| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Most Decisive Battle of the 20th century?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Most Decisive Battle of the 20th century?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2012 at 05:40
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Like too many people you exaggerate the importance of armies. Moreover Germany had hardly defeated the British army in France, but merely an expeditionary force. Britain was stll only partially mobilised.  Where do you think the army that defeated Rommel came from?

Germany defeated the British army in France. Over 300,000 survivors were rescued, sans heavy and light weapons.  The army that defeated Rommel was Brits, Greeks, New Zealanders, Free French, Australians, South Africans, Indians, Poles, Nepales, French Foreign Legion. As you say, prior to this the UK was not mobilized in full.
Which was my major point. As of May 1940 there were only ten divisions deployed with the BEF plus one tank brigade, (your 300,000 figure includes rescued French) while there were over a hundred divisions each of French and German troops.
 
You miscalculate the entire war if you don't see Commonwealth and imperial troops (including the Gurkhas) as part of the same army. Actually, there were more Gurkhas in the British Army overall than there were troops in the BEF in 1940.
Quote  
(Any way it was the RN and the RAF that frustrated Hitler, and forced him not just to go east, but to go east while efficiently and effectively blockaded in the west and south by a power that was already producing more aircraft than Germany (let alone what it was buying from the US).


 Neither the RN or the RAF made Hitler invade the Soviet Union.
I wasn't very clear. I meant that the RN and the RAF forced Hitler to go east blockaded, with his rear still open and under continuous air attack, not just to go east. I.e. to make it even clearer, to go east in unfavourable circumstances if he chose to go at all.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2012 at 09:02
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dunkirk
The War Office made the decision to evacuate British forces on 25 May. In the nine days from 27 May-4 June, 338,226 men escaped, including 139,997 French.

That was approximately  200,000 British soldiers that were rescued. How many killed in France, how many taken prisoner. How many did that leave in England ready to fight an invasion? As you say your country was not fully mobilized. You can't count population as British Army. The 51st Highland Division was a near total surrender. That's an entire division. Anyway you look at it the British Army was defeated by the Wehrmacht and had to be rescued.

If you are calling the 8th British Army, British. El Alamein was a win for whom? It can't be for the non Brits that BTW were the point of the spear. In any event the question was "Who do you think beat Rommel at El Alamein.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2012 at 09:20
Many of the British infantry battalions appear to have returned home with less than half their numbers , some were POWs of course.

the British a mere 13 Divisions (3 of which were used as pioneers, but ended up fighting).

"In retrospect Sir Henry Pownall, the Chief of Staff of the BEF in 1940, thought that Britain's defeat at Dunkirk had the inevitability of 'a Greek tragedy'. It did not. When the BEF was expelled from the Continent in June 1940, it left behind 68,111 casualties of whom only 3,500 were killed and 40,000 were prisoners..."

http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/1940/39603-bef-casualties-1940-a-3.html

Sorry I don't have time for a full reply. Perhaps tomorrow.
Cheers.

May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2012 at 10:00
Im keeping this simple
1. Mane (WWI)
2. The Winter Russian War 1940-1941
3. Kursk

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2012 at 21:34
@buckskins
So far everything you've listed merely supports my original statement. A small British expeditionary force was defeated in May 1940 by immensely superior forces. Nearly all of the troops escaped. Not the same thing at all as saying, dismissively, that the British army had been defeated. 
 
As of June 1940 the British had 500,000 men under arms, and the figure was growing quickly. Less than half that number were in France in May.
 
The 'spearhead' at 2nd Alamein, insofar as there was one, was arguably Australian/New Zealander. Again if you'd don't onsider them 'Brits' you're fundamentally mistaking the historical atmosphere of the 1940s.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 01:56
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Like too many people you exaggerate the importance of armies. Moreover Germany had hardly defeated the British army in France, but merely an expeditionary force. Britain was stll only partially mobilised.  Where do you think the army that defeated Rommel came from?

Germany defeated the British army in France. Over 300,000 survivors were rescued, sans heavy and light weapons.  The army that defeated Rommel was Brits, Greeks, New Zealanders, Free French, Australians, South Africans, Indians, Poles, Nepales, French Foreign Legion. As you say, prior to this the UK was not mobilized in full.
 
No it didn't (not strategically anyway). Germany defeated France (which had 6 million men, 5k planes and 4k tanks, all more than what Germany had) and the small 300k British force was not instrumental in either defeat nor its weight would have mattered in victory.
 
The Bulk of the British army/navy/air force (1.5 million men by June 40) was safely out of France in Palestine, NA and more importantly India. Even when one explore's the equipment myth, that the British lost all their equipment in France, he will discover that that the army (let alone the RAF and the RN) was stil well equipped in Britain and the British industrial production back then was the greatest in the world (far outstripping the 40 year old horse drawn WWI army of the Germans) and compensated for all the loss by the end of 1940.
 
As for the contribution of allies to the war effort in NA, it was almost negligible.
 
 
Finally to losses (Using Karl Heinz Frieser's numbers). Excepting the 51st highlanders all Britains 12 divisions returned home safely and organisationally unscathed. Only 5k died and 30k WIA/MIA/POW in the French campaign and most of them enlisted. The casualty rate was the lowest among the British. 
 
For the Germans the battle was farthest from being a cakewalk. 49k men were killed alone and 150k WIA (which is actually more than the losses during the comperable period of Barbarossa believe it or not). Entire divisions were savagely mauled reaching loss rates that were common only during the eastern front battles. Equipment losses were just as damaging. The Luftwaffe already lost a third of its strength by the end of the battle and would lose half the remainder in the Battle of Britain. 1500 tanks were alost written off and most of the remainder had to be refitted and in anyway it would be late 1943 until Germany oustrips Britain in tank production
 
In other words, Germany lost the war before it began.
 
