Most decisive battle of the Second World War


  • I vote for the battle of the Atlantic

    Good choice…If Great Britain had been conquered by Germany or if English surrender because of the maritime blockade…The war was finished…


  • How do you think a massive use German Paratrooper units on the Eastern side of the Volga River at Stalingrad would have played out? Could they have sealed off the trinkle of Soviet supplies and troops for the city? Or would the units been crushed?


  • @ABWorsham:

    How do you think a massive use German Paratrooper units on the Eastern side of the Volga River at Stalingrad would have played out? Could they have sealed off the trinkle of Soviet supplies and troops for the city? Or would the units been crushed?

    probably hitler wouldnt sanction it due to the catastrophe at crete


  • D-day, it opened another front on the Germans.


  • they already had a second front , ITALY! and before that AFRIKA!


  • @FieldMarshalGames:

    @aequitas:

    Dunkirk and Moscow '41 and the Atlantic

    I vote for the battle of the Atlantic

    Good choice.

  • '10

    Ah well. Nevertheless it is simple to understand.
    Because of the battle lost over England, the resistances and the obtination of churchill, Hitler has change his plan and so he attacked USSR.
    A fatal error!!!

    While I agree attacking Russia was Hitler’s error, it’s just to damned big to be overtaken, it was already his plan to attack Russia. He could get rid of the Bolsheviks and the Jews, while creating living space for a growing Germany. Also wanted the resources they had as well. Failing at England didn’t cause Hitler to invade Russia. I think it was more of a Pearl Harbor type move anyway. Not trying to conquer England, just trying to render it useless to stop Germany from doing what it really wanted.


  • I think the Battle of Poland was the most decesive. He never got away with that, and was doomed.

    72 million germans versus the rest of the world.

    Starting the fire in Poland was the sole action that would bring the Third Reich down.


  • I think Leyte Gulf is an important and often over looked one as well.

    If Japan had been able to break through to the US ships moored in the gulf, they could have absolutely destroyed the US’s logistics train. With out being able to transport the men, and more important, the supples for those troops, the US timetable would have been set back by several years. Giving Japan, which at this point hadnt been bombed, a chance to regroup and catch its breath, so to speak, could have been devestating to further allied offensives.


  • @i:

    they already had a second front , ITALY! and before that AFRIKA!

    Germany had two fronts, but more area to defend would make it tougher to defend. The war would take longer if there weren’t three fronts on Germany.


  • okay sorry that comment was made late at night 12am and i read your post wrong i though you sad the seconded front.


  • Germans were going to lose before Stalingrad: they were fighting Russia, Britain, and the United States

    With Stalingrad’s capture would mean the Germans hold the key to the Caucasus oil fields, bolstering their forces. Yes, they were doomed since they were repelled at the gates of Moscow, but if the Germans won Stalingrad, the Soviets would probably have lost a lot more soldiers than they did. Also, the loss of Stalingrad would be a huge blow to Soviet morale. Stalingrad resulted in the destruction of the German 6th Army, which left a gaping hole in the Wehrmacht, much more devastating to the German armed forces than the Battle of Britain.

    Japanese were going to lose even if they completely decimated America at Midway. there’s an essay showing that American carrier numbers would overtake Japanese carrier numbers by 1943.

    One essay in a sea of countless other essays. We will never know if the Japanese still could have won, but it’s still certain that Midway was the first major defeat the Imperial Navy suffered in over three centuries.

    By Kursk, Germans were already losing

    But, again, it was decisive. If the Wehrmacht had one the Germans would have re-gained the strategic offensive, even if it would be temporary.

    Germans were definetly losing by D-Day. I never got why it was seen as a turning point.

    Losing? They locked down the Allies in Italy, whom didn’t make any significant advances until well after D-Day, and if there wasn’t a Allied threat to invade from the West, Hitler could have sent much needed forces East. It was a turning point because the Allies were able to get a significant foothold in Europe, and fulfill their promise to Stalin to open up a second front in France. Hitler now had to commit significant forces on not just one major front and a minor one (Italy), he now had to deal with two major fronts and one minor one.

