Most decisive battle in WW2?

[LeEnfield]

All those battles were important and it is a job to pick out any one of them and say that won the war. Personally I think many of the little battles that raged in the early part of the war where Allies fought with very little to stem the tide of the Axis forces really were the key for if it had not been for their sacrifice many of the bigger battles would not have taken place.

 

[Springfield]

I would say that Operation Overlord was a very decisive battle in World War 2. If we wouldn't have pushed into France like we did in Operation Overlord, then I don't think we would have been able to get to Germany easily. So I think that this was very important part in the history of World War 2.

 

[liburnia]

Stalingrad

Without offending one's sensibilities nor trying to demean and invalidate the war of the Western allies, I would cast my votes on any single Eastern Front battle before even considering the western front. World War two was fought in Eastern Europe. Every details points to that. Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kursk, Kiev, Debrecen, and even the Warsaw rising. These were clashes of titans -wars of annihilation. Hitler and Stalin were fighting total and ideological wars, which by definition leave no ambiguities nor misunderstanding in the way of the fighting. The Geneva Conention rules were a "nicety," massacres happened by the divisions and corps. Only in the battle of Debrecen in Hungary in Hungary in October 1944 the German 6th Army annihilated three Soviet tank Corps. The equivalent of the Western Battle of the Bulge in the East was not dreaded, it was expected and welcomed, since there was no other way. The Germans and the Soviets did not rout each other on brigade and divisional level, rather on corps and army level. It was simply a war of giants. Checking all statiscs will back this up. The trauma of the war in the West was not experienced the same way, or at the same level and intensity as in the East. I am inclined to think that there was NO GREAT BATTLE in WWII, since I view every confrontation as a part of a lobng process which has a beginning and an end. Every battle no matter small or big contributed to the same end result. However, If I am to point my finger at one of them, I have to choose Stalingrad, not because on the numbers that died there, nor because of the horrors of war, or the scale of destruction. Simply because the was the culmination of Nazi power which from then on started to decline. The only battle of the west which I consider worthy of being called as a true operation is the fight for Monetcasino and Anzio. I dont think the Normandy landing, nor the Battle fo the Bulge qualify since, despite the numbers involved their end result was never in doubt. Even if the landing would have marred by disaster, they would have landed at one point in time; whereas the Battle of the Bulge was a result of the thined Ally supplies and bad weather. After recuperating from the inital surprise the ALlies would have gone eventually on the assault - as in fact it did happen.
Also, I am inclined to believe that no battle of the Pacific qualifies simply because a technological superior US would definitely have defeated Japan; island hoping restricts clashes into well defined spaces, and if not one island would have fallen, the next would have (blitkrieg at its best; divide and conquer later); also, a war between two opponents rarely qualifes as defining into world affairs. Did the war between the US and Spain qualify? Germany v Danmark in the 18th century, Germany v. France and Austria, or Russia v Japan? Important as they were in gaining knowldge and drawing lessons, they did not change the course of reality much: just how to perceive it [/u]

 

[Fox]

I feel Operation Overlord is important to the War because It was largest invade that world ever seen it before.

 

[Springfield]

I feel Operation Overlord is important to the War because It was largest invade that world ever seen it before.

I don't think it was the largest invasion in history. I think it was the largest amphibious landing in history. I think.

 

[Doppleganger]

I feel Operation Overlord is important to the War because It was largest invade that world ever seen it before.

I don't think it was the largest invasion in history. I think it was the largest amphibious landing in history. I think.

The largest invasion in history was the German invasion of the Soviet Union. To put it into some kind of context with the D-Day landings Operation Barbarossa numerically speaking was over ten times as massive.

Approximately 330,000 Allied troops stormed the Normandy beaches on June 6th, 1944..

Approximately 3,700,000 German and Axis soldiers marched into the Soviet Union on June 22nd, 1941. There were 4,300,000 Soviet soldiers there to greet them.

Put things into context a little I think.

 

[Springfield]

I feel Operation Overlord is important to the War because It was largest invade that world ever seen it before.

I don't think it was the largest invasion in history. I think it was the largest amphibious landing in history. I think.

The largest invasion in history was the German invasion of the Soviet Union. To put it into some kind of context with the D-Day landings Operation Barbarossa numerically speaking was over ten times as massive.

Approximately 330,000 Allied troops stormed the Normandy beaches on June 6th, 1944..

Approximately 3,700,000 German and Axis soldiers marched into the Soviet Union on June 22nd, 1941. There were 4,300,000 Soviet soldiers there to greet them.

Put things into context a little I think.

WOW :shock: I never knew that! Very interesting.....

 

[Josh678]

I'll say D-day because that is the battle in which the commanders relisized how important the Airbourne was in operations behind enemy lines.Also because it opened a second front in Europe and led to dissent in Germany about Hitler's reigeme.

 

[Kunikov]

The largest invasion in history was the German invasion of the Soviet Union. To put it into some kind of context with the D-Day landings Operation Barbarossa numerically speaking was over ten times as massive.

Approximately 330,000 Allied troops stormed the Normandy beaches on June 6th, 1944..