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

(Any way it was the RN and the RAF that frustrated Hitler, and forced him not just to go east, but to go east while efficiently and effectively blockaded in the west and south by a power that was already producing more aircraft than Germany (let alone what it was buying from the US).


 Neither the RN or the RAF made Hitler invade the Soviet Union.
 
If Hitler didn't invade the USSR in June 41 Stalin would have invaded Germany by summer 42. It was that simple. Plus even a preemptive strike in 42 would have been useless because by then the Stalin line would not only have been as good as the Maginot line, it would have been fully manned. Not to mention the fact that the red army would have completed its reforms (officers who were caught by the war while been trained in the various academies were kept in those academies despite the desparate shortage) and not only brought all its units up to full strength in men and material, but also replaced some "obselete" equipment like the KV-1s (which were better than anything the Germans had then) with modern ones like the T-34 (of which 2500 served in 41). There was simply no way that the German industrial strength (still producing the obselete Panzer IIs as late as 1944) would have caught up with the Russians not to mention all the good German weapons won't be in the front before 44.
 
 
1941 was the best time for a preemptive strike. The red army was still a mess after Finland. Retraining of officers was in full swing. Most soldiers were impressed to do civilian construction work and had no time training. Had the German generals had their way Moscow would have indeed fallen but Hitler considered this his personal war and interfered with the battle shifting entire field armies left and right losing precious days and much equipment in the process.
 
Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 22 Feb 2012 at 01:59
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 04:29
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

@buckskins
So far everything you've listed merely supports my original statement. A small British expeditionary force was defeated in May 1940 by immensely superior forces. Nearly all of the troops escaped. Not the same thing at all as saying, dismissively, that the British army had been defeated.

  Sir Henry Pownall, the Chief of Staff of the BEF in 1940, thought that Britain's defeat at Dunkirk 


Let me amend that. 3/5ths of the British Army were beaten by a portion of the Wehrmacht in France. The other 2/5ths were what? Why don't you just admit you were thrashed by the Wehrmacht, who btw were the best in the world at time. There was no place left to run to. When guys are being hauled across the Channel in anything that floats, it's not escaping. It's being rescued. It was the boats or a POW camp.
 
As of June 1940 the British had 500,000 men under arms, and the figure was growing quickly. Less than half that number were in France in May.
 
The 'spearhead' at 2nd Alamein, insofar as there was one, was arguably Australian/New Zealander. Again if you'd don't onsider them 'Brits' you're fundamentally mistaking the historical atmosphere of the 1940s.

Oh I understand the "atmosphere of the times " good enough. The Indians that gave their lives in North Africa were not even given a grave marker. Why was it not named the British/Commonwealth 8th Army, or something similar. The same with the British 14th Army where Brits were actually a minority. To take credit where it is not due is not an honorable path to national glory.

Lets agree to disagree. 



Edited by Buckskins - 22 Feb 2012 at 04:37
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
banna32 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Location: texas
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote banna32 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jul 2013 at 13:38
batle of berlin
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2013 at 11:51

One  of them will be certainly Battle of Warsaw 1920 between invading Red Army and Polish Army. It stoped Bolsheviks in their conquest of Europe.

Refer to Adam Zamoyski "Warsaw 1920-Lenin Failed Conquest of Europe"

Back to Top
banna32 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Location: texas
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote banna32 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2013 at 00:06

battle of jutland  German navy was defeted but deystored a few Britch Dredknots

Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2013 at 12:47
Originally posted by banna32 banna32 wrote:

battle of jutland  German navy was defeted but deystored a few Britch Dredknots

It was not a decisive battle. Either side claimed victory but the battle did not change anything in the strategic position of Imperial German Navy or British Royal Navy.

It was a strategic draw but very limited tactical  victory of German Navy.

Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2013 at 12:59
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

[QUOTE=Buckskins] 
 
1941 was the best time for a preemptive strike. The red army was still a mess after Finland. Retraining of officers was in full swing. Most soldiers were impressed to do civilian construction work and had no time training. Had the German generals had their way Moscow would have indeed fallen but Hitler considered this his personal war and interfered with the battle shifting entire field armies left and right losing precious days and much equipment in the process.
 
Al-Jassas

We can hardly call German attack "a pre-emptive strike".

It was an attack which was planned by Hitler years before (Refer to Mein Kampf). It does not matter what Stalin will do, the Barbarossa will be implemented. It was Herr Hitler lifelong dream to destroy Soviet Union and the political system Soviet Union represented.

 Barbarossa was not a pre-emptive strike, it was a fulfilment of Hitler dream about  German lebensraum in the east.

Back to Top
doskinas View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 05 Mar 2019
Status: Offline
Points: 17
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote doskinas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 May 2019 at 05:42

I would have to go with these two the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Midway. 

As someone mentioned here already the battle of Stalingrad turned the tide 180 degrees in favor of the allies. For one thousands of Hitlers best men were surrounded and left to starve and freeze to death. Taking a chunk of their army capabilities. Secondly the failure to capture the so much needed oil fields would have allowed Hitler to continue war for a very long period of time. And even maybe invade British colonies in the East and cutting off the English oil supplies. Probably turning the tied in Axis favor. However all was lots, resources were dwindling and with renewed Russian spirit the war was lost. 

As for battle of Midway I think it is equally important. It was a decisive naval battle that turned the tied for the allied forces against the Japanese empire. By destroying 4 Japanese carriers and only loosing one allowed Americans to gain a clear advantage in the waters. Furthermore Japan was industrially outstripped and unable to rebuild its naval forces quickly, giving the American Navy all the needed advantages to win the war.

Historia - worlds 1st consensus-based historical record storage blockchain. Historia Website
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.