The Most Important Battle Of WW2

[Uesugi Kenshin]

IIRC It was a lot of Uranium, I am not sure if it was refined though. It was probably U 238 to be refined into U235 which is weapons grade.

I don't think the Japanese could have attacked the US at the time though, it was extremely late in the war and iirc the Germans had already surrendered. It would have more likely been used against any soldiers that attacked the Japanese home islands.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Ah, I see. The crew didn't know that they were carrying it did they, least not the enlisted men?

It would still be a pretty slim chance that they would pull off the attack.

[discovery1]

It wasn't enough material to actually create a nuke. Instead, it was enough to create a Nuclear Waste Bomb; the explosion would be convesional, but the after-effects would render an area uninhabitable for decades. There was also materials for a working Kamikaze Jet to carry it, IIRC.

The plan was to sneak over to the US Coast in one of their Submarine/Aircraft Carriers. There's alot of speculation on where the would have attacked; at this point it would have been best to cause some pain in the Civilian population (the plan for the japs at this point was to make the US suffer so much in the war that they simply called it off, and let Japan surrender conditionally).

Didn't the Japanese develope some ballons that would be relased, drift across the pacific, and release their bombs based on a timer? I think at least a few were launched, although the winds were wrong and they unloaded their payloads in uninhabited areas.

[Gregoshi]

I think you are right about the balloon bombs discovery1, though I seem to recall there was one incident where the bombs may have caused injury or death. My memory on it is fuzzy.

[The Stranger]

i voted, stalingrad, but i also thinkThe battle of britain was very important. if germany had succeeded, america would never have fought in europe. i also so think that if russia wasnt communist, America would never have came too. this is not against the soldiers (who did a great job, they're my heroes) but against the goverment.

[Franconicus]

Was there ever a chance Germany could win this battle?

[The Stranger]

well when they started. if they didnt ivaded russia the russia they might have won. but i dont know that for sure

[IliaDN]

well when they started. if they didnt ivaded russia the russia they might have won. but i dont know that for sure

If you use capitol letters it would be nice.
IMHO invading USSR was somekind of a preventive attack, as some historians say.

[clayton ballentine]

The Allies forced there way through Italy and captured Rome in the early June. Italy surrendered, but German troops stubbornly kept fighting. On the eastern front, the siege of Leningrad ended as the soviets drove the Nazis back. Soviet troops finally entered Germany itself in October. In the pacific, United states forces continued to island hop, moving closer to Japan with every island taken. The U.S. Navy led the way to winning back the Pacific. The Battle of the Philippine Sea in June was the greatest carrier engagement of the war.

Source: World War II battles and leaders

[master of the puppets]

I think you are right about the balloon bombs discovery1, though I seem to recall there was one incident where the bombs may have caused injury or death. My memory on it is fuzzy.

your correct Gregoshi, the japanese decided to launch something like 10 balloons loaded with bombs and poisons destined to reach the U.S.
it was only a test but it failed, one landed in alaska and was discovered 4 years after the war ended with no ill effects. the only damage they did was that one landed in mexico and killed 3 people with poison. the rest went MIA and are probably at the bottom of the pacific.

stalin was'nt scared shitless of germany, he trusted them, dispite warnings from his advisors.

[RabidGibbon]

Voted Stalingrad, russian comeback, germans 6th army destroyed blah blah (ie: all the reasons discussed above). I don't think the Germans could have won at Kursk the way things played out, but there was (iirc) a plan to attack a few months earlier (ie: before the russians had built a miles deep system of fortifications) than they actually did which could have worked out better.

I think at the time of the actual attack Guderian (or was it Manstien, I always get those two confused) wanted to hold his panzers in reserve for a counterattack. (Similar to one he pulled off earlier in the year at Kharkov?)

Would have been nice I think to see Imphal & Kohima (Both as one slot, they were similtaneous sieges) up there. I think they were just as important as some of the pacific battles.

