Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: oakranger on October 31, 2009, 08:48:50 PM
-
What is your top 5 battles that was the turning point of the war.
Gettysburg-American Civil War (east)
Normandy- WWII (eastern front), Stalingrad (western front)
Vicksburg- American Civil war (west)
The Battle of Saratoga 1777- American Rev. war
The Battle of Quebec- French and Indian War
-
I don't have 5, but...
pwning of Baghdad Bob - Iraq 2
Midway - WWII Pacific theater
-
Gettysburg
Vicksburg
Normandy
Midway
Stalingrad
-
I don't have 5, but...
pwning of Baghdad Bob - Iraq 2
Midway - WWII Pacific theater
LOL, is that what you call it these days.
-
What is your top 5 battles that was the turning point of the war.
Gettysburg-American Civil War (east)
Normandy- WWII (eastern front), Stalingrad (western front)
Vicksburg- American Civil war (west)
The Battle of Saratoga 1777- American Rev. war
The Battle of Quebec- French and Indian War
edit required. ;) ;)
-
LOL, is that what you call it these days.
We were getting our butts kicked until Baghdad Bob vanished. Then we were winning. It was an amazing reversal.
-
Siege of Syracuse - Peloponnesian War
PTO WW2: none. The end was a forgone conclusion after December 7th.
ETO WW2: Can't choose just one... BoB, El Alamein, Stalingrad would be my picks. Normandy? Not a chance, the war was already over for Germany.
In most cases, I think too much emphasis is placed on so-called turning points. The result of most wars I have studied is a process of initial strategic advantage winning out over whatever tactical variance might have made things interesting at the beginning.
-
edit required. ;) ;)
Was wondering if anyone else noticed. ;)
-
PTO WW2: none. The end was a forgone conclusion after December 7th.
That would make Pearl Harbor itself the turning point, correct? As such, the answer isn't "none".
-
Interesting-
Korean War- Battle of Chosin
World War 2- Battle of Kursk
World War 1- Hundred Days Offensive
American Civil War- Battle of Gettysburg
Vietnam War- Vietnamization
-
That would make Pearl Harbor itself the turning point, correct? As such, the answer isn't "none".
Turning point implies that the final result was previously undetermined or the odds were previously against the side that won. I see neither of those things obtaining here. That's how I see it at least.
Maybe I should have said "before December 7th."
-
edit required. ;) ;)
OMG! I can not believe that i did that. Thx
-
WW1 - The first battle of Villers-Bretonneux, 1918
WW2 - The Failure of Barbarossa, ie. the onset of winter 1941/ Defeat of the Japanese Kokoda Track campaign, 1942
Tronsky
-
In the American Civil War, the battle of Gettysburg was definitely a turning point. Before that the South was on a roll, and had the manpower to continue prosecuting it's interests in the war. It's hard to say if the South could have really defeated the North in an extremely protracted conflict, but their objectives were not to subjugate the Union, just to guarantee their independence from it. After this battle the South had lost much of it's ability to effectively continue the war.
In WW2 the question is more difficult. There are many battles that could be called definitive. One could call the Battle of Britain an important turning point. I think something on the Eastern front, whether Kursk or Stalingrad would in the end be more crucial to the fall of the Third Reich.
In the Pacific theater there were definitely turning points. While the Japanese would not have been able to hold out in a long and drawn out battle with the might of American industry, their ability to make war and their territorial possessions cannot be discounted. The battle of Midway eliminated much of their carrier force, and likewise the battle of the Philippine Sea (Marianas Turkey Shoot) eliminated much of the remaining naval air power at their disposal. It can be said that Japan was on it's haunches at that point already, and I think in the end the overall outcome of the war was indeed a foregone conclusion at the start of it, given America's new found tenacity, but Japan's ability to make war would have necessitated a much different outcome than proved to be the case. In this sense I think the battle of Midway was a definite turning point.
-
WW2 definately had a turning point at Midway, think if they would have done the opposite to us there, we would have been on our heels for acouple of years. Ghettysburg was probably the big one in the Civil War but some could argue for some of the west battles.
-
Siege of Syracuse - Peloponnesian War
PTO WW2: none. The end was a forgone conclusion after December 7th.
ETO WW2: Can't choose just one... BoB, El Alamein, Stalingrad would be my picks. Normandy? Not a chance, the war was already over for Germany.
In most cases, I think too much emphasis is placed on so-called turning points. The result of most wars I have studied is a process of initial strategic advantage winning out over whatever tactical variance might have made things interesting at the beginning.
I would say BoB in the Western Front and Battle of Kursk in the Eastern Front. I would almost tend to agree with you that in the PTO, there really wasn't one since Japan had no real hope of winning the war (nor was that their intent) but I would still say Midway as it proved Yamamoto correct in that Japan will only enjoy success for 6 months.
ack-ack
-
As for WW1, the only turning point I've discovered in my reading is the British and French officer corps no longer tolerating the shooting of surrendering Germans (for much of the war it was a coin toss whether you'd be a PoW or shot/bayoneted). Once word spread into the German lines that there was sausage and they wouldn't shoot you, German soldiers began surrendering much more readily and willingly. Or maybe the Battle of Jutland was a turning point because with the German Navy's failure to break out of the Baltic, the food situation would become dire so quickly...which leads to the above.
-
The Siege of Vicksburg had far more significant repercussions on the course of the war than Gettysburg. The Union could have lost Gettysburg and still won the war. The armies in the East had been getting knocked around for the better part of three years, anyway, so it's not like news of yet ANOTHER defeat would have come as a shock. Additionally, Lee never REALLY had the logistical capability to legitimately threaten Washington. Anyway, news of the defeat at Gettysburg would have been followed within 24 hours of the FAR more important victory at Vicksburg, cutting the Confederacy in two and gaining total control of the Mississippi (a target of major strategic value the British realized during the War of 1812, if not EARLIER). The only thing a defeat at Gettysburg would have done is likely have Grant brought East that much sooner and he would have replaced Meade outright as commanding general of the Army of the Potomac, not been placed over him as commander of ALL Union armies in the field.
As for WWII, I would rate Guadalcanal over Midway. True, the Americans sunk four of Japan's front-line carriers at Midway, but many of her experienced pilots were still on the ships rearming when they were attacked. The idea then that most of her best pilots were lost during this action is flawed at best, because MOST of them actually abandoned ship with the rest of the survivors, and were picked up by the escorts to be returned to service. It was Guadalcanal where the strength of Japanese air power was finally broken.
-
For the Germans in WW2 the turning point was actually the failure of Barbarossa. The Wehrmacht and their allies lost nearly a million men in 1941. The Germans never really recovered.
For the allies in the Pacific. Midway. The Japanese invincibility was gone along with their best aircraft carriers. Guadalcanal showed the Japanese that the Allies were not going to walk away. It would be a death struggle. And as Yamato stated; (paraphrased) We will run free for six months. But I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping bear. He knew that Japan could not win the war. So you could make the argument for Pearl Harbor.
In the American Civil war. You could make an argument that the war was lost from the beginning. The south had no real hard industry to speak of. Their only hope was a quick decisive war. When that didn't happen and the prospect of a long war loomed the Confederacy's chances of winning fell dramatically. As for Gettysburg being the decisive point, look at how the campaign started. General Lee took the fight north to give the southern farmers/people a break. The cutting off of the Mississippi was strategic victory. As Saxman said. "The Union could have lost the siege of Vicksburg and still won the war".
In WW1 the German generals knew they were in trouble when they were fighting on both fronts. Some of them thought they still had a chance when Russia fell. Then the Americans came in, and they knew that they had nothing left.
"We were getting our butts kicked until Baghdad Bob vanished. Then we were winning. It was an amazing reversal." Winning? Don't confuse military victories with actual victory. Military prowess was never an issue in this conflict.
-
Turning point with the highest degree's would be late 1942/early 1943, where the Axis start bleeding/retreating on all fronts, Russia, N-Africa, and in the Pacific.
In Russia, they loose their goal of Stalingrad, Simultaniously they get completely kicked out of N-Africa, and the USA is growing stronger in the Pacific.
-
As Saxman said. "The Union could have lost the siege of Vicksburg and still won the war".
The Union could have lost Gettysburg and still won the war.
:P
-
OMG! I can not believe that i did that.
I can.
-
Gettysburg-American Civil War (east)
Normandy- WWII (eastern front), Stalingrad (western front)
Vicksburg- American Civil war (west)
The Battle of Saratoga 1777- American Rev. war
The Battle of Quebec- French and Indian War
Antitem-U.S. Civil War (east): at Gettysburg, the C.S. were defeated, but not beaten. They could have won had England and France recognized the C.S. and forced recognition on the U.S.A. ending the war in favor of the C.S.A.
Chatanooga-U.S. civil war (west)-had the U.S. been halted infront of Chatanooga, they would have had a hard time going forward. Had they been halted, they could have added Kenteucky, and Tennesse the the Union, but may not have been able to invade Georgia.
Op. Barbarossa WW2 (east)-had the Germans taken stalingrad, the bood they payed might have been worth it as the Russians had suffered just as badly untill the German army inside Stalingrad was cut off, and starved of supplies and reinforcments.
Pearl Harbor WW2 (Pacific)-with the U.S. entry into the war, the tide was turned. Japan could have kicked the U.S. of the Hawaiian Islands if they'd screwed up bad enough, but they couldn't have beaten the U.S. And U.S. forces fought in Africa, and the Western front. Lets face it, the U.S. and England out weighed Japan, AND Germany together. There is almost no way the U.S. could have lost the war unless Germany had continued, and beaten the U.S. to the A-bomb, or if Japan had had built another nuke, and had long range bombers.
Gotta agree about Saratoga.
And Plains of Abraham- Had Montclam beaten the British, the war might have been ended soon after, the british having failed to out flank the French line of forts.
-
USA didn't need the UK to outweigh Japan + Germany.
-
Had Germany not invaded Russia, it would have been closer to even.
-
"In Umm Qasr, the fighting is fierce and we have inflicted many damages.Ê The stupid enemy, the Americans and British, failed completely. ÊThey're not making any penetration."
"The Americans are not there. ÊThey're not in Baghdad. ÊThere are no troops there. ÊNever. ÊThey're not at all."
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/baghdadbob_denial.jpg)
"They are not any place. ÊThey are on the move everywhere. ÊThey are a snake moving in the desert. ÊThey hold no place in Iraq. ÊThis is an illusion."
"We butchered the force present at the airport. ÊWe have retaken the airport! ÊThere are no Americans there!"
-
WW2 definitely had a turning point at Midway, think if they would have done the opposite to us there, we would have been on our heels for couple of years. Gettysburg was probably the big one in the Civil War but some could argue for some of the west battles.
Incorrect, at least in my opinion. Several, SEVERAL times after the Battle of Midway the Imperial Japanese fleet had an opportunity to defeat the Americans (see the Battle of the Philippine Sea, Battle of Guadalcanal). The people say that it took the Japanese until '44 to recover, but the fact that THEY DID RECOVER, kinda offsets that Midway was the "utter destruction of the imperial fleet". The only way in my mind that Midway was even possibly comparable to a turning point is that it cost the IJN some serious pilots and prevented them from having a super fleet to crush invasion fleets like on Tarawa.
-
Incorrect, at least in my opinion. Several, SEVERAL times after the Battle of Midway the Imperial Japanese fleet had an opportunity to defeat the Americans (see the Battle of the Philippine Sea, Battle of Guadalcanal). The people say that it took the Japanese until '44 to recover, but the fact that THEY DID RECOVER, kinda offsets that Midway was the "utter destruction of the imperial fleet". The only way in my mind that Midway was even possibly comparable to a turning point is that it cost the IJN some serious pilots and prevented them from having a super fleet to crush invasion fleets like on Tarawa.
I'm with you, 791. Midway was significant only in that it knocked the japanese back on their heels for a few years (As could have happened to us had we lost). About the only way Japan could have beaten the U.S. is through nuclear weapons which was scarily close to becoming a reality, as Japan detonated a nuke near the end of WW2, but only as a test. Had the Japanese had two of them built, they probably would have fought on.
-
I'm with you, 791. Midway was significant only in that it knocked the japanese back on their heels for a few years (As could have happened to us had we lost). About the only way Japan could have beaten the U.S. is through nuclear weapons which was scarily close to becoming a reality, as Japan detonated a nuke near the end of WW2, but only as a test. Had the Japanese had two of them built, they probably would have fought on.
:headscratch:
-
I'm with you, 791. Midway was significant only in that it knocked the japanese back on their heels for a few years (As could have happened to us had we lost). About the only way Japan could have beaten the U.S. is through nuclear weapons which was scarily close to becoming a reality, as Japan detonated a nuke near the end of WW2, but only as a test. Had the Japanese had two of them built, they probably would have fought on.
The Japanese never detonated an atomic device. I suggest you either start paying attention in history class or complain about your history teacher if he told you such nonsense.
ack-ack
-
99% sure japan detonated a nuke. Maybe they were building one but never detonated one. I just may talk to my history teacher though...
-
99% sure japan detonated a nuke. Maybe they were building one but never detonated one. I just may talk to my history teacher though...
You can be 99% sure that the Japanese exploded an atomic bomb but you'd still be 100% incorrect. The United States was the first country to detonate an atomic device. Japan and Germany, while both conducted research into atomic bombs, never got to the point of actually building one.
ack-ack
-
Like I said, maybe I'm wrong. you say I am. But I remember reading that Japan had detonated a nuke with Germanys help (uranium, research, equipment, data, etc). I'll have a talk with my history teacher about our text books then...
-
Yeah, have that talk.
The Japanese did experiment with chemical, and I believe also biological weapons, but they never got far enough with nuclear technology to put it into practice.
-
I can see it now, the japanese invented aids as a biological weapon, and bomb the U.S. the virus fails to have any effect, laying dormant in humans untill it mutates into its current form...
-
I can see it now, the japanese invented aids as a biological weapon, and bomb the U.S. the virus fails to have any effect, laying dormant in humans untill it mutates into its current form...
You should read about Unit 731 and the 'research' they did on Chinese civilians and POWs during the war. What they did was just as terrible as anything the Nazi's did to the Jews.
ack-ack
-
Germans were actually farther ahead with a nuke than Japan. Supposedly there was a German sub otw to Japan that was sunk with some nuclear components.
-
If one defines "turning point" as the furthest point of advance of the eventual losers, every theater should have one.
El Alemein in North Africa.
Battle of Britain in the West.
Stalingrad in Russia.
The Battle of the Coral Sea in the Pacific.
Gettysburg in the US Civil War.
With the simplified definition, these seem pretty obvious.
I was trying to come up with an example of a weaker aggressor actually winning over a stronger one, i.e. if Japan had won against the US. I came up blank. Maybe Japan over Russia, 1905.
Also, I have never heard of Japan detonating a nuclear bomb.
-
If one defines "turning point" as the furthest point of advance of the eventual losers, every theater should have one.
El Alemein in North Africa.
Battle of Britain in the West.
Stalingrad in Russia.
The Battle of the Coral Sea in the Pacific.
Gettysburg in the US Civil War.
With the simplified definition, these seem pretty obvious.
I was trying to come up with an example of a weaker aggressor actually winning over a stronger one, i.e. if Japan had won against the US. I came up blank. Maybe Japan over Russia, 1905.
Also, I have never heard of Japan detonating a nuclear bomb.
-
You should read about Unit 731 and the 'research' they did on Chinese civilians and POWs during the war. What they did was just as terrible as anything the Nazi's did to the Jews.
ack-ack
Thank you ack-ack, i was trying to think of that unit. Unit 731 makes Germany experiment look like grade school science class.
-
I was trying to come up with an example of a weaker aggressor actually winning over a stronger one, i.e. if Japan had won against the US. I came up blank. Maybe Japan over Russia, 1905.
Japan in that example was only perceived as weaker, but in fact in 1905 the Japanese were far superior than the Russians (as the results prove). A "weaker" opponent can still land punches and win battles ie. Isandlwana...The Little Big Horn etc but almost in every case, eventually the side with superior forces, logistics and or the capacity to wage war will prevail...exceptions could be The American War of Independence, Afghanistan or the Vietnam conflict
Tronsky
-
USA didn't need the UK to outweigh Japan + Germany.
