Most Decisive Battle in WW2

[GePap]

The Battle of Britain gains inportance only in hindsight- had the germans decided in late 1940 and early 1941 to rebuild an increase pressure on Britain, strike at the airfields and Radar stations and so forth, eventually the Germans would have won, regardless the skills of Britain's pilots. The fact is that by mid 1941, the germans decided victory lay elsewhere- and had they won in the East, the battle of Britain would have meant nothing in the end. Germany was not defeated in the West, it was defeated in the east- thus the most decisive battles foe the European front were in the Eastern front- I voted Stalingrad, but by that I mean the entire Operation Blue that Stalingad was part of (i.e the German Summer offensive of 1942). I don't think the Germans could have ever won the Summer Offensive of 1943, the damage was already done.

In the Pacific, Midway is laways a good choice- and the only one that really fits because in every battle afterwards with the esception perhaps of the Slomon campaing, victory for the US seems so certain.

I agree with Chris (Oh my god!) that the battle for control of the Atlantic is of utmost importance.

[Capt Dizle]

The most important and decisive campaign was the German invasion of France in 1940. An entire major power was conquered in a month and the BEF escape a fluke.

This action simply stunned the world and set the stage for all that would follow.

The French are unfairly treated to this day over this. No nation could have done any better at that time versus the Wermacht.

[Dis]

Pearl Harbour.

but it wasn't decisive for the Japanese.

It was decisive for the Americans. This allowed the U.S. to win the war. Japan lost the war when they attacked the U.S. There was never any point in which Japan could have beaten the U.S. It was impossible.

[Sandman]

I wouldn't rate the Battle of Britain very highly, since it was a foregone conclusion given the British had as many fighters as the Germans, and were fighting over home ground.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
The French are unfairly treated to this day over this. No nation could have done any better at that time versus the Wermacht.

Sure they could have. They left a gaping hole in their lines which the Germans exploited. If they had adequately defended the Ardens forest, the history of the world would be completey different.

Their mistake lay in thinking that the forest was impassible to armor. The Germans simply could not believe tht they encounted no resitence, and thought it was a trap. Hitler held Guderian up three days, to keep him from getting cut off by an expected French counter-attack.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dissident
Pearl Harbour.

but it wasn't decisive for the Japanese.

It was decisive for the Americans. This allowed the U.S. to win the war. Japan lost the war when they attacked the U.S. There was never any point in which Japan could have beaten the U.S. It was impossible.

If they had won at Midway, it would have laid Pearl Harbor open to a follow up strike and possible invasion. The US would then have had to operate out of San Diego, and it would have made the war much more difficult for us.

If the Japanese won the Battle of Guadecanal, they could have cut off Australia. Which they could then have overrun.

[Dis]

How could they have invaded Pearl Harbour? Their forces were stretched too thin. They did not have the ground troops to do it.

It's like that history channel thing about the possiblility of Japan taking over Madagascar. Too far away and not enough resources. The small island nation could not expect to put thousands and close to millions of troops in the Hawaiin islands. They just weren't as powerful as we were led to believe at the outset of the war.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sandman
I wouldn't rate the Battle of Britain very highly, since it was a foregone conclusion given the British had as many fighters as the Germans, and were fighting over home ground.

The RAF was in serious trouble when the Germans were hittings its air bases. Then the Germans made the mistake of switching targets to the cities. That was a turning point.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by GePap
The Battle of Britain gains inportance only in hindsight- had the germans decided in late 1940 and early 1941 to rebuild an increase pressure on Britain, strike at the airfields and Radar stations and so forth, eventually the Germans would have won, regardless the skills of Britain's pilots. The fact is that by mid 1941, the germans decided victory lay elsewhere.

But that's only because of the high losses inflicted on the Luftwaffe and the inability to destroy the RAF. That in turn ruled out the option of invading Britain and the Germans decided to look elsewhere.

[OldWarrior_42]

I often wonder if people remember that the Germans had started atomic research and had been the ones to first design jet power and rockets.

Had the US never gotten involved in the War, or had they been delayed significantly by a year or two, it is quite possible that Germany could have been succesful in completing their experiments and may have developed atomic weapons first.

Had they done so, then they could have transported them on rockets and on their Jet Planes. Could have made all the difference in the world, the timing of the American entry into the war.

Thus when I see that People say, doesn't matter that the US blah blah blah.... Russia would have won eventually, or England would have won evebtually, just would have taken them longer, I smile and say.... but what if the Germans got those Atomic weapons first. Would have changed alot and who knows, maybe they could have even won. Certainly would have led to so many more millions of European and Eurasian deaths due to those weapons.