[Marquis of Roland]

He most certainly didn't. The greatest fear he had was being attacked by germany. Even after Barbarossa, he was afraid to act until he got intelligence confirming that the Japanese wouldn't attack his eastern front.

I agree.

Stalin was a pretty paranoid dude. Hitler was a pretty crazy dude. Stalin knew that. Paranoid dudes usually don't trust anyone, much less a crazy dude with a powerful army that just wiped out a significant modern country (France).

Still, I think Stalin WANTED to trust Hitler. Maybe he lied to himself to a certain degree.....

Japan....

I read somewhere that the total carriers produced during the war for Japan was something like 7, and the Americans made 100+. So I guess the real question is, HAD the Japanese destroyed the ENTIRE Pacific Fleet at Pearl, how long would it have taken them to land an expeditionary army in California?
Some general back then said at the time of Pearl Harbor, had the Japanese invaded the west coast, that the US wouldn't have been able to stop them till they reached as far as Chicago. But if the Japanese invaded California maybe six months later, there would have been at least some sort of resistance.

Japanese fighting through the American Southwest and Plains? I drove cross country during college several times. That is over 1500 miles across of perfect tank country. Considering how shitty Japanese tanks were, no way they would have made it to even Vegas unless of course they had complete air superiority.....which they may or may not have

I voted for Stalingrad by the way. Too many "What if such and such won this battle...." talk, I think the way everything panned out in the end, Stalingrad was probably the most SIGNIFICANT turning point. Its not everyday that a hundreds-thousands strong war machine gets wiped off the face of the earth. Add in the prestige value also.

The Western Allies probably wouldn't have won without the Russians, I mean, that was where the two biggest armies from each side duked it out in a massive slugfest. The Western Front paled in comparison. They should teach more about the Eastern Front in school, actually.

Hey Panzer, who do you think would have won if it was JUST Germany vs. US?

[Kraxis]

My vote: Stalingrad

There are several battles that would have ended in a German victory had it been won, the battle of the Atlantic and BoB for instance. But Stalingrad was a victory of another sort.

It proved to the Russians that they could match the Germans in warefforts. The Germans were not invincible (the winter campaign had been as much a disaster for the Russians as it had been a German one). Suddenly the Germans lost a battle of important size and position (the flank of the German efforts in the south). Russian soldiers were envigourated by this, they believed that their slowly increasing training was finally paying off.

It was an awakening of the public, one that could easily have been shaken had they suffered another Kiev, or big encirclement. That didn't happen and as such the bonus of Stalingrad played on until the war ended.

Don't make the mistake in believing that Stalingrad made the war a turningpoint in that Germany had now lost for certain. Stalingrad evened the odds, and Kursk settled the matter. But a Kursk hadn't happened without a Stalingrad.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I recall that Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto said that "You cannot invade the United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

I believe it would have been impossible for the Japanese to invade the mainland US. It would have been thousands of miles from their supply centers, and right at the doorstep of American industry, military, etc.

Crazed Rabbit

[Grey_Fox]

Japanese fighting through the American Southwest and Plains? I drove cross country during college several times. That is over 1500 miles across of perfect tank country. Considering how shitty Japanese tanks were, no way they would have made it to even Vegas unless of course they had complete air superiority.....which they may or may not have

American army was small and poorly trained in December 1941. The Chicago estimate is not unreasonable.

[CBR]

Japan was in no position to invade USA. They didnt have many troops to spare for such an adventure nor did they have capacity to keep such a long supply line. Even the Midway invasion was meant to be temporary as they couldnt keep the island supplied.


CBR

[Kraxis]

The Japanese had no real intentions of fighting in America, certainly not invading. They wanted a superb position at the negotiation table. How does one do that? Well you strip your enemy of all arms to reach you with, in this case the US Pacific Fleet. Then you gobble up his prized and exposed positions, the Philippines, Guam ect ect. When he understands that a war then will be far too costly and not even a certain victory, you offer him 'generous' terms, which he will jump at after a long sting of stingy (if not too costly in life) defeats.

