With regards to Hitler:
If he had done as you asked, they quite likely would never have invaded. The GGS was extreemly hesitant to fight. None of them were what we call a prime-mover.
What was the most pivotal battle of WW2?
Moderator: maddog986
wow
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Well yes the General staff were not to thrilled with a lot of Hitlers policies. Most don't realise they were trying to get him killed on several occasions even before war broke out.
Buuuuut, if he had told them look we are attacking, and not insisted on telling them how to do their job, it would have been greatly different.
The diversion south during the initial invasion was Hitler's meddling, and Stalingrad would not have happened if Hitler hadn't been sticking his untrained nose into the battlefield.
Buuuuut, if he had told them look we are attacking, and not insisted on telling them how to do their job, it would have been greatly different.
The diversion south during the initial invasion was Hitler's meddling, and Stalingrad would not have happened if Hitler hadn't been sticking his untrained nose into the battlefield.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Gyblin you need to explain why Normandy was great though.
Come on dude a claim is just a waste of post space unless you expand upon it:)
Lets hear your points man. Prove your case eh:)
A key aspect of the Normandy landing to me, was how Patton had gotten thrown in the doghouse earlier, and as such wasn't the star player and as such had no influence over the landing.
He wanted to land at Calais, a choice that would have been a BAD one.
The Allies had to land somewhere and had to eventually land as well. It was more a matter of when.
I have seen alot of studies of what 43 might have looked like.
45 of course would have been pointless, Russia would have likely been already have done with Germany by then.
As for tying down important units, well most are unaware but France was a place Germany sent it's units to rest from having the tar beat out of them by the Russians.
Sadly it doesn't impress vets much, but we went ashore against a foe with no sea power and air power that wasn't worth comment. His units were all second rate on the coast on the actual day, and were mostly static.
What good units were present, operated under complete and total allied air attack. The only edge Germany had was the bocage.
Come on dude a claim is just a waste of post space unless you expand upon it:)
Lets hear your points man. Prove your case eh:)
A key aspect of the Normandy landing to me, was how Patton had gotten thrown in the doghouse earlier, and as such wasn't the star player and as such had no influence over the landing.
He wanted to land at Calais, a choice that would have been a BAD one.
The Allies had to land somewhere and had to eventually land as well. It was more a matter of when.
I have seen alot of studies of what 43 might have looked like.
45 of course would have been pointless, Russia would have likely been already have done with Germany by then.
As for tying down important units, well most are unaware but France was a place Germany sent it's units to rest from having the tar beat out of them by the Russians.
Sadly it doesn't impress vets much, but we went ashore against a foe with no sea power and air power that wasn't worth comment. His units were all second rate on the coast on the actual day, and were mostly static.
What good units were present, operated under complete and total allied air attack. The only edge Germany had was the bocage.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
No need to explain my man.Just look at a what if scenario.What if the normandy assault failed and the germans succefuly broke all of our forces there.Probably would have looked like another dunkirk with us trying to get survors out.Then we would have the political fallout of the masive human loss.Im not sure what would have happen but it wouldnt have been pretty.Im not sure how easy it would be to tell the american people how all there sons were kiled in the first assault and that we needed more for a second.PLus the MORALE boost for germany would be incredible.Pivatol-hell yes.No beach,no land campaign.End explanation.
...No airpower??
What! No airpower?!Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
a foe with no sea power and air power
They had two fighters over the beaches making one strafing run on D-Day! Isn't that some serious airpower?:D
--Mikko
Not so much a battle as a raid, but the Doolittle raid on Japan in the B-25s. It caused Japan to divert two carriers from the South Pacific to cover the operations in the Aleutians, which was a direct response to the Doolittle raid....I don't think that the Japanese really did have any idea where the raid came from, but the Alueutians seemed the best bet at the time. The flow-on effect in the south pacific was that Japan was short the Junyo and the Ryujo, these two carriers would have made all the differance at Midway.
Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Good point Raverdave.
To follow up the comment about "if Normandy had failed", good point. Of course it was possible.
