resources were simply not available to send to Rommel. If Russia was not defeated, or at least suffering from a sevre strategic set back in 1942, then it was going to be difficult to conclude the war successfully in Germany's favour (on the Ostfront). The choice between N.Africa/Cairo and Baku oil fields (which produced 80% of all oil output in the soviet Union) then there was no choice. Given the dwindling reserves of German oil products, Germany was facing an impending oil crisis given her committments and their demands. Thus Fall Blau was of greater importance to Germany than N.Africa.
2 - Considering Rommels rapid advance on Cairo during the decision was taken not to invade Malta as it was deemed an unnecessary operation in light of German expectations that Rommel would be able to secure Cairo (only 150miles distant from El Alamein). Hence the decision to subdue the island by air attack alone. This then relates to not only Russia, where during 1941 the Luftwaffe lost 3x its original strength deployed in the space of a year, but more directly to the Battle of Britain.

As was explained in my earlier post, the BoB soaked up a large proportion of aircraft and aircrew (August 1940 the Luftwaffe lost 778 aircraft - or 18.5% of all combat aircraft listed as on strength as of 1 August 1940). In the aftermath of failure there was a lot of blame shifting instead of analitcal discussion on the Luftwaffe and to a lesser degree, the Kuestenflieger's performance and capabilities. Hence by the time the air battle for Malta comes into being, the Luftwaffe is a weakened force which was over-extended in committment. The failure to take Malta was decisive in the Med. as it provided the conditions by which El Alamein was enacted, and thus became the battle (at least the second El Alamein) whereby German expansion in N.Africa was halted and turned on its heel. As such El Alamein can only be seen in light of Malta and it's failure which can only be seen in the light of German commitments in Russia and the failure of BoB..

The most decisive battle therefore becomes the BoB. Up until that point German forces had been all conquering. With BoB they were forced to admit, not neccessarily defeat, but the inability to win. In the aftermath there was so much bickering in High Command circles over who was responsible that no real or adequate effort was made to explore the reasons of German "failure", thus Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine commands continued their political struggle to take control of naval aviation which hampered the Battle of the Atlantic, thus no real effort was made to re-examine the capabilities of the Luftwaffe in light of its strategic failures over Britain and shift its doctrine accordingly, thus, as highlighter, the losses it suffered in the lead up to Barbarossa and Malta crimped aerial capabilities, ambitions and hopes. Thus the BoB becomes "THE" decisive battle of Europe as all following failures of the German forces - inextricably linked with the failure of the Luftwaffe - can be drawn to the German failures in the summer of 1940.

The BoB, however, is NOT a turning point in the war, or, was it at the time, something that guaranteed eventual defeat. It merely set the preconditions for future German operations and their capabilities, thus it became decisive (ie, it decided future German capabilties)

Xiolablu3
05-09-2006, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I didnt actually realise how important Africa was until I studied a map.

If Rommel had broken through Africa, he could have attacked Russia from the South too.

IMO HItler should have commtied more to Africa if he wanted to win,maybe he took ROmmels victory for greanted, maybe his resupply ships were mostly sunk. Maybe he never even sent the resupplies Rommel was promised (as Rommel suspected) Malta was a big overlook for the Germans too. Rather than finishing it off, it remained to be a thorn in their side throughout the war.

I forget why Malta was so significant actually, but I know it was..maybe someone can add something here.

Study this map of the world and you can see just how important Africa was to WW2.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/map23eu.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

HI XIABLUE.

i used to think the same thing, about rommel being able to attack russia from the south if he took n africa. but then i looked at a map and noticed the almost total lack of roads or railroads in that area of eastern turkey northwestern iran. that and the the rugged terrain, not to mention climate, would of made logistic support of a mechinized force in that area a nightmare.

rommel would of been better off to just go after the persian gulf, imho. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for this info VR.

I always thought that the plan was for Rommel to meet up/attack in the corceouses if he won in North Africa, but I admit I saw this on the History cChannel, so it was never garunteed to be right. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BUT - I guess you could say there were no roads in the desert too, tho.

I will have to look for some more info on this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On the othr point - I dont think the Russians could have won purely on their own. It was a close run thing with half the German Army/Air Force/Navy off doing other stuff like manning Flak posts, guns on the atlantic wall, fighting in Africa, COmmanders tied up in the West, manning posts in Occcupied Norway, Holland, France, Denmark, Sweden, Crete, half the Airforce away fighting other battles and so on.

You have got specualte that actually only half of the German forces were involved in Barbarossa. Had this other half have put their effort into Russia, it could have made all the difference. Take away all the lend lease and intelligence passed on by the Western Allies and it could have been a much lesser equiped Russian Army fighting a much bigger Axis force.


Oh and by the way, Great post above this one, Adam. Not sure I agree with it all, but its very interesting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CornbreadPattie
05-09-2006, 06:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MadRuski:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CornbreadPattie:
I just want to let you commies know who won teh wor. Teh USA is teh ROXORRZZZ...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

another person that doesant no much.... also communism is a good thing in theory... just its one hell of a hard system to run,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by CornbreadPattie:
Teh Battle of teh Atmomic Bomb...(ROXOORRZZZZ PWWNNNNEED) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WAT ARE U F*CKING NUTS... WHAT GOOD IS IT TO KILL HUNDREDS OF INOCENT CIVILIANS, SERIOUSLY HOW OLD ARE YOU! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

R U teh saying that teh usa didn't win teh wor?

Haha.... I'm uhhhh this many


Actually, you know what? My vocabulary is very extense and my grammar is pretty good. I actually think my list was totally ridiculous and was mainly to mock the folks from my empire who think that "Teh best battles in teh hiztoryy of teh world were:


Teh Battle For Teh Memphis Bell
Teh Battle of teh Atmomic Bomb...(ROXOORRZZZZ PWWNNNNEED)
Teh Battle of teh Tukeegee Airman... they sure culd fly!
Teh battle of teh D-DAY...... hitler got pwned.....


we were so great we should have NuKeD teh Commies....."...


Actually I like communism. I'm totally for it and I am tired and bored of my own country's systems. In this time in the world there is no need for atomic, biological, and chemical weapons. They are a step backwards and I wish the recipes could be destroyed in a..........well I think an atomic explosion would be good for that, lol.

Anyways, where did you find your avatar? I think it kicks ***.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CornbreadPattie
05-09-2006, 06:21 PM
Most decisive battles in my humble opinion are....

Battle Over Western Skies in 1941, this convinced Molotov not to side with Germany. The German said in the Berlin meeting that Britain was all but knocked out of the war.... then came the British air raid that forced the German general and Molotov into an underground shelter as bombs fell above them.

Battle of the Atlantic - supplies needed to get through to UK and USSR, nuff said.

Battle Over Manchuria - After Japan occupied Manchuria in 1931 Soviet Union signed pact with Mongolia and Japan with Germany and Italy. This helped define the enemies and sides. This also meant the Japanese would later gear up to attack in the Pacific, not Soviet Union, thus freeing up units in Siberia to reinforce areas east of the Urals, including Moscow.

Operation Barbarossa - Hitler's fatal mistake. His best commanders knew it couldn't be done just yet, but poor Hitler wanted to beat the Soviets before they could make arms advances.

Von_Rat
05-09-2006, 06:23 PM
BUT - I guess you could say there were no roads in the desert too, tho.
______________________________________________


true, but the roadless desert fighting in n africa didn't require rommel to fight across very tall roadless mountains.

as for numbers in barbarossa, i think alot more more than half of german armed forces were attacking russia. ill have to check the numbers.

Xiolablu3
05-09-2006, 06:37 PM
Hey VR, you not playing tonight&gt;?

Just been on WC cos I havent got the new addon and they are still on 4.04. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But theres not many on there, may go back in a while if it fills up?

You going on later?

Wigwham
05-09-2006, 06:59 PM
If I remember correctly Molotov was in Berlin to discuss a possible alliance against Britain.The Germans wanted the USSR to invade India and said the the British were finished ! There was an air raid , maybe one of the first, and they all retired underground.Molotov replied that if indeed the British were finished what were they all doing hiding in a bunker or something to that effect.

MadRuski
05-09-2006, 11:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CornbreadPattie:

Anyways, where did you find your avatar? I think it kicks ***.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

me and my mad paint skills

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-10-2006, 12:13 AM
The most succesful/decisive "BIG" "operation in terms of relatively lower casualty rate than estimated and high success rate of individual operations is none other than "Operation Overlord"
it is estimated that 40,000+ will die at the initial phase of the operation.This operation sealed the fate of the nazi war machine and it shaped the european landscape or territory to what it is today.

ImpStarDuece
05-10-2006, 12:23 AM
Top Gun, you need to read WAY more Russian history.

Try Anthony Bevoir or John Erickson.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-10-2006, 12:28 AM
i know all about russian history,their contribution during WWII is huge,it even exeeds the W.Allies.But their battles is fought long and hard.I'm talking about short & decisive operations which made a huge impact on the outcome of the war

Adam906
05-10-2006, 01:56 AM
As Wigwam correctly points out, the Germans wanted the Russians to focus towards India and join in a Continental bloc against Britain and the US. However, this want was based more on Hitler's attempt to re-focus Russian expansionism. To cut a long story short, during 1940 Stalin began pushing his luck - especially in the Balkans - where he sided with and supported the claims of Bulgaria and Hungary on parts of Romania. He also pushed for further influence in Finland. Neither option was palitable to Hitler because, in the Balkans he needed peace (he was afraid of British intervention and the construction of bases in Greece and Crete which could jeopordise oil from Romania) while in Finland, the nickle mines of Petsamo and the 60% of their production that was sent to Germany were under threat. Thus Hitler, spurred on by Ribbentrop who had pursued the idea of a Continental bloc since 1938, tried to refocus Soviet attentions towards India and away from south-east Europe when Hitler desperately needed peace to protect his oil interests. This is why the Battle of Britain becomes so important to the war in Europe, and is, IMHO, THE most decisive battle in Europe.

In 1940 Hitler was increasingly penned in by Stalin and was fearful of becoming dependent on him. Hitler needed peace in the Balkans and imports from Finland to prosecute the war against Britain effectively. The dilhema was to what extent was Hitler prepared to concede to Russian demands and expansion - ie, how dependent was Hitler prepared to make himself of Stalin/Soviet policy/expansion. Thus the outcome of the BoB becomes so important. Although not openly or directly, Stalin was making approaches to the British so German victory in the Battle became critical as not only would it finally silence the British and force them to seek peace terms, but it would 'show' the Russians the Germans were a)now free to do as they pleased and not be hemmed in by Russian demands, and b)they had chosen foolishly in turning to the British instead of joining peacefully with Germany and accepting the disection of Europe according to "realistic" terms (ie, those realistic to German strategic needs). In addition it would deny the US a springboard into Europe if they ever did decide to take on Germany once Britain was out.

Hence why the BoB is THE decisive battle of Europe. It's outcome was no less critical to the Germans as it was to the British. Both had much to loose in its defeat. As it was, Hitler was unable to contain Soviet expansionism and Italy messed things up with the invason of Greece and Yugoslavia thereby destroying the peace so necessary to a Germany still at war with Britain. Victory in the BoB for Germany would have negated the immediate need to intervene in the Balkans on Italy's behalf and it would have freed more forces to combat Russian overtures. (Remebr folks, by October, although planning for Barbarossa had commenced, for a time without Hitler's knowledge or bidding, war with Stalin was still not a certainty.)

joeap
05-10-2006, 02:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Top Gun, you need to read WAY more Russian history.

Try Anthony Bevoir or John Erickson. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read both, and Richard Overy and David Glantz as well. But you missed this point made by Top-Gun: "shaped the european landscape or territory to what it is today"

A divided Europe in other words....rather than all Red (or if Patton had his way red white and blue).

Wigwham
05-10-2006, 02:43 AM
I'm coming around to Adams view that BoB was the most decisive battle having previously thought it was Stalingrad. If the Germans had won at Stalingrad then the Soviets would have retreated a little more into the vastness the process would be repeated somewhere else.The name of the city is significant but the eventual outcome would be the same.However if the British lose BoB and are forced to make peace where does the world go from there ?
I'd be interested in what you guys think would have been the outcome of peace talks given that Hitler was generally well disposed towards the British Empire and had hoped for a grand alliance with Britain prior to 1939 ?

WOLFMondo
05-10-2006, 03:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Top Gun, you need to read WAY more Russian history.

Try Anthony Bevoir or John Erickson. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Robert Service has also published some good books on Soviet history. His biography on Stalin is interesting to say the least.

Adam906
05-10-2006, 03:42 AM
WOOHOO!!! A convert! *Adam906 laughs evilly*

As for peace talks with the British, they most certainly would have included the return of British colonies in what is now New Guinea (which raises the interesting question of the Pacific war and its course and the Japanese idea of 7 sacred islands!) The severity of terms would also have depended upon just how long it took for the British to "see sense." I don't think that English peace in 1940 would have affected British [Commonwealth] intentions much as the British government and monarchy would simply have shifted to the relatively safety of Canada and ruled in exile from there. Given the beligernacy with which Britain persisted - and again, this depends upon how long Britain held out against German wishes - the country would have been occupied, or at least garrisoned to varying degrees.

As far as Pacific eventualities are concerned, I think the Japanese would have moved immediately on Hong Kong, maybe even Singapore which would have had the effect that Australia and New Zealand would become the main focus of Japanese intentions for 1941. Given the realitively weak ability of these two countries to arm themselves (Not much on NZ a/c designs but the Australians only noteworthy contribution was the Wirraway and Boomerang - neither comparable to Japanese designs of the time) they would have been found themselves in a very desperate situation. With Germany now able to completely focus on the Continent, Russia perhaps would have realised the 'benefits' of Hitler's efforts in directing them towards India and headed that way. America, meanwhile, effectively finding herself flanked on both sides by beligerant nations, would have beefed up its security and defense measures and become more mindful of Japanese expansionism (riding on the back of German victory, and using the sentiments of peace and defeat among the Allied nations). Whether Pearl Harbour would still eventuate is another matter, but mindful of the hostile environment the US was now in globally, it is doubtful the reports of Japanes aircraft that did get through on the morning of 7 December would have been treated the way they were. Italy, of course, would have bumbled on its way to a new 'Holy Roman Empire'.

It would have been difficult but I don't think the status quo created by British defeat in 1940 would have lasted long given Stalin's expansionist dreams, and Hitler's ultimate failure to abide by Bolshevism and his crusade on Jews. As long as Australia and New Zealand could hold out against Japan in the Pacific, hopefully aided by America and Canada, then all that was needed was patience in waiting for the ultimate confrontation between Stalin and Hitler, at which point the western Allies simply jump in again on the side of "good". The "world War" of 1940 might have faded in 1940 to just widespread war, but the war sparked off in Poland in 1939, I don't think, would have died in 1940 - it would have continued, and simmered until such time as the British government (and make no mistake, it would not have given up despite the actions of 1940) had opportunity to get back into Europe and drag America along with it. If this meant via Russia or by way of Japan, is irrelevant.

Wigwham
05-10-2006, 03:57 AM
Do you know what peace terms where on offer to the British before BoB . I doubt very much whether this would have included an occupying force. I'm trying to get my mind around why the British carried on fighting when the situation looked hopeless instead of concluding a peace which was no doubt what the Germans wanted too.If you look at the very benign occupation of the British Channel Islands (Jersey etc) it would seem Britain would have been treated fairly well, by Nazi Standards anyway.This may also have led to a re unification of France since the Germans wouldn't have needed a security zone on the French western coast either.

bazzaah2
05-10-2006, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
Bazzaah: I'm still not convinced of your logic. In late July to mid-August the German plan to advance on Moscow in the face of an unbroken enemy was not strategically sound, given that neither the northern flank (Lenningrad) or southern flank (Kiev) of Army Group Centre had been secured or that AGC had no strategic reserves. However, for purpose of argument I will assume the risk was taken and that Moscow, along with the Soviet state, falls. However, the entire Russian state does fall under Nazi rule and a new semi-autocratic 'Russia' (eastern provinces) comes into existance, still struggling with Japanese expansion. (There is no reason to think part of German peace demands would have been directed at benefiting Japanese war in Manchuria)

As stipulated in my previous post, Japan and America still enter the war and Kokoda and the defeat of the Japanese Army there still occurs due to time constraints with-holding the Germans from battle (if indeed they are inclined to join in). It can be assumed that next to no Russian volunteers join the Japanese cause. Also, with Stalin defeated (though talk about the fire or the frying pan choice!) Russians don't exactly flock to the Nazi flag either.


1942 still brings Malta. However, given massive re-inforcements Germany wins El Alemein and captures Cairo. Peace in the Med. ensues. American troops and material on their way for Operation Torch (Nov. '42) are redirected to the Pacific. German assistance there (assuming they are willing) takes time to take effect. Allied weight of numbers in the Pacific takes immediate effect and Japan crumbles quicker than it did historically. Assuming German intervention in the Pacific, it arrives in dribs and drabs until early '43, by which time the Allies have had at least 6 months enjoying the benefits of single focused attention in the region (First battle of El Alemein was July '42). Meanwhile Britain assumes the same position it did in 1940: massively defensive, holding war until Pacific theatre sorted out. American lend lease aide now flowing to Britain instead of Russia, Britain no longer burdened with supplying aide to Russia. All merchant shipping used in Russian convoys now directed to convoys to America. Attempts at a straqtegic bomber war all but halted in preference to fighter production and pilot training (as with BoB). American bombers sent to the Pacific instead

1943, given vast numerical advantage in the theatre, Allies overwhelm Japanes forces, knocking on the door of Japanese home islands by late '43. All that Germany can affer to Japan is oil, troops, aircraft and tanks. Convoys to Japan from Germany interdicted by massive USAAF bomber fleets (not burdened with the war in either Europe or the Med.) Little effect trickles through, in time for combined/US offensive on home islands.

1944, massive casualties incurred by Japan end with her knocked out of the war (either directly or thanks to peace negotiations). American intents now focused on Europe. Entire US/Canada/British Commonwealth economy now focused on defeat of Hitler.

