Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?

Actually the Luftwaffe was noted for its inability to destroy ships. Sure, it destroyed some, but its ratio of hits to sunk was pretty low.

Germany could not have beaten the UK in a cross channel invasion.

Germany was going to use Rhine river barges to put across, at most, 1 light infantry division and that's not counting how many barges would have sunk on the way over. A lot would have sunk on their own and the Kriegsmarine was worried that the Royal Navy would have suicided itself to prevent an invasion, a battle mind you that the Kriegsmarine didn't actually think it could win.

Plus even if the Luftwaffe had knocked out the RAF's airfields in SE England that still left a lot of airfields outside of Luftwaffe range.

 

there's a couple of myths...Luftwaffe has long list of successful sinking's, hitting a ship is considerably easier than hitting a T-34, to a Stuka pilot a ship is essentially a stationary target and Stuka attacks were extremely accurate...they were withdrawn from the BoB only because they were very vulnerable to fighter attack...had the RAF been neutralized Stukas could have done immense damage to the Royal Navy...with the RAF out of the picture the Luftwaffe has all the time it needs to dispose of the Royal Navy before attempting any invasion...

the biggest myth of BoB which refuses to die is that the airfields were the essential target, airfields can't be destroyed only the planes on the ground...the key German targets were radar and the Sector Control Stations without which early detection coordinated control of air defense is impossible, it was here the Luftwaffe so nearly won the BoB....

Goring first error was in halting attacks on the radar stations but continued attacks on the sector stations of southern England destroying 6 of 7... the RAF was on the ropes command and control nearly at an end...the accidental bombing of London then the British retaliation on Berlin changed Hitler's focus and he ordered Goring to re-direct away from the sector stations and begin the terror bombings of the cities...the most significant error of the war...

the myth airfield is perpetuated by a particular movie that highlighted the airfields and pilots, as mundane targets such radar stations and sector stations aren't very dramatic or glorious... without command and control the RAF can not anticipate attacks and lose the fuel advantage, air battles become isolated RAF flights vs. German massed attacks...

 

I can agree with your point.

 

history is written by victor...propaganda patriots will always glorify their own exploits over those of others it's been like that for as long as historical records have been kept...historians know better but few non historians care about the accuracy of historical details...

 

It's natural for a country to focus primarily upon its own accomplishments...especially those who don't know much about history. I think you'd find many Russian people ignorant of operations in Western Europe and Western Europeans largely ignorant of operations in the Pacific.

 

If the BoB was important then surely the Battle of the North Atlantic was more important as it kept Britain on its feet until Dec. 7, 1941.

Invading Ireland or other UK nations would have sucked resources out of the German war machine leaving other areas weakened. Had Britain fallen, the allies still had North Africa and Russia, and China to as launching pads for other operations. Germany could not beat the world and could not match the output of war materials from the US.

To say one battle won the war is just a stretch of the facts.

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

yes, my point exactly...

 

but George the BoB came first so everything else becomes irrelevant, if the Germans win BoB the Battle of the Atlantic never takes place...

they would have gained resources, the three largest industrial powers at the time were USA, Russia and Britain, Britain would have been a significant gain in production, garrison forces do not need to be particularily strong as the US had no capability to launch a successful invasion across the atlantic... as well every occupied country in europe had it's own supply of Nazi's sympathizers that supplied troops, Britain and Ireland would have been no different...If Britain falls Germans gain N Africa and Russia isolated falls the next year it's defence becomes nearly impossible...

and what allies would the allies have had N Africa? there were only the Brits, if Britain surrenders N Africa is in the hands of the Germans, Italy(Axis) and Vichy France(Axis)

not really, that one battle lost the war for the Germans... there were other battles that had the allies lost germany could still have won (El Alamein, Kursk) but that never happened ...the OP was which one battle ultimately made the difference...

 

Very true.

Hitler's meddling, instead of leaving the decisions to his generals, helped out all the allies greatly.

Hell, If hitler would have let Field-Marshal Paulus draw back and reconsolidate his forces, chances are the encirclement and destruction of the 6th Army at Stalingrad would have never happened.