The allies went ashore at Omaha and we all know the pounding that beach took the first few hours. If Omaha had crumbled the whole beachhead would be in a good piece of trouble.
The 12th SS could have sat in the gap on D+2 and been quite a boulder to dislodge. They gave us Canadians quite a time even still with the historical outcome.
The most gauling thing about a failed landing though, would have been that 3 nations with fresh troops, complete air cover, and beaches that had no naval opposition worth comment, could have failed.
It would have been a very dark day indeed. Not entirely sure what the Germans would have done with it. They wouldn't magically generate formations just because the Allies assault was crushed.
Long term result would most likely have been a war that lasted perhaps 2 more years, with an iron curtain that was right to the borders of Italy and France.
I say this because, Russia would not have stopped pounding Germany. And odds are the Allies would have had to settle for coming onto the continent through Italy and southern France.
Talk of another landing won't sell. They went ashore in June because that's when the tides told them they would. Landing elsewhere would not suddenly become viable out of necessity.
The Germans would still have the armour they produced for the winter offensive of the Bulge. But that armour was only made famous for the way they squandered it. It would not get much press fighting the Russians who had a great deal more. The Russians would likely just not waste so much material trashing Berlin. It would be spent trashing German armour.
To follow up the comment about "if Normandy had failed", good point. Of course it was possible.
The allies went ashore at Omaha and we all know the pounding that beach took the first few hours. If Omaha had crumbled the whole beachhead would be in a good piece of trouble.
The 12th SS could have sat in the gap on D+2 and been quite a boulder to dislodge. They gave us Canadians quite a time even still with the historical outcome.
The most gauling thing about a failed landing though, would have been that 3 nations with fresh troops, complete air cover, and beaches that had no naval opposition worth comment, could have failed.
It would have been a very dark day indeed. Not entirely sure what the Germans would have done with it. They wouldn't magically generate formations just because the Allies assault was crushed.
Long term result would most likely have been a war that lasted perhaps 2 more years, with an iron curtain that was right to the borders of Italy and France.
I say this because, Russia would not have stopped pounding Germany. And odds are the Allies would have had to settle for coming onto the continent through Italy and southern France.
Talk of another landing won't sell. They went ashore in June because that's when the tides told them they would. Landing elsewhere would not suddenly become viable out of necessity.
The Germans would still have the armour they produced for the winter offensive of the Bulge. But that armour was only made famous for the way they squandered it. It would not get much press fighting the Russians who had a great deal more. The Russians would likely just not waste so much material trashing Berlin. It would be spent trashing German armour.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Hmmmmm. Its my understanding that the Alueutians 'adventure' (Operation AO) was as much a diversion to draw the US Navy out as was the planned invasion of Midway itself.Originally posted by Raverdave
Not so much a battle as a raid, but the Doolittle raid on Japan in the B-25s. It caused Japan to divert two carriers from the South Pacific to cover the operations in the Aleutians, which was a direct response to the Doolittle raid....I don't think that the Japanese really did have any idea where the raid came from, but the Alueutians seemed the best bet at the time. The flow-on effect in the south pacific was that Japan was short the Junyo and the Ryujo, these two carriers would have made all the differance at Midway.
Every book I've read states that the Japanese knew the B-25s came from carriers. Maybe not right away, but soon afterward, hence the Midway plan (Operation MO) to destroy the US carriers and remaining fleet.
The lack of two carriers at Midway was due to the Battle of the Coral Sea in which the air crews of the Zuikaku and Shokaku were so badly mauled the two carriers were unable to participate in the Midway plan. Also the light carrier Shoho was sunk.
Peux Ce Que Veux
in den vereinigten staaten hergestellt
in den vereinigten staaten hergestellt
Re: ...No airpower??
Could have been an almost complete Jagdgeschwader in 1945...Originally posted by msaario
They had two fighters over the beaches making one strafing run on D-Day! Isn't that some serious airpower?
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.
Lord Acton
Lord Acton
Re: ...No airpower??