1945. Advent of atomic bomb. Bye Bye Berlin (and most of western Europe, but hey....) Assuming Britain not willing to sanction such a weapon so close to her borders or because of MAD theory, Allies focus their attentions of the 'new' Russian state and supplying it with arms from which to launch an attack on the expanded Reich, all the while chipping away at outlying German acquisitions.

OK so it's full of holes, but the defeat of Russia in 41 no more guarantees German victory in Europe than my scenarios does for the Allies.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm away from home and away from my books but I don't think it true to say that with Army Group Centre faced an unbroken enemy while it contemplated an attack on Moscow in August 41. I'll have to check troop dispostions but from what I recall Moscow was pretty much there for the taking, something like 50 full strength Wehrmacht divisons against 30 Soviet of mixed strength and ability. I am sure that Wehrmacht was against Hitler's decision to divert to the Ukraine and I think Hitler was more motivated by securing Ukrainian grain production than by securing Army Group Centre's flanks.

So what you're saying is that with the USSR out of the war the Allies would eventually have to invade and defeat Nazi dominated Europe through China. That would have been a dreadful situation for the Allies to face. Think of the length of logitstical chains to keep the Allies front line supplied.

Probably you're right in that supplies would have made their way to support an extended partisan operation by whatever 'state' would have followed the USSR, so the Germans' eastern border would have been less than secure.

An effective German victory in Europe may well have inclined the US to look exclusively to the Pacific and write off Europe as a lost cause, with a cold war ensuing between the US and Germany and Britain abandoned to its fate. There was a strong isolationist sentiment in the US prior to December 41 and I think a German victory prior to this would have merely made that sentiment stronger still.

While Britain may have received more lend lease than it did with the USSR in the war, we would still have been unable to launch a seaborne invasion against a Eurpose defended by a largely intact Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht. Britain may well have been forced to come to terms with the Nazis through the collapse of the USSR but as I as I said above much would have depended on the US - I'm not sure that we could have relied on them to keep us going.

I do think that BoB was a turning point since it dispelled the myth of German invincibility.

And fo course Britain being forced out of the war would have given the Japs free reign in Burma and India and so could have strengethened the Japanese position in Asia. Still, they would have lost anyway I feel.

thefruitbat
05-10-2006, 04:39 AM
Hi adam906, i used to think that BoB was the most important battle of WWII, in fact last year i posted this,

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m...641076223#5641076223 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5641076223/r/5641076223#5641076223)

During the course of this thread, and reading various replies i kinda shifted to the eastern front, although i still see it as an extreamly important event in the war. But for it to be the most decisive battle, it would have to be the pivitol moment in the war, and since germany and ussr were still allied at this point that cant be so. I would however offer bob as the biggest thorn in a side that history has ever seen though!

I belive that dday was the most important battle from a POST war perspective, as otherwise western europe would have suffered just as eastern europe did under stalin, But with regards to ww2, the result was already certain unless germany developed the bomb first.

It was the russian front where the germans were beaten beyond the point of recovery imo, and stlingrad was the pivitol moment in this struggle, the detruction of moral almost on a par with that of men and material. the more i read on the eatern front the more it amazes me. the sheer scale of the slaughter is not comparable with any other conflict that i can think off. it truly was total war.

One question, Do you think stalin would of stayed in moscow in 41, as i belive he did state? I dont think he would of done, based purley on how dictartors are loath to give up there dictatorships until there is nothing left. I dont understand why people assume that, if you capture the capital of a country that the war is over. Russia had already moved its capital once in its recent history to avoid this situation, and they could have done the same thing again, and pulled back behind the urals. and then the war would continue...

cheers fruitbat

Adam906
05-10-2006, 04:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bazzaah2: I'm away from home and away from my books but I don't think it true to say that with Army Group Centre faced an unbroken enemy while it contemplated an attack on Moscow in August 41. I'll have to check troop dispostions but from what I recall Moscow was pretty much there for the taking, something like 50 full strength Wehrmacht divisons against 30 Soviet of mixed strength and ability. I am sure that Wehrmacht was against Hitler's decision to divert to the Ukraine and I think Hitler was more motivated by securing Ukrainian grain production than by securing Army Group Centre's flanks.

So what you're saying is that with the USSR out of the war the Allies would eventually have to invade and defeat Nazi dominated Europe through China. That would have been a dreadful situation for the Allies to face. Think of the length of logitstical chains to keep the Allies front line supplied.

Probably you're right in that supplies would have made their way to support an extended partisan operation by whatever 'state' would have followed the USSR, so the Germans' eastern border would have been less than secure.

An effective German victory in Europe may well have inclined the US to look exclusively to the Pacific and write off Europe as a lost cause, with a cold war ensuing between the US and Germany and Britain abandoned to its fate. There was a strong isolationist sentiment in the US prior to December 41 and I think a German victory prior to this would have merely made that sentiment stronger still.

While Britain may have received more lend lease than it did with the USSR in the war, we would still have been unable to launch a seaborne invasion against a Eurpose defended by a largely intact Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht. Britain may well have been forced to come to terms with the Nazis through the collapse of the USSR but as I as I said above much would have depended on the US - I'm not sure that we could have relied on them to keep us going.

I do think that BoB was a turning point since it dispelled the myth of German invincibility. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off, never said BoB was a turning point, merely that it was decisive. And the point has to be made that the battle for Moscow is Typhoon, what we are debating is operational objectives in August/September 1941 and not a battle for Moscow, as such.

Ultimately, whatever the Soviets had facing AGC in 8/41, it would have been supplied or assisted by either the Kiev or Kalin fronts once STAVKA realised Moscow was the objective. Any and all reserves that made it to these two fronts would have instead been directed to the Moscow front while Kiev and Kalin fronts would have been directed to perform flanking attacks on AGC regardless of cost in an attempt to slow or divert forces heading to Moscow. Don't forget, also, that fresh divisions from Siberia were beginning to trickle in - of which by end of October there were some dozen or so infantry divisions plus armour ready in reserve. In December the Russians were able to launch their counter offensives with something like 5 armies so reserves were available. Given the defence of Stalingrad and they way reinforcements were fed in peicemeal (different reason, though) there is no reason to think that the same would not have happened infront of Moscow. As units became available then they would have been thrown in. Considering the distances involved, the reserves from Siberia would have made it to the front in time to not necessarily stop the advance but keep the germans continually on the hop and put pressure on their supply system. I'm not saying Moscow was beyond reach or should have been priority, I just think we need to look at it with some perspective and operational thinking, re reserves and the Kalin and Kiev fronts ability to influence AGC advance

Also - the Allies did not necessarily have to go through China - there was India. I also don't think the US would have left Europe/Britain to its fate, especially in light of the campaign that was inevitable against the Japanese. Undistracted by the war in the Med. Europe, American forces would have had a much easier time of ripping through Japanese forces than they did. Once Japan is gone, with a surplus of military equipment there is no reason why America should just stop. Democracy was an endangered political species during the 1930s and 40s and America as much as Britain knew it.

This is not my main area of expertise or interest so I'm prepared to go along with you re:Moscow in 8/41, having said that, I'm mindful of the points listed above on any conclusions you draw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ultimately, though, which came first BoB or Moscow? BoB is won and Barbarossa might not be necessary or is greatly enhanced by the full weight of the Wehrmacht as it is relieved from operations in the west and Scandinavia at the very least...

Over to you - I'm enjoying this!

Adam906
05-10-2006, 05:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wigwham:
Do you know what peace terms where on offer to the British before BoB . I doubt very much whether this would have included an occupying force. I'm trying to get my mind around why the British carried on fighting when the situation looked hopeless instead of concluding a peace which was no doubt what the Germans wanted too.If you look at the very benign occupation of the British Channel Islands (Jersey etc) it would seem Britain would have been treated fairly well, by Nazi Standards anyway.This may also have led to a re unification of France since the Germans wouldn't have needed a security zone on the French western coast either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't, off hand, know, but the terms were generous and included the keeping of their empire and colonial assets from what I remember. As I said, I think it depended heavily upon when and in what way Britain sought peace....

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-10-2006, 05:21 AM
Britain would have been allowed to keep the Empire in return for granting Germany 'a free hand in Europe'. One thing to take into account is that in Hitler's warped world, the English were a Germanic people; before he came up against against British stubbornness and bombs were exchanged over various cities he quite respected the British - even if he did feel he could walk all over them. I was reading an article recently that mentioned how the German hierarchy had big problems with British and Commonwealth POWs of all ranks and their genuine unshakeable belief that the Allies would win the war. Goebbels was set to ban them from working on German farms as their attitude was infectious and might convert any of the populace they came into contact with.

carguy_
05-10-2006, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
Read up on why Britain declared war... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You will see me take such quotes into discussion everytime I see any.

Perfect example of a typical western ally citizen knowing why GB declared war.You ppl make me sick when you say that you helped Poland - the very first country to fight/oppose Hitler when it was for sure it couldn`t win that war.GB and France are traitors to Poland.No military actions had been taken,no nothing,no help.You were just looking how Germans murder Poles and Jews.Cities with no military meaning bombed,children going on their first day to school killed.Imigrants escaping from cities straffed on the roads.And all you do is throw some ******* leaflets telling Germans to stop the war.
The east how you call it remembers how you treated your ally - Poles,Czechs.You did nothing,you left your ally alone to die.
Declaring war had no sense whatsoever.The 3rd Reich would have attacked you boys regardless.
The underground movement had to organise itself from scratch,no nominal help from GB/France.
Eastern pilots downing hundreds of German planes in BoB,serving on multiple fronts contributing to victory - after the war pursued by British nation for being a "danger" to peace and GB economy and exiled back to communist country and left alone again to be slaves.
Eastern allies which were lied to from the very start of WWII till the end.
Western "allies" are not viewed as de facto allies.For eastern nations that is just a label.

Warsaw uprising,Jewish uprising left by western allies with no help,Auschwitz bombing project cancelled.

You may ban me as h3ll,I aint gonna change my mind.I speak what Westerplatte heroes said when they knew that the help they hoped for never came.I speak for old combatants who experienced terror of war,fought nazis,communists just to be left alone by British government.So many died in vain.We will never forget the treason.

whiteladder
05-10-2006, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you look at the very benign occupation of the British Channel Islands (Jersey etc) it would seem Britain would have been treated fairly well, by Nazi Standards anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Benign if you weren`t Jewish!. The same aryanisation of business and deportations to concentration camps happened in the Channel Islands as the rest of Europe. I don`t see any reason to think the Germans would have treated the much vaster Jewish community on the mainland any differently.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-10-2006, 05:46 AM
Yo! Carguy,
http://www.polandinexile.com/#
Don't ever think I'm unaware of how my country left Poland in the lurch. Poles not even welcome as part of the 1945 victory parade in London. Was it my (unstated) views or my nationality that got your back up? Take a chill pill, dude.

Adam906
05-10-2006, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wigwham:
I'm coming around to Adams view that BoB was the most decisive battle having previously thought it was Stalingrad. If the Germans had won at Stalingrad then the Soviets would have retreated a little more into the vastness the process would be repeated somewhere else.The name of the city is significant but the eventual outcome would be the same.However if the British lose BoB and are forced to make peace where does the world go from there ?
I'd be interested in what you guys think would have been the outcome of peace talks given that Hitler was generally well disposed towards the British Empire and had hoped for a grand alliance with Britain prior to 1939 ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just realising what you said re: Stalingrad. If Stalingrad was taken then the main north south transit system for Russia would be cut and the Germans would have had easy access to Baku/Maikop oil facilities. Considering the massive proportion of oil this metropolis produced for the Soviets, the fall of Stalingrad could only mean the failure of Russian oil supplies which invariably leads to the failure of Russian war capacity. Even if Stalingrad is taken/Russian offensive fails and the onset of winter means further offensive action has to be halted and the German settle into winter quarters, the oil fields are still easily within reach of the Luftwaffe which can set about targeting the oil facilities. Although by November/December the VVS had heavily re-inforced the area and the Luftwaffe had been fritted away bombing Stalingrad into rubble, the complex is so large that even night time sorties on a small scale are bound to meet with a measure of success. Given the complexity of night interception and the limited capacity of the VVS to do so - especially in the southern sector - even meagre Luftwaffe forces could still make an impact on oil production. Also, given the difficulties - as Kuwait showed - in extinguishing oil fires, the glow and billowing smoke would be dead give away target markers. Hitler might have wanted the oil but if after Stalingrad (assuming it is successfully taken) he couldn't have it - at least for the time being - then he could easily have denied it the Soviets, too. That he did not do this during August - December was more about a)the rapid advances the army made giving no reason to think the Germans could not capture the oil fields - thereby the bombing would be counter-productive (in fact I think Maikop was captured for a time), and b)with the speed and effect of the Soviet offensive to encircle 6th army, many Luftwaffe formations, exhausted by the battles above Stalingrad in the recent months, had more pressing demands placed upon them. Ie ground support and supply drops..

Stalingrad was for Russia what the Battle of Britain was for England - do or die.

panther3485
05-10-2006, 08:19 AM
carguy_,

Being of mostly British parentage, let me say now, that I am deeply ashamed of how badly Poland (and Czechoslovakia) were let down.

IMHO, it is not something for our people (or, for that matter, the Western Allies generally) to be proud of.

Having said this, I believe there is also quite a lot that we do have to be proud of, in connection with WW2 - but the outcomes for Poles, Czechs and others were cetainly not highlights - for them or for us.

And the people of those countries, generally speaking IMHO, were undoubtedly among the bravest and most stoic you could possibly expect to find - as well as doing their utmost for the Allied cause, in many cases, even after their countries had fallen and/or been divided. All the more reason why we should have tried harder to help them, I believe.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


panther3485

luftluuver
05-10-2006, 08:28 AM
carguy,
I would be interested in how the Brits would have got troops to Poland, and in time, to have some effect on the outcome of the Sept 39 battle.

The western Allies wanted to help with the Warsaw Uprising but the Soviets would not let them. So how would they have helped?

ploughman
05-10-2006, 08:32 AM
It baffles me how most of the emotion and vitriol is expended not on the perpertrators of various atrocities, invasions and subjugations, but on those allied to the countries who suffered them. It's like the old adage "Britain will fight to the last Frenchman," and I find it largely inexplicable.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/tyne-cot-cemetery-13.jpg

Breeze147
05-10-2006, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whiteladder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you look at the very benign occupation of the British Channel Islands (Jersey etc) it would seem Britain would have been treated fairly well, by Nazi Standards anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Benign if you weren`t Jewish!. The same aryanisation of business and deportations to concentration camps happened in the Channel Islands as the rest of Europe. I don`t see any reason to think the Germans would have treated the much vaster Jewish community on the mainland any differently. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The gestapo on Jersey, with the complicit help of the local constabulary, rounded up the 3 Jews on the island, all of them women, and sent them to the European mainland for "relocation". All three died at Auschwitz.

Draw your own conclusions.

panther3485
05-10-2006, 09:04 AM
Hi there, Ploughman

Quote:
"It baffles me how most of the emotion and vitriol is expended not on the perpetrators of various atrocities, invasions and subjugations, but on those allied to the countries who suffered them. It's like the old adage "Britain will fight to the last Frenchman," and I find it largely inexplicable."

Now here I must be inclined to agree, and that's part of what I meant when I said, "I believe there is also quite a lot that we do have to be proud of, in connection with WW2"

We may not have done much (and arguably would have had difficulty trying) to help Poland directly in 1939. But what we did do (from then onwards at least) was to staunchly and resolutely oppose the rotten regime that was perpetrating these evils - and continued to fight it even at the darkest time when it seemed that we, also, might go under (and much of the World thought we would succumb) - and doggedly continued the struggle to its final and bitter end.

As for the 'Last Frenchman' thing, I also find that ludicrous in view of the amount of British, Commonwealth and other Allied blood that was spilled on French soil in both World Wars , trying either to halt and throw back a German invasion or liberate France from Nazi oppression.


Best regards,
panther3485

whiteladder
05-10-2006, 09:30 AM
The total Jewish population of the Island was defined by the germans themselves as

"The Higher SS and Police Leaders in Paris ordered Dr Casper to report the number of Jews resident in the islands. In his report dated 17 June 1942 Dr. Casper listed the registered Jews remaining in the islands subsequent to the deportation of Therese Steiner, Auguste Spitz and Marianne Grunfeld who had been uncovered as a Jew:

In Jersey:
7 British nationals
1 Egyptian national
1 German national (this is a hand-written correction)
2 Romanian nationals (also a hand-written correction)
In Guernsey:
2 British nationals (again a hand-written correction).
The list does not include Annie Wranowsky of Sark who was seeminglyattempting to prove that she was not a Jew."

After the first deportation there was a second in retaliation of the British interning German Nationals in Iraq

"The Nebenstelle€s own lists detail the Jews included in the deportation and include notes confirming that each were deported specifically
because they were Jews. These lists note:

To Lager Compiegne:
Elda Brouard (stated reason for deportation €˜Jew€)
Elisabet Duquemin (stated reason for deportation €˜Jew€)
Janet Duquemin, aged 18 months (deported as child of Elisabet)


The Jersey Feldkommandantur lists note:
To Lager Compiegne:

Alfred Bertie Still
Ruby Ellen Still
Michael Lewis Still
John Max Finkelstein
Esther Pauline Lloyd.
To Lager Laufen:
Henry Duquemin (stated reason for deportation €˜Wife is a Jew€)
"


Most of the second group manage to survive being sent to the concentration camps.

And Breeze is correct in stating that in line with the civil authorities in the rest of occupied Europe the Channel island authorities were at least complicit in the deportations.

WWMaxGunz
05-10-2006, 09:38 AM
There wasn't much that Britain could have done to change the outcome in Poland. If they had
troops and equipment in place then there wouldn't have been much effect, and no way that prior
to the attack itself that Poland would have allowed it. When the attack came there was how
long before the end? But still there could have been some heroes run to go die in Poland just
to say it was done.