While it comes to my mind that you must be trolling there, could you explain this a tad better?
-
Here you go:
Pearl Harbor WW2 (Pacific)-with the U.S. entry into the war, the tide was turned. Japan could have kicked the U.S. of the Hawaiian Islands if they'd screwed up bad enough, but they couldn't have beaten the U.S. And U.S. forces fought in Africa, and the Western front. Lets face it, the U.S. and England out weighed Japan, AND Germany together. There is almost no way the U.S. could have lost the war unless Germany had continued, and beaten the U.S. to the A-bomb, or if Japan had had built another nuke, and had long range bombers.
Maybe I should have said that the USA didn't need the UK to successfully fulfill its war aims. If you look at the industrial capacity of the United States vs nearly all other players in WW2, its strategic advantage that is bound to build up over a few years is inexorable. In comparison the UK was a drop in the bucket.
What bothers me is that directly after this he says "if Japan had built another nuke," and none of us noticed the myth until later.
-
Your claim is almost too silly to deal with. A point in time would be good, but this is really for another thread.
I'll give you my view though.
-Without the Brits and the French in 1939, the USSR would have had an invasion much earlier.
-With the Brits making peace with Hitler in June 1940, the USSR would have fallen.
-Without the Brits, the USA would never even have entered the European campaign.
-Without the Americans, most of Europe would probably have fallen to the USSR.
All of those were about decisions that were made, so, - sort of- , turnpoints in the war.
-
In most cases, I think too much emphasis is placed on so-called turning points. The result of most wars I have studied is a process of initial strategic advantage winning out over whatever tactical variance might have made things interesting at the beginning.
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. :aok
-
Turning point WWII Pacific Theater: Pearl Harbor
Turning point WWII European Theater: Hitler declares war on US after Japan attacks Pearl Harbor
Pretty straight forward.
-
Your claim is almost too silly to deal with.
That's called "appeal to ridicule," and is a type of informal fallacy.
-Without the Brits and the French in 1939, the USSR would have had an invasion much earlier.
-With the Brits making peace with Hitler in June 1940, the USSR would have fallen.
-Without the Brits, the USA would never even have entered the European campaign.
-Without the Americans, most of Europe would probably have fallen to the USSR.
All of those were about decisions that were made, so, - sort of- , turnpoints in the war.
Do you notice that some of your speculations entail a contradiction? Let's assume that the UK making peace is equivalent to "without the UK"...
No Uk -> USSR Falls
No UK -> USA does not enter ETO
USA does not enter ETO -> Europe falls to USSR -> -(USSR falls)
-------------
By transitivity we get...
No Uk -> -(USSR falls)
and the original premise
No Uk -> USSR falls
entail both the USSR falling and the USSR not falling.
-
Your claim is almost too silly to deal with. A point in time would be good, but this is really for another thread.
I'll give you my view though.
-Without the Brits and the French in 1939, the USSR would have had an invasion much earlier. Possible, not probable, there would have been significant problems to overcome to invade in 1940. Germany actually sustained relatively heavy losses in the Polish Campaign. The estimated casualties were around 50,000. And the Luftwaffe actually lost a large portion of their strength. (A third?) in Poland and had to rearm. Many of the German divisions were still regiments or were non existent in 1939.
-With the Brits making peace with Hitler in June 1940, the USSR would have fallen. Doubtful. If Britain was out of the conflict, resources would have been freed up for Barbarossa. Particularly from the Italians. Germany doesn't send help to the Italians in North Africa and the invasions starts two months earlier. The Germans could have taking Moscow and the oil rich southern region. Winter still would have stopped a unprepared German army. Taking Moscow would have been a symbolic or political victory nothing else. Many in the Wehrmacht hierarchy had no concept of the size of Russia. They didn't even have accurate maps of the invasion front. Russia knew they were going to have to fight Germany, Stalin just didn't believe it would happen in 1941. As it was the Wehrmacht lost nearly a million men out of their five million man war machine by the end of 1941.
-Without the Brits, the USA would never even have entered the European campaign. Possibly. Especially if Pearl Harbor didn't happen. The US anti war sentiment was strong until Dec 7 1941.
-Without the Americans, most of Europe would probably have fallen to the USSR. Possible. But doubtful. Fighting a war on two fronts didn't succeed in WW1 for the Germans after the US stepped in. So with no US involvement a longer war would have resulted. Germany wouldn't have automatically won. They still lacked significant resources to win outright. But to expect them to quit wouldn't have happened. They would have had no expectation of mercy from the Russians. How long would it take Russia to finish Germany and then start on the rest of Europe? One year? Five years? Russia goes into France then Britain is back in play and then the USA.
All of those were about decisions that were made, so, - sort of- , turnpoints in the war.
-
Unit 731, most disgusting thing ever. What I want to know is the the |-| E |_ |_ the Japanese came up with these things so horrid???
-
Unit 731, most disgusting thing ever. What I want to know is the the |-| E |_ |_ the Japanese came up with these things so horrid???
What is really disgusting about it is the commander and others in leadership positions were not tried as war criminals after the war. The lead doctor of the unit was in fact employed by the United States to help with research into chemical and biological warfare.
ack-ack
-
Stalingrad all day long
-
Japan in that example was only perceived as weaker, but in fact in 1905 the Japanese were far superior than the Russians (as the results prove). A "weaker" opponent can still land punches and win battles ie. Isandlwana...The Little Big Horn etc but almost in every case, eventually the side with superior forces, logistics and or the capacity to wage war will prevail...exceptions could be The American War of Independence, Afghanistan or the Vietnam conflict
Tronsky
Technicly we dropped out of that one before they lost. When we left, we were winning from a millitary stand point.
-
That's called "appeal to ridicule," and is a type of informal fallacy.
Do you notice that some of your speculations entail a contradiction? Let's assume that the UK making peace is equivalent to "without the UK"...
No Uk -> USSR Falls
No UK -> USA does not enter ETO
USA does not enter ETO -> Europe falls to USSR -> -(USSR falls)
-------------
Different possibilities, not an equation.
With UK in and USA out, USSR probably had held.
By transitivity we get...
No Uk -> -(USSR falls)
and the original premise
No Uk -> USSR falls
entail both the USSR falling and the USSR not falling.
Different possibilities, not an equation.
With UK in and USA out, USSR probably had held. And of course, the USA would never have entered the ETO had the UK stepped down. For the free countries of the West to be on the side of the Iron curtain where they ended up, you needed both the US and the UK.
-
I would venture to suggest that the main turning point of the whole war was when Winston Churchill became British Prime Minister. He was determined to continue to fight. If another less hawkish leader came into power. Britain might well have made peace with Hitler. Hitler had no real interest in invading Britain or even continuing the war against them. The Battle of Britain flowed from that. Hitler lost that battle and with any chance of peace with Britain.
Britain out the war meant no Italian attack in the desert so no intervention from Germany. In all probability France as a whole might have become vichy and fascist because there would be no need to base troops and aircraft there against the British. More resources could have been sent to Russia therefore but that doesn't mean Barbarossa would have succeeded. As alaskhawk pointed out the Germans took heavy casualties in 1941. Unless Soviets completely collapsed they really couldn't win. Thus the Soviets would have taken most of Europe eventually.
What is interesting after that is to speculate what would have happened when Japan attacked the USA and it must be pointed out, British colonies. Britain would be allied with America against the Japanese but not against Germany who would presumably have still declared war against America. This could have brought the British back into play in Europe.
-
I would venture to say prior to the US joining the war in WWII, the outcome had two possibilities, all of Europe would be under German control or all of Europe would be under Russian control. Remember, prior to the invasion of Poland, Hitler and Stalin had a treaty where they carved up eastern Europe and basically said this is yours, and this is mine. Do you really think Stalin was going to hold up his end of the deal? It was a waiting game, who was going to break the treaty first, and so Germany did the attack first. And as history has shown us, after WWII, Ironically, Most of eastern Europe was under Russian control until the '90s.
That being said, I would say the turning points were...
1) German/Russian front = Stalingrad
2) USA/British/Canadian = North Africa or Italy
3) USA/Japan = Midway
-
There were two turning points, the U.S. entry into the war, and Op Barbarossa. England alone couldn't have defeated Germany, but the U.S. and england could have. Germany couldn't defeat russia unless, as cpxxx stated, completly collapsed. Germany lost because Hitler was too ambitious, and Japan was in idiot.
-
American Revolution
Kings Mountain -
Theodore Roosevelt wrote of Kings Mountain, "This brilliant victory marked the turning point of the American Revolution." Thomas Jefferson called it, "The turn of the tide of success." Herbert Hoover's address at Kings Mountain included, "This is a place of inspiring memories. Here less than a thousand men, inspired by the urge of freedom, defeated a superior force intrenched in this strategic position. This small band of patriots turned back a dangerous invasion well designed to separate and dismember the united Colonies. It was a little army and a little battle, but it was of mighty portent. History has done scant justice to its significance, which rightly should place it beside Lexington, Bunker Hill, Trenton and Yorktown."
Numerous "Overmountain Men" marched over mountains in North Carolina and what is now Tennessee to the Kings Mountain site - named after King's Settlement and the King family (King's Creek). Many of those at the battle were American settlers of largely Scotch-Irish descent who had settled west of, or "over," the Appalachians, and were thus known as the "Overmountain Men."
These Patriots (Whigs) were entirely volunteer forces who fought under men that they chose to follow: William Campbell, John Sevier, Frederick Hambright (Hambrecht), Joseph McDowell, Benjamin Cleveland, James Williams, Zachariah Isbill, John McKissack, Isaac Shelby and James Johnston (Colonel) who was in command of the rear guard, led their militia units as Colonels, while Captain Joseph Winston and Edward Lacey commanded the other mostly autonomous units. Captain Espey and Captain John Mattocks were both killed during the battle while leading their units. Major William Chronicle was also killed leading his men during hand to hand combat. Colonel Frederick Hambright (actual name was Hambrecht) took over and his unit, the South Fork Boys took the most extreme punishment and casualties of any unit assembled. Colonel Hambright was shot atop his horse, but refused to get down despite being clearly visible riding around, while his boot filled with his blood. Three holes were found in his hat and he later refused medical treatment until all others had been attended to.
Atop King's Mountain, the British commander would later invoke God's name and state, "not even God himself can take me off of this mountain."
These patriots simply chopped up the Redcoats and Loyalists so badly, it put the fear of God into every English commander.
Runner up is Cowpens - This battle broke the back of General Cornwallis and Tarleton. It lead directly to Yorktown.
-
Technicly we dropped out of that one before they lost. When we left, we were winning from a millitary stand point.
No, we were on the side that lost, therefore we lost. The Netherlands was on the winning side of WW2, even though they "dropped out" (See Fall Gelb) early on, they still were on the side that won, therefore they won. AND, yes, Japan very well could have won the war in the Pacific. Their navy was widely superior to the U.S. until as late as 1943, had Japan succeeded at the Battle of the Philippine Sea, we would not have won the battle of the Phillipines. Japan would still have large sources of crude oil. It would be a major setback that, if followed up by recaptures of other pacific islands, could have systematically drove the U.S. out of the pacific. The U.S., contradictory to the common consensus, is not invincible.
-
They couldn't win. Yes they could have driven us outa hawaii if we'd screwed up bad, but no way in hell they woulda landed 3 divisions south of LA. They didn't have the manpower or resources to fight a war with us. Our industrial capacity was far greater than theirs, and there for, they were at a sever disadvantage unless they were able to make us believe we were defeated. Moral is to physical as 3 is to 1.
-
They couldn't win. Yes they could have driven us outa hawaii if we'd screwed up bad, but no way in hell they woulda landed 3 divisions south of LA. They didn't have the manpower or resources to fight a war with us. Our industrial capacity was far greater than theirs, and there for, they were at a sever disadvantage unless they were able to make us believe we were defeated. Moral is to physical as 3 is to 1.
I think its entirely feasible for the Japanese to have landed 3 divisions on the west coast of the USA. In 1941 they certainly had the manpower, and the navy for such an operation considering even with the simultaneous operations in the Philippines and Malaya after pearl harbour, the Japanese still had large numbers of troops in Korea, and China.
The american military in 1941 was not the mirror image of the forces arrayed in 1944, the japanese army certainly had the edge in morale and training, and their Navy/Airforce was still very much intact although the Japanese Army were poorly armed and lacked for adequate artillery, armoured vehicles.
The question would've been if they would've been able to have to get such a large force close enough to the continental US undetected in Dec 1941, and what would've become of them once landed. Certainly the Japanese had awful logistics and would struggle to support a landing force - but I would think initially it would've been quite an effort for the available forces in 1941 to quickly defeat that force considering the quality and numbers available to the defenders.
-
AND, yes, Japan very well could have won the war in the Pacific. Their navy was widely superior to the U.S. until as late as 1943, had Japan succeeded at the Battle of the Philippine Sea, we would not have won the battle of the Phillipines. Japan would still have large sources of crude oil. It would be a major setback that, if followed up by recaptures of other pacific islands, could have systematically drove the U.S. out of the pacific. The U.S., contradictory to the common consensus, is not invincible.
Nice troll. OK, I'll bite.
Japan's plan was to grab as much as possible in terms of resources and territory and then dig in. They were securing strategic resources with an eye on setting up a British style empire with them at the top. They planned on fighting so hard in defense as to weaken the American will to fight. They did not think decadent America would fight. They and Germany perceived the American culture as weak and inferior. They were wrong. It turned out that the US was invincible.
It is amazing how many enemies think that the US is in decline, even to this day.
-
AND, yes, Japan very well could have won the war in the Pacific. Their navy was widely superior to the U.S. until as late as 1943, had Japan succeeded at the Battle of the Philippine Sea, we would not have won the battle of the Phillipines. Japan would still have large sources of crude oil. It would be a major setback that, if followed up by recaptures of other pacific islands, could have systematically drove the U.S. out of the pacific. The U.S., contradictory to the common consensus, is not invincible.
Sorry but the idea of the Japanese winning a prolonged campaign like what the PTO turned into is nearly impossible. I'm not saying the U.S. was invincible, but there are certain factors that just made it impossible for Japan to win any war that would last several years. There are so many variables that I don't have the time or patience to type out a lengthy reason so I'll focus on one matter. That being, the pure industrial power of the U.S. Even had the Battle of Midway been a complete disaster it would of only prolonged the war, not ended it. If you look at the production numbers of both sides, even splitting out what the U.S. sent to the ETO they were still capable of bringing overwhelming amounts of ships, airplanes, troops, supplies, etc to bear against Japan. The only way I could of seen Japan winning is by delivering a knock-out blow that they never managed at Pearl Harbor. They would of had to annihilate any idea of the U.S. fighting against them, or do it within several months of the war at best. And of course lastly although complete speculation, I do not believe the Japanese could of managed a hostile take-over of the U.S. mainland even using Hawaii as a staging point just do to it's vast size and various other reasons that aren't worth typing out.
-
I think it is no chance that the Japs could have defeated the USA on US soil, and they pretty much would have agreed on that.
However, they were close to succeeding in their plan. Grab the resources, stun the USN out of function for some period, and dig in like no-one else could do. That was the plan, and IMHO the only logical one.
Land-war on US soil would only serve as a tool to create chaos, but would never be won. It is, after all, a big country with lots of people and an enormous industrial capacity.
-
Runner up is Cowpens - This battle broke the back of General Cornwallis and Tarleton. It lead directly to Yorktown.
Cornwallis had NOTHING to do with Cowpens. Don't get your history from The Patriot.
-
I think its entirely feasible for the Japanese to have landed 3 divisions on the west coast of the USA. In 1941 they certainly had the manpower, and the navy for such an operation considering even with the simultaneous operations in the Philippines and Malaya after pearl harbour, the Japanese still had large numbers of troops in Korea, and China.
The American military in 1941 was not the mirror image of the forces arrayed in 1944, the Japanese army certainly had the edge in morale and training, and their Navy/Airforce was still very much intact although the Japanese Army were poorly armed and lacked for adequate artillery, armoured vehicles.
