Originally Posted by MontyB

Are you sure that you don't have that back to front.

I can't be bothered to argue with the twonk, whatever I or we say he's going to start prattling off with some ridiculous argument. Its a waste of my time.

If the Japanese had made Port Moresby, they would of made life harder for America. There was a reason why the US navy, after the US military run away with thier tail between thier legs from the Phillippenes, made home in NZ. This would of changed alot of things, one of them was the ability to effect the american successful submarine operations. America would of been very busy defending her sea lane to Australia. The battle for moresby ran for quite some time, 4 attempted invasions.Three from the land, one from the sea.

This battle was more desivive than overlord. Overlord was a progression,not a battle.Germans were beat long before this.

Harder yes but it would not have changed the outcome, it may not have even prolonged the war as that was pretty much decided by the battles in the central Pacific.
By the time of the battles in New Guinea Japan was at the very end of its logistics capability and could go no further.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

I can't be bothered to argue with the twonk, whatever I or we say he's going to start prattling off with some ridiculous argument. Its a waste of my time.

As usual,some people think that insults are replacing arguments .

Originally Posted by pottsy

If the Japanese had made Port Moresby, they would of made life harder for America. There was a reason why the US navy, after the US military run away with thier tail between thier legs from the Phillippenes, made home in NZ. This would of changed alot of things, one of them was the ability to effect the american successful submarine operations. America would of been very busy defending her sea lane to Australia. The battle for moresby ran for quite some time, 4 attempted invasions.Three from the land, one from the sea.

This battle was more desivive than overlord. Overlord was a progression,not a battle.Germans were beat long before this.

The difference is that Japan from the first day on,was fighting to not to lose, it was not fighting to win :the ail of Japan was not to parade along the Pennsylvania Avenue :the US had to parade in Tokyo .

As such,defeat or victory at Midway changed nothing.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Harder yes but it would not have changed the outcome, it may not have even prolonged the war as that was pretty much decided by the battles in the central Pacific.
By the time of the battles in New Guinea Japan was at the very end of its logistics capability and could go no further.

I gather you're unaware of the camapign against Japanese shipping by american submariners,i gather you're unawre of just what the Japanese were trying to do in the pacific. the moresby battle was quite full on, a close run thing.the americans actualy made some pretty silly decisions during this battle, Had japan made Moresby ,Guadacanal would of been lost. The americans used brisbane as thier jumping off point once the japanese had been checked. had the Japanese made moresby, brisbane would of been flattened. with the aquisition of moresby more of the japnese larger naval vessels would of been operating in the area, would of needed to be dealt with. America were a few years from being able to do that.

Anyway I was making the point that this battle was more significant than overlord, which it was. overlord was origonaly planned to be carried a year earlier, with 3 times the men, but because of battles like moresby it was able to be delayed and scaled down to suit political policies.

Originally Posted by lljadw

The difference is that Japan from the first day on,was fighting to not to lose, it was not fighting to win :the ail of Japan was not to parade along the Pennsylvania Avenue :the US had to parade in Tokyo .

As such,defeat or victory at Midway changed nothing.

They were seeking the same thing germany was with britian. They did not war, but they had to check the ability of those nations to make war on them. Japs did all they could to cut american/british/french influence

Originally Posted by lljadw

As usual,some people think that insults are replacing arguments .

You call that insulting? As I said its pointless even attempting to get into a sensible discussion with you.

Quite frankly some of your arguments are idiotic to say the least.

Most people decline to have a discussion with a bully.

The Battle Of Britain was one of those battles that changed the course of the war. If Britain had lost that Battle and had been invaded that would have meant that there would have been no D Day into Europe. North Africa would have fallen and Israel would have never happened. Germany would have then been able to turn its full might on Russia and would have been successful. So in my book one of the most important battles was BoB

I have to object

1) The Battle of Britain and the Invasion of Britain (Sealion) were 2 different things : even if Britain had lost the Battle of Britain (for which there was no danger at all) ,Sealion would be impossible .


2)If Britain was out, I see no reasons for Germany to attack the SU


3) If they still attacked the SU,I don't see the Germans being stronger than in the OTL.