The World's Most Important Battles

[Q Classic]

in some ways importance also is a relative term. i could argue that inchon was one of the most important--without it, my parents would be living in a stalinist state.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by MattHiggs
You should edit that post to CBeast!

To right Higgsy!

[Cookie Monster]

Hmmm....

The world's most important battle.


I'd say season 2, episode 21 "Taxicab Wars".

[Sandman]

The failure of the the Schlieffen Plan was more important than the failure of the 1918 offensive, since it effectively ended any chance Germany had of winning.

I would also suggest that Pearl Harbor was more important than Midway, since even if the Japanese had scored a complete victory over the Americans, they would still have succumbed to superior American production and technology. Pearl Harbor, on the other hand, brought America into the war.

[MattHiggs]

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
Hmmm....

The world's most important battle.


I'd say season 2, episode 21 "Taxicab Wars".

The A-Team !!

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by MattHiggs


The A-Team !!

Very good! I didn't think anyone other than Chris62 would pick up on that.

[DinoDoc]

I love it when a plan comes together.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Berzerker
What about minor engagements with the greatest impact? After WW1 started, a German cruiser fled the Brits seeking refuge from the Turks. The result was the forced entry of Turkey into WW1 on the side of the Germans and the end of the Turkish empire.

I've been just reading a book by a Russian naval historian Bolnykh about the Goeben and her sidekick Breslau. The author goes on about how the Royal and French navies have totally screwed up in catching them and then having to land at Gallipoli. The description of the naval ops during the landings is awesome!

He then rants about the Russian Imperial Navy's complete stupidity in the Baltic due to political appointees, butt-licking, as opposed to the achievements of the Black Sea fleet, which was further from the intricate politicking of St. Petersburg.

Also, Goeben and Breslau, he claims, unknowingly brought about Russia's defeat due to inability of the Allies to support her via the Dardanelles and as a result, brought about Bolshevisms victory.

Just TWO ships!!

[Zkribbler]

Battle of Britian

IN World War II, the most important battle was the Battle of Britian. If the RAF had been destroyed, then the Royal Navy would have been next and then Operation Sealion. When the U.S. later entered the war--if indeed it would have--there would have been no place est of Archangel on which to base its troops.

[Ethelred]

Re: Battle of Britian

Originally posted by Zkribbler
IN World War II, the most important battle was the Battle of Britian. If the RAF had been destroyed, then the Royal Navy would have been next and then Operation Sealion.

Operation Sealion was never going to happen even with the RAF badly damaged. Even if the Brits had most of their planes wiped out the Germans still had only a pack of minimal free board river barges to move their troops with. Nothing that could carry heavy artillery or tanks and even then the barges could only do 5 knots at that was with good weather.

The plan was to take a British port and then land stuff then go back for more with the same unfit river barges. All the while the lack of artillery would be made up by the Luftwaffe. The Brittish Navy would be blocked by the Luftwaffe. Any remaining Brittish planes would be handled entirely by the Luftwafe as the troops would have AAA for days on end even with miraculous weather. Blocking British troops from moving to the invasion zone would be done by the Luftwaffe. All Luftwaffe flights would have to be from the continent of course untill they took an airstrip and moved supplies over.

All that work by an air unit that was long on promises and short on delivery, time and again whenever Goering said he would things the Luftwaffe had never been intended to do. The German Navy thought the plan was daft. The Luftwaffe even didn't pretend they could do it. Hitler authorized the barges and the planning but he clearly didn't care one bit about the project either. As far as I can see it was a more that just a bit of bluff since Hitler was only interested in invading Russia at the time. The best I can figure is that Germany simply didn't bother setting the whole mess aside thinking it might help to keep the Brits and Russians off guard.

[Ned]

Re: Re: Battle of Britian

Originally posted by Ethelred


Operation Sealion was never going to happen even with the RAF badly damaged. Even if the Brits had most of their planes wiped out the Germans still had only a pack of minimal free board river barges to move their troops with. Nothing that could carry heavy artillery or tanks and even then the barges could only do 5 knots at that was with good weather.

The plan was to take a British port and then land stuff then go back for more with the same unfit river barges. All the while the lack of artillery would be made up by the Luftwaffe. The Brittish Navy would be blocked by the Luftwaffe. Any remaining Brittish planes would be handled entirely by the Luftwafe as the troops would have AAA for days on end even with miraculous weather. Blocking British troops from moving to the invasion zone would be done by the Luftwaffe. All Luftwaffe flights would have to be from the continent of course untill they took an airstrip and moved supplies over.