I doubt it would have changed the out come of the war on the eastern front, except for maybe prolonging it for another year or so.

Either way, good point.

 

No the Battle of the Atlantic came as a result of BOB. The supplies came mostly from the US on US ships. http://www.armed-guard.com/ag77.html

Not true. And we didn't need to, we could have launched out of Russia or China. Supplies were already being sent to these countries. Not much of a stretch to send men.


I am sure there were Nazi sympathizers found in the US, certainly some of our German population sided with Hitler. Truth be known they never slowed down this massive war machine!!!!!


North Africa was lost until the US bailed out the English. There were plenty of places the US could have used in Africa. Italy folded as soon as they met any real fighting force. If you go to this website http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_nm.php?ModuleId=10005177&MediaId=348 you can pick any location you like to build an airbase. The US did this job in the Pacfic what makes you think it could not do the same on the Atlantic?

Still more important than the BOB was first the North Atlantic, without the AMERICAN supplies the Brits would have rolled and then the Battle of the Bulge stopped the Germans from cutting the Allies lines and gaining valuable seaports.

I would rate the BOB in maybe the top 10 certainly no higher than maybe 5 behind Pearl Harbor and Stalingrad.

not really, that one battle lost the war for the Germans... there were other battles that had the allies lost germany could still have won (El Alamein, Kursk) but that never happened ...the OP was which one battle ultimately made the difference...


I assume you are referring to BoB??? And that is just your opinion not a historical fact. I already know your response but go ahead and post it.


George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Had Hitler never attacked Russia------

George
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Couple things.

The main reason for the German aces was that they were in for the duration while
allied pilots frequently got pulled out of action for a time.

The Me 262 was overrated.
Early jet engines were very unreliable, the plane was not manueuverable and vulnerable in the
takeoff phase of flight. It was an interceptor, not a fighter...it was designed
to attack bombers in formation not take on fighters which could outmaneuver
it. Speed was it's greatest asset.

Given enough time and resources, a better engine...the jet would certainly
have been a serious factor in the skies..but as it was; too little and too late.

 

Attacking the USSR was the entire point of the war.

 

And not only did the BF109 shoot down more aircraft than any other in history; they also made more of them than any other fighter in history: 33,984 made (wiki). They flew into the 60's in some air forces.

 

Israel was, ironically enough, using the panzer in my av until the 1960s I believe.

 

No, no it did not. Germany's industrial production continued to rise throughout the war. Nearly up to the very end. They Germans moved factories underground and did all sorts of things to keep production up. Look it up on wiki/google. There is also a set of books out by Time Life that goes into detail about it.

 

I've already posted a link to the only real experts on this topic but they disagree with time life's version of events... http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ww2/nazis/nazidbrf.htm#0001_0004

 

Ok, this page does not seem to have any actual figures. If you read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

You will see that the GDP continued to rise. Also, if you look at military vehicles made you will see that they actually increase until 1945(war was basically over end of 44.)

I do agree with a lot of the comments of the Generals that yes, bombing did have an effect. Air superiority played havoc on the Germans as well.

I'll do more research and we will continue this discussion!

 

battle of the Atlantic wasn't a factor in the BoB it had no effect on the outcome, the battle of the Atlantic was never actually won or lost...and lend lease did not begin until 1941 after the BoB

with Britain out of the war it's highly unlikely the US would have aided communist Russia, and it was in no position to come through china, china that stayed under control of the Japanese right until the Japanese surrender...and the only Russian port on the east coast could be easily closed by the Japanese

that wasn't the point, once defeated British Nazi's would've surfaced and aided the Nazi cause, every country had Nazi's...

the British Commonwealth forces defeated the Germans on their own in N Africa at the battle of El Alamein in oct 42 it didn't require any american forces, the US only arrived after the Afrika Korps was on it's last legs in full retreat from the British forces... if the Germans had defeated the Brits in 1940 there would be no place to build a airbase, all of continental Europe would have been occupied as well as N Africa and the nearby Atlantic islands, advancing through the Sahara from the south impossible...and once again had Britain been defeated in 1940 the US would not be at war with Germany...the USA did not have the logistical ability to accomplish invasion in Europe at the same time vs. the Japanese...and as far as mobile mechanized armies are concerned the Germans were much more formidable than the Japanese...

