Greatest Battle of WW2

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#41

As wildboar has said the only really important one was the BoB. If Britain had lost this it is unlikely that the US would have entered the war. Lend lease would have stopped to the USSR and Germany could have directed all its efforts to Russia. Normandy could not happen with out Britain and the Med would have been controlled by the Germens. They would have had access to oil and the black see. India would have gone independent and probably sided with Japan. Australia would have fallen most likely and Japan’s Empire would have been secure. What choice would the US have? The US was isolationist and would have stayed that way.

All the other battles after BoB would not have happened because Germany would have secure flanks.

#42

As wildboar has said the only really important one was the BoB. If Britain had lost this it is unlikely that the US would have entered the war. Lend lease would have stopped to the USSR and Germany could have directed all its efforts to Russia. Normandy could not happen with out Britain and the Med would have been controlled by the Germens. They would have had access to oil and the black see. India would have gone independent and probably sided with Japan. Australia would have fallen most likely and Japan’s Empire would have been secure. What choice would the US have? The US was isolationist and would have stayed that way.

All the other battles after BoB would not have happened because Germany would have secure flanks.[/quote]

Not only that, there would be no resistance in the whole of Africa, thats a whole continent. They would seize the vital waters around the Cape of Good hope, and would control the main shipping lines. From there they probably could just hope over to South America.

#43

Yet, Montgommery still beat him.

#44

Yet, Montgommery still beat him.[/quote]

I like both Rommel and Monty…

#45

Yet, Montgommery still beat him.[/quote]

I prefer the other montgommery (burns!)
and his friend george

:lol:

#46

Yet, Montgommery still beat him.[/quote]

I prefer the other montgommery (burns!)
and his friend george

:lol:[/quote]

haha, a bit off topic but still funny…

#47

I have to disagree with both Wildboar and 2nd of Foot. Yes the conquest of Britain by the Nazis would have probably won them the war. (We could argue about what exactly would have happened once all Biritsh forces in the UK had surrendered but its so hypothetical I don’t think it would be a usful debate)

So I do agree with you there. But lets define the Battle of Britain as: The campaign fought by the Luftwaffe to gain air superiority over Southern England in order to facilitate a seabourne invasion. Several points fall out of this:

  1. The Germans never came close to winning air-superiority (i’m sure others will disagree)
  2. Once they started bombing London and other cities, basically anythiong other than airfields, their aims had changed and they were never going to achieve 1.
  3. Even if they had won (air superiority) that would by no means guarntee that the Luftwaffe would be in suficient strength to destroy the Royal Navy and allow the Kreigsmarine to effect a landing.
  4. Then of course there is the British Army to think about. Agreed - not in a good state in June-July but much better by Sept - Oct when the Germans might expect to have finished the air campaign.
  5. Would the Germans had been able to done D-Day going the other way in Autumn 1940. I imagine the weather might prevent it even if the Germans’ unsophisticated logistics (compared to the Allies in '44) did not.
  6. Even if they took London…and so on, pretty much for ever.

You get my drift. I don’t meant to be pedantic nor poor scorn on a hard fought victory But all the other battles in the list both sides had a good chance at winning and don’t think the BoB falls into that category.

#48

Canaris I am afraid I would have to agree with what you say. I think my original point was to point out that BoB should not have been over looked in the starting line up. This was probably because it was an air battle and not land,

I also think that you are right in your point 5 you probably have the primary reason why the Germans could never do it. Anyone who has used the ferries in the channel would be able to confirm that it can be an interesting crossing in big ships let alone a canal barge even if they are the big continental ones. If you look at what was required for Overlord to work, all the people who think Sealion had a chance of successes do not know how armies work. You cannot live off the land in modern warfare.
I think that to remove Britain from the war they may not have had to invade, just get a surrender. There was a lot of opposition to the war by a number of senior political people. Halifax comes to mind. We also have the communists who toed the soviet line and they (soviet) had what they thought was a treaty with Germany at this time. The US was not interested to a great extent and that s**t Kennedy was talking Britain down at any opportunity. Churchill was also not in a very strong position at this time. If the British had lost the BoB and been offered good terms on their surrender they would have probably gone for it.
A lot of IFs and I think your right the Germans had a snow balls chance in hell of winning.
But my main point is that if the British in 1940 had not stood up to Hitler the rest would have been immaterial. The US would have never gone to war and Japan would have got their area of domination without troubling young Sam.

#49

All true but Hitler would still have fought Stalin in Summer '41 and eventualy lost.