Approximately 3,700,000 German and Axis soldiers marched into the Soviet Union on June 22nd, 1941. There were 4,300,000 Soviet soldiers there to greet them.

Put things into context a little I think.

Your numbers for the Soviet Union are off. The forces in the Western Military Districts numbered some 2.9 million men of whom around 1 million were stationed along or close to the border.

 

[Kunikov]

IMO the Battle of Kursk decided the outcome of WW2 in Europe. Simply put, before Kursk the Germans had the strategic initiative, despite Stalingrad; after Kursk it passed to the Soviet Union who would never give it up. The Battles of Moscow and Stalingrad were big decisive battles, but the key point that distinguishes them from Kursk is that afterwards the Germans still had options. After Kursk they only had one - retreat.

By the time Operation Overlord was launched the war had already been decided for almost a year.

Kursk, like Normandy, simply brought the conclusion of the war to a quicker end. Casualties during the Kursk defensive offensive were quite small compared to other operations, like the Moscow Counter offensive and Stalingrad. The ensuing operations to take Belgorod and Orel were much heavier in terms of casualties for both sides. I'd say that it was in fact the Moscow Counter-offensive that decided the war in the East, even if Stalingrad was taken by the Germans there wasn't much more they could do. Soviet bridgeheads were already there for the encirclement of the Sixth Army. The fact that the Germans could only launch an offensive with one army group shows how far their war waging abilities had been degraded.

 

[Doppleganger]

Kursk, like Normandy, simply brought the conclusion of the war to a quicker end. I'd say that it was in fact the Moscow Counter-offensive that decided the war in the East,

Since I posted that I've revised my opinion and agree with you that Operation Typhoon and the resultant Soviet counterattack was the critical juncture of the war in the east. A stalemate in the East was still possible before Kursk however.

 

[Kunikov]

Since I posted that I've revised my opinion and agree with you that Operation Typhoon and the resultant Soviet counterattack was the critical juncture of the war in the east. A stalemate in the East was still possible before Kursk however.

Anything is possible, the real question is how probable would it have been. As pointed out, the casualties taken during the Kursk defensive phase were not at all that serious, meaning it didn't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

Anything is possible, the real question is how probable would it have been. As pointed out, the casualties taken during the Kursk defensive phase were not at all that serious, meaning it didn't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.

While I have not read all of the comments on this issue, it seems that I can give a word or two. At least I will try. I apologize if I repeat points already raised.

But, the Kursk defeat should never have happened. That is, German troops should have, according to the Prussian logic of maintenance of the aim, been withdrawn from Africa both prior to and during the Anglo-American offensive. The complicating factor was the political dimension. Hitler introduced strange political beliefs that confused ALL operations. Time and time again, the principles of war were overturned.

Nevertheless, even accounting for German error, without the combined effort, Russia was lost...that point is clearer than day.

 

[godofthunder9010]

.............................

 

[godofthunder9010]

Your numbers for the Soviet Union are off. The forces in the Western Military Districts numbered some 2.9 million men of whom around 1 million were stationed along or close to the border.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

The totals for Soviet and German/Axis forces at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa:

Overall Soviet Union Armed Forces (June 22, 1941):
Divisions: 316.5
Personnel: 5,774,000
Guns and Mortars: 117,600
Tanks: 25,700
Aircraft: 18,700

Overall German and Axis Invading Force (June 22, 1941)
Divisions: 166
Personnel: 4,306,800
Guns and Mortars: 42,601
Tanks (including Assault Guns): 4,171
Aircraft: 4,846

Soviet Forces at or near the Soviet/German Border(s) (June 22, 1941)
Divisions: 190
Personnel: 3,289,851
Guns and Mortars: 59,787
Tanks: 15,687
Aircraft: 10,743

One of the greatest difficulties in trying to attach factual number to the Eastern Front is simple: Both Nazi Germany and the USSR prove highly unreliable in their historical accounts of ... all sorts of things. These numbers are probably pretty close to accurate. The fact that the full Soviet armed forces were not deployed in the vicinity of the German invading forces does not mean that the "don't count." Zhukov and a large number of divisions got into the thick of things within the first 6 months. Still, it's worth noting that this was the size of things for the immediate fight.

A couple of things to point out. Not all of the German/Axis force was German. About a million were Romanian, Italian, Hungarian, Finn ... not all of which could even come close to boasting the same operational effectiveness of the German Army.

The Soviet tanks were a mixed bag. Some were of the T34 generation ... quite a few actually. A lot were older tanks of quesitonable effectiveness. By the same token, Panzers I and II were technically never intended to be full fledged combat tanks. They get added into the total anyways. On the whole, it's hard to decide who's tank forces were made up of the best quality tanks, but it's clear that Russia had AN INSANE numerical advantage in this department.

While the Soviet fighters kinda sucked, they had a LOT more combat aircraft than the German and Axis invaders did.

In terms of overall personnel, the one thing that the Axis appear to have had a numerical advantage in ... while there is an immediate advantage, border vs border, since Germany had no intention of stopping at the border then you realistically have to count the whole thing. Also, there are a number of accounts placing the numerical strength of the Red Army prior to June 1941 at a much higher number. Wikipedia at least does it's best to go for the most reliable source, but it is possible that the Red Army was actually much much larger in personnel that the numbers above.