Britain had a whole force in France and still lost even though the Germans had a long travel
to get there and fight. Many Pz I's and II's did not make it for the initial attack. Still
France surrendered just a bit early and the Brits got kicked out minus most of their weapons.
The German envoy to the Brit Ambassador in Switzerland reminded him of that very fact, that
once the channel was crossed the result was certain. That is what Britain gave up. But they
did have to get huge forces moved and organized to start battle, it is not like packing up a
lunch and touring down the highway. And still they lost.

There should be no bad blood about it. That is something from people who don't want to know
facts and live in very small world with small ways and kept to those between propaganda and
personal agendas. No matter what Britain could send in short time, the end would be loss and
the people with the hate would still say it was not enough.

Want to blame? Blame all for waiting too long and letting that nut pick and further divide
what was already divided, the reason for problems to begin with. No joint exercises and no
real sharing, each stood to their own in pride of their own and making profits not friends.

bazzaah2
05-10-2006, 09:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bazzaah2: I'm away from home and away from my books but I don't think it true to say that with Army Group Centre faced an unbroken enemy while it contemplated an attack on Moscow in August 41. I'll have to check troop dispostions but from what I recall Moscow was pretty much there for the taking, something like 50 full strength Wehrmacht divisons against 30 Soviet of mixed strength and ability. I am sure that Wehrmacht was against Hitler's decision to divert to the Ukraine and I think Hitler was more motivated by securing Ukrainian grain production than by securing Army Group Centre's flanks.

So what you're saying is that with the USSR out of the war the Allies would eventually have to invade and defeat Nazi dominated Europe through China. That would have been a dreadful situation for the Allies to face. Think of the length of logitstical chains to keep the Allies front line supplied.

Probably you're right in that supplies would have made their way to support an extended partisan operation by whatever 'state' would have followed the USSR, so the Germans' eastern border would have been less than secure.

An effective German victory in Europe may well have inclined the US to look exclusively to the Pacific and write off Europe as a lost cause, with a cold war ensuing between the US and Germany and Britain abandoned to its fate. There was a strong isolationist sentiment in the US prior to December 41 and I think a German victory prior to this would have merely made that sentiment stronger still.

While Britain may have received more lend lease than it did with the USSR in the war, we would still have been unable to launch a seaborne invasion against a Eurpose defended by a largely intact Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht. Britain may well have been forced to come to terms with the Nazis through the collapse of the USSR but as I as I said above much would have depended on the US - I'm not sure that we could have relied on them to keep us going.

I do think that BoB was a turning point since it dispelled the myth of German invincibility. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off, never said BoB was a turning point, merely that it was decisive. And the point has to be made that the battle for Moscow is Typhoon, what we are debating is operational objectives in August/September 1941 and not a battle for Moscow, as such.

Ultimately, whatever the Soviets had facing AGC in 8/41, it would have been supplied or assisted by either the Kiev or Kalin fronts once STAVKA realised Moscow was the objective. Any and all reserves that made it to these two fronts would have instead been directed to the Moscow front while Kiev and Kalin fronts would have been directed to perform flanking attacks on AGC regardless of cost in an attempt to slow or divert forces heading to Moscow. Don't forget, also, that fresh divisions from Siberia were beginning to trickle in - of which by end of October there were some dozen or so infantry divisions plus armour ready in reserve. In December the Russians were able to launch their counter offensives with something like 5 armies so reserves were available. Given the defence of Stalingrad and they way reinforcements were fed in peicemeal (different reason, though) there is no reason to think that the same would not have happened infront of Moscow. As units became available then they would have been thrown in. Considering the distances involved, the reserves from Siberia would have made it to the front in time to not necessarily stop the advance but keep the germans continually on the hop and put pressure on their supply system. I'm not saying Moscow was beyond reach or should have been priority, I just think we need to look at it with some perspective and operational thinking, re reserves and the Kalin and Kiev fronts ability to influence AGC advance

Also - the Allies did not necessarily have to go through China - there was India. I also don't think the US would have left Europe/Britain to its fate, especially in light of the campaign that was inevitable against the Japanese. Undistracted by the war in the Med. Europe, American forces would have had a much easier time of ripping through Japanese forces than they did. Once Japan is gone, with a surplus of military equipment there is no reason why America should just stop. Democracy was an endangered political species during the 1930s and 40s and America as much as Britain knew it.

This is not my main area of expertise or interest so I'm prepared to go along with you re:Moscow in 8/41, having said that, I'm mindful of the points listed above on any conclusions you draw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ultimately, though, which came first BoB or Moscow? BoB is won and Barbarossa might not be necessary or is greatly enhanced by the full weight of the Wehrmacht as it is relieved from operations in the west and Scandinavia at the very least...

Over to you - I'm enjoying this! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Barbarossa would always have taken place, just because of Hitler's rabid hatred of Communism.

The timing of Typhoon was crucial of course. It could have taken place in August/September. That's really my point and it was the change in objectives ordered by Hitler that most likely caused the failure of Barbarossa. I should really have said that the most decisive battle was not really a battle at all, but rather the decison to divert AGC to the Ukraine when it could have taken Moscow.

As you point out there remains the possibility that the Soviets could have prevented Typhoon from taking place in August, but again I'm away from my books and can't really counter what you have said in any detail.(you'll have to wait till Friday, at the gf's at the mo' and hopefully this thread will manage not to be locked before then). I am doubtful that the Soviet forces could have mustered much of a challenge against AGC, all the more since Army Group South could have been used to counter diversionary attacks made by Soviet forces in the Ukraine.

And of course with Moscow gone (even if just encircled), the remaining Soviet forces would have faced crippling supply shortages due to the loss of the transport hub of the USSR, reversed fronts and so on. I think the whole shooting match in the East could have effectively been wrapped up by March '42.

I agree that logistical issues and in particular the supply of cold weather clothing remain a concern, even with Moscow fallen; never understood why the Germans didn't count on winter in Russia being cold!

Of course even if the Germans had secured something like victory in the BoB (let's define it as the collapse of Fighter Command in the South) then Britain need not necessarily have been forced to the 'negotiating' table.

As I'm sure you know, Sea Lion was wargamed at Sandhurst in the late 60s by British and German generals (including Galland and at least one of the German generals involved in planning Sea Lion). The most likely outcome was initial success but ultimate German failure. So even if we had lost the airwar and refused to accept Geman terms, SeaLion would have most likely failed.

So unless our domestic political situation forced us to deal with the Nazis once we were no longer able to defend southern England from German air attack, I think Barbarossa would have taken place with Britain still in the war.

How do you see the Germans taking Britain out of the war? The Luftwaffe's defeat of the RAF was clearly a necessary but insufficient condition for victory. I suppose the real danger would have been the political pressure placed on Churchill by the collapse of Fighter Command and I wonder whether he could have survived that.

About Soviet oil supply, the loss of Stalingrad would have been a big blow but to deny Soviet access to oil would have required the Germans to cross the Volga and take Astrakhan as well and gain control of the Caspian.

Tater-SW-
05-10-2006, 10:16 AM
Pearl Harbor. It was an abject failure both militarily, and strategically.

Strat:
It put the US into the war. Game over, axis, a wartime US economy thrown into full swing was unbeatable.

It put the US into the Pacific War in a way that ensured Japanese defeat. The japanese war plan required a short war to "win." Winning defined by them as a negotiated peace where they could give away some conquests and keep the oil-rich "southern resource areas." Pearl Harbor ended ANY possibility of a negotiated peace on Japan's terms, it got our blood up.

Militarily:
Failed to do grave harm to the US ability to wage war in the Pacifc. Only 2 BBs were really sunk, the rest were beached. The BBs were already obsolite, as the IJN demonstrated, yet they continued to plan as if they were the heart of the fleet. They didn't take out the US bunker oil reserves. They didn't attack the sub fleet, etc, ad nauseum. They needed to do far worse to us to even begin to make up for the fact that they lost all opportunity for negotiated peace, that was a priceless loss because their entire (lame) war plan depended upon it.

Also, as I said above, it was the first shot, and they utterly failed to learn the lesson they themselves taught the USN.

tater

panther3485
05-10-2006, 10:31 AM
Hi there, bazzaah2


Quote:
"Of course even if the Germans had secured something like victory in the BoB (let's define it as the collapse of Fighter Command in the South) then Britain need not necessarily have been forced to the 'negotiating' table.....

So unless our domestic political situation forced us to deal with the Nazis once we were no longer able to defend southern England from German air attack, I think Barbarossa would have taken place with Britain still in the war.

How do you see the Germans taking Britain out of the war? The Luftwaffe's defeat of the RAF was clearly a necessary but insufficient condition for victory. I suppose the real danger would have been the political pressure placed on Churchill by the collapse of Fighter Command and I wonder whether he could have survived that."


Pardon me for cutting in here but IMHO, you've hit the nail right on it's most probable head here.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Following the collapse of Fighter Command's ability to defend British airspace over the South East (had that happened), I firmly believe there would have been a strong possibility of Churchill's defeat in Parliament.

He also had many strong political enemies at home, some of whom would have been more than delighted at the opportunity to 'turn the tables' on him, in the event of British defeat in BoB and the generally perceived threat of imminent invasion. IMHO, British success at defending their airspace helped to ensure survival on more than one level!

With Churchill out, Britain would be at the negotiating table and Hitler would have had what he wanted - his 'free hand in Europe', and the ability to concentrate more fully on attacking the Soviet Union without the threat of a war on two or more fronts - at least not for some time. (Nothing much to stop Mussolini in the Mediterranean either.)

No need to say what I think the consequences of this scenario would be!


Best regards,
panther3485

bazzaah2
05-10-2006, 10:54 AM
I think you're right Panther.

The only way Hitler would have been able to start Barbarossa without Britain in the war would have been for British political will to collapse prior to Sea Lion taking place.

Invasion would most likely have been a humiliation for Hitler but collapse of Fighter Command would probably have made Churchill's position untenable. Maybe the floppy haired, limp wristed aristos of the Mitford mould would have been sipping champers in Berlin in 1941.

Thank God for Dowding. Another insufficiently recognised British hero.

But really I suppose we need to thank those German airmen who accidentally bombed London.

gates123
05-10-2006, 11:41 AM
1.Malta
2.Kursk
3.Anzio/Cassino
4.Guadalcanal/Bouganville
5.Ardennes '44

Treetop64
05-10-2006, 11:53 AM
Sorry, didn't read through the seven plus pages of replies.

Hands-down I'd have to say that the single most significant "decisive battle" of the war was Stalingrad.

norman888
05-10-2006, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
I am currently working on my thesis concerning certain aspects of German aerial operations during WWII, which is why I say the Battle of Britain in Europe is the most decisive battle, for several reasons.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to take away any glory of The Battle of Britain, but everyone should remember The Battle of France. The Luftwaffe suffered over 1,200 aircraft losses in a months time-which would have been VERY handy against the UK.

Hitler's orders to stop the Panzers before Dunkirk was also a very crucial mistake that allowed the BOB to take place.

han freak solo
05-10-2006, 01:33 PM
If no one has brought it up, yet.

Consider the importance of the Battle of Evermore.

That battle could have swung either way changing our history forever.

Mjollnir111675
05-10-2006, 04:47 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

S!

"Whoever claims he has never perceived an oppressive feeling of fear has certainly never been to the front. The prerequisite for bravery is fear,just as the fear of dying and the uncertainty of what follows this earthly existence are the prerequisites for the origin and existence of every religion." Otto Carius

Adam906
05-10-2006, 05:06 PM
I hear what you're saying, bazzaah. I also agree that Barbarossa would have eventually happened. However, if the collapse of the RAF had occurred over southern England in early September, (when the political pressure from the Soviets was increasing, but was not a decisive point which necessitated Hitler's immediate attention or solution) then the political initiative would have then returned to Hitler who had lost it in July with Britain's failure to sue for peace. Once Seelowe commenced, I don't see Hitler giving in to peace demands until he had conquered the country completely. As for the wargames of the 60's I'm not aware completely of their findings, but I don't think they accurately represented what might have happened. The Channel had been closed, the RN was, although waiting on the wings, held at bay enough that the first crossing of the invasion force would be able to make the journey without interception (possibly with a little luck, a fair proportion of landing barges being able to return for a second trip). This puts ashore several divisions which would find opposition light, if at all existant, (and is nothing to say of the paratroopers efforts) and once the nearest airfield is secured the Ju 52s and transport 111s as a last resort come into play. The momement the first Ju 52s touch down with heavy equipment it's all over, IMHO. Anyway, I'm getting off track.

If the Germans achieve victory over the RAF in souterhn England and force them back, the political backlash is such that Churchill would have found it very difficult to retain order. The will of the nation rested on the RAFs ability to withhold the Luftwaffe from noticeable success. Once that victory was achieved morale would have crumbled into a substantial panic, therefore the political substitution that was in essence the

UGH!!!! Sorry the gf just walked through wearing nothing but a g-string and I've lost my train of thought!

Start again: If the Luftwaffe defeated the RAF and set the preconditions for Sea Lion, then Hitler would have been more willing to buy Stalin off with his demands in the Balkans, instead of denying/stalling them as he had done to this point. In order to gain time for England to be defeated he would need not to be distracted by politics in the Balkans, hence he would have been more likely to asquiesce to Stalin's demands. With the invasion/peace treaty of Britain he would then have a free hand to re-inforce his interests in the Balkans, by which stage the stage was either set for Barbarossa without distraction, or Stalin would have realised the political initiative had once again passed back to Hitler (who had lost it in July 1940 when he could not put an end to the war by making peace with Britain).

Thus, BoB becomes decisve because it defines the nature of the political stresses that were in effect not only amongst Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, but also the tension between Germany and Russia over the Blakans and to a lesser degree, Finland. Victory for Germany hands the political initiative to Hitler, along with providing him almost his entire striking force (albeit mauled by BoB and/or invasion). Yet given what we know of Soviet military capabilities during '41, there is little to suggest that this would have matter substantially. Failure in the BoB left the political initiative in the hands of Russia, though it was Mussolini who grasped it and used it to invade Greece and Yugoslavia, thus destroying the peace so desperate to Hitler in the Balkans.

As for the Battle of France, yes it was important but it was not decisive, I would even argue that Dunkirk was not especially important. It would have become more important if Sea Lion was launched and whether the invasion was a failure or not would have determined whether Dunkirk was decisive or not. As it was, despite loosing some 1200 a/c the Luftwaffe was still able to batter the RAF and close the Channel to shipping during August. That it failed in the BoB was more about the Luftwaffes inability to define its role in the overall strategy for Sea Lion and the Luftwaffe and Kuestenflieger's failure to achieve unity of purpose (which again, are not entirely relevant here)

Forcing the RAF from southern England gave the tactical initiative supported by strong strategic opportunity to the Germans. As stated above the first wave of invasion transports could conceivably have made it across the channel and coupled with paratroops, even if only a small beachhead is gained, it still alows the build up of materials via the Ju 52s even if only airdropped supplies (thanks to the RAFs inability to actively influence the area above the beach head having lost the battle for air superiority). Not only this, but 109s can stay longer over England because, while exceedingly wasteful, (and assuming there is no forward landing strip) a pilot merely belly lands in the beach head and lives to fight another day. The invasion would not have been a walk over, but I don't think it would have been defeated. Once a beach head - no matter how small - was secured - especially if a landing strip was captured or even built if only for fighters then the RN becomes irrelevant as all supplies are transferred via air (except tanks - which provisions were made for in the initial wave landing, IIRC)

Barbarossa still happens, but if the BoB is won then the war in Europe is brought to a close (politically or militarily) and thus this argument comes to a close as Barbarossa does not happen, in the context that it did. If necessary, Hitler buys off Stalin until until Britain is subdued militarily - which would not have taken until June '41, the Brits simply did not have the forces adequately supplied (however, there still might have been pockets of resistence behind the lines that needed constant attention). The deals with Russia/Stalin/Bolshevism. This, then, becomes a new and seperate war as distinct from the European confligaration which saw the defeat of Poland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Britain. Hence the decisive nature of the BoB

redfeathers1948
05-10-2006, 08:44 PM
STALINGRAD

Adam906
05-10-2006, 09:02 PM
People seem to be missing the point - go look up 'decisive'. It means to decide something, to finalise an issue, to be conclusive.

If Germany wins BoB then then it is the decisive battle because it decides the outcome of the war in Europe. Ie Britian either sues for peace or it initiates Seelowe with the eventual collapse of Britain. Whatever happens post BoB in Russia is completely irrelevant UNLESS war with Russia commences BEFORE the end of hostilities with Britain. If this is the case BoB is still relevant because it frees the hand of the Germans to concnetrate solely on Russia.

If Germany loses BoB then we follow the same path which was war on two fronts (Med. and East) over three theatres of operations (the West, the East and the Med).

As I said - what came first? BoB or Moscow/Stalingrad/D-Day/Dieppe/whatever. When was the first time German forces suffered a reversal of form? BoB!

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-11-2006, 12:03 AM
the russians did lose a lot of soldiers during their decisive victories,it is fair to say that the russians wins because of "safety in numbers"
not by technology or elaborate strategic planning.
The sad thing about the russians is they kill their own comrades when they retreat,as demonstrated at Stalingrad. ... its ridiculous,its "communism"

Badsight.
05-11-2006, 12:26 AM
^ Nimrod - i bet you cr4p in red white & blue as well

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-11-2006, 12:38 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

darkhorizon11
05-11-2006, 01:08 AM
Battle? The whole war was decisive, a series of interconnected battles. Sure there may be a few that "seemed" bigger, but really even small factors and seemingly insignificant triggers may caused one of these so called "decisive" battle. On the other hand some of these HUGE battles essentially accomplishing nothing but more death and destruction, heck just look at some of the WWI battles...

Puleaseeee I'm avoiding this mind dump of a thread these things pop up every other week. Moving on... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

WTE_Galway
05-11-2006, 01:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
People seem to be missing the point - go look up 'decisive'. It means to decide something, to finalise an issue, to be conclusive.