#50

Who knows? The Russian Army in the beggining years of the war was extremely disorganized and poorly led. (He killed allot of his generals in one of his purges). The German Army advanced at amazing speed and soon reached Lenningrad, and other major cities. If Hiter used all his forces and advanced quick enough into Russia, and get it over and done with before winter, well just maybe.

But, debate, debate!

#51

I agree, and I think this point is the maker-breaker had Germany been able to whip the British in the air. I can’t see the Germans being able to make a sufficient landing with the Royal Navy on the job.

#52

The Battle of the Atlantic was the not only the most protracted but the most important of WW2. Without the ability to transport men and materials across the Atlantic D day would have been put back for years as air transport could not have coped until a bigger load capacity was developed.

#53

Deffinetely agreed. If the Allies had not of been able to control the atlantic waters, valuable supplies and resources to Britain would not of reached. I beleive Britain rellied allot on supplies coming from America, such as raw meterials?

here is a picture depicting the losses of merchant ships in the North Atlantic and other ocean regions.

i reccomend wiki again for anyone interested in more info:

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

#54

I agree. I think it’s important to consider that the conflict with Russia tapped German’y resources, even their male population, and with American and British bombing of Germany, the Germans were not able to replace what was being used or destroyed at an equal rate. Even if Germany had managed to defeat Britain in the air:

  1. Their male population had already been considerably reduced by the losses with Russia by 1943.
  2. Thier manufacturing capability was already reduced by the bombing of Germany
  3. The gain of the British Isles would have been moot by that point and would have only been a pit that absorbed that were needed to defend against Russia, because the US was shipping thousands of airplanes and supplies to Russia, which helped them to push the Germans back toward Berlin, and the US Navy would have finished what the Royal Navy started in destroying Germany’s wolf packs, (new ships with depth charge abilities were developed and in use) thereby insuring that the US would have been able to continue it’s shipping of supplies and machinery to Russia.
  4. By late 1942 Germany’s wolf packs were reduced and the end of their reign in the Atlantic was in sight.
#55

I agree with IRONMAN that the Germans would still have lost.

But IRONMAN for fucks sake, dont post graphs that you have drawn yourself as .gif images and then posted on an image server called
http://home.jam.rr.com/director/
right next door to your two irritating signature posters.
and that animated gif of the two assault rifles magically changing between Mp44. and AK47.

Creating sources doesnt help your case, if you cant use google!!! I despair…

That said the USMC video is very good!

#56

Its quite simple. If Britain has lost the Battle of Britain the US would not have joined the war. The invasion of Russia would have started early and the Germans would have been in winter quarters as the snow came. Russia would not have got supplies from the US. There would have been no bombing of German industry. And no D-Day. Germany did not have to invade the UK just neutralise it.

#57

Stalingrad. If you disagree then read any book on it and see. Possibly one of the hardest fought battles ever to be witnessed by man.

Towards the end it was so bad the soldiers resorted to canibalism to survive. Scary stuff.

#58

Germany abandoned “Operation Sealion”, the planned invasion of Britain, before Hitler’s decision to change the bombing of Britain from military facilities to bombing the cities. The idea of invading Britain was discarded before the Battle of Britain was near an end. However, if Germany were to defeat Britain in the Battle of Britain by some miricle, it could not have been done until at least some months after to the decision to switch bombing targets from military to civilian (Sept. 17th, 1941), and by that time, the Luftawffe had already suffered such losses that the required air support for an invasion would not have been sufficient. At that time, Germany’s only hope in getting the British out of the war with them was to get Britain to make peace with Germany so that Germany could hold France without British intervention. The planned invasion of Britain was worthless before it could begin. Thus, the invasion of Britain was impossible.

These facts do even not take into account that had Germany managed to defeat the RAF and begin an invasion of Britain by some miricle, such an operation could not have taken place less than 1 year later because of staunch British resistance, at which time the US entered the war, and would have sent not only supplies, but it’s air forces and navy to the rescue of Britain. Furthermore, Britain’s navy remained strong throught the conflict, and would have helped if not insured onw it’s own that an invasion of Britain would be a fruitless endeavour.

“On 17 September (1941), two days after the Luftwaffe’s worst day in the Battle of Britain, Hitler cancelled Operation Sealion - the name of his plan for the invasion of Britain.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/battle_of_britain_05.shtml

Here is an article at the BBC that explains to you how an invasion of Britain could not have been undertaken, regardless of the decisions made by Hitler and his officers.

Enjoy!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/battle_of_britain_01.shtml

#59

IRONMAN can you tell me where you found the figures for the graph in your earlier post. Just a point of interest for me!

http://home.jam.rr.com/director

#60

Stalingrad was the Biggest Battle, loss of Millions of men in just one area from both sides.