Defeating Iraq is not really a test of a military strategy.

What an Army is capable of today says little about what an Army was capable of in 1944 and 1945. A Sherman is no Abrams.

WWII proved that Blitzkrieg was a total failure as a strategy with WW2-era militaries. And there was no way to fix it within that era.

Originally Posted by Zucchini

WWII proved that Blitzkrieg was a total failure as a strategy with WW2-era militaries. And there was no way to fix it within that era.

How? All modern armies by 1944 were using modified Blitzkrieg tactics. Blitzkrieg itself changed as the war went on - it was after all a very new take on a very old method - the use of mobility.

What tactics do you think the Allies were using to push back the Germans? Do you even understand how Blitzkrieg works?

Defeating Iraq is not really a test of a military strategy.

What an Army is capable of today says little about what an Army was capable of in 1944 and 1945. A Sherman is no Abrams.

WWII proved that Blitzkrieg was a total failure as a strategy with WW2-era militaries. And there was no way to fix it within that era.

Totally incorrect. Have you ever served in a modern army that practices the Air/Land battle? Even as a troop? As an officer I've been involved in a great deal of training and use of this principle and what you're saying is not true at all.

Think of the US attacks on Japan, everytime they attacked an Island, they did so with air support and armour, all at the same time, a development of Blitzkrieg

Originally Posted by beardo

How can you think that the largest amphibous assault in history, opening up another flank, and forcing the germans to retreat again wasnt a decisive battle

I am not going to argue that Overlord was not decisive. It was. But was it AS decisive as Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk?? No, it absolutely wasn't!! Germany was already losing the war and steadily retreating on the Eastern Front. If Overlord had never even happened (whether Joe Stalin demanded it or not), would Germany have won? No, they would not. At the moment D-day occurred, nothing short of an act of God was going to change one simple fact: The Germans were already losing. They did not have the capability of repelling the Soviet Red Army. So what did Overlord and D-Day accomplish? 1.) It shortened the process of completely defeating the Germans. 2.) It preserved Continental Europe from all becoming part of the USSR's Communist Empire.

By the way, I voted Moscow for the following reasons: Firstly, without stopping the Germans from taking Moscow, neither Kursk nor Stalingrad could have ever been won by the Soviets. Also, because they stopped the Germans, the largest center of manufacturing and production in the entire USSR (Moscow/Gorky region) remained under Soviet control.

I've always favored the opinion that Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk all combined as decisively turning the tide of the war in Europe. Moscow was the first large-scale victory. Stalingrad was the second gigantic victory, and destroyed an entire German Army. Kursk was the third grand slam win and spelled the end of Germany's ability to attack. From Kursk on, it was a slow march backwards all the way to Berlin. None of them is truly greater than the other and all were crucial.

I am going against the flow here but my vote is for the battle of Midway which had the most long reaching strategic effects in that it allowed the US to pursue its Germany first planning and shifted the balance of power in the Pacific. Since between June 1941 and 1945 the USSR received 400,000 jeeps, 12,000 armored vehicles 13,000 locomotives and RR cars, 325,000 tons of explosives and 1.8 tons of foodstuffs the USSR did not fight alone and ostensibly Hitler called Citadel because of the Allied Invasion of Sicily, the ramifications of Midway are apparent. This was a battle that had a ripple effect throughout all other areas of the war and had the results been different the war might not have been the same. I personally believe that this would be true only of the battle of Britain also as I don't believe that the USSR would have crumbled after the battles of Moscow or of Stalingrad. As for Kursk, the only way that battle could have been a difference maker for the Germans would not have been in a German victory but if it had not been fought. JWC- former E-4 USMC

What about the Battle of Britain? I think that was a very important battle If Britain was gone then the Us Would have to enter the war and it would be a good chance that the discovery of sonor would have been delayed and Germany would own the Seas for even longer with their wolfpacks. There would be no D-Day and even if Britain got freed the Germans would have done so much damage that it would take it years for Britain to Recover.All the Time the Germans can focus on Russia which I think they never should have attacked. Russia has never been conquered even if the Germans took Moscow Russia would just keep sending men. Also with the Delay if Britain was conquered the Germans could have got the Atom Bomb First giving them a huge advantage the Germany also near the end of the war had all these new weapons in development now think about what would have happen if they had more time. I think Germany could have won the war with Britain knocked out.

Originally Posted by Rommel

Russia has never been conquered

Just an editorial note Mr Rommel: Russia most definitely has been conquered, but you gotta go way back to the Mongols in the 1200's for that. Not only did Russia get conquered, the Golden Hoarde controlled it for hundreds of years afterward.

Good point with the Battle of Britain, though I'm very much doubting that Germany had any plan for invading the British Isles with any great chance of success, with or without the RAF. Sealion, for instance, would have most definitely failed. The Royal Navy alone could have delayed any amphibious invasion for happening for a long time. Certainly would have handed Germany the upper hand in the Battle of the Atlantic, but it still would have been years before an invasion of Great Britain would have truly been possible.

I would have to say El Alamein Because if the Nazis had taken It they would have pushed into Africa and taken control.Also, El Alemein had a lot of oil ,which everyone needed.

I chose Operation Overlord, because it made two fronts for the Germans to fight, the western ( Great Britain, Canada, and the US) and the eastern front ( USSR). Causing them to spread their forces in two.