Originally Posted by BigBert96

By late 44, 75% of Germany's oil production had been eliminated. How is this not effective?

And most of that was destroyed the same year. 1944.

Yep the USA and UK were chasing the failed theory of bombing the enemy into submission. Nobody knew for sure it wouldn't work at the time of course. The RAF and USAAC finally woke up to the fact that there are more vunerable targets than civilians and manufacturing that just went underground.

I disagree with BofB only because at the end of it, the Allies were still losing the war. Very important victory even if Operation Sea Lion was completely undoable.

I almost forgot, the Battle of the Atlantic. Very close one at first. I think if Germany won this one, UK would surely have had to sue for peace. What do yall think?

Always hated the term "Battle of the Atlantic". Its the most misleading term concievable. If the thing was a single naval engagment ... then its a "battle". Kinda hard to say about the Battle of the Atlantic. Which part?

Originally Posted by BigBert96

Doppleganger, Im well aware of the RAF's impending doom in the BofB. I didn't type out the reasons they won, I already know them. THe bottom line is this, Britain won the battle, hands down. Regardless of why, they still won, and they did break the luftwaffes aura of invincibility. Maybe not the whole military populace, but the pilots who flew over England had a change of heart. And I didn't say the loss in Africa affected Barbarossa, I said it would have affected the outcome of Stallingrad in 43. True Rommel only had a handful of panzer and Mech. units. Bot most of WW2 was fought with foot soldiers. Regardless of which front or time period you look at, most of the fighting was done by infantrymen, not panzer units. And you also stated that the bombing was not that effective. Wow! By late 44, 75% of Germany's oil production had been eliminated. How is this not effective?

Well yes but you could also argue that the Luftwaffe lost it instead of the RAF winning it. I'm British. I was brought up on the Battle of Britain and the Dambusters and all that kinda stuff. I'm intensely proud of my country and heritage. But objectively it was a battle that the Luftwaffe allowed themselves to lose. There's no getting away from that.

The units in the Afrika Korps, the 2 panzer divisions aside, would not have been missed at Stalingrad. Please trust me on this. I've done a lot of reading on the Eastern Front and I have fairly good knowledge on the subject. Look at the forces that Rommel had. Most were Italian divisions that would not have been suitable for combat on the Ostfront. One of the main reasons for the Stalingrad collapse was that the Soviets smashed the Romanian 3rd and 4th Armies that held the left flank of the German 6th Army, knowing these armies were not up to German standards and lacked armor and AT guns. The Italian Armies were generally not regarded as good as the Romanian Armies.

It's true that infantry units were by far the most numerous type of unit in WW2 but it was the application of armor that almost always decided any major battle. I'm not sure of your level of knowledge so please excuse me if I come over as patronizing - it is not my intention to do so. Armored spearheads punching through weakened points in the enemy defensive line was pretty much standard doctrine for all armies by 1944. Armor, or the lack thereof, was absolutely critical to operational success.

I never said that the Allied bombing of occupied Europe wasn't effective, just that it's impact is overstated (it is). Germany was practically defeated by the time the bombing campaign had any real impact. Please take a look at this link that backs up my viewpoint.

http://www.onwar.com/articles/f9809.htm

Originally Posted by BigBert96

I almost forgot, the Battle of the Atlantic. Very close one at first. I think if Germany won this one, UK would surely have had to sue for peace. What do yall think?

Prolly should rephrase my response. The "Battle of the Atlantic" begins in 1939 and ends in 1945 with the fall of Germany. The whole thing had a lot of ups and downs for both sides. If Germany could have succeeded in stopping all shipping accross the Atlantic, yes the Germans probably win the war. Can't count it as a "turning point" though since it spans the entire war.

I'd say
1. Stalingrad - This ultimately destroyed the German Forces
2. Pearl Harbor - America enters the war
3. D-Day - Germany, already ground down by losing 3 million in Russia has to fight a 2nd front.

Other notable points are:
- Battle of the Bulge. Germany suffered casualties throughout the war but the significance here was that Germany could no longer find replacements for these losses.

- Midway. Japan says Hasta la Vista to its carrier fleet.

- Capture of Iwo Jima. Bombing the Japanese heartland becomes possible.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

I'd say
1. Stalingrad - This ultimately destroyed the German Forces
2. Pearl Harbor - America enters the war
3. D-Day - Germany, already ground down by losing 3 million in Russia has to fight a 2nd front.

Other notable points are:
- Battle of the Bulge. Germany suffered casualties throughout the war but the significance here was that Germany could no longer find replacements for these losses.

- Midway. Japan says Hasta la Vista to its carrier fleet.

- Capture of Iwo Jima. Bombing the Japanese heartland becomes possible.

Agree with Points 1 and 2, although Stalingrad was a strategic defeat for Germany at which the Soviets suffered nearly 3 times the casualties. Germany could still have forced a stalemate. However, by the time D-Day occurred Germany were already beaten, was just a matter of time when. All D-Day did was stop Soviet domination over all of Europe.

The Battle of the Bulge had no impact on the outcome of WW2 whatsoever. Have you ever heard of Operation Bagration? That also occurred in 1944 and the Germans suffered nearly 4 times as many casualties. That battle was the final nail in the coffin of Nazi Germany, not D-Day and certainly not the Battle of the Bulge.

Midway was a decisive point in the war yes but not a turning point. Likewise with Iwo Jima.

I'll disagree with you on Midway Dopp. Midway is a defining turning point for the Pacific Campaign, though that side of the war was probably a lot less crucial to the outcome. Midway took the Pacific War from a route to an even battle and with US production already in swing it was mostly all downhill from there for Japan.

i posted this on a different forum and ill post it again
P.S. Stalingrad

The US says they had the most action in liberation of europe. most european historians say that the russians destroyed the german fighting machine so when the US came it was like Germany attacking Poland