The question would've been if they would've been able to have to get such a large force close enough to the continental US undetected in Dec 1941, and what would've become of them once landed. Certainly the Japanese had awful logistics and would struggle to support a landing force - but I would think initially it would've been quite an effort for the available forces in 1941 to quickly defeat that force considering the quality and numbers available to the defenders.
Exactly. Had the U.S. lost Hawaii (which would almost be REQUIRED for Japan to land troops on the mainland U.S.) The U.S. would likely want to defend as far forward as possible, with aggressive patrols, constant aircover, and maybe even carriers steaming up and down the coast.
And HAD japan landed troops, they would have been beaten back. It would be physical impossible for them to have held on against all the weight the U.S. could have thrown agings them. Roosevelt would surely postpone all operations till the invaders were driven from U.S. soil. And even if their airfoce could defeat ours, all our factories would have been on the same continent as the fighting, with japan needing to ship in everything but possibly food. And even if they did beat us in production, our Sheree weight of manpower would have been daunting.
-
ok... i need to say Midway takes the PTO easily but for the ETO? theres two, Stalingrad was the best known for the soviets but they held the line at moscow and north of that also... stalingrad just took the popularity in my opinion... but for the western front? there really was none except el alamein and operation torch... by the time stalingrad took place, there was no need for us to "turn the war". we achieved air superiority slowly and gradually and africa is the only thing that had a turning point. yes, the BoB was probably the most necessary thing to have achieved and secured a western front in '44. but was it really truly a turning point? the axis still had the military superiority to be able to invade the country if they wished... hitler was just dumb once again. i mean, he did choose to attack cities halfway through instead of the airbases when he all but wiped them out and...well... i guess i just proved my point haha :rolleyes: . ok stalingrad, el alamein, BoB, and Midway... oh and btw, if Hawaii was invaded, we would have lost, they had their largest fleet at their disposal right off the coast, the enterprise would have been sunk and Hawaii would be japanese today... during the time of 1941, wasnt there only 300,000 or so men in the us army? they could have easily taken a foothold in california or washington and if they wanted to push the invasion, they had the manpower to divert probably more men to the west coast than we had in our army.
-
I don't know why the Japanese needed to invade the USA to drive it out of the Pacific? Japan came very close to achieving its war aims, which did not entail invading the USAs west coast. The defeat at Midway was all that stood between it and taking the Pacific area, all but Hawaii. Australia would have likely fallen with no lifeline, and you can't resupply it with no naval air power. Thats not to say that at some point the USA could not have come back, in all likelyhood it would have, but the Pacific would have fallen in 1942-3 to Japan 1st had they won at Midway and sunk the remaining US CVs.
There is a reasonable limit to what Japan could have done past that, and certainly I don't see invading the USA as a realistic option in the early 1940s. Thats not a Pacific War though, thats a North American war. Big difference.
Re El Alemain and Torch? Those are small victories compared to Normandy. Neither opened up Germany to an invasion route or so badly damaged her military that they could no longer fight. Normandy was the key campaign in the West in WW2. Its success absolutley sealed Germanys fate. I find it bemusing the attempts to somehow deflect its importance. You can argue the timelines all you want, but Normandy was the defining point at which any hope of Germany hanging on for an armistice was lost. Had her government cared at all for her people, they would have sued for peace in August 1944, and avoided the inevitable armageddon that was to follow.
Stalingrad was not the key defeat on the Eastern Front, it was Kursk. What slim chance the Germans had before Kursk was gone afterwards, and with it any hope of militarily defeating the USSR.
-
Their navy was widely superior to the U.S. until as late as 1943, had Japan succeeded at the Battle of the Philippine Sea, we would not have won the battle of the Phillipines. Japan would still have large sources of crude oil. It would be a major setback that, if followed up by recaptures of other pacific islands, could have systematically drove the U.S. out of the pacific. The U.S., contradictory to the common consensus, is not invincible.
After the Battle of Miday and Guadacanal, the offensive capabilities of the IJN was seriously curtailed, if not eliminated. Just because Japan decided that it could go back on the offensive again in late '43 and plan Operation A to attack the US Pacific Fleet while it was conducting its next offensive campaign doesn't mean it had the strength to succeed and then go on a major offensive to recapture some of their lost territory.
Operation A was heavily dependent on land based fighters because most of the IJNs experienced and veteran pilots were killed in previous offensive operations (Coral Sea, Midway, Guadacanal). In addition, the Japanese were out numbered in aspects with 9 total carriers (main and light) compared to the US Pacific Fleet's total of 15 carriers. The Japanese only were able to field approximately 450 carrier based planes with an additional 300 land based planes compared to the US Pacific Fleet's 956 planes. You also have to take into account that a majority of the IJN's most experienced pilots were already dead by this time. The US Pacific Fleet also had the ability to use radar to direct its combat air patrols and its aircrews were far better trained and had more experience. The IJN just did not of the offensive capabilities or forces to stop the US Pacific Fleet in the Philippine Sea or anywhere else for that matter.
The fact that the IJN failed to sink a single US ship during this battle and the loss to IJN aircraft and crews was horrendous. Out of the 450 carrier bases planes, the IJN lost 400 and out of the 300 land based planes, they lost 200. This isn't in addition to the aircrews that were lost but safe to say that least 80% of the aircrews were lost during this battle. Only around 40 of the IJN's carrier based planes were fit to fly after the battle and the losses were so great that during the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the IJN couldn't launch any planes from their carriers due to lack of crews to fly them. The IJN also never recovered from the loss of their 3 carriers during this battle.
So while on paper it looked like the IJN was strong enough to go on the offensive, in reality it the IJN incapable of large offensive operations that could threaten and reverse the gains of the United States in the Pacific.
ack-ack
-
WW2? OK, in chronological order:
1. Battle of Britain: first major defeat for the Germans.
2. Moscow/Leningrad: second major defeat for the Germans, who thus found themselves left out in the cold.
3. Pearl Harbor: it induced Hitler to declare war on the USA, leading to ultimate defeat for the Germans when the Americans finally got fighting.
4. Overlord: the beginning of the campaign that ultimately defeated the German forces in Western Europe.
5. Berlin: it completed the defeat of the Germans on all fronts.
The single most important battle in history? Trafalgar, 21st October 1805. Thanks to Nelson and his 'Band of Brothers', the French and Spanish battlefleets never again gained any lasting dominance over British seapower, which subsequently opened the seas to peaceful trade under the umbrella of the 'Pax Britannica' maintained by the Royal Navy for the hundred years from 1814 to the outbreak of the First World War.
:salute
-
I don't know why the Japanese needed to invade the USA to drive it out of the Pacific?
Invading Hawaii or the US mainland was never on the minds of the Japanese, nor was invading Australia. The main goal of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was to force the United States to the negotiating table, not go to war. Naive thinking on Japan's part for sure. They knew that invading Hawaii would end all hope of a negotiated settlement. The goal of Midway was the same as their goal with Pearl Harbor, destroy the US Pacific Fleet and force the US to the negotiating table. The only reason they wanted to occupy Midway was to extend their defensive perimeter in response to the Doolittle Raid.
As for the invasion of Australia, it was a plan of a few staff officers but the majority of the high command, like Tojo were against it for logistical reasons and knew they'd never be able to capture and occupy Australia. The best they could hope for was the capture of Port Moresby that would have endangered supply line to Australia and give the Japanese an air base in which to make harassing bombing raids on Australia.
ack-ack
-
Yes, their main goal was to knock the U.S. out of the war by destroying their pacific fleet. But in retrospect they would have done better them to have followed up the pear harbor attacks with a landing, capturing the island, and using it as a shield while they strengthend their positions further west, since, as we all know, their attempts to force america to negotiate failed.
-
Simba,
I wouldn't even go so far as to say that Trafalgar was the most important NAVAL battle of all-time. I'd say Salamis ranks WELL above in its impact on the world: The Greeks had a heavy influence on the development of Roman culture, and the Romans were ultimately one of the key influences on the development of Western Europe. What might have happened if the Greeks had been conquered and a Persian-style monarchy had been spread into the Greek City-states (particularly Athens)?
Hell, I'd place HASTINGS and its aftermath (which incidentally, the Saxons could, and probably SHOULD, have won that battle) as having a much more significant impact, particularly if you're looking at the evolution of Great Britain.
-
just noticed, but the title doesn't state which war it's talking about :confused:.
-
Yes, their main goal was to knock the U.S. out of the war by destroying their pacific fleet. But in retrospect they would have done better them to have followed up the pear harbor attacks with a landing, capturing the island, and using it as a shield while they strengthend their positions further west, since, as we all know, their attempts to force america to negotiate failed.
No, capturing Hawaii would have required more logistics than Japan had available a the time and wouldn't have been the better choice in retrospect. That would have guaranteed a war in Japan's mind that that was the last thing they wanted. They wanted to destroy the US Pacific Fleet so we wouldn't interfere with their operations against the British, Dutch and French in SE Asia and thought that by destroying our fleet, we would sue for peace instead of going to war. They had the strong belief that we would not go to war due to our isolationist policies and views at the time.
In hindsight, the Japanese should have launched the 3rd wave that targeting the fuel/torpedo storage, maintenance facilities and dry dock repair facilities. That would have been a major blow to the US Pacific Fleet.
ack-ack
-
Yes, but had they planed to invade hawaii and use it as a forward base, they would have been able to draw strength away from other campaigns and use those troops to invade and occupy hawaii. Assuming they allow the carriers to stay there to help defend agains the inevitable american counter attack, with they help of land based planes, they MAY have sunk all the carriers, but more likely they would have sunk around half, causing the americans to draw back at the risk of loosing their remaining carrier force. The Japs may have hung onto hawaii untill early '43, maybe mid '43 if thing go well. that gives them 1 1/2 years to consolidate, build, and dig in for the following american attacks. IDK what a reasonable amount of troops to garrison the islands would be, but in my limited knowledge, 3 divisions seems good for Ohau, with an extra 2-3 for the rest of the islands. It seems like 60-70,000 troops wouldn't SEVERLY limit the Japanese's capacity to defend other areas.
That means if it takes the same ammount of time -4 months for the troops lost on hawaii, japan would loose in 1947. If you could go down in '45 or '47, which would you pick?
-
IMO,
Japan could never keep the US out of the Pacific even if they had captured Hawaii right off the start. The reasons are very simple & Yamamoto understood this. Consider what he told his superior:
'I can guarantee only 6 months of victory, no more'. (paraphrased)
1- Even if Hawaii was lost on day 1, the US would've recaptured it fairly quickly.
If you consider the kind of fury Pearl Harbor caused, imagine the effect the surprise attack plus losing Hawaii would've been. It would not have been defeatist.
2- If Hawaii & Pacific fleet had been lost on day 1, the carriers would have still been at sea and the USN wouldve diverted all its warships to the PTO. Hence, no real effect on the critical battles in the pacific which were fought by carriers.
3- Industrial might of the US wouldve swept the IJN off the sea as it did historically.
4- the US would not abandon the Pacific as it had too much to loose. Primarily the ANZAC regions, India and China which were allies.
If Hawaii had been captured on day 1 I believe that the USN would've won the war in the pacific much faster than it did because it would've pushed for a much bigger naval building program right from the start (and Id say a much more effective one as they wouldve likely focused on producing submarines and carriers rather than building battleships); it wouldve provided the Marines with a first blood experience vs. Japanese soldiers while liberating friendly territory (which would've likely been a campaign mounted with #1 priority by the US and would've happened within a month or two or so after Dec 7th)... while at the same time slowing the Japanese advance in the southern pacific as the IJN would not have dispersed their fleet from Hawaii to help capture the southern asia regions.
-
Ehemm.
It took almost 4 years to defeat the Japanese. And it was eventually done with a nuke.
The Japanese first blow failed, since the U.S. carriers had left Pearl Harbour. Had the Japs both sunk the US carriers AND then captured Pearl, it would have been a very long time until the USA would have been in condition to deal with the Japanese on Naval grounds, especially with the other scenario of operations, MTO, and later ETO.
This was the core of the Japanese idea, and as Yamamoto planned, the only way the Japanese could have made trouble with the USA and gotten away with it.
And yet, despite the failiure of Tora-Tora-Tora, the Japanese were not even clearly on a loosing side for quite some time.
-
It took almost 4 years to defeat the Japanese. And it was eventually done with a nuke.
The defeat of Germany was given priority.
The loss of the three carriers at Pearl Harbor would probably not have added time to the war. Loss of Hawaii might have extended it. The Japanese warrior ethos carried them long after their defeat was a foregone conclusion. This code may have actually casused them some harm in that it discouraged armor in the planes, made logisitcs unmanly, and the answer to any crisis on the battlefield was a full frontal charge.
The resources that the Japanese went to war to acquire did not significantly help their war effort.
-
Saxman "Cornwallis had NOTHING to do with Cowpens. Don't get your history from The Patriot."
What I said was, "Runner up is Cowpens - This battle broke the back of General Cornwallis and Tarleton. It lead directly to Yorktown."
The result of Cowpens was that the army of Cornwallis was crippled. Cowpens displayed that the British could be beaten. This was a big deal after Camden.
Try not to be so combative. Oh Sorry, this is a war simulation board. Or is it?
-
<snip> Oh Sorry, this is a war simulation board. Or is it?
This board is not a simulation of any war. If it ever gets remotely close to that, I'll go Patton on all of you and be done with it. :)
-
They couldn't win. Yes they could have driven us outa hawaii if we'd screwed up bad, but no way in hell they woulda landed 3 divisions south of LA. They didn't have the manpower or resources to fight a war with us. Our industrial capacity was far greater than theirs, and there for, they were at a sever disadvantage unless they were able to make us believe we were defeated. Moral is to physical as 3 is to 1.
Had Hawaii been captured, the U.S. would have had to launch offensive operations from mainland U.S. You can assume if Hawaii was captured, then the aircraft carriers there defending would have been captured/destroyed. The Japanese then would have been able to advance southward; capture New Guinea, Invade Australia, and invade other smaller islands like Fiji & Samoa. To beat your enemy, you don't have to land 3 divisions south of one of their cities, you just need to take them out of the equation. You defeat U.S. at sea/Hawaii, you take them out of the equation, and you win. A crowd of dangerous, rake-armed, stupid, racist people (what you call Morale) are only dangerous in your home territory.
-
Had Hawaii been captured, the U.S. would have had to launch offensive operations from mainland U.S. You can assume if Hawaii was captured, then the aircraft carriers there defending would have been captured/destroyed. The Japanese then would have been able to advance southward; capture New Guinea, Invade Australia, and invade other smaller islands like Fiji & Samoa. To beat your enemy, you don't have to land 3 divisions south of one of their cities, you just need to take them out of the equation. You defeat U.S. at sea/Hawaii, you take them out of the equation, and you win. A crowd of dangerous, rake-armed, stupid, racist people (what you call Morale) are only dangerous in your home territory.
The only way to take your enemy out of the equation is to defeat him militarily, or to provide no reason for him to intervine in your conflicts.
Japan would have the same problem in Australia as they would on the mainland U.S., they don't have the manpower to invade, capture, and occupy australia, and still continue with other campaigns.
And even had the Japanese forced peace upon us, would would have sat tight, built like hell, and then attack. The U.S. would never have gone away, they would have came back when they were strong enough. And there were no carriers in hawaii, so none would have been captured. And as soon as that "crowd of dangerous rake-armed, stupid, racist people" find a boat, there your problem again.
-
The only way to take your enemy out of the equation is to defeat him militarily, or to provide no reason for him to intervine in your conflicts.
Japan would have the same problem in Australia as they would on the mainland U.S., they don't have the manpower to invade, capture, and occupy australia, and still continue with other campaigns.
And even had the Japanese forced peace upon us, would would have sat tight, built like hell, and then attack. The U.S. would never have gone away, they would have came back when they were strong enough. And there were no carriers in hawaii, so none would have been captured. And as soon as that "crowd of dangerous rake-armed, stupid, racist people" find a boat, there your problem again.
Lol, i see where you are coming from, but come on, they invaded China (which, mind you, had a HUGE ARMY) and decimated them.
-
Yes, but their equipment and training were much poorer. Think about how Germany got so far against russia: better training (untill they started skimping to get more troops faster) and better equipment (untill later in the war, though the tiger and tigerII remained formidible through out the war).
