The most important battle of WWII

cheddar cheese · 01-25-2005, 12:45 PM

Continued from old thread. Now in archive forum.

MikeMan · 01-26-2005, 12:57 AM

Stalingrad probably.

plan_D · 01-26-2005, 01:22 AM

Give your reasons. Stalingrad only destroyed one German Army (6th Armee), it did not take away the offensive capability of the German Wehrmacht. I know it was important, and I don't think that any single battle was important. However, I'll say the Battle for the Atlantic.

mosquitoman · 01-26-2005, 04:51 AM

Has to be the Atlantic, it was the only battle going from the first day to the last. It got incredibly close to starving Britain to death.

Lightning Guy · 01-26-2005, 09:30 AM

I'm going to stick to Pearl Harbor as it brought the US into the war. As such, it effected both of the wars, the war against Germany and the war against Japan.

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-26-2005, 01:43 PM

well think about it, you say it effected the war in japan, without the attack there was no war over the pacific!! well perhaps over australia and islands to the north..........

DaveB.inVa · 01-26-2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

well think about it, you say it effected the war in japan, without the attack there was no war over the pacific!! well perhaps over australia and islands to the north..........

Sure theyre was no war

Japan was just over running everything it could.

Udet · 01-26-2005, 03:53 PM

As I have said before several times in this glorious forum, and here it goes again:

Perhaps the entrance of the USA into the war both against Germany and Japan is the definitive event of the war -notice I said perhaps-.

Why?

The military build up of the USA on both theathers is more than solid proof of this. And last but not least, the ability of its military industry (and of its other industries) to supply the soviets with huge amounts of war material and finally, to feed a good deal of the soviet union can certainly help clarifying the atmosphere.

plan_D · 01-27-2005, 12:00 AM

We all know what you think the Soviet complete inability to fight without US support. Not like the British Empire devoted 14% of its war production to helping the Soviets or anything.

Of course the entrance of the US is a major factor in the war. It doesn't make Pearl Harbour an important battle. For two reasons A) The US was going to enter at some point anyway B) Pearl Harbour wasn't a battle, it was a slaughter.

Where's China, lanc? If it's not on the Pacific coast?

Udet · 01-27-2005, 11:42 AM

Plan_D:

Did you know you could immediately get yourself a job in CNN?
You are excellent at distorting my comments.

I have never ever said nor suggested anything nowhere nearly similar to what you typed over there.

The soviets were more than capable to fight, and to do it with absolute determination.

MY idea was rather that without Lend Lease certainly the soviet union could have been defeated by Germany.

Lend Lease facilitated massive issues to the soviets. One of them, for instance, is that they did not have to produce any significant numbers of military transport vehicles. The USA supplied them with more than half a million of those (i.e. Studebackers, jeeps, etc.) and no matter what the soviets said, massive raw materials and laborce were instead utilized to produce more and more of their tanks, aircraft, artillery, etc.

No Lend Lease no mechanization of the red army, say, for the big summer offensive of 1944.

No Lend Lease and one can see the Wehrmacht facing far lesser numbers of T-34s, IL-2s, Katyushas and artillery.

If with their ultra massive resources, both domestic and Lend Leased, the red army had to take a rest for refitting due to the frightful losses they took after the big offensive of the summer of 1944 -when the Germans were pushed out of the USSR-, what could have happened if no Lend Lease had been available to the communists?

Perhaps no operation Bagration?

And last but not least, agriculture. The main barns of the soviet union, the Ukraine and Kuban, had been devastated both by the retreating Russians and the combat which took place in such areas.

The soviet union had had serious problems in feeding itself before the war. Ever heard of Stalin´s famines?
Now, try to picture the food situation in the soviet union once the Wehrmacht attacked, having its richest agricultural lands overran by the enemy and the destruction ans damages caused in those areas.

No Lend Lease and the soviet union is on the verge of famine, again; this time however it is famine with an extremely skilled and powerful enemy attacking you. What kind of scenario this would have made?

A starved army, Plan_D, can certainly be uncapable to fight.

P.S. Plan: do not forget to apply for a job at CNN.

plan_D · 01-27-2005, 12:53 PM

Snore! What you don't understand is that I've told patriotic Russians about the lend-lease that helped them. What I don't like about it is the way you say it! Plus, only US!?!

Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa...hmmm...USA..sprayed on the side of Russian vehicles...but lets see, 14% of British war production went to Russia. So, it wasn't only the US. LEARN to word things better!

Udet · 01-28-2005, 01:30 PM

Plan_D.

Getting sensitive over there?

Ok, you are correct. My mistake to omit saying Britain also sent the soviets a percentage of war materiel that of course helped them. Very correct.

Luftwaffe reports during the Kuban airbattles of 1943, informed the VVS was fielding high numbers of Hurricanes.

What is it that you don´t like about my way of saying Lend-Lease was vital for the soviet union?

Notwithstanding that, when saying i believe the soviets were unable to fight if allied material help hadn´t been available you were incorrect.

plan_D · 01-29-2005, 02:01 AM

Actually, I know the Soviets would have been HARD-PRESSED without Lend-Lease. They had gone from a tank arm of 22,800 to 1506 in a matter of months. During those months (and a few after) Allied tanks were sent to Russia amounting to just over 4000.

Lend-Lease suppiled 16% of all tank production of the Soviet Union, and 100% of all APC production. Even with that, the Soviets were still capable of fighting.

And Hurricanes were serving almost from day one. There were Hurricanes over Stalingrad too. Not to mention the Spitfires that went out there. There were some 3000 Hurricane Mk.II B and C, about 40 Hurricane IID and IV. Then 1300 Spitfire Mk. V.

Udet · 01-29-2005, 03:40 AM

Plan:

I agree with you.

Remember the Russians give the LL virtually no credit.

They will respond absolutely everything you might argue by showing tons of statistics and numbers that according to them will "prove" you wrong.

Globally speaking, it could be said the soviets have recorded Lend Lease in their files, as an aid that played no significant role whatsoever in the war -a small material aid-; furthermore, a small aid which included lots of "crap" they allegedly did not like at all -but that upon arrival, got immediately pressed into service though-.

02-01-2005, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

Snore! What you don't understand is that I've told patriotic Russians about the lend-lease that helped them. What I don't like about it is the way you say it! Plus, only US!?!

Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa...hmmm...USA..sprayed on the side of Russian vehicles...but lets see, 14% of British war production went to Russia. So, it wasn't only the US. LEARN to word things better!

14% of British war production...

Not to diminish the importance of that, but as an overall % of lend-lease to the Soviets this was a relatively small fraction, perhaps 5%? And how much of it was based upon US lend-lease (raw materials) to Britain?

=S=

Lunatic