Was this faulty? Well, we don't know. It sounds very much the real case doesn't it? So why didn't it work? Because the Japanese didn't bag the flattops at Pearl. And of course they didn't achieve their long string of victories. Even the relatively minor setback at Port Moresby was enough to cause a major hickup in the war effort.
So had the flattops been wiped out at Pearl and the Japanese had been able to run rampant across the Pacific there is a chance that the Isolationists would have said: "See what happens when we meddle in other people's business. Let's just look to our own affairs."
Remember that the 'US is best' thought was not yet formed, and the Isolationists were strong. A generous term to the war might have been very interesting.

But we can't know... Can we now.

[sharrukin]

American army was small and poorly trained in December 1941. The Chicago estimate is not unreasonable.

"On 7 December 1941 the Army consisted of 1,685,403 men (including 275,889 in the Air Corps) in 29 infantry, five armor, and two cavalry divisions. While this 435 percent increase was a magnificent achievement, shortages of equipment and trained personnel were still serious.

Over the following three and a half years the Army expanded a further 492 percent, to 8,291,336 men in 89 divisions: sixty-six infantry, five airborne, sixteen armored, one cavalry, and one mountain infantry."

This doesn't include the well armed American population who might have objected to the Japanese presence.

[Krusader]

I pick Midway. Had the Japanese gotten lucky and taken out the American carriers and we had not lost any, I think it would have taken a while for us to get them back.

Europe on the other hand...lots of battles to choose from. Tough for me to pick just one. Moscow when the Germans ran out of gas. [B)Their first defeat.[/B] After that the Russians were just gearing up to win with numbers. It worked...but what a price.

Stalingrad when the Germans lost so many infantry.

Kursk when the Panzers were smashed. No more flexible defence (ala Manstein's counter stroke after Operation Uranus and its follow on [can't remember the name]).

Azi

First defeat was in Narvik, when Norwegian, British and Polish troops forced the Germans on the defensive and forced them to a hill near the Swedish border. Although this was not a total defeat.

I would say Midway, as that seriously hampered the offensive capabilities of the Japanese Navy, which allowed USA to go on the offensive there and at the same time spend more resources on the European theatre of war. Although Stalingrad and El Alamein come in as second and third. Both battles provided a big morale boost for the Soviet & British troops.

[PanzerJaeger]

Hey Panzer, who do you think would have won if it was JUST Germany vs. US?

With the eastern front non-existent, either with the USSR defeated or simply not invaded and neutral, the other allies would have never made it on the continent, let alone just America.

The luftwaffe would be significantly stronger, but more importantly America would not be able to land on the continent like on D-day. Even without air superiority and with the strategic bombing campaigns, Germany would have plenty of reserves to fight off an amphibious invasion.

Thats my opinion anyway.

[Tribesman]

but more importantly America would not be able to land on the continent like on D-day.
Which leads nicely into an overlooked but absolutely vital battle of WWII , the battle of the Atlantic , if the Axis had won that Battle (campaign)there would be no supplies to Russia into Murmansk/Archangel, no supplies to Britain at all and no US army coming to Europe or N.Africa

[Azi Tohak]

but more importantly America would not be able to land on the continent like on D-day.
Which leads nicely into an overlooked but absolutely vital battle of WWII , the battle of the Atlantic , if the Axis had won that Battle (campaign)there would be no supplies to Russia into Murmansk/Archangel, no supplies to Britain at all and no US army coming to Europe or N.Africa

Which is true... but how close did Germany actually come to winning that fight? I know for a while, it was very tough, but could Germany have won it?

Azi

[CBR]

Well the Germans could have started on their advanced uboats sooner. They started seriously thinking about that in late '42 and it took 2 1/2 years before the type XXI was ready for action. But the new uboat was based on testbeds and research that might not have been accelerated so easily. So the question is how much sooner could they have made a XXI like uboat... maybe 1-2 years.