-
Lol, i see where you are coming from, but come on, they invaded China (which, mind you, had a HUGE ARMY) and decimated them.
Yes, but their equipment and training were much poorer. Think about how Germany got so far against russia: better training (untill they started skimping to get more troops faster) and better equipment (untill later in the war, though the tiger and tigerII remained formidible through out the war).
You guys really need to read more than Wiki on what happened in World War II. It's a shame that our schools are doing such a piss poor job in teaching you kids.
ack-ack
-
This board is not a simulation of any war. If it ever gets remotely close to that, I'll go Patton on all of you and be done with it. :)
You mean you're going to drive over a mine? :devil
-
You mean you're going to drive over a mine? :devil
You bet your sweet bippy. Just think of cleaning up that mess. Of course, I would get all my shots in before doing my impersonation of an egg in a microwave. :neener:
-
LOL, Skuzzy, this one is then for you ;)
(egg in microwave)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wgy1Yhgk_BY
Then with champagne ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYzJoLVCskM&feature=related
(Oddly enough there is a documented case of loads of champagne being taken up to 30K, - unpressurized, without an incidense)
-
Re El Alemain and Torch? Those are small victories compared to Normandy. Neither opened up Germany to an invasion route or so badly damaged her military that they could no longer fight. Normandy was the key campaign in the West in WW2. Its success absolutley sealed Germanys fate. I find it bemusing the attempts to somehow deflect its importance. You can argue the timelines all you want, but Normandy was the defining point at which any hope of Germany hanging on for an armistice was lost. Had her government cared at all for her people, they would have sued for peace in August 1944, and avoided the inevitable armageddon that was to follow.
Stalingrad was not the key defeat on the Eastern Front, it was Kursk. What slim chance the Germans had before Kursk was gone afterwards, and with it any hope of militarily defeating the USSR.
Normandy was just another victory to finish the war faster, without the African and eastern fronts there would never had been a possibility of Normandy succeeding. Kursk came after Stalingrad when the German army was in retreat. it was not a turning point but it sealed Germany's fate faster just like the Battle of the Bulge did... (speaking of sealing German fate, what was that massive air assault Germany used to try and destroy the Allied air power late in the war? the huge noe raid that failed?)
-
(speaking of sealing German fate, what was that massive air assault Germany used to try and destroy the Allied air power late in the war? the huge noe raid that failed?)
I read the Luftwaffe War Diaries as a kid and vaguely recall what the last big push. Wiki revealed it to be Bodenplatte or 'Base Plate.' But, by January, 1945, it was very unlikely that Germany could come back regardless.
-
it wasnt bodenplatte, i remember a different name... :headscratch:
:banana:
-
No it was Bodenplatte. The January 1st 1945 attack by the Luftwaffe on the 2nd and IXth Tactical Air Forces.
If Germany was in retreat at Kursk, then why was it a big German offensive? I suggest you revisit that one.
Normandy was not "just another battle". The Allies had to land on the Continent to defeat Germany, and without victory there, there would have been no western front at all. The Allies were certainly not going to defeat the Third Reich from N. Africa or Italy.
The Ardennes offensive had zero chance of succeeding, it shortened the war by a good 6 months by spending the remaining high quality German armored units in a fruitless attack, opening up Germany to invasion in the spring of 1945. Speaking of which, im not sure how you get a Battle of the Bulge without having secured a landing in France 1st. Kind of hard to do. That being said im not minimising the importance or cost of dealing the final, crippling blow to Germanys forces, which it did.
Normandy was absolutely essential. Calling it just another battle is like calling Ghettysburg just another battle or Waterloo just another battle.
-
Well... Normandy and the creation of a second front (third really if you count Italy) came too late to actually affect the outcome of the war. Germany's war in the East was already lost by then and it was only a matter of time before the Red Army would roll into Berlin. However, the second front did shorten the war considerably and probably saved Europe from communism... Well, some of it anyway.
-
Well, you can take many key battles or campaigns in history, and then say "well gee, if they didn't win there, XYZ would have happened anyways".
Example. Waterloo 1815. Ok, Napolean wins that one. Do you think he's going to reconquor Europe? highly doubtfull. He would have been brought to heel at a later date, making some other General famous rather than Wellignton and so forth and so on, but he met his end there, not somewhere else.
Germany was being attacked on two fronts, and it was defeated by a combined effort, and one of those fronts was the western front, and that front was made possible by Normandy's success. You could turn the tables and say "well the Soviet Bagration 1944 Offensive didnt matter because the Allies landed at Normandy" I suppose...but then somebody has to matter? don't they? I mean, defeat came, it didn't just appear out of nowhere, if you get my meaning.
-
However, if Normandy was the "turning point" it would have to matter a lot more than it did. Fact is Normandy, though vast in scale by Allied standards would have been considered a minor battle on the Russian front. The entire Western front with all the battles fought there doesn't even count for one of the big battles on the Eastern front in terms of men, machines and casualties. At Stalingrad the Germans lost twice as many men as the U.S. lost in the whole war. The Russians lost three times as much... in one battle. The invasion route from Normandy to the Rhine was shorter than the Eastern front was wide.
Most people haven't the faintest inkling as to the incredible difference in scale between the battles on the Eastern and Western fronts. We watch movies like SPR and TV shows like Band of Brothers and think "WOW!", while the truth is that even if the Germans had thrown Private Ryan and the Brothers back into the English Channel the Russians would still have won. The reverse however is not true; if Russia had been knocked out of the war in June 1944 Germany would have held Europe, perhaps even to this day.
-
The reverse however is not true; if Russia had been knocked out of the war in June 1944 Germany would have held Europe, perhaps even to this day.
If the Germans managed to capture Moscow and forced the Soviets to retreat behind the Urals, you think the Soviets would have been knocked out of the war? I think it would have taken the Soviets a longer time to push the Germans back but I don't think they would have been vanquished.
ack-ack
-
If the Germans managed to capture Moscow and forced the Soviets to retreat behind the Urals, you think the Soviets would have been knocked out of the war?
Yes. 80% of the Soviet population and infrastructure was on the European continent. Beyond the Urals there was little more than wilderness. Still is. If Moscow had fallen so would the Soviet Union.
This is now:
(http://geology.com/articles/night-satellite/satellite-view-of-earth-at-night-750.jpg)
In 1944 we might have seen a single dotted line beyond the Urals: The Trans-Siberian Railway.
-
Yes. 80% of the Soviet population and infrastructure was on the European continent. Beyond the Urals there was little more than wilderness. Still is. If Moscow had fallen so would the Soviet Union.
This is now:
(http://geology.com/articles/night-satellite/satellite-view-of-earth-at-night-750.jpg)
In 1944 we might have seen a single dotted line beyond the Urals: The Trans-Siberian Railway.
I thought Stalin had already taken measures to move the major factory productions and seat of government behind the Urals in case Moscow fell?
ack-ack
-
A major factory relocation program was undertaken yes, but the majority of the resources needed to survive as a nation was located west of the Urals. in 1941/42 during the Battle of Moscow Stalin stayed in the capital along with most of the party leadership. He knew that Russia was lost if Moscow fell, and just like Hitler 3 years later he chose to stay rather than flee and be captured later as a rat living of the land somewhere. Ukraine was the breadbasket of the Soviet union, without it the people would starve and succumb to the elements. The oilfields were in the Caucasus, without them Russia would have no way of fighting a mechanized war. That's why holding Stalingrad was so important to the Russians; if the Germans had captured the city they would have cut off the Volga, the industrial "highway" between Russia and her southern provinces.
-
Die hard, then why didn't the Germans go around stalingrad then? getting over the volga up stream of where it branches into different rivers (if it does at all) would have accomplished as much along those lines as capturing stalingrad would have.
-
Seems to me it's fairly simple in regards WW2
Germany's invasion of Russia sealed their fate. It seems to me they might have maintained a status quo a lot longer otherwise as Stalin didn't seem tohe have any intentions of going after Germany. He might have screwed up the Russian military even more had he had more time to focus internally instead of having the external threat of Germany. Outside of Britain fighting on, where was the threat if the US remained out of the war?
Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor sealed their fate. As mentioned, Yammamoto knew it when he got going. Too many people in both Germany and Japan seemed to think the US wouldn't fight if they had to.
I suppose you could argue that Pearl Harbor also sealed Germany's fate in that there was just no way to defeat US industry once it cranked up into high gear. Neither Japan or Germany could touch it. It was already rolling when Pearl Harbor happened and only got better. Germany declaring war on the US the day after Pearl Harbor just made it that much easier for Roosevelt to focus on defeating Germany.
-
My opinions of turning points in different conflicts may well agree with some, and disagree with others of this community.
So many times I have read where folks have proudly proclaimed their loyalty to their country. I've spent time reading posts that could only be described as "bashing" one country or another. To that end, I hold onto thoughts of mine own and in this context I do make the following statements:
Those being.......
I am an American. I will fight my countries battles in hopes that my countrymen are not required to make their contribution to the continuation of this great country. For those who hate us, beware. Attack us and we offer you only destruction.
I do loudly claim to enjoy and participate in the freedoms offered by this great nation, and guaranteed by its constitution. Disparaging remarks made against this nation are oft times viewed in a light that does not speak of the freedoms that we hold so dear, but the right to make those remarks is something that so many of us have served to protect, and I dare say, that so many of us would again serve to sustain.
While past battles have many views to be seen, future battles will be fought in views yet to be considered.
With that in mind, I would offer that anyone who believes that an invasion of the United States during World War II could have been successful in any degree truly needs to gain a better understanding of this country and its people.
Just as our forefathers did during the American Revolution, we would and will fight to drive any sort of invader from our shores. Doubt this comment at your peril, for you truly do not understand the rage of an American at war.
-
Just as our forefathers did during the American Revolution, we would and will fight to drive any sort of invader from our shores. Doubt this comment at your peril, for you truly do not understand the rage of an American at war.
And that is exactly what doomed the Japanese. They really didn't have an understanding of the American psyche and fully believed we would not go to war if attacked. A lot see us as a 'paper tiger' and make the fatal mistake by pulling our tail and finding out that we do have some very sharp and nasty claws and fangs.
ack-ack
-
Pretty much agree with DieHard here, - had Moscow fallen, I think Russia would have fallen.
Anyway, Squire mentioned Torch/El-Alamein, in the sense of not being that important.
It was a big operation, a big front, it was successful and gave the Axis a very hard time at the precise time of their battle for Stalingrad, and the results were that the Axis were kicked out of Africa completely, opening a new front on Sicily and then Italy, - at the same time as Kursk.
The sweep up in Tunisia alone led to more than 300.000 axis POW's, and the transport branch of the LW, so sorely needed in Stalingrad suffered a crippling blow in their desperate attempts evacuating troops.
Not a small bisquit, by no means.
-
Die hard, then why didn't the Germans go around stalingrad then? getting over the volga up stream of where it branches into different rivers (if it does at all) would have accomplished as much along those lines as capturing stalingrad would have.
The Germans would have had to fight the Red Army no matter where it tried to cross the Volga. However, Stalingrad was a major industrial center producing, among other things, T-34's. Stalingrad was also in the path of the German goal of capturing the Caspian oil fields. And the city was named Stalingrad.
-
Well yes, but a city is horrible to armor. Why not just simply surround the city like russia did to the germans? Had they tried that and failed? I'm just saying, if I could choose between sending an army into a built up city, or sending one around, I'd send it around.
-
The Germans would have had to fight the Red Army no matter where it tried to cross the Volga. However, Stalingrad was a major industrial center producing, among other things, T-34's. Stalingrad was also in the path of the German goal of capturing the Caspian oil fields. And the city was named Stalingrad.
From what I've read, Hitler was obsessed with Stalingrad purely because of its name. He insisted it be taken or wiped off the face of the Earth. Had the city been named differently, the war in the East may have gone much differently. The goal would have probably stayed the oil fields, not the city.
-
OK. Thanks ranger.
-
It was by no means just the name. It was a key to the waterways that fed the north.
Just imagine how the war on the eastern front would have faired if Germany had it's own route through the med and straight to Sevastopol and up to the waterways. A planner's dream.An invasion that would have started early in May....
-
Stalingrad wasn't nessicary to cut of the north. Just getting across the river would have done that. The Germans should have surrounded stalingrad, and let it wither on the vine.
-
From what I've read, Hitler was obsessed with Stalingrad purely because of its name. He insisted it be taken or wiped off the face of the Earth. Had the city been named differently, the war in the East may have gone much differently. The goal would have probably stayed the oil fields, not the city.
yes he was but dont use this to take away the fact that it still was one of the major T34 production sites. and for the idea of surrounding stalingrad? wasnt it kind of in a very far off way Bastogne where roads met? and besides, the Germans did manage to occupy most of the city, they were beaten back when reinforcements stormed up from the river in a massive counterattack with the idea of "not one step backwards" implied by then. stalingrad was very necessary for the german advance but hitler was an idiot for keeping his army there to be surrounded instead of retreating and regrouping like the commanders wanted... a hundred thousand men were lost from that counter attack correct?
-
Sicily & Itallian campaigns. without with Normandy wouldnt have been possible
-
right BAR, hitler lost an entire army in stalingrad. But like I said, just getting over the river would have cut off supplys moving on it. I think the Germans occupyed 9/10ths at their limit of advance, but were stoped JUST short of the Volga.
-
Down to 300 yards from the river.
Holding the bank would have been enough. Untill it froze.
-
Then the russians could have sent thousands of soldiers across the ice, trying to take back the bank. But aside from the factories in the city, would Germany have done better to cross the Volga just north or south of Stalingrad?
-
The further south that the waterways get captured, the less is the period on which they are passable on Ice. Hence my point about the key to conquering Russia being a southern front from the Black sea, - invasion followed by an advance on the nothern front. Had I been Hitler, that's how I would have tried the initial plan. And he did, but the British were in the way, and even the Spanish. Then he did the biggest mistake of all, which was the "southern swing" instead of focusing on Moscow.
So perhaps the turning point of the war was when Hitler ordered Guderian to take his Panzer army on a few thousand miles trip before going off for Moscow.....
-
You have a good point there angus. But how were the british in the way? AND the Spanish?
-
well for one the British occupied almost all of Arabia with the Free French, and second they had the strongest navy in the med and would have been too dangerous for a naval attack along with the fact they would have needed to take Istanbul or all of the low countries before even trying to move naval forces into the Sea. Along with that fact...the italians had the navy, and it wasnt big... When the imfamous Desert Fox landed in North Africa they had planned a daring move close to Malta which could have destroyed most of the Axis's Mediterranean Navy... feel free to correct me if im wrong but i got all this from sources
-
OK, but how were the spanish in the way? Or did he mean the french?
-
i hope that he meant the free french hahahaha
:banana: dance banana dance
-
OK, but how were the spanish in the way? Or did he mean the french?
He may be talking about the fact that Spain was just sitting there doing nothing.
-
You have a good point there angus. But how were the british in the way? AND the Spanish?
The British were in the way by simply being at war with Germany. And at the turning point of the war, when the Axis got stopped and started retreating, the British were in the way by holding Egypt and some other parts of N-Africa, as well as the key issue, Gibraltar. And on top of that, while Stalingrad was still an uncertain outcome, the W-Allies launched an advance on a 2.500 miles front, in N-Africa.
- Just "being at war with Germany" meant that the Axis invasion of Russia had to be planned differently, it also meant that an uncomfortable amount of manpower had to be tied up, and it absolutely meant that the force was weaker. Did you know that the LW lost more aircraft from 1940 to 1941 to the British than to the Russians in the "hottest" year of 1941?
- Just holding Gibraltar meant that the axis could not go in and out the med. There was still quite some naval power of the Italians trapped in the med, but the British gave them a beating. There was also some naval power belonging to the Vichy French, but the British also gave them a (very unpopular) beating.
- The Desert war, starting in 1940 may not look big on the scale of the Russian war, but it did drain the Axis quite a bit. They needed some resources, - armour, fuel, transports, navy, and a whole load of troops.
- Holding on in the area meant that the Bosphorus was closed. The Turks had the key there, and while being cautious in world politics, they were relatively pro Axis. That leads us to.....