    Even if the Soviets won and got to Berlin, say the Allies were still trapped in Italy. Who is to say the Soviet tanks wouldn’t simply continue to roll all the way to Amsterdam, Paris? If the Allies hadn’t invaded Normandy or their invasion failed, Europe would be very, very different–-and very, very red.

    Japanese were already losing before Leyte gulf

    Irregardless, Leyte Gulf sped up their defeat considerably. If there wasn’t a Leyte Gulf the Japanese would have caused much more casualties to the Allies.

    Plus, Leyte Gulf was the largest naval battle in history. I think I’d call that decisive.


  • @UN:

    Germans were going to lose before Stalingrad: they were fighting Russia, Britain, and the United States

    With Stalingrad’s capture would mean the Germans hold the key to the Caucasus oil fields, bolstering their forces. Yes, they were doomed since they were repelled at the gates of Moscow, but if the Germans won Stalingrad, the Soviets would probably have lost a lot more soldiers than they did. Also, the loss of Stalingrad would be a huge blow to Soviet morale. Stalingrad resulted in the destruction of the German 6th Army, which left a gaping hole in the Wehrmacht, much more devastating to the German armed forces than the Battle of Britain.

    Japanese were going to lose even if they completely decimated America at Midway. there’s an essay showing that American carrier numbers would overtake Japanese carrier numbers by 1943.

    One essay in a sea of countless other essays. We will never know if the Japanese still could have won, but it’s still certain that Midway was the first major defeat the Imperial Navy suffered in over three centuries.

    By Kursk, Germans were already losing

    But, again, it was decisive. If the Wehrmacht had one the Germans would have re-gained the strategic offensive, even if it would be temporary.

    Germans were definetly losing by D-Day. I never got why it was seen as a turning point.

    Losing? They locked down the Allies in Italy, whom didn’t make any significant advances until well after D-Day, and if there wasn’t a Allied threat to invade from the West, Hitler could have sent much needed forces East. It was a turning point because the Allies were able to get a significant foothold in Europe, and fulfill their promise to Stalin to open up a second front in France. Hitler now had to commit significant forces on not just one major front and a minor one (Italy), he now had to deal with two major fronts and one minor one.

    Even if the Soviets won and got to Berlin, say the Allies were still trapped in Italy. Who is to say the Soviet tanks wouldn’t simply continue to roll all the way to Amsterdam, Paris? If the Allies hadn’t invaded Normandy or their invasion failed, Europe would be very, very different–-and very, very red.

    Japanese were already losing before Leyte gulf

    Irregardless, Leyte Gulf sped up their defeat considerably. If there wasn’t a Leyte Gulf the Japanese would have caused much more casualties to the Allies.

    Plus, Leyte Gulf was the largest naval battle in history. I think I’d call that decisive.

    I think we have a definitions difference. I see the word decisive as meaning turning point, i.e., the battle before which the axis were winning, but after which they were losing. This, Russia taking over France still counts as the allies winning


  • I think we have a definitions difference. I see the word decisive as meaning turning point, i.e., the battle before which the axis were winning, but after which they were losing. This, Russia taking over France still counts as the allies winning

    The war status of a country isn’t always either “winning” or “losing”. In 1942, for example, victory for the Allies was still not certain. Although Germany had been halted at Moscow they were still a very dangerous threat and commanded a still-formidable army. Japan still possesed a navy that threatened the entire Pacific.

    Japan was decisively losing at Midway, and Germany at Stalingrad, both having lost significant assets to their war effort.

  • '10

    If Germany had taken Great Britian could U.S. have launched Overlord from the east coast or perhaps North Africa? No way in 1944 or ever?


  • Without Great Britian, it would have no doubt been more difficult.  But I wouldn’t say impossible, even in 1944, because the Americans were invading islands in the Pacific over distances greater than several possible invasion launch sites in the Atlantic such as Iceland, the Azores, North Africa, etc.

    The invasion of Okinawa, for example had 183,000 Army and Marine units

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

    which compares well with D-Day which had 160,000 troops in the initial crossing.

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

    It is important to keep in mind that the Germans were able to reinforce France and the Japanese were unable to reinforce Okinawa.  For this reason, the allies had over 3 million personnel in France by the end of August. Therefore, I think a European invasion such as you describe (either on France or Great Britian or Norway for that matter) would have been more difficult than Okinawa.  But it would not have been impossible.