If Germany wins BoB then then it is the decisive battle because it decides the outcome of the war in Europe. Ie Britian either sues for peace or it initiates Seelowe with the eventual collapse of Britain. Whatever happens post BoB in Russia is completely irrelevant UNLESS war with Russia commences BEFORE the end of hostilities with Britain. If this is the case BoB is still relevant because it frees the hand of the Germans to concnetrate solely on Russia.

If Germany loses BoB then we follow the same path which was war on two fronts (Med. and East) over three theatres of operations (the West, the East and the Med).

As I said - what came first? BoB or Moscow/Stalingrad/D-Day/Dieppe/whatever. When was the first time German forces suffered a reversal of form? BoB! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It would say the BoB is not decisive because Germay could not win it. For something to be decisive the outcome must be in doubt.

Adam906
05-11-2006, 02:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway: I would say the BoB is not decisive because Germay could not win it. For something to be decisive the outcome must be in doubt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're still missing the point. Whether something is achievable or not is irrelevant to the term decisive. If something is commenced, or concidered, it therefore becomes something up which decision and investigation rests. All actions are decisive as they determine a sequence of events. I can't fly but if I jump off a roof and try that moment will be decisive in the fate of my ultimate state of health. I cvan't fly, but the minute my feet leave the ground the moment is decisive. The invasion for Denmark was decisive because it allowed the Luftwaffe bases closer to Norway and Scotland and Scapa Flow. The outcome was never in doubt given the relative strengths of the Danes and Germans involved in the operation, plus the Allies immediate inability to proved ground forces. The outcome of Poland was decisive as it opened the Second World War but the Allies inability to effectively help the Polish immediately and in time, coupled with the Russians grab at territory later in the campaign put Polish fate beyond doubt but it was still decisive.

All decisive means is that a decision rests upon the subject concerned, in this case, the Battle of Britain. Hence the outcome is irrelevant. Germany wins BoB, it is decisive in the fate of the western eruopean jews/the war in the West/the ability of Britain to continue resisting. IT also would, no doubt, have had a knock on effect in the Pacific and with regards to America's views on the war in Europe. Hence the decisive nature of the BoB on the war in the PAcific - even before it is commenced (for a detail of why, refer to one of my early posts)! Germany losses BoB, it is decisive in the continuation of war and the use of Britain as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" and the face off between Russia and Germany.

In the wider context of completely defeating the RAF over the entirety of Britain, as happened to the Luftwaffe in the last years of the war, I don't think that the Germans could have done that either WHILST based on the Continent. However, if they achieved their aim of clearing the Channel and southern English skies of the RAF then they would have won the Battle (whose aim was the destruction of the RAF over southern England thus facilitating an invasion of political peace agreement). Go have a read up on the BoB and see just how close the Luftwaffe came in August/September to forcing the withdrawl of RAF FC. Several fighter stations were actually effectively closed to operations for a time thanks to the hammering they received. So in that sense, yes the Germans could quite easily have won had they been more awake to the operation and its strategic needs and had decent planning for such a situation BEFORE June 1940. Hence the BoB is decisive BEFORE it is fought, also. All the battles during the war are decisive, the topic of this discussion is the most decisive battle of World War II.

German failure in the BoB facilitates all other actions during the war as Germany is unable to regain the political initiative and conclude the war it had embarked upon in 1939 with favourable conditions.


And darkhorizon11, if you find such topics distasteful, THEN DON'T READ THEM. Similarly, if you haven't got anything constructive to say, then don't say anything at all, and "move on".

Wigwham
05-11-2006, 02:25 AM
Whiteladder,breeze.

I'm sorry if you thought I was belittling any individual tragedies that took place on the Channel Islands, that was not my intention. However relative to what happened in the East it bearly gets onto the scale.I've been reading a book by Michael Burleigh The Third Reich- A New History. He said this....No Pole could have imagined conditions on the Channel Islands, where NCO's lined German troops up in front of flower beds , barking at them " You can look at the flowers, you can smell the flowers, but in no circumstances are you to pick the flowers "

ploughman
05-11-2006, 03:29 AM
I'm not sure if the Channel Island's experience of occupation is a good indicator for any occupation of Britain. I remember reading about German plans for the occupation, embryonic as they were, and they were pretty grim. Aside from a long list of individuals targetted for liquidation there were also plans to remove every male of military age to the continent. Whether or not such a plan would have been workable is another thing but it indicated that the Germans were not planning a benigh occupation. In fact it seemed more like the sort of thing they were getting up to in the East.

whiteladder
05-11-2006, 04:24 AM
Wigwham,

The point I`m was trying to make is that it is impossible for a fascist totalitarian state to have a benign occupation.

What the experience of the channel islands show is that even the smallest Jewish community ( less than 30 people) were unable to stay below the ethnic radar as it were. That the Islands were a microcosm of what happen in other occupied territories, and their Britishness offered them no extra security.

In the infamous conference chaired by Reinhard Heydrich the 330,000 British Jews were included in the planning for the final solution. Had the Nazi`s had access to them their fate would have been the same as the rest of Europes Jews

joeap
05-11-2006, 04:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
^ Nimrod - i bet you cr4p in red white & blue as well </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif Top_Gun I suggest you read Alexander Werth, David Glantz to start...vist the Russian Battlefield website and RRKA in WWII and read this on the former site.

Truth about Enemy at the Gates movie (http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=206&Itemid=108&lang=en)

Grow up boy.

Wigwham
05-11-2006, 04:53 AM
Whiteladder

I accept your point that a regime such as the Nazis were incapable of being benign as such but it's possible to be relatively benign.However I doubt Britain would have cooperated in handing over their Jewish population in any circumstances other than total defeat and occupation. I doubt whether any peace treaty taking place while the German army were still in France could have included an occupying army either.
If the British had lost BoB, having now read a bit more on the matter, I think its commonly accepted that the Germans still faced the worlds most powerful navy at that time (later to be replaced by the USN ) and would have found it very difficult to get across the channel. Any delay into 1941 would give the British time to recover since they were by now outproducing the Germans in many areas of war material (I stand to be corrected on this since I couldn't quite believe it when I read it !).
So perhaps even BoB wasn't pivitol in that Britain may have lost the air war but still avoided defeat in 1940.

WOLFMondo
05-11-2006, 05:06 AM
The trouble was though, the RN was spread out throughout the world. If it brought its fleets back to defend the home Islands other countries could have taken advantage of this.

I've no doubt that if even 50% of the Royal Navy was in the channel and ordered to stop and invasion, the German wouldn't have bothered even if there was no RAF, they could have lost there entire invasion force before it even landed on the beaches.

Adam906
05-11-2006, 06:37 AM
Ultimately, how Seelowe develops is still irrelevant. What matters is this - the fate of the war in Europe hung on the results of BoB. Without being condescending, you have to look at this as a specific point in time with NO reference to the future. Seelowe was a go if the Luftwaffe could banish the RAF from the skies over southern England AND clear the Channel of shipping by mid September at the latest (in the original draft). At this point in time there two options.

Option 1. Hitler decides against Seelowe and instead focuses his attention elsewhere (Russia) to historical detriment - ie, what actually happened (which counts as the option available to Germany in the light of failure in BoB)

Option 2. Hitler green-lights Seelowe. This now gives us a further two further options.

Option 2a. Seelowe is a major success and the war in Europe comes to an end in favour of Germany. Future battles against Russia are irrelevant because they do not form part of the European war as we know it today. It becomes a seperate war between nation states. Given Stalin's political savy and opportunism, he would NOT have gambled on marching into the Balkans until the BoB had been decided. If he does he risks Germany actually defeating Britain and having a free hand to vent the rage Hitler would undoubtedly would have seethed with at Russian betrayal.

Option 2b. The Germans are routed and pushed back into the sea with heavy casualties. German forces are in disarray and the Soviets exploit the situation and make an all-out grab for the territories in the Balkans and a new war on Finland and the balance of power is over-night shifted against the Germans.

Thus the Battle of Britain becomes THE decisive point in the history of the European war. In the Battle for France, if France failed Britain was still standing to carry on the fight. If Britain failed, then Germany stands victorious over Europe.

Churchill nailed it when he said 'never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.' Even at the time it was considered *the* decisive point in the war. (Which is not to suggest it was a turning point. I don't think that at all)

ploughman
05-11-2006, 07:04 AM
I'm not 100% sure a successfull invasion of the British Isles would have spelled the end.

"...and even if - which I do not for one moment believe - this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, will all it's power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

Churchill said this during a speech to the House of Commons after he'd won the power struggle with Halifax and determined Britain would fight rather than seek terms after Dunkirk. He clearly states that even in the event of a successfull invasion he intended for the Empire to fight on, to keep the war going until the USA could be drawn into the war one way or another. He recognised that Britain alone could not win by fighting, but would lose by not fighting. As such, the Battle of Britain may not have been so decisive inn that it might not have spelled the end of the war in the west.

Of course nobody knows for sure if the Empire would have fought on. Churchill and the King would certainly have died in the rubble of the siege of London. Who would have led the nation then? Halifax?

Here's an interesting piece of Churchillian trivia for you.

"...I tell you London will be in danger - London will be attacked and I shall be very prominent i the defence of London...I see furthe ahead than you do. I see into the future. The country will be subjected somehow to a tremendous invasion...buit I tell you I shall be in command of the defences of London and I shall save London and the Empire from disaster."

W.S. Churchill - Age 17 - to his mate M. Evans.

whiteladder
05-11-2006, 07:05 AM
Don`t Know if this has been raised already but I think the main importance of BoB was that it gave British politicians time to convince the Americans that they should become involved with a European War (again!) and showed that Britain was in a viable position to mount offensive operations in the future.

Adam906
05-11-2006, 07:11 AM
Were are the Commonwealth cuntries going to fight from? As I keep saying - the war in EUROPE is decided in the BoB

ploughman
05-11-2006, 07:14 AM
North Africa. The Middle East. India. Persia. Iraq. Palestine. The sea (big blue wobbly thing that surrounds Europe on three sides).

Adam906
05-11-2006, 07:27 AM
Try again.

The Navy gets away - big deal. The RAF can't go anywhere, except perhaps Sweden which wont take it, or Greenland then on to Canada - big deal. Assuming Greenland/Iceland will allow passage

As for colonial troops - how do you propose they actually attack Germany given none of the countries you mention have forces capable of hitting the Reich.

The only option is for those units that could escape to make there way to either Canada or Aus. NZ to regroup.

As for fighting at Sea... how is the RN replenished? The only place really that capable of supplying what is left of the Navy is Canada/America which makes for a damn long sortie against any German Shipping. on the other side of the Atlantic....

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-11-2006, 07:38 AM
Alrighty then! the russians made the largest contribution for achieving victory over the "Aryans" or nazis or crowds etc etc(.)

Lets discuss the Pacific Theater shall we!

The battle of midway is undoubtably the most decisive victory made by the or the Americans diring the Pacific campaign.From then on,the japs are on the retreat.The victory at midway paved the way for strings of victory made by the americans on the pacific.
Without this victory,Australia and new zealand are "sitting ducks" against these japs.Australia and new zealand will become hell on earth during its liberation.
Think about the koalas,kangaroos,women & children

ploughman
05-11-2006, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
Try again.

The Navy gets away - big deal. The RAF can't go anywhere, except perhaps Sweden which wont take it, or Greenland then on to Canada - big deal. Assuming Greenland/Iceland will allow passage

As for colonial troops - how do you propose they actually attack Germany given none of the countries you mention have forces capable of hitting the Reich.

The only option is for those units that could escape to make there way to either Canada or Aus. NZ to regroup.

As for fighting at Sea... how is the RN replenished? The only place really that capable of supplying what is left of the Navy is Canada/America which makes for a damn long sortie against any German Shipping. on the other side of the Atlantic.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well sure it wouldn't have been easy...but really you're missing the point.

All I'm asking you to consider is what Churchill states as his and therefore Britain's policy in the event of a successful invasion; to carry on fighting. He doesn't say carry on fighting effectively, he doesn't say carry on fighting until the Empire liberates Europe, he says carry on fighting so there's still a war in the west, no matter how feeble, so that when "..in god's God's good time..." (you can almost feel the frustration) the USA decides to get actively involved there's still a war to get involved in.

Personally, I think with Churchill gone, the King gone that would have been it, and I also think the bulk of the RN would have been destroyed in the event of a successful invasion (otherwise what's the point of it? It would have been a fairly supreme act of selflessness for Churchill to have ordered the bulk of the fleet away to preserve it in the event of invasion so that it could maintain an active state of War against the Germans/Axis powers). But the intention was there to fight on and on and I think you have to at least factor this in to an assessment of the importance of the BoB.

I've always wondered though, did Churchill ask the Candians and the Aussies and the Kiwis and the South Africans and so on if they were up for the fight too, before he 'comitted' them to unending war 'till victory cometh.' They could always have taken their balls home of course, but I do wonder.

stathem
05-11-2006, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Here's an interesting piece of Churchillian trivia for you.

"...I tell you London will be in danger - London will be attacked and I shall be very prominent i the defence of London...I see furthe ahead than you do. I see into the future. The country will be subjected somehow to a tremendous invasion...buit I tell you I shall be in command of the defences of London and I shall save London and the Empire from disaster."

W.S. Churchill - Age 17 - to his mate M. Evans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stop it Ploughman, that's scary. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-11-2006, 09:07 AM
If RAF had been beaten there would be the RN to oppose landings. Sure. And for air cover
they would have had the LW. Bad enough planes from carriers made battleships obsolete when
that would have been planes from land bases.

Britain would have fought on and formed a resistance, sure.

Would the Germans have been kicked off the Island? Wishful thinking when most all the British
heavy equipment was back at Dunkirk. Poland had more to use and the channel is very narrow.

Without the Isles to stand on and base off, any attack on Europe would have required effort
more than an order of magnitude of D-Day. Imagine trying just to supply a worthwhile effort
from clear across the Atlantic even as "close" as Greenland? Two years late? It would have
taken way much longer. To long to bring relief to Russia and too hard to send material to
Russia. With Japan in the PTO and Italy in the Med the only route to Russia would have been
over the pole and I can't see nearly the transport capacity that way to match the ships that
got through with the Brit Isles to base guardian ships and planes but instead basing German
attacks on the route instead.

If Britain had fallen then Russia would have lost a lot of help and any chance for relief
before extra years. Germany could have gotten away with less total presence in Europe and
guess where the units and supplies would go?

Decisive? What is decisive against a blitzwar is the denial of key objectives. Deny any
and the blitz stops there. If there is a threat then it has to be guarded against which
leaves the blitz with less for the next objective which must come. BoB is where the blitz
was first stopped and the outcome did spell doom for the Nazis.

Stalingrad was another such. Not only the Germans were stopped but they were held and bled
terribly. Before that, during that and after that, the whole time was Leningrad stopped,
held and bled the Germans but not so badly as Leningrad was unable to counter and destroy.

Give big points to General Winter and General Mud, Hitler underestimated the country alone
just as Napoleon did. And that country had some of the hardest people you would not want
to fight.

A shame that Stalin had the purge just before the attack. WWII could have been shorter.

Adam906
05-11-2006, 04:20 PM
Hi Ploughman,

I hear what you're saying but I don't think I'm missing the point at all. With Britain defeated resistance by the Commonwealth becomes irrelevant by virtue of sheer geography. Besides which, (and this also goes someway to answering your questions on fighting on) I think events in the Pacific would have overtaking events in Europe and forced Australia and New Zealand to ignore the plight of England and concentrate on their own survival...

I very much doubt there would have been much fight left in either country by the end to tackle Hitler unless the Americans, South Africans and Canadians at the very least, stayed committed, however it would have taken some doing.

I'm glad the decision dosn't rest on my shoulders!

With regards to Russia - I can't remember exactly where I read it, but a book I read once noted that, 'Hitler never offered the Russian peasant anything better than he already had,' which I though was a very great point!

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-11-2006, 11:52 PM
^HAHAHA^ ssshhhh.....It's communism http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

ImpStarDuece
05-12-2006, 12:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If RAF had been beaten there would be the RN to oppose landings. Sure. And for air cover
they would have had the LW. Bad enough planes from carriers made battleships obsolete when
that would have been planes from land bases.

Britain would have fought on and formed a resistance, sure.

Would the Germans have been kicked off the Island? Wishful thinking when most all the British
heavy equipment was back at Dunkirk. Poland had more to use and the channel is very narrow.

Without the Isles to stand on and base off, any attack on Europe would have required effort
more than an order of magnitude of D-Day. Imagine trying just to supply a worthwhile effort
from clear across the Atlantic even as "close" as Greenland? Two years late? It would have
taken way much longer. To long to bring relief to Russia and too hard to send material to
Russia. With Japan in the PTO and Italy in the Med the only route to Russia would have been
over the pole and I can't see nearly the transport capacity that way to match the ships that
got through with the Brit Isles to base guardian ships and planes but instead basing German
attacks on the route instead.

If Britain had fallen then Russia would have lost a lot of help and any chance for relief
before extra years. Germany could have gotten away with less total presence in Europe and
guess where the units and supplies would go?

Decisive? What is decisive against a blitzwar is the denial of key objectives. Deny any
and the blitz stops there. If there is a threat then it has to be guarded against which
leaves the blitz with less for the next objective which must come. BoB is where the blitz
was first stopped and the outcome did spell doom for the Nazis.

Stalingrad was another such. Not only the Germans were stopped but they were held and bled
terribly. Before that, during that and after that, the whole time was Leningrad stopped,
held and bled the Germans but not so badly as Leningrad was unable to counter and destroy.

Give big points to General Winter and General Mud, Hitler underestimated the country alone
just as Napoleon did. And that country had some of the hardest people you would not want
to fight.

A shame that Stalin had the purge just before the attack. WWII could have been shorter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Peter Flemming's "Operation Sea Lion" has some interesting information on the German plans for assault and the British plans for defence.