- Gallipoli. The hideous WWI battle fought between the Commonwealth and the Turks was all about holding both sides of the Bosphorus to enable a naval connection (be it gunpower or supplies/troops) if needed.....which it definately was.
- Operation Torch, - the allied advance in N-Africa started in November 1942. When the Germans thought they were easily winning at Stalingrad. Hitler referred to it as basically won. But this time he got a sudden secondary front. Quite a bit of air power immediately was transferred from Stalingrad to the med. I have often wondered about the timing of those events.
And the Spanish.....simple.
Hitler realized the importance of the med before invading Russia, he met Franco in Spain in 1940 about the issue. Hitler needed the Spanish co-operation to seize Gibraltar. He did not have naval power enough to catch it from the sea, so it would have to be done from the mainland. So he asked for permission and transport. (The Spanish rail system has it's own trackwidth, - something that also bothered the Germans in Russia).
Franco basically declined. In a cunning political manner, he made ridiculous counter-demands which upon Hitler could not agree. No-deal, and Spain was at peace :devil
BTW, this is probably already all on this particular thread.
-
Ok, thanks. Thats pretty well covered. I just expected an "The were holding the mediteranian" type answer.
-
You're welcome. ;)
Actually, studying maps will give one many an idea. Google earth is my friend in this ;)I have a good book as well, - the atlas of WW2. Sort of brings one into the logistics involved.
The med campaign was actually an incredible feat for the British. They had to cover some serious distance on sea to keep their strongholds, while for the Axis it was pretty short from Italy down to N-Africa.
On the flip-side, the Germans had to face a huge logistics problem in Russia. The mud, the frost, the rail tracks (different from W-Europe), the bad roads, and the Russian held waterways. The German "southern-swing" in the Russian campaign was a logistics nightmare, - but Guderian, although convinced about the folly of the shift of operation, - had a remarkable success.
So, no wonder Hitler at least thought about the issue of opening up to the black sea. And him being a land-minded person, - heck, - he probably didn't even get the idea himself.
-
Hitler visited Franco to discuss what Spain could do to aid Germany. Franco haggled and bargained in his high-pitched voice for whatever he could get without committing Spain to anything. When Hitler got home he said that the talks with Franco had been 'worse than having a tooth pulled by the dentist'.
One nasty git talking to another. I'd have loved to have been a fly on that wall.
:cool:
-
Not much is heard about spain. Unless I completly miss my guess, had hitler decided it was worth it to attack spain, I would give them about a month, not counting if they pulled up into the mountians.
-
Franco's Spain came to power with Hitler's aid. It was a Fascist state. So, it was quite a shock to Hitler to have Franco making surrealistic demands if they were to join and Hitler to get Gibraltar. Basically Franco was not that stupid, - he got Spain out of the carnage of WW2, sat on his throne until the 1970's, and even Hitler came back from him with no success....
-
Not much is heard about spain. Unless I completly miss my guess, had hitler decided it was worth it to attack spain, I would give them about a month, not counting if they pulled up into the mountians.
That's like saying 'had Hitler decided it was worth it to attack Italy' or 'had Churchill decided it was worth it to attack France', it's pretty moot. Germany was responsible for the Government in Spain, as it had supported Franco's Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War. Spain was a supporter of Germany. Germany simply would not have made war with them.
-
Capturing Spain would also not have been any small deal. It's quite a chunk of land after all, and ruled by a fellow Fascist that Hitler helped to gain power.
Look at one thing that baffles me though. Franco made some crazy claims if Hitler were to get Gibraltar with his aid. It was a matter of a deal basically. While Hitler could easily have said yes and okay to this and betrayed Franco afterwards, he chose not to do so. He certainly double-crossed things of that size, both before and after, so why not this time?
I'd put my money of him being overconfident in his army beating the USSR from the North, and him being not much of a navally concious person rather than playing a gentleman to a fellow fascist.
As before, I belive that with Gibraltar in his hands, Hitler would have won the N-African theater of operations and being able to launch operation Barbarossa from the Black sea, thereby starving N-Russia from the very start.
-
may have been a huge chunk of land but you gotta think that Spain just went through a major civil war and the winning party lead by Franco was backed my Hitler... he wasnt gonna touch Spain
-
"Franco's Spain came to power with Hitler's aid."
Yes indeed. It was German Ju52s that shipped Franco's Spanish Legion across from Morocco. And Franco would've remained stuck in the Canary Islands if it hadn't been for British fascist-admirers who paid for a Dragon Rapide of Olley's Air Services to fly there, pick him up and drop him off to organise his ex-command into that invasion force (the aircraft's now exhibited in a museum in Madrid). The Royal Navy didn't exactly cover itself with glory either, transmitting Republican shipping information in the clear from Gibraltar to aid the Nationalistas.
The right-wing gang in Spain are now trying to obstruct the search for Franco's victims. To blazes with all fascists. I've got a li'l casa in Valencia and I'll be visiting the records of the International Brigade in Albacete over Christmas to see my great-uncle Harry Campbell's details; he served with the IB as a medic, then with the Republican Army until wounded at the Battle of the Ebro.
:salute
-
The Gerries did much much more. They sent troops, Panzers and quite some air support. The Italians also sent troops and air support. It was after all their practice ground for what was to come...
-
WW2 in Europe was decided at Dunkirk, when the Germans failed to capture the Brit army and lost any chance at a cross channel invasion of a barely target.
WW2 in the Pacific was decided at Pearl Harbor, when the Japanese forgot to blow up the fuel tank farms which fed our fleets and let us reinforce our front.
-
WW2 in Europe was decided at Dunkirk, when the Germans failed to capture the Brit army and lost any chance at a cross channel invasion of a barely target.
WW2 in the Pacific was decided at Pearl Harbor, when the Japanese forgot to blow up the fuel tank farms which fed our fleets and let us reinforce our front.
dunkirk and pearl? umm...sorry but i think you need to read up more. banana :banana: banana
-
Read up on history? Dunkirk is defiantly arguble and pearl is what most everyone says...
-
WW2 in Europe was decided at Dunkirk, when the Germans failed to capture the Brit army and lost any chance at a cross channel invasion of a barely target.
WW2 in the Pacific was decided at Pearl Harbor, when the Japanese forgot to blow up the fuel tank farms which fed our fleets and let us reinforce our front.
I do hope that you are just yanking our chain with both events?
-
as a turning point? dunkirk wasnt the turning point... pearl wasnt either. yeah they had mistakes in them that CAUSED a problem that led to a turning point. but even then, the BoB was air only and second i think the russian front held at moscow and stalingrad was much more important as turning points
-
WW2 in Europe was decided at Dunkirk, when the Germans failed to capture the Brit army and lost any chance at a cross channel invasion of a barely target.
WW2 in the Pacific was decided at Pearl Harbor, when the Japanese forgot to blow up the fuel tank farms which fed our fleets and let us reinforce our front.
You're right, they didn't capture them, they bombed the crap out of them and harassed them to death while trying to cross the channel. Hitler was still 100% capable of crossing the channel after Dunkirk, had he focused his Luftwaffe attacks more on British Airfields, as apposed to the civilian population, there isn't a doubt in my mind that they could have crossed. They could have crossed anyway, (although it would have been highly pherric if they did not try to destroy the RAF) and would have destroyed the British.
-
You're right, they didn't capture them, they bombed the crap out of them and harassed them to death while trying to cross the channel. Hitler was still 100% capable of crossing the channel after Dunkirk, had he focused his Luftwaffe attacks more on British Airfields, as apposed to the civilian population, there isn't a doubt in my mind that they could have crossed. They could have crossed anyway, (although it would have been highly pherric if they did not try to destroy the RAF) and would have destroyed the British.
Ummmmm no Germany definitely would have been massacred had they tried to just jump right over to Britain.
Furthermore Germany was never in a position to gain control of the air over Britain, even if they had continued to bomb RAF airfields, as the popular myth goes.
-
Ummmmm no Germany definitely would have been massacred had they tried to just jump right over to Britain.
Furthermore Germany was never in a position to gain control of the air over Britain, even if they had continued to bomb RAF airfields, as the popular myth goes.
That's the first time I've ever heard anyone call that a myth.
-
According to Galland it is...
He wrote that the RAF would have just moved north and continued to threaten an invasion force while escaping the range of the already overstretched Jagdwaffe.
-
Well, that's one man's opinion. I would be careful about understating the danger the UK faced in the BoB, for if Galland's opinion is true, then we've been making a big deal over a chimera for 60+ years.
-
Well, that's one man's opinion. I would be careful about understating the danger the UK faced in the BoB, for if Galland's opinion is true, then we've been making a big deal over a chimera for 60+ years.
Well I think that one man's opinion carries some weight on this topic :)
for if Galland's opinion is true, then we've been making a big deal over a chimera for 60+ years.
People have also made a big deal about all of the German superweapons for the past 60 years, that doesn't mean that they were practical, realistic, or could have had any effect on the war had they even made it off of the drawing board.
Although it's a lot later in the war, and was successful, just look at how much effort Germany had to put into getting the Scharnhorst Gniesenau and Prinz Eugen (three ships) through the Channel (they even used nightfighter 110's during the daytime to help to bridge the gaps), imagine them trying to get an entire invasion fleet across and then support it on the ground...
-
You should know by now that I'm almost never convinced by appeals to authority and reputation. :D
-
You're right, they didn't capture them, they bombed the crap out of them and harassed them to death while trying to cross the channel. Hitler was still 100% capable of crossing the channel after Dunkirk, had he focused his Luftwaffe attacks more on British Airfields, as apposed to the civilian population, there isn't a doubt in my mind that they could have crossed. They could have crossed anyway, (although it would have been highly pherric if they did not try to destroy the RAF) and would have destroyed the British.
Gibberish. :D And yet not, - this period marks a significant change in thecompletely so-far-successful Nazi campaign.
Hitler could not stop the crossings of several hundred thousand men floating away in just about anything that would .... float. And the LW actually suffered quite some casualties over the land they held.
And while the British airfields in the south were indeed buckling under the weight of the LW, don't make the same mistake as the Germans. They thought ALL of the BRITISH airforce were fighting them and rapidly depleting. They were bleeding every bit as fast themselves, and absolutely failed to comprehend the structure of the British air power.
After all, RAF had Bomber command and fighter command, and fighter command was basically split down in 4 in homeland defence, only 2 of which were effectively defending the south. 10 and 11th group. 12th group didn't make it to the fray before the Germans reached for London. 13th group was relatively idle up north and in Scotland , but did baffle the Germans when they sent bombers on that flank over the North sea, expecting all the British being in the south.
Then there was Coastal command, and the Fleet air arm as well. Not having quite the fighters for tackling the LW, they had quite some skilled pilots. Both arms were rather idle in the fight.
In the BoB the British had planes and crews in odd places. It was in the summer of 1940 when they for instance caught a German submarine with all hands with an aircraft of a squadron operating from .... Iceland.
The tactics and success debate is still warm, but I think I may claim that both sides did lot of mistakes. It would have been almost an impossible feat for the Germans to deliver a K.O. to the RAF though, and with the RAF around, the RN could not be stopped. Both depended on one another. Britain on both. And to hold the RN at bay, the RAF had to be held off. Didn't work.
-
If all of this is true, then it's a crime that the RAF did not stop the Luftwaffe over France. Send the Spitfires for god's sake.
-
If all of this is true, then it's a crime that the RAF did not stop the Luftwaffe over France. Send the Spitfires for god's sake.
Churchill and others felt that France couldn't be saved, which is why they withheld a lot of support towards the end of the Battle of France. They didn't want to waste RAF resources in a hopeless cause when they were going to need them at home.
ack-ack
-
Nope. (For Anaxo that is)
Their system made it possible to make the LW bleed harder over the UK, as well as airfields were not run over as in France. The system was basically the best in the world, probably followed by the German one.
RAF casualties in France were great, and it was just a matter of cold calculation when their fighters would have been depleted. In the BoB however, they fought much bigger formations of German aircraft with a much better exchange ratio, - without any French aircraft as well.
Spitfires were in action over France before the BoB by the way. Dunkirk. Although not being aided by radar except partially, the success was noteable. And the home base was in the UK.
RS Tuck bagged 5 Gerries there in a day. Not common in the whole of WW2.
-
Churchill and others felt that France couldn't be saved, which is why they withheld a lot of support towards the end of the Battle of France. They didn't want to waste RAF resources in a hopeless cause when they were going to need them at home.
ack-ack
Yep. once France was overrun, Churchill was shocked how quick it took Germany to take Paris.
-
I'm going to respectfully disagree. To my mind, not sending Spitfires to France was a major mistake, one that only looks justified because the decision entailed the result that was its own justification, i.e. the fall of France. Without German air superiority the result of the battle could have been drastically different.
-
Ummmmm no Germany definitely would have been massacred had they tried to just jump right over to Britain.
Furthermore Germany was never in a position to gain control of the air over Britain, even if they had continued to bomb RAF airfields, as the popular myth goes.
Are you serious? The B.E.F. in France and Belgium were crushed as if they were any other European nation; The Netherlands (Who lasted 8 days), The French (who lasted a month), the Belgians (who I believe lasted 28 days), and the Norwegians (who lasted roughly the same amount of time as the French). The German blitz in Europe was unstoppable, do you really think the British, who had incredibly few tanks, could have fared very well against the Blitz attacks either?
-
Are you serious? The B.E.F. in France and Belgium were crushed as if they were any other European nation; The Netherlands (Who lasted 8 days), The French (who lasted a month), the Belgians (who I believe lasted 28 days), and the Norwegians (who lasted roughly the same amount of time as the French). The German blitz in Europe was unstoppable, do you really think the British, who had incredibly few tanks, could have fared very well against the Blitz attacks either?
Attacking Britain was such a different scenario that I don't even know why you brought up all else you did.
The Luftwaffe could not gain aerial superiority.
The RAF and RN would have massacred any invasion force.
-
Oh please, the Royal Navy was at the mercy of the Kreigsmarine basically until 1943.
-
Oh please, the Royal Navy was at the mercy of the Kreigsmarine basically until 1943.
:headscratch:
-
Oh please, the Royal Navy was at the mercy of the Kreigsmarine basically until 1943.
:rofl
-
Contrary to the popular belief that the Kriegsmarine only attacked defenseless merchantmen during the war, they actually sunk a sizable portion of the Royal Navy in 1940-42 in the Atlantic and Mediterranean.