Therefore, my conclussion is Pearl Harbor. It brought the US into the war immediately and led to the eventual destruction of Germany's chances of acquiring Atomic Weapons, through cooperation of the Allied forces and there intelligence.... especially British intel in this scenario.

Had the US been delayed, the war could have turned another way, and is no guarantee that the Allied powers, minus the US, would have won.... with the premise that it would have just taken a little longer. Time was of the essence. Timing is everything in most cases of war and history.

[Ramo]

Stalingrad, no doubt.

[Dis]

yes another Pearl Harbour vote. One who knows how important that battle was.

because I think even if Russia had lost Stalingrad they would have still inflicted heavy casualties and germany could not stretch its forces much further. Even if they got Moscow they would have faught on.

[GeneralTacticus]

Had the US never gotten involved in the War, or had they been delayed significantly by a year or two, it is quite possible that Germany could have been succesful in completing their experiments and may have developed atomic weapons first.

AFAIK, the Germans never pursued atomic weapons research to the extent that the Allies did. This was largely because they had expelled most of their top scientists in the field for being Jewish.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Sure they could have. They left a gaping hole in their lines which the Germans exploited. If they had adequately defended the Ardens forest, the history of the world would be completey different.

Chegitz Guevara, you perfectly knows that it's easier to comment past events than to foresee futur events.
French generals weren't bad stupid generals, they were simply old generals, and the last true war they experiment was WWI.

Germans generals were younger, with new idea and have already tested theirs tactics before attacking English/French forces.

Ardenne forest was imagined as a natural defense. Germans had the genious to find a trick to allow their army to go through so quickly.

[Sikander]

(Jimmytrick) "The most important and decisive campaign was the German invasion of France in 1940. An entire major power was conquered in a month and the BEF escape a fluke.

This action simply stunned the world and set the stage for all that would follow.

The French are unfairly treated to this day over this. No nation could have done any better at that time versus the Wermacht."

I agree somewhat, especially with the last bit. However the initial question related to a battle rather than a campaign.


(Dissident) "Pearl Harbour.

but it wasn't decisive for the Japanese.

It was decisive for the Americans. This allowed the U.S. to win the war. Japan lost the war when they attacked the U.S. There was never any point in which Japan could have beaten the U.S. It was impossible."

The battle itself wasn't decisive at all though, it was the defacto declaration of war that was decisive. The Japanese could have just sent a note declaring war and the end effect would have been about the same. If they had ignored Pearl Harbor completely and just attacked the Phillipines the effect would have been the same.


(Dissident)"How could they have invaded Pearl Harbour? Their forces were stretched too thin. They did not have the ground troops to do it."

The Japanese didn't have enough ground troops to storm Hawaii immediately, but they would have had an opportunity to do some real damage nonetheless. First, they could have done a fair job isolating the Hawaii by basing their submarines forward (Midway and Johnston islands while too small to be major naval bases could have easily extended the range and increased the time on station for Japanese subs) and interdicting U.S. convoys. There is a lot of blue water between the U.S. and Hawaii where all patrol aircraft would have been out of range. During the war the U.S. typically didn't escort ships to Hawaii, or only used nominal escorts. The slack would have had to have been picked up with destroyers, and those destroyers would have had to have been diverted from the Atlantic.

Secondly, while Oahu was well defended by ground troops, the other islands in the chain were a good deal less so. The Japanese could have put together a monster task force and taken some of the other islands from which their land based aircraft could have really tightened the screws on Oahu.

Finally, by eliminating the threat of the American fleet until 1943 (by say sinking another carrier at Midway and not losing 4 of their own) the Japanese could have shifted plenty of ground forces from other areas of the Pacific which no longer would have required garrisons, and with these forces they may have been able to take Oahu. This plan would have been greatly aided by the capture of one or more of the other islands in the chain as above.


(Old Warrior 42)"I often wonder if people remember that the Germans had started atomic research and had been the ones to first design jet power and rockets.

Had the US never gotten involved in the War, or had they been delayed significantly by a year or two, it is quite possible that Germany could have been succesful in completing their experiments and may have developed atomic weapons first.

This was much easier said than done. The obstacles were numerous. First, the lack of quality German scientists has to be taken into account. Secondly, the huge expense of the Manhattan project may well have been a luxury the Germans could not have afforded given the huge expenditures necessary on the Russian front. Finally, I'm not sure that the Germans would have been able to procure enough uranium to produce enough weapons to be decisive. The U.S. had a good supply locally, and we weren't even able to build more than 3 bombs by 1945 even with the jump that having all those scientists and an almost unlimited budget.