They did a good job protraying it in the movie The Longest Day!Originally posted by msaario
They had two fighters over the beaches making one strafing run on D-Day! Isn't that some serious airpower?:D
Peux Ce Que Veux
in den vereinigten staaten hergestellt
in den vereinigten staaten hergestellt
Certainly the Aleutian op was also to protect the "North-west" flank, but from my limited reading on the subject, this was as a response to the Doolittle raid, if nothing more than to complete the oceanic perimeter.Originally posted by CCB
Hmmmmm. Its my understanding that the Alueutians 'adventure' (Operation AO) was as much a diversion to draw the US Navy out as was the planned invasion of Midway itself. The Japanese were not sure that the raid did come from a carrier, but nor could they rule out the attack being launched from the Aleutians.
The Japanese were not sure that the raid did come from a carrier, but nor could they rule out the attack being launched from the Aleutians.
Every book I've read states that the Japanese knew the B-25s came from carriers. Maybe not right away, but soon afterward, hence the Midway plan (Operation MO) to destroy the US carriers and remaining fleet.
The lack of two carriers at Midway was due to the Battle of the Coral Sea in which the air crews of the Zuikaku and Shokaku were so badly mauled the two carriers were unable to participate in the Midway plan. Also the light carrier Shoho was sunk.
Well if we then presume that Coral Sea didn't happen then there would have been 8 IJN carriers against the USN, but Coral sea did happen, so now we are down to a possible six carriers....two of which were being used "up-north"....leaving only 4 carriers to face off against the USN. Indeed...the Junyo and the Ryujo, were supposed to sail south to cover the withdrawl of what remained of the fleet at Midway. This was decided against as the attack in the aleutians was going so well.....better to have at least one victory than none.
So my question then is this.....IF Doolittles raid had not been successful....or even launched at all.....would the Japanese have still attacked in the Aleutians? Which then begs the question....would not Junyo and Ryujo have been used at Midway?
Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
-
Admiral DadMan
- Posts: 3402
- Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Yes, the Japanese would still have attacked in the Aleutians.Originally posted by Raverdave
Certainly the Aleutian op was also to protect the "North-west" flank, but from my limited reading on the subject, this was as a response to the Doolittle raid, if nothing more than to complete the oceanic perimeter.
The Japanese were not sure that the raid did come from a carrier, but nor could they rule out the attack being launched from the Aleutians.
Well if we then presume that Coral Sea didn't happen then there would have been 8 IJN carriers against the USN, but Coral sea did happen, so now we are down to a possible six carriers....two of which were being used "up-north"....leaving only 4 carriers to face off against the USN. Indeed...the Junyo and the Ryujo, were supposed to sail south to cover the withdrawl of what remained of the fleet at Midway. This was decided against as the attack in the aleutians was going so well.....better to have at least one victory than none.
So my question then is this.....IF Doolittles raid had not been successful....or even launched at all.....would the Japanese have still attacked in the Aleutians? Which then begs the question....would not Junyo and Ryujo have been used at Midway?
The thrust into the Aleutians was a diversionary one to draw the US fleet away from Midway, and to anchor their "Ribbon Defense" that was to run through Midway.
The Japanese loved diversion as a tactic of surprise with fleets popping up out of nowhere, etc. Their plan was to secure Midway, and the annihiliate the US Fleet when it came rushing back from the feint in the Aleutians.
The 2 Carriers to cover the Northern Force were assigned to support that movement. Had the IJN not also attacked the Aleutians, I'm not sure how else they would have employed those 2 carriers. It's possible that they could have diverted them to the 8th Army (South Pacific) Area.Which then begs the question....would not Junyo and Ryujo have been used at Midway?
The Japanese violated the Principles of Objective and Economy of Force on both ends of the spectrum in their Midway plan.
Objective: Was it to take Midway, or to draw out the US? It was both, but both were addressed as one, not as separates.
Economy of Force: 4 Fleet CVs to pound a tiny outpost atoll is overkill. A better plan might have been to establish air superiority, let the CVLs pound the installations, and keep the CVs in reserve to meet any sea-borne threat from the US.
Additionally, 1 CVL was with Yamamoto's Main Body, and 1 CVL was with the Support Force approaching from the WSW.