Allied warships sunk by the Kriegsmarine:
Aircraft Carriers
HMS Ark Royal GB 13 Nov 1941
HMS Audacity GB 22 Dec 1941
HMS Avenger GB 15 Nov 1942
HMS Courageous GB 17 Sep 1939
HMS Eagle GB 11 Aug 1941
HMS Glorious GB 8 June 1940
USS Block Island US 29 May 1944
Battleships
HMS Barham GB 25 Nov 1941
HMS Hood GB 24 May 1941
HMS Royal Oak GB 14 Oct 1939
Cruisers
HMAS Sydney AU 19 Nov 1941
HMS Charybdis GB 23 Oct 1943
HMS Dragon GB 8 July 1944
HMS Dunedin GB 24 Nov 1941
HMS Edinburgh GB 2 May 1942
HMS Galatea GB 14 Dec 1941
HMS Hermione GB 16 June 1942
HMS Naiad GB 11 Mar 1942
HMS Penelope GB 18 Feb 1944
Destroyers
HMCS Athabascan CA 29 Apr 1944
Deyatelnyy SU 16 Jan 1945
HMS Acasta GB 8 June 1940
HMS Achates GB 31 Dec 1942
HMS Ardent GB 8 June 1940
HMS Bath GB 19 Aug 1941
HMS Belmont GB 31 Jan 1942
HMS Beverly GB 11 Apr 1943
HMS Blean GB 11 Dec 1942
HMS Broadwater GB 18 Oct 1941
HMS Cossack GB 23 Oct 1941
HMS Daring GB 18 Feb 1940
HMS Eskdale GB 14 Apr 1943
HMS Exmoor GB 25 Feb 1941
HMS Exmouth GB 21 Jan 1940
HMS Firedrake GB 16 Dec 1942
HMS Glowworm GB 8 Apr 1940
HMS Grafton GB 29 May 1940
HMS Gurkha GB 17 Jan 1942
HMS Hardy GB 10 Apr 1940
HMS Hardy GB 30 Jan 1944
HMS Harvester GB 11 Mar 1943
HMS Hasty GB 15 June 1942
HMS Hunter GB 10 Apr 1940
HMS Hurricane GB 24 Dec 1943
HMS Isis GB 20 July 1944
HMS Jaguar GB 26 Mar 1942
HMS Laforey GB 30 Mar 1944
HMS Lightning GB 12 Mar 1943
HMS Limbourne GB 23 Oct 1943
HMS Mahratta GB 25 Feb 1944
HMS Martin GB 10 Nov 1942
HMS Matabele GB 17 Jan 1942
ORP Orkan PL 8 Oct 1943
HMS Partridge GB 18 Dec 1942
HMS Porcupine GB 9 Dec 1942
HMS Puckeridge GB 6 Sep 1943
HMS Quorn GB 3 Aug 1944
HMS Somali GB 20 Sep 1942
HMS Stanley GB 19 Dec 1941
HMS Wakeful GB 29 May 1940
HMS Warwick GB 20 Feb 1944
HMS Veteran GB 26 Sep 1942
HMS Whirlwind GB 5 July 1940
HMS Vortigern GB 15 Mar 1942
HNLMS Isaac Sweers NL 13 Nov 1942
FNS La Combattante FR 23 Feb 1945
HMCS Ottawa CA 14 Sep 1942
Sevenner NO 6 June 1944
FNS Sirocco FR 31 May 1940
HMCS St. Croix CA 20 Sep 1943
USS Borie US 2 Nov 1943
USS Bristol US 13 Oct 1943
USS Buck US 9 Oct 1943
USS Fechteler US 5 May 1944
USS Fiske US 2 Aug 1944
USS Frederic C. Davis US 24 Apr 1945
USS Leary US 24 Dec 1943
USS Leopold US 9 Mar 1944
USS Reuben James US 31 Oct 1941
USS Rowan US 10 Sep 1943
-
Are you serious? The B.E.F. in France and Belgium were crushed as if they were any other European nation; The Netherlands (Who lasted 8 days), The French (who lasted a month), the Belgians (who I believe lasted 28 days), and the Norwegians (who lasted roughly the same amount of time as the French). The German blitz in Europe was unstoppable, do you really think the British, who had incredibly few tanks, could have fared very well against the Blitz attacks either?
The BEF wasn't crushed, it was able to withdraw the bulk of its forces from the mainland.
The Germans needed tactical air superiority over the beaches, which it wasn't able to do.
The Kriegsmarine also took a battering in the Norwegian Campaign, losing a sizable portion of their modern surface units, especially their destoyers. The U-boats were not suited for warfare in the relatively shallow and restricted waters of the Channel. The Kriegsmarine also allocated its remaining and larger modern surface ships to the North Sea in diversionary operations. The British Home Fleet was large and powerful enough to stop any major German naval operation in the Channel.
The Germans also didn't have specialized landing craft and primarily had to rely on river barges to move troops across the Channel. This alone led to a whole host of problems like not being able to move a sizable force of artillery or tanks. It also meant that the crossing had to take place in good weather as river barges are not meant to be used in open sea. The river barges would also be very slow, leaving them extremely vulnerable to attack. There was also a severe lack of barges to move the troops and equipment, so much so that there was not even enough for a first wave, let alone a second one. Without specialized landing craft the Germans would've had to immediately capture a port large enough to support the operation, which would have been extremely difficult or near impossible giving the amount of defenses the British had in the south eastern ports at the time.
There was also the problem of coordination and cooperation between the three branches of the German military. Neither branch really cooperated or coordinated their plans and also very bad German military intelligence.
The British military did a wargame back in the 1970s using the plans created by the Germans for Operation Sea Lion and the plans for the defense of England. The result was the Germans managed to create an invasion beach head by using a minefielf screen to shield the initial assault. The Germans then got stopped at the GHQ Line by Home Guard troops and defensive emplacements. This gave enough time for the regular British troops to form up. The Royal Navy was then able to enter the Channel from Scapa Flow, isolate the invasion area by cutting off German supplies and reinforcements. The now isolated German invasion forces, cut off from supplies and reinforcements now had to contend with regular British troops with armor and artillery were forced to surrender.
Basically, the Germans didn't have the necessary resources or experience to plan and pull off a successful invasion of England. There is also the issue of whether or not the Germans really seriously intended to invade and occupy England. In some circles, the thought is that it was just a ploy by Hitler to try and force the British into surrendering because he knew he didn't have the tools to do the job.
ack-ack
-
The BEF wasn't crushed, it was able to withdraw the bulk of its forces from the mainland.
The Germans needed tactical air superiority over the beaches, which it wasn't able to do.
The Kriegsmarine also took a battering in the Norwegian Campaign, losing a sizable portion of their modern surface units, especially their destoyers. The U-boats were not suited for warfare in the relatively shallow and restricted waters of the Channel. The Kriegsmarine also allocated its remaining and larger modern surface ships to the North Sea in diversionary operations. The British Home Fleet was large and powerful enough to stop any major German naval operation in the Channel.
The Germans also didn't have specialized landing craft and primarily had to rely on river barges to move troops across the Channel. This alone led to a whole host of problems like not being able to move a sizable force of artillery or tanks. It also meant that the crossing had to take place in good weather as river barges are not meant to be used in open sea. The river barges would also be very slow, leaving them extremely vulnerable to attack. There was also a severe lack of barges to move the troops and equipment, so much so that there was not even enough for a first wave, let alone a second one. Without specialized landing craft the Germans would've had to immediately capture a port large enough to support the operation, which would have been extremely difficult or near impossible giving the amount of defenses the British had in the south eastern ports at the time.
There was also the problem of coordination and cooperation between the three branches of the German military. Neither branch really cooperated or coordinated their plans and also very bad German military intelligence.
The British military did a wargame back in the 1970s using the plans created by the Germans for Operation Sea Lion and the plans for the defense of England. The result was the Germans managed to create an invasion beach head by using a minefielf screen to shield the initial assault. The Germans then got stopped at the GHQ Line by Home Guard troops and defensive emplacements. This gave enough time for the regular British troops to form up. The Royal Navy was then able to enter the Channel from Scapa Flow, isolate the invasion area by cutting off German supplies and reinforcements. The now isolated German invasion forces, cut off from supplies and reinforcements now had to contend with regular British troops with armor and artillery were forced to surrender.
Basically, the Germans didn't have the necessary resources or experience to plan and pull off a successful invasion of England. There is also the issue of whether or not the Germans really seriously intended to invade and occupy England. In some circles, the thought is that it was just a ploy by Hitler to try and force the British into surrendering because he knew he didn't have the tools to do the job.
ack-ack
Good point. But the Germans did have something called Fallshirjmager, but then again, they did loose pretty badly to the Dutch. Buuuuut, had they mass-produced, and I MEAN MASS PRODUCED the 323-Gigant, they could have gotten at least a few tanks into the British Isles.
-
They probably could have gotten a few tanks over, in the form of wreckage surrounded by the remains of an easy kill of an RAF pilot.
-
It's safe to say that any attempt to get large transport aircraft into the UK would have been done at night.
-
Good point. But the Germans did have something called Fallshirjmager, but then again, they did loose pretty badly to the Dutch. Buuuuut, had they mass-produced, and I MEAN MASS PRODUCED the 323-Gigant, they could have gotten at least a few tanks into the British Isles.
The Germans tried to resupply North Africa with the 323, you know what happened to the 20 of the 21 aircraft during one mission? The RAF had a field day shooting them down along with the Bf 109 escorts.
ack-ack
-
The Germans tried to resupply North Africa with the 323, you know what happened to the 20 of the 21 aircraft during one mission? The RAF had a field day shooting them down along with the Bf 109 escorts.
ack-ack
Yea, i wonder what they where thinking at the time they where getting shot down. Then again, i wonder if they got on ch200 and whine to the RAF about upping is spit to kill slow moving AC.
-
Yea, i wonder what they where thinking at the time they where getting shot down. Then again, i wonder if they got on ch200 and whine to the RAF about upping is spit to kill slow moving AC.
Or the German escorts screaming on Channel 200 how the timid RAF pilots wouldn't engage their fighters.
ack-ack
-
The Kriegsmarine also took a battering in the Norwegian Campaign, losing a sizable portion of their modern surface units...
During operation Weserübung the Kriegsmarine lost one heavy cruiser, two light cruisers, ten destroyers and four u-boats. The Royal Navy (and allied navies) lost one fleet carrier, two cruisers, nine destroyers and five submarines.
-
...and what does that make in percentages? And how many were sunk by subs? And the Tonnage?
Anyway, the operation included lucky strikes on both sides. Warspite went ape on German Destroyers, while the biggest battlewagons in German service were lucky enough to catch an aircraft carrier with only 2 DD's as an escort, singing all 3. However, after that, both battlewagons had to go to port because of the damage inflicted on them.
Warspite's achivement was quite some. She and her destroyer escorts trapped 8 German destroyers and eliminated them all. I think without loss but I am not sure. One german Sub was thrown in as a bonus, Sunk by Warspite's Swordfish bipe.
Anyway, since this was a big chunk of the New Kriegsmarine (NB, much of the RN ships were WWI vintage), they basically could not face the RN in any numbers after that, but rely on hit & run instead, and run meaning...RUN. This is before Dunquerque. So, the Kriegsmarine was not that bad a threat during the channel retreat (that is the bigger ones, the E-boats were a pest), the LW was the one. Targets of dream, ships at anchor loading troops from small boats, and/or even docked ships.
Oh, by the way, the evacuation at Dunquerque took place while there was still fightin in and around Norway.
Getting to the point of the beginning of the BoB, it means that the Germans do not have enough strenght to carry on naval ops in daylight, nor enough strength in the air to make a proper umbrella. It was down to trying to tug troops at night, which is of course as short as possible in mid-june. They did have their paratroopers (although the driving person behind the application of the Paras was off, - severly wounded at the time). With paras they would probably have been able to seize some parts of England at night, but being totally cut off from a supply line they's be facing the fate of a "Bridge too far"....
-
Oh, the Germans were optimistic enough to start their plans about what and how once they had captured England. Hence the publishing of "guidelines for the Behavior of Troops in England"
# 5 : The Englishman is used to having even orders and instructions preceeded with the word "Please", whereas the word "Verboten" will automatically arouse resistance in him.
Tells it all :rofl
-
...and what does that make in percentages? And how many were sunk by subs? And the Tonnage?
That is relevant how?
-
It was an interesting sequence of encounters, where a part of the RN Home fleet met the bulk of the newKriegsmarine, that's all. Makes one ponder on how it totally changed the balances of the total forces.
-
Germany started the operation with four modern battleships, two WWI battleships, six heavy cruisers, six light cruisers and 30-odd destroyers.
While their losses during Weserübung weren't insignificant they were hardly "a big chunk of the New Kriegsmarine".
-
If you refer to the "pocket" Battleships as "Modern" battleships, they were not big enough to take on the big wagons of Britain's WWI. I had Scarnhorst and Gneisenau in mind.
I have not seen such a large number of Destroyers mentioned before, Germany only had 21 at the outbreak of the war, and built 19 more untill the war's end. So according to your numbers, it seems that they flagged about everything they had on the surface.
And 10 DD's out of 30 is.....33%. All relatively modern, built in the 30's. But out of 42 built, I get 16 commissioned after Weserubung, so they seem to be maxing at 26. A further two sank before Weserubung. 10/24 is above 40% of the TOTAL of all available Destroyers. :confused:
Loosing a big cruiser is also loosing one out of just 2 (The 3rd one wasn't commisioned yet). I do not know which other heavy cruisers you refer to, but they had a handful of auxiliary cruisers/pirate cruisers.
Off the 6 light cruisers they lost 2, again a third. They only had six in WW2.
Then their main Battlewagons were both damaged.
So, in short, they lost a very serious part of their modern navy in one operation. Many historians claim that after the operation, the Kriegsmarine could not mount a proper force.
-
Churchill and others felt that France couldn't be saved, which is why they withheld a lot of support towards the end of the Battle of France. They didn't want to waste RAF resources in a hopeless cause when they were going to need them at home.
I’ve read opinions that Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement in 1938 to allow time for construction of more fighters. If the UK was willing to write off the Czechs, bailing out on France is not beyond belief.
The German blitz in Europe was unstoppable, do you really think the British, who had incredibly few tanks, could have fared very well against the Blitz attacks either?
The early blitz was ‘not stopped.’ This is different from ‘unstoppable.’ This is a myth that even the Germans of the time bought. It wasn’t more than a couple of years when the Allied blitzes were ‘unstoppable.’ That the Germans stopped the tanks outside of Dunkirk shows that even they saw the limits of armor in urban warfare.
The Germans early success was based as much on incompetence and unreadiness of the Allies as the superiority of their tactics.
Oh please, the Royal Navy was at the mercy of the Kreigsmarine basically until 1943.
The only branch of the German navy that had a significant strategic impact was the submarines. In the end, 70% (?) or so of U-boats were sunk. To say the Royal Navy (and the US Navy) was at their mercy is just not true.
-
They also stopped their tanks since Göring was confident in his Luftwaffe doing the job. Must have been a relief for the tank commanders.
Anyway, the chaotic allied air defence over France really meant that the RAF was bleeding badly, and it was only a matter of cold calculus when their main force would have been depleted. Dowding was the one realizing this and pressing the RAF evacuation through. And in a nip of time.
Here is Wiki's part on this, but I've read enough to know it's quite true.
"In 1940, Dowding, nicknamed "Stuffy" by his men, proved unwilling to sacrifice aircraft and pilots in the attempt to aid Allied troops during the Battle of France. He, along with his immediate superior Sir Cyril Newall, then Chief of the Air Staff, resisted repeated requests from Winston Churchill to weaken the home defence by sending precious squadrons to France. When the Allied resistance in France collapsed, he worked closely with Air Vice-Marshal Keith Park, the commander of 11 Fighter Group, in organizing cover for the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk.
Through the summer of 1940 in the Battle of Britain, Dowding's Fighter Command resisted the attacks of the Luftwaffe. Beyond the critical importance of the overall system of integrated air defense which he had developed for Fighter Command, his major contribution was to marshal resources behind the scenes (including replacement aircraft and air crew) and to maintain a significant fighter reserve, while leaving his subordinate commanders' hands largely free to run the battle in detail. At no point did Dowding commit more than half his force to the battle zone in southern England."
And compare, RAF losses and kills over France compared to the BoB. Appalling. Dowding was right.
Did you know that at one point the French stopped a RAF squadron taking off in fear of the Germans being provoked and striking back? It was done by parking cars across the Runway.
"If France is defeated, the Germans will wring the neck of the British, as of a chicken" they however said.
Didn't quite go that way now did it?
-
I'm going to respectfully disagree. To my mind, not sending Spitfires to France was a major mistake, one that only looks justified because the decision entailed the result that was its own justification, i.e. the fall of France. Without German air superiority the result of the battle could have been drastically different.
you know this is off topic but the 8th air force actually admitted to using the bomber formations as flying bait for the rest of the luftwaffe to be destroyed by our fighter escorts... and although not all of the RAF was in the fight they were still drastically outnumbered by the Germans overall... it took Hitler to order the bombing of civilian targets as said earlier to allow the RAF to reorganize a new defense and fight off the rest of the assaults.
-
I’ve read opinions that Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement in 1938 to allow time for construction of more fighters. If the UK was willing to write off the Czechs, bailing out on France is not beyond belief.
It's hard to bail out on an ally you never fully supported. :devil
-
If you refer to the "pocket" Battleships as "Modern" battleships, they were not big enough to take on the big wagons of Britain's WWI.
The "pocket battleships" are categorized as heavy cruisers in my previous list. Lützow, Admiral Graf Spee, Admiral Scheer, Admiral Hipper, Blücher, and Prinz Eugen.
The four modern battleships I was referring to was the Bismarck, Tirpiz and the "sisters" Sharnhorst and Gneisenau. The Bismarcks were not yet commissioned, but still part of the Kriegsmarine; remember, you wrote "a big chunk of the New Kriegsmarine", not "a big chunk of the German force in Norway". Big difference.