If Fighter Command was wiped out to the last plane, and Bomber Command and the Royal Navy was kept from interfering, then the Germans had enough naval capacity for just 6 divisions, assuming the capture of Dover and Folkstone in the first 3 days of the assault. The sea-lift and logistics capacity just wasn't there for any sort of large-scale invasion.

At first, in mid-June, the Army talked of 40 divisions earmarked for the invasion. Then, as the realities of a Channel crossing soaked in, they began to plan in July for 13 divisions for the initial assault wave of 3 days, followed by two more 6 division waves over the next 2 weeks. By August, the plan had cemented around a 9 division seaborne assault and 2 airborne divisions, of which just the lead elements were to be commited in the actual landing (the equavilent of 5 divisions) with the rest of the formations landing over a period of 7 days.

The calculated logistics efforts were some 3,300 tons of stores and supplies for the invasion force, based on the 300 tons/day figure from the French and POlish campaings. However, neither Dover nor Folkstone offered more than 800 tons at full capacity, so the rest would of had to have been landed over the beaches. Flemming calculates that with the best possible conditions, the German effort would of been enough to supply around half of the 11 divisions necessities for the first few weeks, until the ports had been fully cleared and Royal Navy interference removed.

If the landings were carried out in mid-September, as they were supposed to be, then to oppose these 11 partially supplied divisions, the defenders of Britian could muster just 29 divisions of which 15 were fully or almost fully equipped, as well as 8 independent armoured brigades and a motley mass of home guard, numbering almost 1 million, of which about 150,000 were armed by mid September, mostly with WW1 vintage US rifles.

Germany, it seemed, rather overestimated the strenght of the British defences, crediting them with between 34 and 37 divisions available, of which between 14 and 22 were considered fully operational. The British did the same thing, estimating that the Germans could land upwards of 97,000 troops in the first day of Sea-Lion, whereas the eventual German plan called for around 55,000 in the first 3 days.

Abbuzze
05-12-2006, 12:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

I've no doubt that if even 50% of the Royal Navy was in the channel and ordered to stop and invasion, the German wouldn't have bothered even if there was no RAF, they could have lost there entire invasion force before it even landed on the beaches. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fear they would just wait and let Ju88 divebombing till all RN units are at the ground of the channel.
Navy is nothing without aircover if they are in range of an enemy airforce.

Von_Rat
05-12-2006, 12:41 AM
in the pacific the us managed to mount invasions across vast ocean distances. no reason they couldn't do the same in alantic if britain was occupied.

it wouldn't be easy. but it wouldnt be impossiable. i imagine they would enter the fight somwhere easy to get a foothold, say n africa or mideast or even spain, then go on from there.

a good part of operation torch sailed direct from us to n africa.

joeap
05-12-2006, 02:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

I've no doubt that if even 50% of the Royal Navy was in the channel and ordered to stop and invasion, the German wouldn't have bothered even if there was no RAF, they could have lost there entire invasion force before it even landed on the beaches. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fear they would just wait and let Ju88 divebombing till all RN units are at the ground of the channel.
Navy is nothing without aircover if they are in range of an enemy airforce. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couldn't bomb at night though could they? Plus the LW was not as good at anti-ship attacks as later on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WOLFMondo
05-12-2006, 03:36 AM
Were there enough Ju88's in 1940 to take on the RN?!

Realistically I think the RN would have suffered greatly but stick several hundred combat ships in a small area like the channel and you'll have a blood bath on both sides. Allot of ships would be sunk, allot of planes shot down by AA. The Royal Navy also had a tendency for bravado, I can see a damaged ship's captain simply deciding to run there 11,000 ton southampton class cruiser right into the invasion landing craft and not stopping until the plough right into Calais.

ploughman
05-12-2006, 03:42 AM
Yeah, if Suda Bay's anything to go by the RN would've stuck it out and lost a lot of ships, just like they'd done at Dunkirk.

luftluuver
05-12-2006, 04:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Yeah, if Suda Bay's anything to go by the RN would've stuck it out and lost a lot of ships, just like they'd done at Dunkirk. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Six of the 41 RN destroyers and 5 of the 36 minesweeper that participated were lost. Three French destroyers were also sunk during Operation Dynamo.

RN:

Destroyers:
Grafton, sunk by U-62 on 29 May;
Grenade, sunk by air attack off the east pier at Dunkirk on 29 May;
Wakeful, sunk by a torpedo from the E-boat S-30 on 29 May;
Basilisk, Havant, and Keith, sunk by air attack off the beaches on 1 June.

French:
Bourrasque, mined off Nieuport on 30 May;
Sirocco, sunk by the E-boats S-23 and S-26 on 31 May;
Le Foudroyant, sunk by air attack off the beaches on 1 June.

200 of the smaller Allied craft were sunk.

ploughman
05-12-2006, 04:36 AM
Thanks for the info Luft. From those figures it looks like the Luftwaffe/KM would be damaging to the RN but not decisively so.

Ratsack
05-12-2006, 06:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
Read up on why Britain declared war... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You will see me take such quotes into discussion everytime I see any.

Perfect example of a typical western ally citizen knowing why GB declared war.You ppl make me sick when you say that you helped Poland - the very first country to fight/oppose Hitler when it was for sure it couldn`t win that war.GB and France are traitors to Poland.No military actions had been taken,no nothing,no help.You were just looking how Germans murder Poles and Jews.Cities with no military meaning bombed,children going on their first day to school killed.Imigrants escaping from cities straffed on the roads.And all you do is throw some ******* leaflets telling Germans to stop the war.
The east how you call it remembers how you treated your ally - Poles,Czechs.You did nothing,you left your ally alone to die.
Declaring war had no sense whatsoever.The 3rd Reich would have attacked you boys regardless.
The underground movement had to organise itself from scratch,no nominal help from GB/France.
Eastern pilots downing hundreds of German planes in BoB,serving on multiple fronts contributing to victory - after the war pursued by British nation for being a "danger" to peace and GB economy and exiled back to communist country and left alone again to be slaves.
Eastern allies which were lied to from the very start of WWII till the end.
Western "allies" are not viewed as de facto allies.For eastern nations that is just a label.

Warsaw uprising,Jewish uprising left by western allies with no help,Auschwitz bombing project cancelled.

You may ban me as h3ll,I aint gonna change my mind.I speak what Westerplatte heroes said when they knew that the help they hoped for never came.I speak for old combatants who experienced terror of war,fought nazis,communists just to be left alone by British government.So many died in vain.We will never forget the treason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The problem with this argument in relation to Poland is that the Poles got themselves into the position they found themselves in at the beginning of 1939.

I'd agree that the British and French acquiesence in the carve up of Czechoslovakia was a completely unprincipled decision. The problem is that Poland came in for the kill, taking a strip of territory in the final dissolution Czechoslovakia. This completely undermined Poland€s claim on the protection of the international community when Hitler started making noises about the Danzig corridor.

We should also remember that Czechoslovakia was France€s ally by treaty, and that Chamberlain had been keen to avoid €˜entanglements€ in Eastern Europe. England€s subsequent guarantee to Poland was meant to be taken in Berlin as a shot across the bows: as a flag that Britain meant business. Unfortunately for the entire world, Hitler€s political instincts failed him and he misjudged the €˜worms€ he€d met at Munich, causing him to miss the serious intent behind Britain€s guarantee.

The appalling irony of the whole thing is that Britain went to war for Poland in hopeless circumstances, after abandoning Czechoslovakia in far better circumstances the year before. Without the intervention of the USSR, there could be no effective aid for the Poles. But Polish cooperation with the Red Army was unthinkable, so€¦

Cheers,
Ratsack

Wigwham
05-12-2006, 07:02 AM
Polands best hope in early 1939 would have been to negotiate away the Polish Corridor/Danzig. Poland had too good a deal out of Versaille and included Ukrainians and White Russians in east and Germans in the north and thus had very little sympathy from any of its neighbours.In truth only about half of the area of Poland had a Polish majority.Nazis being Nazis they would very probably have seized the rest anyway eventually but at least it would rob the Nazis of any excuses such as bringing all Germans into one state. The peacemakers of Versaille by trying to create a greater Poland had left it dangerously exposed.In truth trapped between Stalin and Hitler it's hard to work out a scenario in which Poland remains independant.I think for the British and French it was a line in the sand that had to be drawn.Historians have argued that an Anglo French push into the Saar region of Germany would have drawn away German divisions from Poland but the French army was really a defensive one based around the Maginot Line.Even if the Germans were distracted the Soviets were ready to take eastern Poland anyway.

stathem
05-12-2006, 07:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

Peter Flemming's "Operation Sea Lion" has some interesting information on the German plans for assault and the British plans for defence.

If Fighter Command was wiped out to the last plane, and Bomber Command and the Royal Navy was kept from interfering, then the Germans had enough naval capacity for just 6 divisions, assuming the capture of Dover and Folkstone in the first 3 days of the assault. The sea-lift and logistics capacity just wasn't there for any sort of large-scale invasion.

At first, in mid-June, the Army talked of 40 divisions earmarked for the invasion. Then, as the realities of a Channel crossing soaked in, they began to plan in July for 13 divisions for the initial assault wave of 3 days, followed by two more 6 division waves over the next 2 weeks. By August, the plan had cemented around a 9 division seaborne assault and 2 airborne divisions, of which just the lead elements were to be commited in the actual landing (the equavilent of 5 divisions) with the rest of the formations landing over a period of 7 days.

The calculated logistics efforts were some 3,300 tons of stores and supplies for the invasion force, based on the 300 tons/day figure from the French and POlish campaings. However, neither Dover nor Folkstone offered more than 800 tons at full capacity, so the rest would of had to have been landed over the beaches. Flemming calculates that with the best possible conditions, the German effort would of been enough to supply around half of the 11 divisions necessities for the first few weeks, until the ports had been fully cleared and Royal Navy interference removed.

If the landings were carried out in mid-September, as they were supposed to be, then to oppose these 11 partially supplied divisions, the defenders of Britian could muster just 29 divisions of which 15 were fully or almost fully equipped, as well as 8 independent armoured brigades and a motley mass of home guard, numbering almost 1 million, of which about 150,000 were armed by mid September, mostly with WW1 vintage US rifles.

Germany, it seemed, rather overestimated the strenght of the British defences, crediting them with between 34 and 37 divisions available, of which between 14 and 22 were considered fully operational. The British did the same thing, estimating that the Germans could land upwards of 97,000 troops in the first day of Sea-Lion, whereas the eventual German plan called for around 55,000 in the first 3 days. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ISD, if you have the book to hand, my memory has it that even the 'actual' landings were to be spread over several trips by the flat bottomed river barges they were planning on using. Was it that they reckoned on landing 5 Divs in an initial single trip?

luftluuver
05-12-2006, 07:31 AM
Operation Sealion
http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

At the bottom is another link, Ian Montgomerie's article

stathem
05-12-2006, 07:51 AM
Here's an interesting essay on the subject

http://gateway.alternatehistory.com/essays/Sealion.html

luftluuver
05-12-2006, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Here's an interesting essay on the subject

http://gateway.alternatehistory.com/essays/Sealion.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That is the link at the bottom in the link I posted.

stathem
05-12-2006, 07:56 AM
Yes, sorry Luftluvver, your original link was erm, 'access denied' on this machine, so I didn't know.

luftluuver
05-12-2006, 08:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Yes, sorry Luftluvver, your original link was erm, 'access denied' on this machine, so I didn't know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You at work? The 1st link is well worth reading when you can.

stathem
05-12-2006, 08:20 AM
Yep, at work. I'll give the other a read when I get home, thanks.

Von_Rat
05-12-2006, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Were there enough Ju88's in 1940 to take on the RN?!

Realistically I think the RN would have suffered greatly but stick several hundred combat ships in a small area like the channel and you'll have a blood bath on both sides. Allot of ships would be sunk, allot of planes shot down by AA. The Royal Navy also had a tendency for bravado, I can see a damaged ship's captain simply deciding to run there 11,000 ton southampton class cruiser right into the invasion landing craft and not stopping until the plough right into Calais. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

your right, if i remember correctly, churchill stated that he was ready to sacrifice the RN to stop a german invasion.


another note. if raf losses grew to great in bob. the raf was going to withdraw north of london out of german range to save their strength. then the RAF would of been again committed to battle during invasion itself. so the RN would still have some aircover.


IMHO an invasion in 1940 was never going to work, even if the germans won the battle of britain, they would never be able to completely destroy raf, it would just withdraw out of range till the invasion started. the RN plus the surviving raf would of massicured the pigpile german invasion fleet. the first wave might make it ashore, but once the RN got there and raf was recommitted they would be cutoff and slaughtered.

i can imagine that the brits defending their homes, would of made the japanese look like amatuers when it comes to fanatical defence.

Adam906
05-12-2006, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Couldn't bomb at night though could they? Plus the LW was not as good at anti-ship attacks as later on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You would actually be surprised... This is the central theme of my uni. thesis and so have done quite a lot of research on the topic and can tell you that even as early as 1940 the Luftwaffe was a much better anti-shipping force than people give it credit for.

As for the remainder of the arguments, whether the RN could have stopped the KM or Seelowe could manage to successfully invade Britain doesn't really count for much. All I've been trying to show is that the BoB was the decisive battle because of the outcome it could have created. If Germany wins and pre-conditions for Seelowe are completed before mid September, the KM is probably very several yauled, if not destroyed, while the army finds it tough going and is again mauled with maybe even the loss of all troops put ashore while the LW continues to bleed itself white supporting the invasion. If Germany wins Seelowe, war in Europe ends (whether the Commonwealth and America gives up, or not - "war" in the physical sense ends), if Germany looses Seelowe then her armed forces suffer a very serious setback and the Battle of the Atlantic suffers as does the Med. and Russia thanks to the losses suffered. All this stems from the BoB. What happens once the BoB is won is Seelowe (assuming BoB is completed by early-mid September at the latest, which was what the Germans concidered "winning" the BoB). Hence why it is so decisive. Stalingrad is decisive, as is Moscow but all these happen AFTER BoB...

MLudner
05-12-2006, 05:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
I'd say the most decisive battles are, in no particular order:

1. Battle of Britain (first major German reverse)
2. Siege of Stalingrad (bled Germany white)
3. Battle of Kursk (first succesful Soviet summer attack)
4. Battle of Tunisia (victory in the desert)
5. Battle of the Atlantic (ensured English survival)
6. Operation Bagration (destruction of Army Group Centre)
7. Battle of Midway (ensured US naval dominance in the Pacific)
8. Battle of Guadalcanal (began the Japanese army's death of a thousand cuts) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kursk was a German attack, the Soviets were defending. The Soviet attack was against the Orel Salient to the north of Kursk launched as Unternehmen Zitadelle began to fail.

Kursk was more decisive than Stalingrad in my opinion, but both have good claims to this fame.

Von_Rat
05-12-2006, 07:41 PM
i dont see how bob was that deceisive considering that even if germans won it, seelowe would still fail. at least in my opinion it would still fail.

how can a battle be deceisive if it doesn't matter who wins?

the germans were destined to fail in 1940,they just didnt have what was needed to invade britain. all losing bob did was save them from a bigger loss if seelowe was tried.

Adam906
05-12-2006, 11:53 PM
Von_Rat.... It's irrelevant who wins Seelowe. The topic is the decisive nature of BoB.

The question to ask of BoB is: What happens if Germany wins it and the preconditions for Seelowe are gained (Assuming they are gained before Hitler's deadline)? Germany launches Seelowe. (No need to ask what happens if Germany loses BoB as we already know). This then gives to possibilities.

What happens IF:

i) Germany wins Seelowe?
ii) Germany loses Seelowe?

The answer to i) is self-evident (war in Europe ceases), but the answer to ii) is more important: major loss of force integrity (think of the losses in men, material, shipps, aircraft, weapons, etc)This then impacts heavily on Germany's immidate capacity to wage war. If Germany loses Seelowe then Hitler, realising the losses incurred - of at least the initial 6 divisions put ashore, goodness knows how many KM ships and LW aircraft - is forced to re-evaluate what he needs to do and how he needs to go about it in terms of Continental war. Having suffered so heavily, the pressure in the Balkans that Russia is exerting (if you are interested I have an article detailing it, so PM me if you want to read it) needs to releaved some how and given the losses Germany has just suffered in England, Barbarossa - at least in the format that we know it as - is impossible. Thus all Hitler can do is either stand up to Stalin and hope his military has the capacity to defend the territories gained, or given in and let Stalin march into Romania and Finland whilst building up his forces to tackle, nbot just Russia but England/Allies.

Thus from BoB we get very serious consequences for the war in Europe. BoB sets the pre-conditions for Seelowe. Seelowe then represents the balance upon which the war in Europe is decided/Germany's capacity to wage war (as outlined above). If Seelowe does not happen the question is why, which leads to BoB. I'm skeptical of a German vicotry in Seelowe but I do believe it was possible, even using inferior numbers and having to cross the Channel.


