Most decisive battle in WW2? - Page 39




View Poll Results :Most decisive battle in WW2?
Battle of Stalingrad 34 33.33%
Battle of Kursk (Operation Citadel) 15 14.71%
Battle of Moscow 10 9.80%
Battle of Leningrad 0 0%
Battle of El Alamein 3 2.94%
Operation Overlord (Battle of Normandy) 17 16.67%
Battle of Midway 11 10.78%
Other 12 11.76%
Voters: 102. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
June 1st, 2014  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Isn't the question of this thread a bit wrong? (no offense)

They are all connected, each single battle added to the attrition, so the concept of the battle turning the tide is a bit wrong maybe. Even the losses between the battles added to the demise of the Third Reich. I mean the slow going process of losing men and equipment added to the outcome of the war.
June 1st, 2014  
lljadw
 
I agree : there were no decisive battles who were turning the tide .WWII was a war of attrition between industrial giants,of which Germany was the weakest .
June 1st, 2014  
JOC
 
 

Topic: senses


Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
I agree : there were no decisive battles who were turning the tide .WWII was a war of attrition between industrial giants,of which Germany was the weakest .
Without a longer explanation you really sum it. Germany couldn't keep up industrially with the US and USSR. An interesting fact is that Germany "the so-called technical power" relied most heavily on horses for transport for the duration of the war, more so than the USSR or the US "who didn't even use horses". Once both these super powers were in the war there was little chance for a German victory. Even if the US's main contribution prior to 43 was to supply Britain and the USSR. With the USSR taking on the ground war up to this time for the most part”.
--
June 1st, 2014  
-- Dusty
 
 
IMO, Pearl Harbor. If the Japanese hadn't hit Pearl I really don't know if America would have became more involved until the Phillipenese or AU/NZ get involved.
June 2nd, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by -- Dusty
IMO, Pearl Harbor. If the Japanese hadn't hit Pearl I really don't know if America would have became more involved until the Phillipenese or AU/NZ get involved.
Both New Zealand and Australia were involved from Sept 3rd 1939 and were engaging Germans in North Africa, over France with the RAF (First Allied ace of WW2 was Edgar James Cain who served with 73 Squadron RNZAF) and in the Atlantic where HMNZS Achilles took part in hunting down the Graf Spee in December 1939.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor Australia focused more on the Pacific war while New Zealand remained in Europe.
June 2nd, 2014  
JOC
 
 

Topic: Commonwealth


To expound upon Monty statement. The Commonwealth made up a pretty significant portion of Britain's armed forces during the war. For the most part they joined in during 1939, some time prior to the US. The Commonwealth included quite a few nations: Canada, the Gurkas from India, troops from British Africa, the Australians "who were credited with the victory over Japan in New Guinea", New Zealand to list some major Commonwealth players.
June 2nd, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
To expound upon Monty statement. The Commonwealth made up a pretty significant portion of Britain's armed forces during the war. For the most part they joined in during 1939, some time prior to the US. The Commonwealth included quite a few nations: Canada, the Gurkas from India, troops from British Africa, the Australians "who were credited with the victory over Japan in New Guinea", New Zealand to list some major Commonwealth players.
Indeed almost 3 million Indian troops served in all theaters of WW2 and just to plug the Aussies a bit it was also the Australian 9th Division that defended Tobruk and provided the first genuine victory against Rommel.
June 2nd, 2014  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
Isn't the question of this thread a bit wrong? (no offense)

They are all connected, each single battle added to the attrition, so the concept of the battle turning the tide is a bit wrong maybe. Even the losses between the battles added to the demise of the Third Reich. I mean the slow going process of losing men and equipment added to the outcome of the war.
I understand what you're saying but there are battles that stand out, that can be argued had a decisive effect. For example, had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbour a whole myriad of choices and outcomes would have been massively changed. For me it's too simple just to say that it was a war of attrition because it's not always those countries with the greatest resources that win. Just say that Germany had stopped after defeating France and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact between them and the USSR had held. Under that scenario, Germany would have won and the US would never have become involved in the European theatre.

Battles can be decisive. Moscow was decisive because Germany didn't have the resources to hang toe-to-toe with the USSR. The Germans lost because they failed to knock out the Soviets quickly by way of causing the Soviet regime to collapse. Only the capture of Moscow and/or the fall of Stalin could have caused this. There was nothing decisive about the Ostfront after 1941, it was just the sound of inevitability that the Germans heard thereafter as Agent Smith might have put it. The built-up attrition was only ever going to favour one side. It was like a pride of lions chasing after a separated buffalo. The buffalo will put up a valiant fight for survival but in the end its death at the hands of the predators is almost guaranteed. So was a favourable Soviet outcome in the Ostfront from January 1942 onwards.
June 3rd, 2014  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
. For example, had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbour a whole myriad of choices and outcomes would have been massively changed.






Just say that Germany had stopped after defeating France and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact between them and the USSR had held. Under that scenario, Germany would have won and the US would never have become involved in the European theatre.


1)Choices and outcomes as .....


2)Germany having stopped after defeating France :this was not depending on Germany

3)Germany would have won ????

4)No intervention of the US in the European theatre ???
June 3rd, 2014  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lljadw
1)Choices and outcomes as .....


2)Germany having stopped after defeating France :this was not depending on Germany

3)Germany would have won ????

4)No intervention of the US in the European theatre ???
Good point we can only go with the actual events as they occurred. One could say had the Germans allowed the ME-262 to be built as a fighter in 43 as originally planned it would have cleared the sky's over all fronts thus leading to a possible German victory. But they didn't so they lost.