Bismarck was arguably ready for action at the time, but didn't have a trained crew and was thus not part of the operation.
I have not seen such a large number of Destroyers mentioned before, Germany only had 21 at the outbreak of the war, and built 19 more untill the war's end. So according to your numbers, it seems that they flagged about everything they had on the surface.
See the previous comment; I wasn't talking about the invasion force, but the whole Kriegsmarine, and so were you in your "big chunk" post. 14 destroyers took part in the operation.
And 10 DD's out of 30 is.....33%. All relatively modern, built in the 30's. But out of 42 built, I get 16 commissioned after Weserubung, so they seem to be maxing at 26. A further two sank before Weserubung. 10/24 is above 40% of the TOTAL of all available Destroyers. :confused:
33% of the destroyers yes, but not of the whole Kriegsmarine. Those ten destroyers represents about $5-6 million in production costs. Cruisers about $2-3 million a pop, battleships $7-10 million per. 10 destroyers is not a significant loss. The three cruisers were a far graver loss to the Kriegsmarine. However all the German losses combined does not make up for the loss of one fleet carrier. A fully equipped fleet carrier like HMS Glorious could cost upward of $20 million.
Loosing a big cruiser is also loosing one out of just 2 (The 3rd one wasn't commisioned yet). I do not know which other heavy cruisers you refer to, but they had a handful of auxiliary cruisers/pirate cruisers.
Off the 6 light cruisers they lost 2, again a third. They only had six in WW2.
No auxiliary cruisers mentioned. The three cruisers were a significant loss, but not "a big chunk" or a "sizable portion" of the Kriegsmarine. The later sinking of the Bismarck was a far greater blow to the Kriegsmarine.
-
Touchy Die Hard?
I see you making blunders here and could write a wall of texts and quotes to correct you. Oh, I will do some, but I'll start with the quickies. BTW, you seem to have some data that does not fit with what I have.
"Germany started the operation with four modern battleships, two WWI battleships, six heavy cruisers, six light cruisers and 30-odd destroyers.
While their losses during Weserübung weren't insignificant they were hardly "a big chunk of the New Kriegsmarine"."
I took the "operation" as an "operation" (In this case operation Weserübung) , not the second world war as a whole. Which would be completely wrong anyway.
And then for the Battleships starting in the operation, Bismarck and Tirpitz. Both were nowhere ready at the beginning of the war, not during the "Operation". Bismarck commisioned in late August 1940 and Tirpitz in January 1941.
When I say the "New" Kriegsmarine, I mean NEW. Those ships were quite new in comparison with the bulk of the RN. All because the captured fleet of WWI Germany was mostly scuttled. Basically the oldest of some importance were the light Cruisers which were from the late 20's/early 30's. Königsberg was for instance a novel, the first welded cruiser. (Not riveted). The Kriegsmarine was a fleet of NEW ships, as fast as they could be made, with the exception of a few old mammoths. The RN however had quite much antique in use.
So, in short, you seem to be taking eggs into account in a cockfight. At least that is what I call it when you pull out the names of ships uncommissioned as a force of either a beginning war or an operation. But since your numbers go now down to 14 cruisers, 10 of those being lost is a very impressive figure. That's 70% loss of a destroyer force sent into action in one operation. Me bad, my numbers low....
-
During operation Weserübung the Kriegsmarine lost one heavy cruiser, two light cruisers, ten destroyers and four u-boats. The Royal Navy (and allied navies) lost one fleet carrier, two cruisers, nine destroyers and five submarines.
With the addition of the Kriegsmarine ships that were damaged during the campaign, it only left the Kriegsmarine was a surface force of single heavy cruiser, two light cruisers and four destroyers operational. As I stated in my previous post, this left the Kriegsmarine very weakened and incapable of properly supporting Operation Sea Lion.
ack-ack
-
I do hope that you are just yanking our chain with both events?
Actually, I'm parroting Basil Lidell Hart. Those are his opinions, and he's a strategic and tactical genius who was in ww1, ww2, and a big advocate of a highly mobile doctrine and advancing down the lines of least resistance... the most common successful strategy ever used.
-
With the addition of the Kriegsmarine ships that were damaged during the campaign, it only left the Kriegsmarine was a surface force of single heavy cruiser, two light cruisers and four destroyers operational. As I stated in my previous post, this left the Kriegsmarine very weakened and incapable of properly supporting Operation Sea Lion.
ack-ack
Although I think your numbers may be low, I agree with the conclusion.
There was also another post of yours that was very good ;)
-
Touchy Die Hard?
Huh? Not at all. Are you?
I took the "operation" as an "operation" (In this case operation Weserübung) , not the second world war as a whole. Which would be completely wrong anyway.
I obviously should have been more clear since you've managed to misinterpret me twice. Here let me try again: At the time of operation Weserübung the Kriegsmarine as a whole had 4 modern battleships (all launched, but two not yet fully commissioned), 2 WWII battleships, 6 heavy cruisers (1 not yet fully commissioned), 6 light cruisers, and 30-odd destroyers. "30-odd" means "around 30". Germany started the war with 21 destroyers in September 1939. A number of destroyers were launched in the last months of 1939 and winter of 1940. I didn't care to dig up the exact number... Still don't. Around 30 is good enough. If you don't agree... Tough.
And then for the Battleships starting in the operation, Bismarck and Tirpitz. Both were nowhere ready at the beginning of the war, not during the "Operation". Bismarck commisioned in late August 1940 and Tirpitz in January 1941.
Yes. Bismarck was commissioned two months after the end of operation Weserübung in June 1940. Tirpitz six months after.
When I say the "New" Kriegsmarine, I mean NEW. Those ships were quite new in comparison with the bulk of the RN. All because the captured fleet of WWI Germany was mostly scuttled. Basically the oldest of some importance were the light Cruisers which were from the late 20's/early 30's. Königsberg was for instance a novel, the first welded cruiser. (Not riveted). The Kriegsmarine was a fleet of NEW ships, as fast as they could be made, with the exception of a few old mammoths. The RN however had quite much antique in use.
Why is the age of the British ships relevant?
Ack-Ack claimed:
"The Kriegsmarine also took a battering in the Norwegian Campaign, losing a sizable portion of their modern surface units..."
My response to which you had a problem with:
"During operation Weserübung the Kriegsmarine lost one heavy cruiser, two light cruisers, ten destroyers and four u-boats. The Royal Navy (and allied navies) lost one fleet carrier, two cruisers, nine destroyers and five submarines."
So, in short, you seem to be taking eggs into account in a cockfight. At least that is what I call it when you pull out the names of ships uncommissioned as a force of either a beginning war or an operation. But since your numbers go now down to 14 cruisers, 10 of those being lost is a very impressive figure. That's 70% loss of a destroyer force sent into action in one operation. Me bad, my numbers low....
14 cruisers huh? Don't talk to me about blunders Angus. 10 German destroyers trapped in a Norwegian fjord low on fuel and ammo... Sunk by a British battleship and her 9 destroyer escort supported by carrier aircraft from HMS Furious... Impressive? I think not.
Fact of the matter is the Germans were outnumbered and out gunned. Yet they managed to complete most of their objectives and win a strategic victory. The Allied navies also suffered heavier losses.
Kriegsmarine order of battle (warships only)
2 battleships - Gneisenau, Scharnhorst (damaged by torpedo from destroyer Acasta).
2 heavy cruisers - Blücher (sunk by Norwegian shore battery), Admiral Hipper.
5 light cruisers - Königsberg (sunk by RN carrier aircraft), Köln, Karlsruhe (torpedoed and disabled by British submarine Truant, later scuttled by German torpedo boat Greif), Lützow, Emden.
1 Pre-Dreadnought battleship - Schleswig-Holstein.
14 destroyers (10 sunk by battleship Warspite and the 2nd Destroyer Flotilla).
Allied navies order of battle (warships only)
4 battleships - Resolution, Rodney, Valiant, and Warspite.
2 battlecruisers - Renown and Repulse.
3 aircraft carriers - Ark Royal, Furious and Glorious (sunk by Gneisenau and Scharnhorst).
4 heavy cruisers - Berwick, Devonshire, Suffolk (damaged by Ju-88 bombers), and York.
13 light cruisers - Birmingham, Effingham - (grounded 17 May, later torpedoed and scuttled by HMS Matabele), Glasgow, Manchester, Sheffield, Southampton, Arethusa, Aurora, Coventry, Curlew (sunk by Ju-87 dive bombers), Enterprise, Galatea, Penelope, Emile Bertin and Montcalm.
4 anti-aircraft cruisers - Cairo, Carlisle, Curacoa, Calcutta.
35 destroyers (9 sunk).
-
With the addition of the Kriegsmarine ships that were damaged during the campaign, it only left the Kriegsmarine was a surface force of single heavy cruiser, two light cruisers and four destroyers operational. As I stated in my previous post, this left the Kriegsmarine very weakened and incapable of properly supporting Operation Sea Lion.
ack-ack
Operation Seelöve was postponed/canceled on 17 September 1940 after losing the Battle of Britain.
Available warships:
1 Battleship - Bismarck (operational August 1940).
3 Heavy cruisers - Prinz Eugen (operational August 1940), Admiral Scheer, Lützow.
4 light cruisers - Emden, Köln, Leipzig, Nürnberg.
2 WWI battleships - Schleswig-Holstein, Schlesien.
10-15 destroyers (four of which were survivors of the Norwegian campaign).
-
I rephrase the issue of not counting (unhatched) eggs in a cockfight. Bismarck and Tirpitz were not ready ships at the operations in Norway. The only two "Modern" Battleships Germany had on the seas were the Scarnhorst and Gneisenau, actually listed as Battlecruisers. They prompted 11 inch guns instead of the 14-16 of the Battleships.
(I actually think the 11 inch caliber was quite a good weapon, but that's another issue)
There is quite a difference between launched and commisioned, not to mention being a part of an operation or not. Bismarck and Tirpitz were not ready at the Norwegian ops, nor planned for so, nor used at all. The Kriegsmarine had 2 Battlecruisers of more modern design in the ops and that was it.
BTW the date I have for Bismarck commisioned is 24 of August. That is more than 2 months after the complete capitulation of Norway. At least no misinterpration there. More than 3 months from the main operation though.
But, a misconception though...? From you:
"14 destroyers took part in the operation."
"Germany started the operation with four modern battleships, two WWI battleships, six heavy cruisers, six light cruisers and 30-odd destroyers."
Easy to misunderstand this. So, of 14 cruisers used they lost 10. There is then no myth about the German Zerstörer force coming back totally crippled from the engagements.
As for the age of the ships by the way, the German Destroyers were relaitively new ships. They were bigger than the standard UK destroyers and thereby sported more armour and firepower. Actually the bigger ones had about the same caliber as light cruisers.
Now for that one:
"The Allied navies also suffered heavier losses."
I asked first. I pretty much had the idea that the tonnege would fall unfavourable to the allies due to the aircraft carrier, which is like 10 destroyers in tonneage. But the slice of the pie falls like a doom hammer on the KM in relation. The whole play was about getting away with a cunning plan without risking a major naval engagement. They struck luck when sinking HMS Glorious, although the shooting gallery ending with a semi-phyrric victory (Both Battleships RTB due to damage). And they struck bad luck when Warspite busted them in bed. Takes some brass to put a slow WW1 Battlewagon into a fjord anyway, - the nightmare of engaging destroyers. So they were in bed probably. BTW, the Germans had arty on land already which got some shelling from Warspite.
Good to have the order of battle though. No misreading. Looks a tad different from the "operation" initially mentioned, which I am curious of what could be.
Good night to all ;)
-
Operation Seelöve was postponed/canceled on 17 September 1940 after losing the Battle of Britain.
Available warships:
1 Battleship - Bismarck (operational August 1940).
3 Heavy cruisers - Prinz Eugen (operational August 1940), Admiral Scheer, Lützow.
4 light cruisers - Emden, Köln, Leipzig, Nürnberg.
2 WWI battleships - Schleswig-Holstein, Schlesien.
10-15 destroyers (four of which were survivors of the Norwegian campaign).
Whoa!. Not a lot. And .... on the other side of the North sea.
-
The only two "Modern" Battleships Germany had on the seas were the Scarnhorst and Gneisenau, actually listed as Battlecruisers.
Schlachtschiff Scharnhorst.
Schwerer Kreuzer Admiral Hipper.
Notice the difference.
There is quite a difference between launched and commisioned, not to mention being a part of an operation or not. Bismarck and Tirpitz were not ready at the Norwegian ops, nor planned for so, nor used at all. The Kriegsmarine had 2 Battlecruisers of more modern design in the ops and that was it.
Ack-Ack postulated that the Kriegsmarine lost a "sizable portion" of its modern warships in the Norwegian campaign and were thus "severely weakened" after the campaign. Bismarck and Prinz Eugen entered service two months after the Battle of Norway and thus strengthened the Kriegsmarine if not completely making up for the losses. This discussion is not about the the invasion force in Norway; this discussion is about how the losses of that campaign affected the whole Kriegsmarine.
BTW the date I have for Bismarck commisioned is 24 of August. That is more than 2 months after the complete capitulation of Norway. At least no misinterpration there. More than 3 months from the main operation though.
The naval battle did not end with the Norwegian surrender on land. The "sisters" were both still at sea when the Norwegians surrendered on June 10th; HMS Glorious having been sunk two days earlier. Scharnhorst was attacked again 7 days after the surrender by RN carrier aircraft. Later still the Gneisenau was torpedoed in the North Atlantic.
But, a misconception though...? From you:
"14 destroyers took part in the operation."
"Germany started the operation with four modern battleships, two WWI battleships, six heavy cruisers, six light cruisers and 30-odd destroyers."
Easy to misunderstand this. So, of 14 cruisers used they lost 10. There is then no myth about the German Zerstörer force coming back totally crippled from the engagements.
The Germans did not lose 10 cruisers.
As for the age of the ships by the way, the German Destroyers were relaitively new ships. They were bigger than the standard UK destroyers and thereby sported more armour and firepower. Actually the bigger ones had about the same caliber as light cruisers.
Fascinating. Still don't see the relevance to this discussion.
Now for that one:
"The Allied navies also suffered heavier losses."
I asked first. I pretty much had the idea that the tonnege would fall unfavourable to the allies due to the aircraft carrier, which is like 10 destroyers in tonneage.
More importantly the ton for ton production cost of an aircraft carrier far surpasses that of a destroyer or cruiser. The strategic importance of a carrier is also magnitudes greater than 10 destroyers or a couple of cruisers.
They struck luck when sinking HMS Glorious, although the shooting gallery ending with a semi-phyrric victory (Both Battleships RTB due to damage).
Only Sharnhorst was significantly damaged in that engagement. Gneisenau was later torpedoed by the British submarine Clyde in the North Atlantic and forced to return to the port of Trondheim for repairs. Both sisters were back in action before the end of the year.
-
Whoa!. Not a lot. And .... on the other side of the North sea.
What?
-
Ack-Ack postulated that the Kriegsmarine lost a "sizable portion" of its modern warships in the Norwegian campaign and were thus "severely weakened" after the campaign. Bismarck and Prinz Eugen entered service two months after the Battle of Norway and thus strengthened the Kriegsmarine if not completely making up for the losses. This discussion is not about the the invasion force in Norway; this discussion is about how the losses of that campaign affected the whole Kriegsmarine.
The Kriegsmarine did lose a sizable portion of their surface fleet in the Norwegian Campaign that directly affected the Kriegsmarine's ability to support Operation Sea Lion. That is what I said in my initial post and it's a fact, the losses the Kriegsmarine suffered left it in such a state that it could not provide the support needed to secure and then defend the landing beaches. They didn't have the experience, logistics or sufficient ships to do the job.
ack-ack
-
The Kriegsmarine did lose a sizable portion of their surface fleet in the Norwegian Campaign that directly affected the Kriegsmarine's ability to support Operation Sea Lion. That is what I said in my initial post and it's a fact, the losses the Kriegsmarine suffered left it in such a state that it could not provide the support needed to secure and then defend the landing beaches. They didn't have the experience, logistics or sufficient ships to do the job.
ack-ack
That's a moot point; even with the ships they lost in the Norwegian campaign the Kriegsmarine wouldn't have been able to support any landing operation against Britain as long as the Royal Navy still existed. Only the Luftwaffe could have made it possible (and even that is arguable), but they failed.