 

[Kunikov]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

The totals for Soviet and German/Axis forces at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa:

Overall Soviet Union Armed Forces (June 22, 1941):
Divisions: 316.5
Personnel: 5,774,000
Guns and Mortars: 117,600
Tanks: 25,700
Aircraft: 18,700

Overall German and Axis Invading Force (June 22, 1941)
Divisions: 166
Personnel: 4,306,800
Guns and Mortars: 42,601
Tanks (including Assault Guns): 4,171
Aircraft: 4,846

Soviet Forces at or near the Soviet/German Border(s) (June 22, 1941)
Divisions: 190
Personnel: 3,289,851
Guns and Mortars: 59,787
Tanks: 15,687
Aircraft: 10,743

One of the greatest difficulties in trying to attach factual number to the Eastern Front is simple: Both Nazi Germany and the USSR prove highly unreliable in their historical accounts of ... all sorts of things. These numbers are probably pretty close to accurate. The fact that the full Soviet armed forces were not deployed in the vicinity of the German invading forces does not mean that the "don't count." Zhukov and a large number of divisions got into the thick of things within the first 6 months. Still, it's worth noting that this was the size of things for the immediate fight.

A couple of things to point out. Not all of the German/Axis force was German. About a million were Romanian, Italian, Hungarian, Finn ... not all of which could even come close to boasting the same operational effectiveness of the German Army.

The Soviet tanks were a mixed bag. Some were of the T34 generation ... quite a few actually. A lot were older tanks of quesitonable effectiveness. By the same token, Panzers I and II were technically never intended to be full fledged combat tanks. They get added into the total anyways. On the whole, it's hard to decide who's tank forces were made up of the best quality tanks, but it's clear that Russia had AN INSANE numerical advantage in this department.

While the Soviet fighters kinda sucked, they had a LOT more combat aircraft than the German and Axis invaders did.

In terms of overall personnel, the one thing that the Axis appear to have had a numerical advantage in ... while there is an immediate advantage, border vs border, since Germany had no intention of stopping at the border then you realistically have to count the whole thing. Also, there are a number of accounts placing the numerical strength of the Red Army prior to June 1941 at a much higher number. Wikipedia at least does it's best to go for the most reliable source, but it is possible that the Red Army was actually much much larger in personnel that the numbers above.

First off, Wikipedia isn't an acceptable source, it is a reference point. Secondly, you've given a perfect example of why numbers without a context are meaningless. The numbers you've quoted are for the western military districts which go back to Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad, etc. The troops on the border, that is close to the border, numbered 1 million. The numbers for tank include tanks that were inoperable as well, the real number is lower. Numbers also don't explain why the Red Army lost the border battles, that's learned when one examines the context.

 

[Kunikov]

Nevertheless, even accounting for German error, without the combined effort, Russia was lost...that point is clearer than day.

That point is only 'clear' to those who don't know the first thing in regards to the Eastern Front.

 

[senojekips]

First off, Wikipedia isn't an acceptable source, it is a reference point. Secondly, you've given a perfect example of why numbers without a context are meaningless. The numbers you've quoted are for the western military districts which go back to Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad, etc. The troops on the border, that is close to the border, numbered 1 million. The numbers for tank include tanks that were inoperable as well, the real number is lower. Numbers also don't explain why the Red Army lost the border battles, that's learned when one examines the context.

It seems that we have another "My sources are the only correct sources" pedant. If you wish to deny the sources of others it may be an idea to start justifying your own first.

P80 Mk II.

 

[godofthunder9010]

First off, Wikipedia isn't an acceptable source, it is a reference point. Secondly, you've given a perfect example of why numbers without a context are meaningless. The numbers you've quoted are for the western military districts which go back to Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad, etc. The troops on the border, that is close to the border, numbered 1 million. The numbers for tank include tanks that were inoperable as well, the real number is lower. Numbers also don't explain why the Red Army lost the border battles, that's learned when one examines the context.

As your purpose seems to be primarily focussed upon shredding any point of view that is not your own, you can readily expect that I'll not wish to bother anymore. You've managed to answer my post with a holier than thou, "You clearly do not know what the hell your talking about" response. Wikipedia isn't an acceptable source? Who the hell put you in charge of defining what is and what isn't "an acceptable source"? Where's yours? Nobody else seemed to be posting any sources to validate the numbers being thrown around for that piece of the discussion so it seemed like it would be helpful.

Clearly it is not worth wasting my time or effort on. And by the way, you may have noticed the few paragraphs below the numbers posted. That was a perspective and a context.

 

[Kunikov]

It seems that we have another "My sources are the only correct sources" pedant. If you wish to deny the sources of others it may be an idea to start justifying your own first.

P80 Mk II.

I didn't say anything in regards to my sources, I simply explained why the original posters use of a translated Russian source from Wikipedia gives an out of context view of the situation which is in fact skewed from the reality of what was going on in the Soviet Union and specifically the Red Army.