Advanced torpedoes didnt turn out to be able to change that much for the Germans, so the advanced uboat was really the only thing that could have changed the situation. Type XXI was fast underwater and deadly but still required a snorkel and AFAIK the allied radar technology could detect such snorkels. It would still have meant slow movement for the uboats and it would have limited their effect so IMO I doubt it would really have turned the Atlantic war but might have postponed the result for a year and forced the allies to keep focusing on their shipbuilding and ASW.

But if Germany had focused a lot more on making uboats they might have been able to defeat UK in summer of '42


CBR

[Kraxis]

The Battle of the Atlantic would not have developed so fast as to strangle Russia from the other Allies. That is simply too soon. After 41 the supplies sent were simply 'nice' to get, but no longer vital for the Russian forces.

But the Germans could perhaps have gotten the XXI out in 43 if they had concentrated on it's research rather than on heavy tanks (and letting the industry pour out updated Panzer 4 instead). That would have made a very serious impact on the critical battles of spring 43, and possibly the Germans could have won. Several hundred XXIs would be a serious bump on the road to Britain.

Of course Germany could also have concentrated more on the subs as soon as the war began, but I fail to see where the incentive for that would come from, they were already winning. We are lucky in that we have hindsight to help us.

[The Stranger]

hmmm, i think the most fatal mistake of Germany was invading russia. it cracked them up.

[Tribesman]

After 41 the supplies sent were simply 'nice' to get, but no longer vital for the Russian forces.
Kraxis , essential is the word , not "nice" , without the huge quantities of metals , chemicals , machinery and transport infrastructure that was sent to the USSR there would have been no real viable Russian arms industry and no way to transport what they could have produced , not to mention the many millions of tons of foodstuffs which sustained the population .

[Kraxis]

They were vital early on, very vital. But by the time the German subs would have gotten strong enough to close the lanes (remember we are talking a German victory in the Atlantic) the supplies was turning out to be very well liked and a major help to get the Russians to concentrate on building war materiel. Without it they would have suffered more, but it is not likely that they would have lost because of it. By that time their own industry was up and running, and losing snother couple of million civilians? They could care less, after all all the men were out fighting so it was only the weak and old left. The industries would of course get the priority of food so no impact there.

The result would be heavier losses in life, but the war would play out much like it did.

[Mount Suribachi]

One shouldn't forget that the US sent most of their supplies to Russia over the pacific - with the ships under the russian flag. They sailed within easy reach of Japan, but the Japanese didn't attack them (despite repeated requests from Germany) because they were scared of provoking Russia into declaring war on them.

The numbers for the amount of material supplied to Russia by America from 43-45 is staggering. Quite literally hundreds of thousands of trucks and locomotives and multitudes of other things. So Russia could concentrate their factories on building the tanks and guns and planes they needed.

[Mount Suribachi]

Which is true... but how close did Germany actually come to winning that fight? I know for a while, it was very tough, but could Germany have won it?

Azi

Not once the Americans came into the war. The funny thing about the battle of the Atlantic is that it was so one-sided for so long in favour of the Germans, but in one month a succession of things on the allied side won it decisevly for them. Long range patrol planes, escort carriers, better sonar, better radar, cracking German codes, better tactics, huge numbers of victory ships being produced every month...Its the same story as in so many areas of the war, early German dominance being reversed as their opponents learn from their mistakes, develop better weapons, and do so with an ever-increasing advantage in numbers.

[Don Corleone]

I picked the Coral Sea. This was a desparate gamble for the American Navy. Had it failed, the United States would have had to restructure the Navy, pulling much needed resources out of the Atlantic theater. Had they done that, U-boat attacks would have continued to grow in effectiveness, virtually removing the American supply lines from the Allies in Europe. No 2nd front in North Africa means no victory at Stalingrad. Also, if we had lost this battle, the Japanese advance to Australia would not have been checked, and it's very likely that the Japanese would have overtaken much of Australia within 18 months.

I know it's not as exciting to read about as Midway, Stalingrad or others, but in terms of what was riding on it, it was the single most important battle of the war.