All that work by an air unit that was long on promises and short on delivery, time and again whenever Goering said he would things the Luftwaffe had never been intended to do. The German Navy thought the plan was daft. The Luftwaffe even didn't pretend they could do it. Hitler authorized the barges and the planning but he clearly didn't care one bit about the project either. As far as I can see it was a more that just a bit of bluff since Hitler was only interested in invading Russia at the time. The best I can figure is that Germany simply didn't bother setting the whole mess aside thinking it might help to keep the Brits and Russians off guard.

In retrospect, not invading England and rather invading Russia was the biggest mistake Hitler ever made. I would have thought the German high command would have gone out of their way to convince Hitler to not again force Germany to fight a two-front war. To the extent the British airforce forced Germany to look elsewhere, then the Battle of Britain won WWII for the Allies.

[Ethelred]

The problem was the Germany simply didn't have the resources to invade Britain. To have reasonable chance of success would have required

Actual landing craft - self powered and designed for the job.

Shipping capable of supporting the invasion force once it landed

A Navy that could support all that stuff which means a Navy that could stand up to Britains ships and shore batteries.

Long range tactical bombers

Long range strategic bombers

Long range fighters

The Luftaffe had little that could do any of that. They had a hard enough time with hit and run missions in the Battle of Britain.

Trains that would run on British tracks unless they allready were compatible. Don't know on this one.

Any attempt to make a serious invasion of Britain would have needed at least a year or two of preparation plus they needed to cut Britain's supplies. They did nearly manage that last part. That would have made Sea Lion a far more viable idea even without a custom designed invasion force like the Allies used at Normandy.


-------------------------------------

German breakthrough strategy at the end of WWI also had a serious logistical handicap. One of the main reasons why BOTH sides had been utterly unable to follow up on the occasional breakthrough was that WWI supplies were heavily dependent on rail. Once the troops had advanced twenty miles or so they were stopped by supply problems time and again. The battle lines and trenches had destroyed the rail lines needed for rapid advance. New rails would have to built on torn up and blasted ground that was full of trenches, tunnels and churned up mud. Not mention dead bodies. Untill the new rails were in place there could be no follow up attacks.

[Keygen]

It is not possible to vote for a single battle
Most are far important plus some left out.
There is no such thing as a single most important battle of all times.

[Ned]

From the point of view of Western civilization, the Battle of Chalons remains the most important in Western history, and therefor, the most important in World history. IMO, battles have to be ranked according to whether the result is the replacement of one civilization by another - or prevented it, in the case of Chalons.

The battle of Ayn Jalut was unimportant to the West. Besides, only a century latter, the Mongols - Timor in charge - conquered the whole ME, the Russian steppes, and Northern India.

The battle of Portiers was relatively unimportant as well. What Martel defeated was a reconnaisance in force. It is not certain that the Arabs would have invaded the Frank kingdom had they had won this battle. Regardless, this battle pales in comparision to Chalons.

No battle among European kings or dukes (as in the Duke of Normandy) can rank up there with Chalons because whoever won would have had no major effect on Western civilization. I also do not believe that a victory by Nazi Germany would have brought on another Dark Age. Nazi Germany was little different that Soviet Russia, and the world survived that.

Andrianople is very close, because it caused the "Fall" of the Roman Empire.

[Keygen]

Originally posted by Ned
From the point of view of Western civilization, the Battle of Chalons remains the most important in Western history, and therefor, the most important in World history. IMO, battles have to be ranked according to whether the result is the replacement of one civilization by another - or prevented it, in the case of Chalons.

The battle of Ayn Jalut was unimportant to the West. Besides, only a century latter, the Mongols - Timor in charge - conquered the whole ME, the Russian steppes, and Northern India.

The battle of Portiers was relatively unimportant as well. What Martel defeated was a reconnaisance in force. It is not certain that the Arabs would have invaded the Frank kingdom had they had won this battle. Regardless, this battle pales in comparision to Chalons.

No battle among European kings or dukes (as in the Duke of Normandy) can rank up there with Chalons because whoever won would have had no major effect on Western civilization. I also do not believe that a victory by Nazi Germany would have brought on another Dark Age. Nazi Germany was little different that Soviet Russia, and the world survived that.

Andrianople is very close, because it caused the "Fall" of the Roman Empire.

Well, if you consider any battle that saved Europe from a change of its cource then you should consider the battles of Marathon/Salamis/Plataies and the two sieges of Constantinople by the arabs of the same importance. In different results, Roman empire would possibly never rise or Western Europe would speak arab and bow to Allah.

But I insist. Lot of past battles if had different results than the original the world would most likely had been very different than the one we know.