The problem with looking at Seelowe and judging the BoB by it is that is not how history works. You have to look at the simple merits of the BoB and then look - using only what was available to each side's intelligence community - to judge the subject in question. Given Germany's woeful intel on British capabilities and reserves and the British superiority in numbers but out-moded tactics, we can't judge Seelowe on what we know now - we have to see it in the eyes of a 1940s general on either side of the Chanel. BoB stood to make or break Germany. Hence it's decisive nature.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
05-13-2006, 12:56 AM
If the germans have conquered Britain,the americans would have landed at N.Africa,& and start a long and hard campaign to liberate Western europe.
The german army opposing the russians will srink in numbers because a lot of them will be garrisoned at britain thinking that the americans will prioritize the liberation of this island,therefor making the war for the russians easier.
Good thing the RAF Hangs on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Von_Rat
05-13-2006, 02:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The question to ask of BoB is: What happens if Germany wins it and the preconditions for Seelowe are gained </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



thats my whole point, the preconditions for seelowe could never be met by germans in 1940.


it doesn't matter if they win bob. the preconditions for a seelowe could never be met in 1940,imo.

as i said how can a battle be deceisive if it doesn't matter who wins. the result is the same, no seelowe.

from some of the reading ive done i don't think even hitler would of risked seelowe. even if he won bob. he was hoping for a knockout blow from the air,to make brits sue for peace but given 1940s lw bombers it wasn't going to happen.

i can even argue that there was no chance of germans winning bob either.if the goal of bob was destruction of raf to pave the way for seelowe. well imo there was no way lw could destroy raf enough to make seelowe possiable. if raf losses became to hi it would just withdraw to north and then be recommited to stop seelowe. i think hitler realised this.

i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Adam906
05-13-2006, 10:25 PM
Von_Rat:

The LW could have quite easily have destroyed the RAF over south-eastern England - which was one of the primary conditions for Seelowe. IF the LW had have concentrated on properly conducting its air campaign instead of fighting with Raeder over the naval air arm and just bombing RAF facilities willy-nilly, then the defeat of the RAF over SE England was practicable by end of August-mid September. Dowding was very close to withdrawing a lot of his RAF fighters from 11 Group due to the damage that was caused by LW raids and the RAF - 11 Group - was close to collaps. Given the LW had cleared the Channel of British Shipping and the LW as it was had only a few more days to complete the secondary objective re: the RAF I'm not sure your argument stands up.

Ignore Seelowe for a minute and whether you think it would have been launched or not. The fateful decision to target London and give the RAF a reprieve ultimately doomed the BoB to failure as it allowed the RAF time to regroup and rebuild its shattered infrastructure. To answer specifically, "how can a battle be deceisive if it doesn't matter who wins. the result is the same, no seelowe," you are blinding yourself to what you should really be focusing on.

If Germany wins BoB as set out in the pre-conditions for Seelowe, what does it mean?
a)the Channel is cleared of shipping which thus put a huge strain on the western coast ports of Britain
b)the RAF cannot function over SE England and is forced to withdraw. This means the LW has free reign over SE England to bomb as they please and how they please. Given the industry centred in this area - that's a very big deal. Given also the huge population distribution in this area - ie... the vting capacity in a ddemocaratci country - that's a big deal, also.

Put to yourself this:
It is 15 September 1940 and the Luftwaffe has cleared the Channel of British shipping and the Luftwaffe has cleared the skies of SE England of the RAF. Think about the ramifications of this from both British and German perspectives. You know nothing of the future, Barbarossa is not even an authorised plan of action against Russia yet, the JApanese are still undecided as to which way they are going to go in the Pacific (America or Russia) and the Italians, so far, have not done anything too disastrous - yet. The Germans stand undefeated across western Europe while the British suffered disastrous losses in France/Dunkirk and obviously thanks to BoB... From both perspectives think about what happens now.

What do you consider the most decisive battle in Europe to be?

Sergio_101
05-14-2006, 09:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
the most decisive battle of the war IMO is D-day,
its D-day that the allies finally gained a strong foot hold on western europe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it was...but it was about 2 years too late http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Russians are bitter about the
Normandy invasion
waiting for June 1944.
But any invaision in 1942 would have failed.
Torch was the only invasion possible in the
ETO.

Stalin's propaganda lives on in the memory of Russians.

As to the most important Aliied in ETO
is was obviously the Invasion of Normandy.

On the eastern front, there are several
very important battles, Stalingrad was #1.

In the Pacific Guadlacanal was #1 by far.
it was the first land defeat for Japan.
Naval engagments, Coral sea and Midway are #1.

As to the AXIS powers, they lost. There were
no major victories that were more than another
drain on their power resulting in final defeat.

But, for Germany, the defeat and embarassment of France
has to rank #1.

For Japan, the Phillipines victory must rank high.

The single most important millitary action of
WWII was the bombing of Hiroshima.

In 10,000 years, if civilisation survives
and history also survives, the bombing of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki will be remembered.

Sergio

panther3485
05-14-2006, 10:18 AM
Hi there, Sergio_101

Quote:
"Torch was the only invasion possible in the ETO."

I've just learned something new. I didn't know North Africa was in the ETO!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

ploughman
05-14-2006, 10:24 AM
I thought the whole Kokoda thing was the first land defeat for the IJA, inflicted by the stout hearted Australians, not Guadalcanal. Although, of course, Guadalcanal has a special place in the hearts of Americans because it is there that they began to stem the tide.

ploughman
05-14-2006, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi there, Sergio_101

Quote:
"Torch was the only invasion possible in the ETO."

I've just learned something new. I didn't know North Africa was in the ETO!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Best regards,
panther3485 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Eurovision song contest includes Israel as a participant. We're very flexible when it comes to geography. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

darkhorizon11
05-14-2006, 10:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Top_Gun_1_0_1:
If the germans have conquered Britain,the americans would have landed at N.Africa,& and start a long and hard campaign to liberate Western europe.
The german army opposing the russians will srink in numbers because a lot of them will be garrisoned at britain thinking that the americans will prioritize the liberation of this island,therefor making the war for the russians easier.
Good thing the RAF Hangs on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Russia would have over powered Germany eventually anyway. After Stalingrad it was only a matter of time. One of the deciding factors however was the Atomic Bomb. If GB fell the war certaintly would have carried on past 1945 and the Germans may have developed it by then. Remember British commandos that blew up the heavy water plants in Norway were pivotal in slowing Germany's A-bomb research. These guys woulda been in the underground had GB fell not off in Norway.

Further adding to the problem was just that there may have been some sort of treaty. At Yalta? the allies did agree on the full surrender of Nazi Germany however the will to fight on both sides would have waned if the war went into 1946 and there was no apparent edge for the Allies...

bazzaah2
05-15-2006, 03:02 AM
I think Kursk is more decisive than Stalingrad since the Germans had recovered territory from the Soviets by March 1943 and resisted a series of parallel offensives. It was Kursk that confirmed what Stalingrad and indeed El Alamein indicated; that the Germans were losing and would lose the war. But the battles represent the articulation of strategies pursued earlier in the war.

I remain convinced that the Germans could have won Barbarossa and that the most decisive action of the Eurpoean war was Hitler's decision not to advance on Moscow when he could have done in August 1941. In June 1941 the war was Germany's to win or lose. It was lost by August 1941.

Adam906's arguments about the Battle of Britain are interesting as well. I think the main implication is that, had the Luftwaffe beaten Fighter Command, then Britain could well have dumped Churchill and let Lord Halifax 'negotiate' with the Nazis. SeaLion was not likely to have succeeded; I simply do not believe that the Royal Navy could have been discounted or destroyed.

With no Britain in the war, I can't imagine the war ending by 1946, if at all. Rather something like a cold war would have emerged with neither the Germans nor the Americans able to launch a knock-out blow against each other.In that sense, as Adam906 says, the Battle of Britain was decisive.

Hitler would have invaded the USSR with Britain defeated in much the same way he invaded with Britain still in the war. With Barbarossa won and Britain out of the war, then game over in Europe. With Barbarossa lost and Britain out of the war, then I suspect the USSR would have found a way to stem the tide and defeat Germany.

I think the European war was fundamentally decided in 1940/41 but I am wondering whether could Fall Blau have been a war winning operation for the Germans? Even when the germans had 99% of Stalingrad under their control, did the Soviets suffer crippling oil shortages?

panther3485
05-15-2006, 06:06 AM
bazzaah2,

I find myself at something like 75 percent agreement with you here!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif



Best regards,
panther3485

Chuck_Older
05-15-2006, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BrewsterPilot:
U-boat war, -Germany was just TWO WEEKS away from cutting all transports to England! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. The Battle of the Atlantic was the longest and costliest battle in the war and it shaped strategy for the three major Allies

darkhorizon11
05-15-2006, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bazzaah2:
I think Kursk is more decisive than Stalingrad since the Germans had recovered territory from the Soviets by March 1943 and resisted a series of parallel offensives. It was Kursk that confirmed what Stalingrad and indeed El Alamein indicated; that the Germans were losing and would lose the war. But the battles represent the articulation of strategies pursued earlier in the war.

I remain convinced that the Germans could have won Barbarossa and that the most decisive action of the Eurpoean war was Hitler's decision not to advance on Moscow when he could have done in August 1941. In June 1941 the war was Germany's to win or lose. It was lost by August 1941.

Adam906's arguments about the Battle of Britain are interesting as well. I think the main implication is that, had the Luftwaffe beaten Fighter Command, then Britain could well have dumped Churchill and let Lord Halifax 'negotiate' with the Nazis. SeaLion was not likely to have succeeded; I simply do not believe that the Royal Navy could have been discounted or destroyed.

With no Britain in the war, I can't imagine the war ending by 1946, if at all. Rather something like a cold war would have emerged with neither the Germans nor the Americans able to launch a knock-out blow against each other.In that sense, as Adam906 says, the Battle of Britain was decisive.

Hitler would have invaded the USSR with Britain defeated in much the same way he invaded with Britain still in the war. With Barbarossa won and Britain out of the war, then game over in Europe. With Barbarossa lost and Britain out of the war, then I suspect the USSR would have found a way to stem the tide and defeat Germany.

I think the European war was fundamentally decided in 1940/41 but I am wondering whether could Fall Blau have been a war winning operation for the Germans? Even when the germans had 99% of Stalingrad under their control, did the Soviets suffer crippling oil shortages? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Good points.

Stalingrad itself was just a city but controlling the city was key to launching an offensive into the Crimea and Caucasses areas. The Germans needed a place to hole up for the winter as well as fill the large gaps of man power in the Army Groupe South. Plus there were other oil reserves all over the country that had been trucked up from this oil rich area.

It was the same idea with the Ploesti fields destroyed the Germans were short on oil, they didn't instantly run out it was a slow process.

As for the Royal Navy, the inherent problem wasn't the Navy itself but the location. If the RAF fell and Germans began landing in Brighton and the rest of the south coast as they had planned the RN would have been in deep trouble.

This isn't some open ocean where the British can just blast away with impunity at weaker German ships.

1. At this point were assuming the RAF is defeated. The RN has no air support and is vulnerable from above. This is basically the scenario in the Pacific in 1944, the Japanese didn't fare so well...

2. This isn't the open sea where the RN ships can blast away with impunity. Even the largest battleships and their firepower often cripple in comparison to land based artillery and heavy bombers. Look at all the ships it took to batter Normandy before the invasion, sure only one or two Allied ships were sunk... but your also considering two years of bombardment and that the men and equipment in France were basically a skeleton crew because of the Eastern Front. And the Allies had complete air superiority in the initial stages of the battle which was cructial. Remember this is Oct. 1940 a good eight months before operation Barbarossa.

3. What would the RN be firing at and what tactics would they use? Trying float a carrier or battleship right into the midst of the channel in the middle of the battle would be suicide. I assume some smaller destroyers and fast cruisers would hug the British side of the channel trying to hit landing craft as they were dropped off by the cargo ships. But they too would be under heavy fire from land based artillery and the Luftwaffe. The BBs would hang just out of the channel in the open water taking shots inland probably at the artillery butchering the English coastline.

4. U-boats. Theres things tore the RN apart in the early stages of the war and many of the British ships in the channel would become fish in a barrel.

5. Sheer numbers. After Dunkirk the British had somewhere around 200,000 battered soldiers in isolation on the island to defend it. The Germans had about 1 million will another in reserve. Of course all these men ended up in the Eastern Front the next year, but this is what GB was looking at fighting off had the successfully taken the beach. Not good odds.

On the other hand the Germans would not take the GB as easily as the Allies took Normandy in 44. Although the coastline wasn't as heavily defended, not enough planning was put into operation Sealion. Paratroopers would have successfully taken some key roads and bridges but many would be captured due to Wehrmachts inability to move in quickly enough. Once again due to poor planning, the Germans spent more making the new signs they were going to post on the British countryside than planning how to capture the beach. Also the British would probably fall back quickly towards London, they would fight smart and avoid a head-on confrontation with little chance of victory being so outnumbered. Losses would be far higher than planned by the Germans because of the British tactics and the resistance here would be much stronger than what the Germans had already been dealing with in France. Eventually however the British would be ovewhelmed and a peace treaty would probably be signed after about 9 months or so of fighting.

Now I know this is a personal argument for many British and I'm not trying to attack anyones pride. Lord knows the British fought hard and enduring the worst of the war to keep their freedoms. This is just an accurate idea of the intial stages of the war.

bazzaah2
05-15-2006, 04:10 PM
Don't worry, it's not personal for me. We're just talking what-ifs here.

I don't know much about Royal Navy strength I must admit but the war game conducted by planners of Sea Lion and their British opposite numbers at Sandhurst in 1967 suggested that the Royal Navy was likely to have wreaked havoc on the Wehrmacht's supplies across the Channel and was the key factor in securing German defeat in the projected invasion of Britain. And I guess they should know.

Given that the Germans would have used river barges - landing craft were just a twinkle in the eye of Sea Lion's planners - all that would have been required is for the Navy to sail past at speed to see large numbers of the barges lost, for example. The Germans would have needed very favourable weather just to get their forces across safely, anything approaching a wave and the barges would be in real trouble.

I can see losses for the Navy, from Uboats and the Luftwaffe but not crippling ones; I think the wargamers envisaged the Germans running out of barges sooner than the Navy ran out of ships. The Germans would have to have placed their Uboats incredibly well even to have a pop at fast moving destroyers.

Supplying the initial 8-10 divisions or whatever by air so that offensive operations can be maintained would be hard. And where are the tanks, fuel, ammo, reinforcements? On the bottom of the Channel.

There doesn't seem to be a huge amount on the web about the war game, which is a shame as it seems a fascinating exercise.

I can't help but think that Sea Lion would have been a humiliation for Hitler. The only way he would have been able to get Britain out of the war would be to cause Fighter Command's collapse and hope that Britain's internal politics would oust Churchill and get our very own Quisling-in-waiting, Lord Halifax, in power to oversee Britain get butt-effed by the Nazis. I think the threat of invasion was just that, a ruse to get Britain to give in once the Luftwaffe had done its job.

luftluuver
05-15-2006, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BrewsterPilot:
U-boat war, -Germany was just TWO WEEKS away from cutting all transports to England! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is another of those WW2 myths.

I knew this posted by someone would come in handy.

1939:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Sep39 48/178,621
Oct39 33/156,156
Nov39 27/72,721
Dec39 39/101,823
Tot39 147 (36.75/month)/509,321 (127,330.25/month)
British merchant ship construction capacity from 1939-1941 did not exceed 1.2 million GRT per year.
US merchant ship construction in 1939 was 0.242 million GRT.

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Aug39 19/2
Sep39 3/0
Oct39 13/3
Nov39 10/1/1
Dec39 5/1/1
Tot39 50/7/2 (an average of 10 patrols per month and 14% lost)

Thus for 1939, an average of 2.94 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 21 ships sunk (note that throughout these averages will be slightly inflated since they do not include the minor contribution of the Italian submarine fleet.)

1940:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan40 53/163,029
Feb40 50/182,369
Mar40 26/69,826
Apr40 6/30,927
May40 14/61,635
Jun40 66/375,069
Jul40 41/301,975
Aug40 56/288,180
Sep40 60/288,180
Oct40 66/363,267
Nov40 36/181,695
Dec40 46/256,310
Tot40 520 (43.33/month)/2,462,867 (205,238.91/month)
US merchant ship construction for 1940 was about 0.5 million GRT.

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan40 8/2
Feb40 10/3
Mar40 10/2
Apr40 19/3
May40 8/0/2
Jun40 18/3/1
Jul40 4/0
Aug40 16/2/1
Sep40 12/0
Oct40 13/2
Nov40 14/1
Dec40 6/0
Tot40 138/18/3 (an average of 11.5 patrols per month and 13% lost)

Thus for 1940, an average of 3.77 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 28.89 ships sunk.

1941:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan41 23/129,711
Feb41 47/254,118
Mar41 41/236,549
Apr41 41/239,719
May41 63/362,268
Jun41 66/325,817
Jul41 26/112,624
Aug41 27/85,603
Sep41 57/212,237
Oct41 28/170,786
Nov41 15/76,056
Dec41 23/93,226
Tot41 457 (38.08/month)/2,298,714 (191,559.5/month)
US merchant ship construction 1941 0.804 million GRT

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan41 10/0
Feb41 18/3/2
Mar41 15/3/3
Apr41 14/2/2
May41 21/0/2
Jun41 22/2/3
Jul41 24/1/9
Aug41 42/5/9
Sep41 38/0/2
Oct41 37/0/6
Nov 41 27/5/5
Dec41 49/4/6
Tot 41 287/25/49 (an average of 23.9 patrols sailing per month and 8.7% lost)

Thus for 1941, an average of 1.59 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 18.28 ships sunk.

1942:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan42 56/310,224
Feb42 72/429,255
Mar42 93/507,514
Apr42 81/418,161
May42 129/616,835
Jun42 136/636,926
Jul42 96/467,051
Aug42 117/587,245
Sep42 96/461,794
Oct42 89/583,690
Nov42 126/802,160
Dec42 64/337,618
Tot42 1,155 (96.25/month)/6,158,473 (513,206.08/month)
British and Canadian merchant ship construction 1942 1.8 million GRT
US merchant ship construction 1942 5.433 million GRT

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan42 50/2/5
Feb42 29/3/2
Mar42 32/2
Apr42 37/2/2
May42 23/3
Jun42 39/9/5
Jul42 45/7/3
Aug42 58/10/4
Sep42 52/8/8
Oct42 62/6/10
Nov42 54/8/6
Dec42 59/8/7
Tot42 540/68/57 (an average of 45 patrols sailing per month and 12.6% lost)

Thus for 1942, an average of 2.14 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 16.99 ships sunk.