    Nor was an invasion of France the only options that would have been available for the US to win the war.  They could join the Russians and come in from the East (though by 1944 the Russians were doing quite well at this on their own).  They had already invaded Italy, no doubt they could have pushed harder there using the forces being built up for overlord.  They could also invade the Balkans or southern France as an alternative.  Or, for that matter, the USA could simply have nuked Berlin, provided the Russians didn’t get there first.

  • '10

    @221B:

    Without Great Britian, it would have no doubt been more difficult.  But I wouldn’t say impossible, even in 1944, because the Americans were invading islands in the Pacific over distances greater than several possible invasion launch sites in the Atlantic such as Iceland, the Azores, North Africa, etc.

    The invasion of Okinawa, for example had 183,000 Army and Marine units

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

    which compares well with D-Day which had 160,000 troops in the initial crossing.

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

    It is important to keep in mind that the Germans were able to reinforce France and the Japanese were unable to reinforce Okinawa.  For this reason, the allies had over 3 million personnel in France by the end of August. Therefore, I think a European invasion such as you describe (either on France or Great Britian or Norway for that matter) would have been more difficult than Okinawa.  But it would not have been impossible.

    Nor was an invasion of France the only options that would have been available for the US to win the war.  They could join the Russians and come in from the East (though by 1944 the Russians were doing quite well at this on their own).  They had already invaded Italy, no doubt they could have pushed harder there using the forces being built up for overlord.  They could also invade the Balkans or southern France as an alternative.  Or, for that matter, the USA could simply have nuked Berlin, provided the Russians didn’t get there first.

    Now you have made an interesting comment there. Would the U.S. have ever used nukes in heavily populated Europe? That is something that deserves some deep thought.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @UN:

    Japanese were already losing before Leyte gulf

    Irregardless, Leyte Gulf sped up their defeat considerably. If there wasn’t a Leyte Gulf the Japanese would have caused much more casualties to the Allies.

    Plus, Leyte Gulf was the largest naval battle in history. I think I’d call that decisive.

    Decisive, yes. The Americans absolutely blasted the Japs at Leyte… but that itself shows that it was not a turning point. It was a nearly one sided battle. It’s not a turning point if the guy who is expected to win actually wins. Midway was a turning point because the Americans won when they weren’t supposed to and because it was a decisive and important victory.


  • @Fishmoto37:

    Now you have made an interesting comment there. Would the U.S. have ever used nukes in heavily populated Europe? That is something that deserves some deep thought.

    In 1945, the effects of radioactive fallout were not well understood, and the only nuclear weapons available were kiloton-range fission bombs rather than megaton-range thermonuclear bombs.  So my guess is that a nuclear strike against, say, Berlin, would have been seen as just that: as a bombing attack against an enemy city whose direct blast effects would have been highly localized, and whose downwind radiological effects would not have been given much consideration.  Even in early postwar atomic tests, the radiological dangers to the scientists and troops who observed nuclear blasts and who then went to the explosion site to conduct tests were not taken as seriously as they would be today.


  • @GrizzlyMan:

    Midway. It completely reversed the balance of power in the Pacific. The Japanese fleet outnumbered the Americans heavily, and most importantly had superior aircraft and aircraft carriers. In only one battle the United States reversed completely and destroyed 4 Japanese CVs to the loss of only 1, and, after that point, the United States was on the offensive.
    Had one of the British powers folded, the US populance may have supported an early peace with Japan, which would be a major victory for the axis. Had Midway been a defeat for the Americans, or had it not taken place, the war would have ended very differently.

    I am sorry to inform you that your way off base with what your saying. Yomoto’s plan was to declare war BEFORE attacking the USA…that didn’t happen because they screwed up…he knew that he had a year and a half tops before the USA fleet grew to big to stop. He figured a win at midway would buy another year, enough to complete the build up and new weapons they were making. But even with a loss at midway we made too much stuff for Japan ever to win not to mention the bombs we were making. It would have bought Japan more time but in the end the result would have been the same.

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 7
  • 8
  • 13
  • 18
  • 4
  • 17
  • 34
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

38

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts