Most decisive battle in WW2?

[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.

 

[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 .

 

[JOC]

senses

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”.

 

[-- 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.

 

[MontyB]

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.

 

[JOC]

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.

 

[MontyB]

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.

 

[Doppleganger]

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.

 

[lljadw]

. 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 ???

 

[JOC]

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.

 

[JOC]

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.

This is where we disagree. Directly following the Soviet counter offensive at Moscow in the Late Winter - Spring 42 the Soviets underwent a terrible reversal in an attempt to retake Kharkov. They lost ~ 100,000 dead and 100.000's of POW were taken with only a loss of 20.000 Germans. The Germans had sufficiently regrouped in time for Hitler's next major offensive towards Stalingrad and the Caucasus. They were far from being a defeated army at this stage and held the initiative. During 42 a Soviet offensive on Leningrad was also repulsed with severe casualties for the Soviets.

Even later from mid 43 on they fought tenuously as the Reds fought towards Germany. I.e.: the fight for Kiev, Minsk, Budapest.

Overall I think the attrition of fighting 2 industrial giants is what ultimately did Germany in.

 

[lljadw]

For the Germans,an intervention by the US was inevitable and interrelated with the British decision to continue the war : Britain continued the war because it expected US help,and,as long as Britain would fight,it would receive the help of the US . As such, PH was not causing US joining the war against Germany,it was even not causing the war between US and Japan .

The only chance for Germany was to force Britain to give up before US would be ready,and when this failed,there only was one possibility left :forcing the US to fight a 2 front war :if the SU was out,Japan could concentrate against the US,and,maybe, US would chose not to fight a 2 front war .

 

[Doppleganger]

Overall I think the attrition of fighting 2 industrial giants is what ultimately did Germany in.

This is precisely why the Battle of Moscow was decisive. Its failure from the German perspective doomed them to a war of attrition with the 2nd biggest power on earth. It also doomed them to a long war where the biggest power would eventually get directly involved. It didn't really matter how many casualties the superior German army inflicted on its counterpart. The Soviets could replace their losses. The Germans could not. This is an easy concept to understand.

The Germans were not set up for a long war of attrition because they knew they would fail. One reason why they never put their economy onto a full war footing until 1943. Because the German army was much better than the Red Army in a qualitative sense, it had a chance to force a stalemate had it adopted the correct tactics. Generally speaking, the German army of WW2 was probably the best defensive army for centuries. However, it was politically and ideologically impossible for Hitler to accept anything other than victory against a peoples he had deemed as subhuman.

 

[JOC]

December 41

This is precisely why the Battle of Moscow was decisive. Its failure from the German perspective doomed them to a war of attrition with the 2nd biggest power on earth. It also doomed them to a long war where the biggest power would eventually get directly involved. It didn't really matter how many casualties the superior German army inflicted on its counterpart. The Soviets could replace their losses. The Germans could not. This is an easy concept to understand.

The Germans were not set up for a long war of attrition because they knew they would fail. One reason why they never put their economy onto a full war footing until 1943. Because the German army was much better than the Red Army in a qualitative sense, it had a chance to force a stalemate had it adopted the correct tactics. Generally speaking, the German army of WW2 was probably the best defensive army for centuries. However, it was politically and ideologically impossible for Hitler to accept anything other than victory against a peoples he had deemed as subhuman.

Hitler is quoted as stating he cannot make peace (lose face) with the subhuman-Slavic-Jewish-Bolsheviks "what a mouth full". The Nazi's viewed the USSR as the combination of all that was worthy of destruction a war of destruction that was forced by destiny. We know the rest of which they already started to put their bar-room racial theories into practice.

You are right once he became tied down with the USSR and then Hitler stupidly declared war on the USA. The war was lost. So with this line of reasoning having lost at Moscow and making war on the US in late Dec 41 "This time frame makes senses," Your pointing out that these 2 events took place in the same time frame makes this a turning point.

An interesting note: Soviets losses early on were as higher > 6:1 yet they generally were able to field superior numbers. By 43 the ratio was closer 2:1, by the time of the Bagration offensive the ratio of losses was close to 1:1.

However we can say this now. At the time Germany's defeat may not have appeared so certain to the USSR - Allied alliance.