1943:
Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Jan43 44/307,196
Feb43 67/362,081
Mar43 110/633,731
Apr43 50/287,137
May43 46/237,182
Jun43 17/76,090
Jul43 46/237,777
Aug43 20/92,443
Sep43 16/98,852
Oct43 20/91,295
Nov43 9/30,726
Dec43 8/55,794
Tot43 452 (37.67/month)/2,510,304 (209,192/month)
US merchant ship construction 1943 13.081 million GRT

Number of U-Boat patrols (combat patrols only, does not include tanker/resupply missions)/losses/aborts prior to contact in principle theaters (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and the Americas)
Jan43 61/13/11
Feb43 72/8/9
Mar43 59/16/10
Apr43 95/35/18
May43 55/23/9
Jun43 46/23/9
Jul43 39/27/7 (49 total patrols of all types)
Aug43 33/12/6
Sep43 32/11/10
Oct43 62/23/9
Nov43 36/9/4
Dec43 31/10/2
Tot43 621/210/104 (an average of 51.75 patrols sailing per month and 33.8% lost)

Thus for 1943, an average of 0.73 ships were sunk per patrol and one U-Boat was lost per 2.15 ships sunk.

So, overall, the most successful year for the U-Boats was 1940, before the expansion of the force allowed for an increase of more than about a dozen patrols sailing per month, and well prior to the entry of the US and its shipbuilding capacity into the war. Worse, the performance of the U-Boat force in 1941 and 1942 never exceeded its performance in the first months of the war. And, after 1943 the U-Boat campaign became ever less relevent to the outcome of the war.

Allied and Neutral ship tonnage sunk by German and Italian submarines (#ships, GRT)
Tot44 125/663,308
Tot45 63/284,476

US merchant ship construction for 1944 was 12.257 million GRT
US merchant ship construction for 1945 (through 1 May) was 3.548 million GRT

U-Boat Fleet to 1Sep42
On 19Aug39 there were 57 U-Boats in commission, 20 sea-going U-Boats and 18 €˜ducks€ were fully ready to put to sea
Total number U-Boats deployed to 1Sep42 275
Total number lost 94
Total number retired 10
Total number available 171

U-Boat Fleet 1Sep42 to 1May45
Total number deployed 1Sep42 to 1May45 531
Total number lost 1Sep42 to 1May45 568

British controlled merchant shipping over 1,600 GRT (number/in thousands of gross tons)
3Sep39 2,999/17,784
30Sep40 3,75721,373
30Sep41 3,608/20,552
31Dec41 3,616/20,693

Thus, despite the €˜success€ of the U-Boat force in 1940 (relative to its performance in 1941 and 1942) it had no appreciable effect in reducing the size of the British merchant fleet.

Numbers of ships arriving and losses in North Atlantic convoys inbound to Britain (ships arriving/losses)
1939 700/5 (7.1%)
1940 5,434/133 ((2.5%)
1941 5,923/153 (2.6%)
1942 4,798/80 (1.7%)
1943 5,667/87 (1.5%)
1944 7,410/8 (0.1%)

The operational U-Boat force from 1943-1945 never approached a "steady 400-500 boat[s]." Rather, during 1942 the peak strength of boats assigned to combat flotillas (including those under repair for combat-damage and breakdowns, but excluding those assigned to school flotillas, experimental projects, or otherwise retired from combat) was 202, during November. The low in 1942 was 89 in January. The average monthly strength during 1942 was 143.83. The strength of the force peaked in May 1943 at 237. It had declined to a low of 159 by November. Average monthly strength during 1943 was 197.58. The peak strength during 1944 was 168 in February, the low was 146 in November. Average monthly strength in 1944 was 157.83. The peak strength in 1945 was April with 165, the low was May with 134, prior to the surrender. &lt;http://www.onwar.com/ubb/smile.gif&gt;

At that, these were much better than 1939 (average of 19.5 monthly), 1940 (average of 18.75 monthly) and 1941 (average of 47.5 monthly). OTOH, the 'bang for their buck' was probably highest in 1940, which was also arguably the U-Boats most 'successful' year in terms of ships sunk per patrol and U-Boats lost per ship sunk.

.....................

The biggest problem was unloading the ships in GB due to the number of ships arriving because of the lack of port facilities to do so.

Chuck_Older
05-15-2006, 04:46 PM
I don't think he meant the two weeks as a literal 14 days worth of effort to win the war

Nevertheless, I still contend that the battle of the Atlantic was the longest and most decisive battle of WWII

Von_Rat
05-15-2006, 09:45 PM
If Germany wins BoB as set out in the pre-conditions for Seelowe, what does it mean?
a)the Channel is cleared of shipping which thus put a huge strain on the western coast ports of Britain
b)the RAF cannot function over SE England and is forced to withdraw. This means the LW has free reign over SE England to bomb as they please and how they please. Given the industry centred in this area - that's a very big deal. Given also the huge population distribution in this area - ie... the vting capacity in a ddemocaratci country - that's a big deal, also.
______________________________________________


big deal yes, deceisive no.


stalingrad is my vote for most deceisive.


i agree with baazaah2


as i said before, there was no way lw was going to destroy raf. if losses in the southeast became to hi the raf would withdraw. then once the invasion was launched, the raf would be recommited to support the rn. this might have been a little hard on the people and industry in the southeast, but the germans stood up to alot worse later in war. no reason to suspect brits wouldnt make do.

face it, the germans had no real navy. it was going to be nexted to impossiable to pull off the invasion without one. so it didnt matter who won bob, and without a invasion bob was really pointless.

Suedwester
05-16-2006, 04:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
I would be interested in how the Brits would have got troops to Poland, and in time, to have some effect on the outcome of the Sept 39 battle.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It´s not, that the Brits should have sent troops to Poland, but they had promised to start a bombing campaign against the German industry as soon as the war would start. And that´s, what they did not. They attacked German shipping ONE time with a few Wellingtons (which got massacred). And after that they only threw leaflets.
It wasn´t only the Brits, who let the Polish down. It were the French in first place. They had about 90 divisions and 2700 tanks at the front in mid september 1939 against 20 German infantrydivisions, which were poorly equipped and had NO tanks and only a few aircraft (the whole modern equipment of the German army went to Poland - it was a typical "Hitler-gamble") and did nothing. In fact they marched about three miles into German territory (at the Saar) went in a German minefield and returned to their barracks. They could have overrun the whole western front of the German army, forcing them to take troops from the Polish front to defend the Reich in the west (in fact, that´s the way the "miracle of the Marne" happened in 1914, otherwise maybe Germanby would have won WWI... In 1914 Germany was forced to send 4 divisions from the western to the eastern front to save Eastern Prussia. Those 4 divisions would probably have been enough to break the last French resistance at the Marne, winning the war for the Kaiser.)

WWMaxGunz
05-16-2006, 04:45 AM
Churchill is quoted as saying the U-boats had him worried the most.
At one point Britain had only a two week supply of oil.

joeap
05-16-2006, 04:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BrewsterPilot:
U-boat war, -Germany was just TWO WEEKS away from cutting all transports to England! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is another of those WW2 myths.

snip
.....................

The biggest problem was unloading the ships in GB due to the number of ships arriving because of the lack of port facilities to do so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the information, however you might consider the real effect the u-boats had on the Anglo-American war effort. In Richard Overy's book, "Why the Allies Won," page 48, he writes that the Royal Navy had only 2 months supply of oil left in January 1943. His source was J. Terraine's "Business in Great Waters: the U-boat wars 1916-1945." So things were not so peachy or predetermined as all that.

bazzaah2
05-16-2006, 05:13 AM
The fate of the Germans was sealed by the end of 1941, whether through the inability of the Germans to take Britain out in 1940, not advancing on Moscow in August 1941 or with Hitler's declaration of war on the US.

Whichever way you slice it, the war was strategically lost by the Germans come the end of 1941. With the US entry into the war I think the war became the Allies to lose, though I say that from the vantage point afforded by hindsight. I'm sure it didn't look that way at the time.

The Nazis had their chance and blew it, and thank God for that.

I think perhaps the question is unanswerable as cast. There are battles that confirm the likelihood of the Germans losing. The likelihood of each loss contributing to the Germans eventual defeat increased as the war went on; whether that is Stalingrad, el Alamein, Kursk, Bagration or whatever.

The most significant battle or action is the one or indeed ones by which the Germans surrendered the possibility they had to win the war in Europe. As far as I can see, that is either the failure of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain and/or the failure of Wehrmacht to capture Moscow in August 1941.

bazzaah2
05-16-2006, 05:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BrewsterPilot:
U-boat war, -Germany was just TWO WEEKS away from cutting all transports to England! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is another of those WW2 myths.

snip
.....................

The biggest problem was unloading the ships in GB due to the number of ships arriving because of the lack of port facilities to do so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the information, however you might consider the real effect the u-boats had on the Anglo-American war effort. In Richard Overy's book, "Why the Allies Won," page 48, he writes that the Royal Navy had only 2 months supply of oil left in January 1943. His source was J. Terraine's "Business in Great Waters: the U-boat wars 1916-1945." So things were not so peachy or predetermined as all that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

whether we had 2 months, 6 months or 98 seconds worth of petrol left is by itself not a terribly useful statistic since by itself it does not allow us to know whether that is because of lower amounts were being landed, or because of increased use or a combination of the two.

MadRuski
05-16-2006, 05:54 AM
Well it is obveouse that the war was a game of chess.... Germany made a mistake in the game, and left the Allies to finsih of the Axis still with casulties.

Viper2005_
05-16-2006, 06:23 AM
Whilst the Royal Navy could certainly have made a real mess of Germany's barges, German air superiority would have allowed the Luftwaffe to make a real mess of the Royal Navy.

And of course, immediately after the establishment of a beach head, supplies could have been sent across the channel by air, sidestepping all those pesky destroyers.

So my vote goes to our good friend BOB.

bazzaah2
05-16-2006, 07:08 AM
take a look at this essay;

http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

luftluuver
05-16-2006, 07:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bazzaah2:
take a look at this essay;

http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And the link at the end of the essay, Ian Montgomerie's article.


Viper, how much airlift capacity did the Germans have? The LW had twice the number of transport a/c at the time of Stalingrad and could not get ahead of the usage. The RAF BC still had their bombers and these would have been commited to attacking the airfields used by the LW bringing supplies.

Even during Crete when there was no opposition to the LW, it did not have that much success. In fact, the seaborne assault force was decimated by RN units.

Von_Rat
05-16-2006, 11:03 AM
buzzah2 wrote
Whichever way you slice it, the war was strategically lost by the Germans come the end of 1941. With the US entry into the war I think the war became the Allies to lose, though I say that from the vantage point afforded by hindsight. I'm sure it didn't look that way at the time.
__________________________________________________ ___

actually churchchill wrote that when he heard the news of pearl habour, he said that at that moment he realized that the allies would win. that is was just a matter of time.

TgD Thunderbolt56
05-16-2006, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Most *Decisive* Battle of World War II </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Midway...be sure

Bogun
05-16-2006, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Most *Decisive* Battle of World War II </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stalingrad or Kursk

Agamemnon22
05-16-2006, 01:36 PM
Hitler has no intention of landing troops in England unless absolutely necessary. His goal was to make England an ally, and this blind desire posessed him all the way though the war. For whatever reason, he thought England and Germany were equals and actively pursued peace with parts of the British gov't and royalty before, and occasionally after, BoB. BoB itself was, in part, designed to undermine the existing government and remove Churchill from power. Interestingly enough, this was precisely the thinking behind later bombing of civillian targets in Germany by the Allies, with exactly the same result: it only strengthened the enemy's resolve.

IMO, I would call Sicily and later Italy the pivotal battles, as they opened a second front, of sorts, and forced Hitler to transfer forces from the Eastern Front to strengthen German troops in the Mediterannean. This lead to a reduction in forces committed to Kursk, preventing the Germans from cutting off the salient and putting the stake through OKW's hope for any initiative in the Eastern Front.

Ruy Horta
05-16-2006, 02:28 PM
1. Barbarossa 1941
2. Western Campaign 1940 (Low Lands and Northern France)
3. Battle of the Atlantic

darkhorizon11
05-16-2006, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agamemnon22:
Hitler has no intention of landing troops in England unless absolutely necessary. His goal was to make England an ally, and this blind desire posessed him all the way though the war. For whatever reason, he thought England and Germany were equals and actively pursued peace with parts of the British gov't and royalty before, and occasionally after, BoB. BoB itself was, in part, designed to undermine the existing government and remove Churchill from power. Interestingly enough, this was precisely the thinking behind later bombing of civillian targets in Germany by the Allies, with exactly the same result: it only strengthened the enemy's resolve.

IMO, I would call Sicily and later Italy the pivotal battles, as they opened a second front, of sorts, and forced Hitler to transfer forces from the Eastern Front to strengthen German troops in the Mediterannean. This lead to a reduction in forces committed to Kursk, preventing the Germans from cutting off the salient and putting the stake through OKW's hope for any initiative in the Eastern Front. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You sort of contradicted yourself. Initially Hitler did look for an ally in Great Britain before and during the initial stages of the war but when that didn't happen... he was definitely looking to rape, pillage, and burn. That was his tactic in the Battle of Britain intially, that was why he attacked the RAF. Later he became frustrated and took it out on the British people by bombing civilian targets. But he definitely wanted to invade. Its even apparent in videos were he's eagle eyeing the bluffs of southern England.

He definitely wanted total domination of Europe including England. Whether they were an ally/puppet that he could use at his whim or straight up defeated and occupied it didn't matter to him. He wanted nothing short of total obedience and he didn't care how he got it.

Adam906
05-16-2006, 05:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Viper, how much airlift capacity did the Germans have? The LW had twice the number of transport a/c at the time of Stalingrad and could not get ahead of the usage. The RAF BC still had their bombers and these would have been commited to attacking the airfields used by the LW bringing supplies.

Even during Crete when there was no opposition to the LW, it did not have that much success. In fact, the seaborne assault force was decimated by RN units. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

German sources indicate that during August 1940 they had an average of 350 transport planes available. Given the short distances involved in operations to and from the beachhead then even half this number could have supplied a rather substantial amount of material given a)they were not supplying a whole army as was the case at Stalingrad, and b)did not need to cover such distances which were overly prone to fighter interception as was the case at Stalingrad.

As has been pointed out, airlifts would have side-stepped the RN and the air superiority would have kept the RAF FC at bay. Also, with regards to the RN, how long can it stay in an area of action before being either sunk, forced to withdraw damaged or for resupply? Given also the threat of German naval units coming from Norway flanking the RN, even though the RN was in a vastly superior position vis-a-vis numbers, I don't think that position was a Seelowe beater. The position of the RN was still very very shaky given the efforts the KM would have directed against it plus the continuous air attack that would have been forthcoming from the LW.

Also, Von_Rat, I don't think the war was strategically lost by the close of 1941 - look how close they came to Stalingrad and the Caspian oil fields in 1942. That was when the war was strategically unwinnable for Germany. Had the oil fields been taken (instead of focusing on Stalingrad) then oil would not be a concern for Hitler and given the wheat belt of the Ukraine, food would not be either. Given that the oil complex produced 80% of all Russian oil products, taking that from the Russians would have been a strategic death blow to the Russian war efforts. If the Germans had focused entirely on the oil in August/early September instead of becoming bogged down in Stalingrad then very little stood in the way to stop them. Russian units in the aera were weak and the VVS presence was minimal and those that were there were equipped with obscolete aircraft..

Just curious, Ruy when you mention Barbarossa as No.1 - I would have thought that was an operation rather than a battle, and thus disqualified from the running?

Agamemnon22
05-16-2006, 05:02 PM
Not really a contradiction, in BoB his goal was to show the incumbent British govt's inability to deal with the crisis, leading to a rise to power of pro-German elements in England, who would then make peace with the Reich. Obviously he was wrong, but that was his thinking based on diaries and records of meetings with his various generals.

Even later on, 42, 43, he appeared to have some delusions of coexisting with the empire, and it appears to have affected his strategy in Africa (his plans for Iraq, I believe, I'll have to check exactly. The British there were overthrown by a local government, if I'm remembering correctly, rendering the point moot).

Everything is debatable, of course, Hitler didn't keep many notes of his own, this is all based on diaries of people around him, as well as records of his war conferences, meetings, etc.

Adam906
05-16-2006, 05:08 PM
As a side note that no-one seems to be recognising is that if the BoB is won and Germany is forced to implement Seelowe what happens if it fails? We have all been focusing on the what and how of Seelowe's workings and chance of success without really looking at the situation that would have been created by its failure.

As the first essay on BoB ends with: "Operation Sealion can only be described as a blueprint for a German disaster." There was no need for Germany to assume it would be that way given her dominance so far, militarily.

The KM is decimated, the Luftwaffe's transport arm suffers losses and the paratroop divisions/landed troops are all lost to Germany efforts which puts Crete in serious doubt for 1941, it also hampers the offensive capabilities of the German army for 1941. Given Hitler's propensity to hold till the last it is not unreasonable Seelowe would have turned into another Stalingrad - and look what that did to the war effort for 1943!

That is to say nothing of what it does for the Battle of the Atlantic (shortage of LW and KM equipment) AND for Stalin pushing his luck in the Balkans in the event of Hitler's disaster. It also may have detrimental effect on Barbarossa as it limits the abilities of the Wehrmacht to invade Russia given the losses in/over Britain 7 months earlier.

To properly look at the BoB as the most decisive battle we have to look at both sides of the coin and see what all its outcomes would spell not just for Germany but the entire war effort in general.

luftluuver
05-16-2006, 05:50 PM
17 August 1940

Ju 52s
ubit - onhand/servicable
Stab/KG zbV1 - 3/3
I/KG zbV 1 - 47/42
II/KG zbV 1 - 43/13
III/KG zbV 1 - 53/32
IV/KG zbV 1 - 39/25
KGr zbV 9 - 30/20
KG zbV 106 - 53 29
I/KG zbV 172 - 45/34
KG zbV 108 - 27/18 (various)

A. Price

2/3rds were only available and would decrease with mechanical problems and losses (crashes and enemy).

The Ju52 could carry 4000lb. The manpower to unload, and load, these a/c would not be available to fight or man AAA guns.

naval forces in the area:

RN / Kriegsmarine
5 capital ships / 1 capital ship
11 cruisers / 1 cruiser
53 destroyers / 10 destroyers
23 destroyers on convoy duty / 20-30 submarines

The Germans planned to have 9 divisions cross the Channel along a 274mi front and with hardly any heavy equipemnt. ie tanks, arty.