-
That's a moot point; even with the ships they lost in the Norwegian campaign the Kriegsmarine wouldn't have been able to support any landing operation against Britain as long as the Royal Navy still existed. Only the Luftwaffe could have made it possible (and even that is arguable), but they failed.
It's only a moot point because you don't agree with it. If you look back at my original post, my post was in reply to Unit's post about Germany being able to invade England and I just pointed out some facts that it wouldn't have been possible for Germany to successfully invade England. You pick and choose certain parts of a person's post to make an argument, it's all you've ever done on these boards and usually do it when you're incorrect about something on the whole.
ack-ack
-
I didn't disagree with the rest of your post; only that part. If you have a problem with that... Tough.
-
The Whoa! Refers to the German home-base being Wilhelmshaven, leaving the North sea between the German base and Seelöve theater of ops. While they got a long way through in the channel dash without being spotted, they still got hurt, and that run was made in the darkness of the winter. Seelöve means crossing with a very short night, and it is some 300-350 nautical miles.
Now:
"Only Sharnhorst was significantly damaged in that engagement. Gneisenau was later torpedoed by the British submarine Clyde in the North Atlantic and forced to return to the port of Trondheim for repairs. Both sisters were back in action before the end of the year."
Yes, I know. There was also some damage inflicted on the 9th of april when HMS Renown fought the two of them. Gneisenau also took quite some destroyer hits in theGlorious engagement.
Then:
"The Germans did not lose 10 cruisers."
You lucky you, I meant destroyers. They lost 10.DD
UND:
"Ack-Ack postulated that the Kriegsmarine lost a "sizable portion" of its modern warships in the Norwegian campaign and were thus "severely weakened" after the campaign. Bismarck and Prinz Eugen entered service two months after the Battle of Norway and thus strengthened the Kriegsmarine if not completely making up for the losses. This discussion is not about the the invasion force in Norway; this discussion is about how the losses of that campaign affected the whole Kriegsmarine. "
Jolly good. We just disagree about the magnitude. I go with ack-ack (And probably admiral Raeder) on the theory that after Weserubung the hope of posing a significant threat in the English channel, or being off proper suport in beach landings was thwarted.
And that:
"
Schlachtschiff Scharnhorst.
Schwerer Kreuzer Admiral Hipper.
Notice the difference."
I do. The RN however referred to them as "Battlecruisers" arguing that 11" main armament was not enough. The Kriegsmarine would also name The "pocket" Battleships "Schwere Kreuzer". It's a matter of taste really. If anything the RN's definition seems to use more categorizing, which I think is good. Anyway, an 11 inch shell is about 300-336 kg's (Battlecruisers and pocket Battleships), a 14 inch shell is already 721 kg (British KGV class), and the 15" some odd 871 kg (Most British main battleships + Bismarck class which had an 800 kg shell). Then the 16 inch gun (Nelson/Rodney) Then lobbed a whooping 929 kg shell.
That partially explains that the Scarngorst-Gneisenau gang avoided contact with the British capital ships, be it a WWI construction or not. And that happened a few times.
-
Or the German escorts screaming on Channel 200 how the timid RAF pilots wouldn't engage their fighters.
ack-ack
:rofl
-
"If France is defeated, the Germans will wring the neck of the British, as of a chicken"
To which Churchill replied, 'Some chicken! Some neck!'
Ah yes, the German destroyers sunk at the two Battles of Narvik. Well done, Warburton-Lee, who led the first attack, by RN destroyers alone, paid the ultimate price and was awarded a posthumous Victoria Cross for his boldness. And well done, the Swordfish floatplane that was catapulted from Warspite at the start of the second, discovered and relayed the positions of all the German ships remaining, spotted and reported the fall of shot of the first salvoes from the battleship and kept Vice-Admiral Whitworth informed of all subsequent enemy movements, bombed a destroyer, bombed and sank submarine U64 anchored close to the cliffs (the Fleet Air Arm's first U-boat kill of the war) - and finally landed with a tail shredded by return fire from the U-boat, to be hoisted back aboard and cheered to the echo. The efforts of non-commissioned Petty Officer Pilot F.C. Rice, Observer Lt.Cdr. W.L.M. Brown and Telegraphist Air Gunner M.G. Pacey were described in Whitworth's report to the Admiralty: 'The enemy reports made by Warspite's aircraft were invaluable. I doubt if ever a shipborne aircraft has been used to such good purpose as it was in this operation.'
Too bloody right - Find, Fix and Strike!
:aok
-
Incredible! And what ordnance could it carry? Sinking a sub, just incredible!!!
Did it land on sea though?
-
The Swordfish landed back on the water in the lee of Warspite after a total of four hours in the air (it touched down for a short interval during the battle after sinking U64 so the pilot could check the tail damage) and was hoisted back aboard using the deck crane fitted for the purpose. Its armament was four 250 lb bombs and eight smoke markers, plus a Vickers Gas-Operated machine-gun for the TAG. I've never managed to ascertain whether the aircraft carried a forward-firing Vickers gun; relatively useless in action, it was taken out of most operational Swordfish to save weight.
Petty Officer Rice was awarded the D.S.M., Lt-Cdr. Brown the D.S.C. - and Leading Airman TAG Pacey got bugger-all, the usual lot of poor bloody TAGs throughout the war. Rice was later commissioned and finished the war as a Lt-Cdr; he flew another crucial sortie in a catapult Swordfish floatplane, when he flew recce and spotted for the guns of the Mediterranean Fleet at the Battle of Cape Matapan in 1941.
At the conclusion of the Norwegian campaign, Captain Troubridge of HMS Furious made his report of proceedings. It included a tribute to his own aircrews in Furious and has ever since been taken to apply to all the Fleet Air Arm crews who flew over Norway:
'It is difficult to speak without emotion of the pluck and endurance of the young officers and men, some of them midshipmen, who flew their aircraft to such good effect . . . all were firing their first shot in action, whether torpedo, bomb or machine-gun . . . undeterred by the loss of several of their shipmates, their honour and courage remained throughout as dazzling as the snow-covered mountains over which they so triumphantly flew.'
:salute
-
So the Swordfish had floaters. Never knew how they dealt with them. Thought it was a one-way trip only.
Wonder if Warspite then mostly kept to itself, for it's difficult to hoist a bipe out of the sea in the middle of a battle, if you see what I mean. But Warspite did sink some however, and the golden rule is "If the enemy is in range, so are you". Well not on the high seasBB vs DD, but in a fjord???
Cape Matapan also could be a promotant of a turning point in the Naval war in the Med. And wasn't it there where Warspite made a 15" hit on a moving target from 26Kilometers, thereby holding the world record???
Some darn good spotter they had ;)
-
Well... We all know why we won ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTZU9zBuDKg
-
Oh, the Germans were optimistic enough to start their plans about what and how once they had captured England. Hence the publishing of "guidelines for the Behavior of Troops in England"
# 5 : The Englishman is used to having even orders and instructions preceeded with the word "Please", whereas the word "Verboten" will automatically arouse resistance in him.
Tells it all :rofl
you know. the one thing i did not like about the British Army in WWII is how they went around doing things. In Mkt Gdn? Montgomery's plan of getting into Germany? and the guidelines around how they accomplished their objectives? it meant certain failure... the entire war was governed by tactics that were becoming out of date. i think that that alone could give the Germans a chance at invading england. Their officers were the strongpoint of operations and the troops didnt think as well on their own.
-
Well... We all know why we won ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTZU9zBuDKg
How can a country that has grass that is red, light houses shaped as a banana hope to triumph and a countryside full of insects hope to triumph?
ack-ack
-
"So the Swordfish had floaters. Never knew how they dealt with them. Thought it was a one-way trip only.
Wonder if Warspite then mostly kept to itself, for it's difficult to hoist a bipe out of the sea in the middle of a battle . . ."
It was the Sea Hurricane Mk.IA that flew one-way trips over the ocean, Angus. Fired off from a rocket-powered catapult fitted over the fore-deck of an otherwise standard merchant ship that still carried its hold cargo, the Merchant Ships Fighter Unit pilot seconded from the RAF either flew on to a friendly airfield if one was close enough or bailed out and was (hopefully) picked up by one of the escort vessels. Desperate problems needed a desperate remedy - until there were enough escort carriers or MAC ships to accompany the convoys all the way.
Warspite moved into a wider area of the fjord to pick up her Swordfish, having been informed that all the German destroyers were either sunk or beached. Her 15" guns had fired a few salvoes but the destruction of the enemy was mainly left to the RN destroyers (and the solitary Swordfish!). Good point about a capital ship not wanting to hang about to pick up a floatplane in the middle of a battle; risk of effective enemy attack whilst doing so was the main reason the catapults and hangars were removed from late 1942 onwards. By the latter stages of the war, the original purpose of the catapult-launched spotter aircraft had gone because almost all combat ships above the size of trawler were equipped with radar. The ship-borne seaplane's main duty after that was Air-Sea Rescue - which kept the odd Walrus or Sea Otter busy aboard the RN's fleet carriers in the Pacific during the last year of the war.
:cool:
-
I wonder how many Sea Hurricane pilots were lost after ditching and waiting to be picked up in the frigid waters of the North Atlantic?
ack-ack
-
Taken from The Hurricats by Ralph Barker; 1978, Pelham Books, London:
In a period of just over two years the CAMships had undertaken 175 voyages, averaging 3,000 miles per voyage. Of the total of 35 ships, twelve had been lost to enemy action. There were eight operational launchings, and although enemy aircraft were claimed to have been shot down after only six of them, none of them could be called abortive. The notion of a suicidal, one-way-ticket mission, however, proved false. Although there were several narrow escapes, only one pilot, John Kendal, was lost after an operational launching.
They also served who hung on aboard a pitching, rolling ship, instead of enjoying the comforts of home.
:salute
-
They also served who hung on aboard a pitching, rolling ship, instead of enjoying the comforts of home.
:salute
Yes, a soldier can at least defend himself. It must have taken great courage to go out on the convoys again and again in a clunky steel container, braving some of the worst weather on the seven seas and running the gauntlet through U-boat and Condor infested waters.
-
So what would have happened if Japan had attacked Russia on Dec 7th 1941 instead of the United States?
-
The Japanese Army in Manchuria (Manchukuo) had already fought an 'unofficial' war against Russian forces in the Khalkhin Gol in 1939; the Japanese called it the Nomonhan Incident. Result was a draw, insofar as the disputed border remained unchanged, but the Soviets claimed a victory. The distance between each belligerent's main industrial facilities and the combat area prevented the dispute developing into a major war.
Here's a Russian view of the affair: http://www.siberianlight.net/khalkhin-gol-battle-nomonhan/
Here's the Wikipaedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol
Now there's an idea for a new planeset. Nakajima Ki-27 v. Polikarpov I-153 and I-16, Ki-21 bomber v. SB-2.
:cool:
-
What I read of Khalkin Gol basically explained as a Russian victory. It is a point though about Japan invading the USSR, for at the time of Pearl, Zhukov's army (The one that defeated the Japs in 1938) was speeding west for the aid of Moscow.
It could do so safely for the help of one person, - the spy Sorge. Sorge was based in Tokyo and gave the Russians clear information about the Japs NOT intending to deal with the USSR.
And it was Zhukov's army that helped the Russians win the battle of Moscow,- with Zhukov tied up in the east (and this is an ENORMOUS distance) or two fronts at the same time, I am afraid the Russians would have lost.
IMHO, attacking the USA was a silly thing. The Japs should have left them and tied down Zhukov insteadas well as grabbing Burma from the British. Starting with Zhukov. Well, maybe just me, but had I been Tojo, that's how I'd have done it :D No gamble with uncle Sam....
-
What I read of Khalkin Gol basically explained as a Russian victory. It is a point though about Japan invading the USSR, for at the time of Pearl, Zhukov's army (The one that defeated the Japs in 1938) was speeding west for the aid of Moscow.
It could do so safely for the help of one person, - the spy Sorge. Sorge was based in Tokyo and gave the Russians clear information about the Japs NOT intending to deal with the USSR.
And it was Zhukov's army that helped the Russians win the battle of Moscow,- with Zhukov tied up in the east (and this is an ENORMOUS distance) or two fronts at the same time, I am afraid the Russians would have lost.
IMHO, attacking the USA was a silly thing. The Japs should have left them and tied down Zhukov insteadas well as grabbing Burma from the British. Starting with Zhukov. Well, maybe just me, but had I been Tojo, that's how I'd have done it :D No gamble with uncle Sam....
From the accounts I've read, both the battles at Khalkin Gol and Lake Khasan are considered Soviet victories, with one of Japan's elite divisions, the 23rd Division being completely wiped out at Khalkin Gol. The Soviets did take a beating at Lake Khasan but managed to push the Japanese out of Soviet territory. Because of bad command decisions, the commander of the Soviet forces was blamed for the losses the Soviets suffered and was arrested and tortured to death by the NKVD.
In hindsight, yes the Japanese attack on Pearl was a silly thing but they felt they had no choice and also they were operating under the false assumption we would not go to war and would seek a negotiated peace. Remember, the US had placed an embargo on vital resources that Japan needed and to Japan this was a declaration of war since they needed this resources to supply their expansionist policies in Asia.
ack-ack
-
"IMHO, attacking the USA was a silly thing. The Japs should have left them and tied down Zhukov instead as well as grabbing Burma from the British."
Dammit, he recommends that the Japanese should grab Burma. OK, in that case we'll have to keep all those P-40s intended for the RAF and not hand over any of them for use by US mercenary pilots. Or allow Calcutta to be used as a major supply centre for Vinegar Joe or Claire Chennault. We're on our own . . .
;)
-
Was wondering if anyone else noticed. ;)
well the east and west battles were overshadowed by those other two armies fighting at the same time. :D
-
"IMHO, attacking the USA was a silly thing. The Japs should have left them and tied down Zhukov instead as well as grabbing Burma from the British."
Dammit, he recommends that the Japanese should grab Burma. OK, in that case we'll have to keep all those P-40s intended for the RAF and not hand over any of them for use by US mercenary pilots. Or allow Calcutta to be used as a major supply centre for Vinegar Joe or Claire Chennault. We're on our own . . .
;)
Tojo Mk II sais:
Burma = Rubber and Oil.
Skipping a war with the USA = lots more resources.
Making a war with the British = fulfilling Axis agreement(which Hitler did once the Japs made war on the USA).
Making a war with the Russians on Axis side = helping German victory. Banzai, we get the spoils of an empire:D And the USA may smile a bit, for they no like commies. Maybe lift embargo?
Jokes put aside, wasn't the main resource area Burma? Or was there much up for grabs in Malasia? Was Malasia perhaps also a key issue due to the stronghold at Singapore? I mean, in RL the Japs did both and lots more. As well as fighting the USA.
hmmm..USA or USSR, Tojo Mk II votes for the weakened USSR :D
-
The Japanese thrust into SE Asia was made in order to secure supplies of commodities then seen as essential to modern industrial processes. In addition to the earlier rape of much of China, the capture of Malaya netted Japan most of the world's natural rubber and tin; Singapore, the naval base and port necessary to export it and control shipping through the Malacca Straits. The Netherlands East Indies, modern Indonesia, provided Japan with the oil denied by the US embargo of mid-1941. Burma supplied them with teak and other hardwoods, New Guinea with the precious metal that had motivated the most advanced use of cargo transport aircraft in the 1930s - gold.
And all those goodies could be transported directly and easily to Japan by sea, instead of overland via limited railway and road systems - until the blockade by US Navy submarines and mines dropped by USAAF B-29s wiped out the Japanese merchant marine. So I reckon if Japan had to expand its war from China to other areas, it made the right choice in attacking the countries it did - but it should have left US possessions alone.
:cool:
-
If you have the opportunity to see 'Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West' produced by Laurence Rees I would recommend it. It's a documentary in six parts that gives a good account of the political on goings during the war between Stalin, the Nazis and the West.
[edit]
hmm after watching the documentary then reading this I guess some things haven't changed much..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8372894.stm