Atlantic battle had no influence on BoB...Battle of the Bulge was an insignificant battle a German victory would've only delayed the war's end by a month at most, the Russians at that point were unstoppable...

Pearl Harbour has significance for patriotic americans but had no bearing on the outcome of the war, no more than the German invasion of Poland, other than a starting point for hostilities as battles both were insignificant events...Stalingrad was more or less equal to the Siege of Leningrad for German losses but neither were as significant as the German defeat at Kursk, Kursk was the end of German offensive abilities in Russia...

yes the Battle of Britain... it's my opinion and that of others as well...of course I'll post a response the whole point of the thread is a hypothetical "what if" question... to be exact "Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?"

 

I don't doubt your production figures just the analysis ....

every countries production rose during the conflict, Germany's war output was considerably under capacity when the war began...but that does not indicate that bombing didn't have an effect it did, there was a good reason that the Germans moved many factories under ground at considerable expense and time...

just think what a huge advantage the US had because it's industrial zones were out of reach of the Germans and Japanese...if the Germans and Japanese had been able to make nightly bombing raids on US military/industrially targets don't you think that it have had an effect on production? but production would still rise as all industry would change it's focus from producing civilian goods at the beginning of the war, to mainly military goods by wars end...and there would be no holding back, wars encourage unrestrained industrial growth out of necessity...

 

Talking about the US supposedly bailing out the Brits in North Africa.

What did one of the German generals say about Kasserine Pass? Oh yes, a German army retreating from the British retreated THROUGH the Americans.

 

I never said anything about lend lease did I? I said American supplies to England. Are you rejecting the fact that supplies, food clothing arms etc. came from The US to keep Britain on its feet and in the war? Are you rejecting the idea this happened before entering WWII? No outcome. If it was for the Battle of the Atlantic, Germany would have steamrolled Britain just like it did every other country accept Russia? Never won or lost? Eh you might want to rethink that answer.

The US was flying flying supplies to China, could have done the same with men. Stalin would have made a pact with the devil if he thought he would win. Now your lend lease comes into play. This idea was proposed by Churchill because ---- without Russia, Britain could not defeat Germany.

Yes they won at Al Alamein but with a great deal of Grant tanks and mutations from what country-- The US of Course. Truth be known Rommel just did not have the armor to defeat Monty after pushing him over North Africa time and time again. The last war the British won on their own without foreign aid was Waterloo and then the Falklands. This Battle was featured on the History Channel last night. You should have been watching.

Man you are just out in the blue someplace, didn't you note the link to the map I post. There was the whole African continent and Russia to build airbases. If the Japs could have closed the Russian port the Russians and the US would have simply taken it back. We did have aircraft carriers in those days The German interest in Africa was oil nothing else.

Not able to launch an invasion force? But we did in Africa, Italy, and the various Pacific Islands.

The Bulge kept Germany from capturing supplies and opening a seaport. Heck Patton was not stoppable either unless Monty got in the way!!!!

LOL LOL LOL had it not been for the Jap attack on Pearl you would be speaking German now!!! That is an undeniable fact!!!!!

it's my opinion and that of others as well It is not a "what if" question when you try to reshape history to fit your own idea of what happened. It becomes a distortion of fact, a lie, if you will. You keep believing your warped version of history, I really don't care. Those who are reading this board and really want to know will do the research and then they will know the true history of WWII.

BTW just so you know, I have no dog in this fight.

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Patton was halted by the Germans, it just doesn't make it into most history books because it'd look hypocritical.

 

Ya, you seem to forget that during the beginning of the American involvement in North Africa, they had pretty much a green army, which never had seen conflict to that point.

 

When did this supposedly happen?