Why would the Germans have air superiority? 11 Group would have pulled back and more RAF fighters would have been available. Basing LW fighters in the beachhead area would not be of much use, so the 109s would still have their endurance problem over the beachhead.

109s covering the Ju52s would not be available to escort the LW's bombers or intercept RAF bombers. A Catch 22 for the LW.

MLudner
05-16-2006, 06:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i dont see how bob was that deceisive considering that even if germans won it, seelowe would still fail. at least in my opinion it would still fail.

how can a battle be deceisive if it doesn't matter who wins?

the germans were destined to fail in 1940,they just didnt have what was needed to invade britain. all losing bob did was save them from a bigger loss if seelowe was tried. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seelowe could, in fact, have succeeded. The British Army was almost naked and unarmed after Dunkirk and in very poor shape for a full scale battle at the time.

Von_Rat
05-16-2006, 07:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Viper, how much airlift capacity did the Germans have? The LW had twice the number of transport a/c at the time of Stalingrad and could not get ahead of the usage. The RAF BC still had their bombers and these would have been commited to attacking the airfields used by the LW bringing supplies.


Even during Crete when there was no opposition to the LW, it did not have that much success. In fact, the seaborne assault force was decimated by RN units. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

German sources indicate that during August 1940 they had an average of 350 transport planes available. Given the short distances involved in operations to and from the beachhead then even half this number could have supplied a rather substantial amount of material given a)they were not supplying a whole army as was the case at Stalingrad, and b)did not need to cover such distances which were overly prone to fighter interception as was the case at Stalingrad.

As has been pointed out, airlifts would have side-stepped the RN and the air superiority would have kept the RAF FC at bay. Also, with regards to the RN, how long can it stay in an area of action before being either sunk, forced to withdraw damaged or for resupply? Given also the threat of German naval units coming from Norway flanking the RN, even though the RN was in a vastly superior position vis-a-vis numbers, I don't think that position was a Seelowe beater. The position of the RN was still very very shaky given the efforts the KM would have directed against it plus the continuous air attack that would have been forthcoming from the LW.

Also, Von_Rat, I don't think the war was strategically lost by the close of 1941 - look how close they came to Stalingrad and the Caspian oil fields in 1942. That was when the war was strategically unwinnable for Germany. Had the oil fields been taken (instead of focusing on Stalingrad) then oil would not be a concern for Hitler and given the wheat belt of the Ukraine, food would not be either. Given that the oil complex produced 80% of all Russian oil products, taking that from the Russians would have been a strategic death blow to the Russian war efforts. If the Germans had focused entirely on the oil in August/early September instead of becoming bogged down in Stalingrad then very little stood in the way to stop them. Russian units in the aera were weak and the VVS presence was minimal and those that were there were equipped with obscolete aircraft..

Just curious, Ruy when you mention Barbarossa as No.1 - I would have thought that was an operation rather than a battle, and thus disqualified from the running? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
________________________________________________

__________________________________________________ ___________

there is no way that lw could bring in enough supply for offensive operations if rn cutoff beachhes. rn losses wouldnt be to awful because intact raf would redeploy to south to stop invasion. just look at how bad lw did at dunkirk. also the rn has been noted for heroic sacerfice if the chips are down.. churchill sated he would sacrifice rn to stop invasion. the germans couldnt afford losses of any real size to transport fleet if invasion was going to succeed. the surface KM fleet committed to sealion was a joke. it would be slaughtered by rn, lw or not.

imo the position in caucauses was untenable in winter, no matter if the germans forgot about stalingrad and took baku. they couldnt hold it. look at a map of late 42 frontline, germany was extremly overextended. the russians were going to break though somwhere and force a retreat from baku. anyway i was quoting churchill. if what he says is true, he realised soon as he heard of pearl harbor that germany had lost.

jensenpark
05-16-2006, 07:18 PM
In no particular order...

1) Crete: apparently delayed Barbarossa one full month - thus subtracting one full 'good weather' month from the original Nazi invasion. Perhaps saving Moscow. Hitler wanted Crete finished off first before Barbarossa. Also decimated the German parachute forces and air transport ability.

2) Midway - for obvious reasons - though you could argue Coral Sea was a bigger strategic event as it effectively put a end to a string of planned invasions that would have led to the invasion of Australia.

3) Kursk - Citadel turns from a knockout blow from the Germans to decimation of huge numbers of the German forces - forever ending their ability to stage large scale offences in the east.

ImpStarDuece
05-16-2006, 08:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i dont see how bob was that deceisive considering that even if germans won it, seelowe would still fail. at least in my opinion it would still fail.

how can a battle be deceisive if it doesn't matter who wins?

the germans were destined to fail in 1940,they just didnt have what was needed to invade britain. all losing bob did was save them from a bigger loss if seelowe was tried. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seelowe could, in fact, have succeeded. The British Army was almost naked and unarmed after Dunkirk and in very poor shape for a full scale battle at the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This supposes that the Germans were instantly ready to launch an invasion in June, which they weren't.

Seelowe could only of succeded as a large scale raid (2 airborne and 2-3 seaborne divisions) to force a settlement in June/July, not as a fully fledged invasion of conquest in mid to late September.

However, in June the German plan was of a 40 division invasion, envisiaged as a 'river crossing on a wide front'. In July the reality of a Channel croosing against a numerically superior Royal Navy began to sink in, the river barge fleet was assembled, and planners reduced the plan to just infantry 13 divisions. By August Seelowe was finalised around a 3 day assault phase of 9 infantry and 2 airborne, of which just the lead elements (around 5 divisions worth of troops) would be landed on the first day of operations, without any organic armour, transport or artillery support.

Germany simply didn't have the sealift capacity to sustain operations for anything more than around 8-9 light infantry divisions at any one time, given the preconditions of perfect weather in the Channel for one month, putting the ports of Dover, Eastport and Folkstone up to full capacity in one week after the landings and assuming no interference from the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force.

As there was little doubt that the Royal Navy alone would put a massive crimp in the logisitcs effort of the KriegsMarine and Heer, even the 11 division plan seems overly optimistic. In the wargames run in the 1960s and 1970s the general result were that, even with air superiority and massive minefields in the Channel, the Royal Navy would of crippled German resupply efforts, isolating the German beacheads, and forcing them to surrender due to lack of stores and ammunition.

On the British side the post-Dunkirk British Army strength was obviously at a low point. In a survey of strength of the armed force on June 8th there were just 600 HMGs, 2500 LMGs, 500 tanks, 60 2lbr anti-tank guns and 700 artillery pieces available to the British army. This was enough to full equip just 5 regular strength divisions. At the end of May, the Chiefs of Staff advised the Cabinet that "Should the Germans succeed in establishing a force with its vehicles in this country, our Army forces have not got the offensive power it out".

However, Germany gave the British Army almost 4 months of preparation time between the Dunkirk evactation and the planned invasion of England, which allowed the British to rearm to a point. In this time 250,000 Home Guard and LDVs were mobilised, and significantly relieved pressure from the Army by taking on second line tasks and allowing the Army to concentrate on anti-invasion defence. The British produced and recieved enough equipment to arm another 7 infantry and 1 armoured division, and partially equip another 3 infantry divisions. Almost 13,000 defensive pillboxes were built in 1940, most of them between May and December. Minefields were laid, beach defences erected and several very half-arsed expediants trialed and discarded http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif .

Adam906
05-16-2006, 10:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat: there is no way that lw could bring in enough supply for offensive operations if rn cutoff beachhes. rn losses wouldnt be to awful because intact raf would redeploy to south to stop invasion. just look at how bad lw did at dunkirk. also the rn has been noted for heroic sacerfice if the chips are down.. churchill sated he would sacrifice rn to stop invasion. the germans couldnt afford losses of any real size to transport fleet if invasion was going to succeed. the surface KM fleet committed to sealion was a joke. it would be slaughtered by rn, lw or not.

imo the position in caucauses was untenable in winter, no matter if the germans forgot about stalingrad and took baku. they couldnt hold it. look at a map of late 42 frontline, germany was extremly overextended. the russians were going to break though somwhere and force a retreat from baku. anyway i was quoting churchill. if what he says is true, he realised soon as he heard of pearl harbor that germany had lost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm no logisitics expert but assumiong the Germans managed 6 divisions ashore in mid-September, the LW transport fleet could certainly have managed a serious air lift for the first 24 hours at the very least. As luftluuver points out via Price that betwen the KGzvB units there was a few more than 200 transports available mid August. Assuming 50% of these are not available/unservicable 4 weeks later there is still 100 sorties available to bring in 4000lbs of supplies each in the first wave. That's still over 100 tonns of supplies and equipment for just 8 divisions (six landed, 2 air-dropped) in the first wave. Allowing 50% casualties in the first wave, the return flight 6 hours later still brings in another 50 tonns. In anybodies books, that is a lot. Given the poor state of the divisions the British could have brought to beare immediately, given the Germans superior tactics and equipment it's hard not to think that initial successes would have been quite good. For the purpose of argument, I will say that Seelowe is a failure - but not an immediate one: it takes 2 - 3 weeks to be destroyed. What does that mean? The KM is all but wiped out, the transport fleet is massacred, several divisions of troops and paratroops are lost plus the obvious losses to kampf-, sturz-, and jagdwaffe. What does this mean for future German operatons. Crete is almost certainly out, Barbarossa is confined thanks to the losses in the LW and Heer, and the Battle of the Atlantic doesn't last nearly as long thanks to the KM losses. Hence why BoB is so decisive. If Germany wins and Seelowe is launched whichever side wins means the war ends sooner..the loss of BoB was a blessing in disguis for the Germans (that they failed to make good)

As for Baku, take a look at the forces employed against Stalingrad on the ground and take into account that virtually all LW units on the southern sector were targeting Stalingrad. Redirect all those forces away to Baku, with only sufficient forces to hold the frontline outside Stalingrad (and therefore close the Volga to most traffic) and what happens. Winter doesn't role in for another 2 - 3 months which gives the Germans more than enough time to establish winter quarters and consilidate the gains in Baku. Take 2 - 3 mnths oil production out of Stalin's hands and Russia is in very serious trouble.

Von_Rat
05-16-2006, 11:03 PM
losing most of your air transport to land 150 tons isnt good stratergy to me. heavy weapons had to come by sea. without heavy weapons the germans werent going anywhere off the beaches.

i agree losing bob was a blessing in disguise.

as for baku. you just can't hang large forces out on a limb against a unbeaten enemy like your purposing. if you redirect large german forces from instead of stalingrad area to deep in the caucases, your opening yourself up for a super stalingrad disaster. who would be your flank guards, lower grade axis units mostly, with few hi quiality german units nearby because their attacking baku.. also with no pressure in stalingrad area the russians send more to defend baku, or launch attack earlier. the russians probaly wouldnt have to wait for winter.

when the germans stuck their head in the noose at stalingrad, with a long exposed flank, many german gernerals knew this was violating basic strategic principles, and they said so but were ingnored. what your purposing is even worse.

Adam906
05-17-2006, 01:03 AM
Hi Von_Rat,

I agree with the heavy weapons for Seelowe but that's my point about BoB being decisive. Doesn't have to mean Seelowe was a success, just that it would have created a very drastic situation for the Germans. Using up all those transports is not good strategy, but then neither was the decision to use them supply Stalingrad... Same principles at play (Hitler's ego/military prestige) just two years earlier and closer to home and a lot more difficult to hide from the public.

As for Baku - agree completely with what you are saying, but even if for only two months the Germans can hang onto Baku then that's 2 months the Soviets go without 80% of their oil production. The Germans are forced to withdraw/surrender and they do so by blowing the place sky high. Whichever road they take they loose a sizeable formation. However, with Baku, the LW has not had the mauling it did over Stalingrad so is more effective and can offer better support for an initial period before Russian supplies/reinforcements flow in. Also go back to late July/early August - whenever it was that the decision to split Blau into two forces: one for Stalingrad (which was never an operational goal) and the other for Baku.. If instead of splitting forces the Germans go straight for the main objective - oil - the Russians are still in big trouble. As it was the Germans managed to get to Baku in early autumn (ie, not late '42 as you mention in your previous post) and hold it for a time. Had they got the whole area under control and denied the Russians its entire output then there goes Soviet war machine. Zhukov would have known the value of a massive all out attack to drive the Germans from Baku completely - especially when he would be using only oil reserves and no fresh output - instead of localised counter-attacks.

Germany had so many opportunities to win the war - or at least make it unwinable for the Allies, thank goodness they didn't reach out and grab those moment with both hands!

WWMaxGunz
05-17-2006, 02:14 AM
What was Britain supposed to fight an invasion off with in October 1940?
The main armaments were left in Dunkirk.

The drain on pilots planes and damage to airfields of BoB prior to the shift to cities focus
had the RAF on the ropes. Rear airbases were too far back and LW getting airfields on Britian
would give the 109's the loiter time they needed as well as closer return fields, a shift to
the advantage of Germany.

RN ships attck in the narrow confines of the channel without air cover, LW above and ground
guns on both sides able to bear? That would have been a shorter battle for sure.
The Germans did believe that invasion was possible and counted on a cakewalk with good reason.

It was only the airwar that kept that from being tested, a matter of time for the Brits to
rearm that was given them at the expense of civilian deaths, casualties, and lost city blocks.

In that time the resolve of the Brits was tested strongly, they fought harder.

Hitler and pals were bloody stupid jerks. The only cave-in they were handed was from, is the
name Petain? A trumped up little jerk himself who saw a way to get himself in charge.

bazzaah2
05-17-2006, 02:19 AM
Lots to ponder here.

Someone above pointed out that the Soviet victory at Kursk was to be a knockout blow. If I remember correctly the intention of Citadel was to stabilise the front and prevent a Soviet offensive in the summer of '43. It would never have led to a German victory. It wasn't a strategic offensive, but a tactical one with fairly limited aims. You can see how German offensive capacity had been diminished between Barbarossa and Citadel by the scope of the operations.

I tend to agree with von Rat - Fall Blau would have turned out badly either way. Destruction of oil production would have been a severe blow but I wonder how long it would have been before the Soviets got some functional level of production going again? After all they managed to shift a good proportion of manufacturing capacity eastwards under severe pressure in the summer of '41. But even then would severe damage to Soviet oil production have meant that the Germans had the opportunity to win the war in the East? I'm sceptical. If, and only if, the Germans held and controlled all Soviet oil production does Fall Blau succeed. Now, does that mean that the Soviets would surrender? Probably not and so the Germans would still be faced with the necessity of advancing on and taking Moscow again. Were they up to it in 1942/3?

As far as Sea Lion is concerned, discussions have centred around the Germans gaining air superiority, NOT supremacy. Thus, we still have to figure some degree of RAF activity in SeaLion.

It seems to me as though there was a marked absence of detailed planning in SeaLion and much was inteneded to be extemporised. And, again, I point out that the people who would have fought SeaLion decided that it was most likely to fail because of the damage done by the RN!

Unless I'm mistaken, the Luftwaffe reckoned to have on average some 70% of available planes useable at any one time, so can we assume that the actual airlift capacity would have been something like 70% of that given above. With severe damage done to the KM's transport capacity, where would tanks, armoured cars etc actually come from? So we are looking at a few divisions barely adequately supplied with precious little in the way of armour to support them.

With a SeaLion failure, Hitler would have gone ahead anyway with Barbarossa but with a diminished chances of success.

I still think that Hitler making the decision not to take Moscow in August 41 was the most significant action of the war and, compounded by the failure of the Luftwaffe in the BoB and the entry of the US into the war, the Germans had lost all realistic chance of winning the war come December '41. Therefore the decisive battles of the war must have taken place before then since all battles subsequent to December 1941 pointed to an eventual German defeat.

luftluuver
05-17-2006, 02:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
What was Britain supposed to fight an invasion off with in October 1940?
The main armaments were left in Dunkirk.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Be sure, the UK was emptied of all heavy weapons being sent to France. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif</span>

The drain on pilots planes and damage to airfields of BoB prior to the shift to cities focus had the RAF on the ropes. Rear airbases were too far back and LW getting airfields on Britian would give the 109's the loiter time they needed as well as closer return fields, a shift to the advantage of Germany.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Only 11 Group was in any sort of difficulty. The overall number of RAF fighters stayed almost constant. The German in control of some of the airfields of the former 11 Group would have been under attack by the RAF.</span>

RN ships attck in the narrow confines of the channel without air cover, LW above and ground
guns on both sides able to bear? That would have been a shorter battle for sure.
The Germans did believe that invasion was possible and counted on a cakewalk with good reason.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">No air cover? The RAF had not been wiped out to the last a/c. So while the LW is continually covering the seaborne troops for 1 or 2 days as they cross the Channel, what German a/c were escorting the Ju 52s and bombers, defending the new Brit soil airfields? You must think the Channel is some mill pond? All it would take would be one run up the Channel to decimate the inland water barges. What night ship attack capability did the LW have?</span>

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

HellToupee
05-17-2006, 04:13 AM
the RN performed allright in norway without aircover and lw attacks. I doubt every single last tank gun and slingslot was left on the mainland, they would be hardpressed to blitz their way into england lack of motorised support, they would be hardpressed to gain suprise like in norway.

slipBall
05-17-2006, 04:35 AM
I would say that the number 1 reason, that trumps all others

Germany's failure to realize the need for, and the developement, of a heavy bomber, for strategic bombing deep into Russia. Stalin's forsight to move war industry far to the east. Out of the reach of Germany's light bombers

HellToupee
05-17-2006, 04:41 AM
even with a strat bomber unless they had them in mass they would probly all be shot down in short order, flying so far over enemy territory for ptobly a nelegible impact, even the allied day and night bombing wasnt super effective at effecting production.

slipBall
05-17-2006, 04:48 AM
Strategic bombing won the war for the allies

bazzaah2
05-17-2006, 05:25 AM
it certainly helped the Red Army win the war.