The Midway (Operation AI) was originally planned for July/Aug 42. It was the Doolittle Raid that pushed it up. SHOKAKU was out for 3 months due to battle damage at Coral Sea. ZUIKAKU was not available for a few months because her airgroups had been decimated. If the original date had been kept, she may have been ready with a refurbished compliment.
Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
Yes, the Japanese would still have attacked in the Aleutians.
The thrust into the Aleutians was a diversionary one to draw the US fleet away from Midway, and to anchor their "Ribbon Defense" that was to run through Midway.
The Japanese loved diversion as a tactic of surprise with fleets popping up out of nowhere, etc. Their plan was to secure Midway, and the annihiliate the US Fleet when it came rushing back from the feint in the Aleutians.
The 2 Carriers to cover the Northern Force were assigned to support that movement. Had the IJN not also attacked the Aleutians, I'm not sure how else they would have employed those 2 carriers. It's possible that they could have diverted them to the 8th Army (South Pacific) Area.
The Japanese violated the Principles of Objective and Economy of Force on both ends of the spectrum in their Midway plan.
Objective: Was it to take Midway, or to draw out the US? It was both, but both were addressed as one, not as separates.
Economy of Force: 4 Fleet CVs to pound a tiny outpost atoll is overkill. A better plan might have been to establish air superiority, let the CVLs pound the installations, and keep the CVs in reserve to meet any sea-borne threat from the US.
Additionally, 1 CVL was with Yamamoto's Main Body, and 1 CVL was with the Support Force approaching from the WSW.
The Midway (Operation AI) was originally planned for July/Aug 42. It was the Doolittle Raid that pushed it up. SHOKAKU was out for 3 months due to battle damage at Coral Sea. ZUIKAKU was not available for a few months because her airgroups had been decimated. If the original date had been kept, she may have been ready with a refurbished compliment.
Good points.
Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Gyblin I would of course participate on your thread.
But you will have trouble with the focus part. Additionally you will have trouble getting posters to elaborate.
Example, Rune just offered three choices, but Rune you only mentioned three battles with no reason why you like them.
We wargamers all know those three battles obviously, but what is not clear is what you have to say about them.
I build models for instance. If asked to state which one I liked best, Saying Sherman would of course identify a model I liked, but sure wouldn't say why.
Would it be because the model has been sooooo done to death that the variations on type are almost virtually endless. Would it be that a specific company did a major job on a fine example. Is it a matter of price, cause you can find shermans in all price ranges. Or difficulty level, because you can go from raw beginner to master craftsman.
So come on you guys, if you are going to offer up a post, show us you know your material eh:) This is your moment to bask i n the sun, and get use out of all those books you have read.
But you will have trouble with the focus part. Additionally you will have trouble getting posters to elaborate.
Example, Rune just offered three choices, but Rune you only mentioned three battles with no reason why you like them.
We wargamers all know those three battles obviously, but what is not clear is what you have to say about them.
I build models for instance. If asked to state which one I liked best, Saying Sherman would of course identify a model I liked, but sure wouldn't say why.
Would it be because the model has been sooooo done to death that the variations on type are almost virtually endless. Would it be that a specific company did a major job on a fine example. Is it a matter of price, cause you can find shermans in all price ranges. Or difficulty level, because you can go from raw beginner to master craftsman.
So come on you guys, if you are going to offer up a post, show us you know your material eh:) This is your moment to bask i n the sun, and get use out of all those books you have read.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
lol, sorry, was in the processing of beating up my computer, which was in the process of acting up
Battle of Britain- I would just have to say, kinda turned the balanca of power all flip flop. Allowing the allies control on the skies, which gave them eventual control of the seas and land.
Stalingrad- this one fairly obvious. bang bang, boom boom.
Kursk- similarly. maybe not one of the most pivitol, but surely an important battle. what were the numbers? they were huge, showed (in a really big way) that german armour didn't really live up to it's fame.
Battle of Britain- I would just have to say, kinda turned the balanca of power all flip flop. Allowing the allies control on the skies, which gave them eventual control of the seas and land.
Stalingrad- this one fairly obvious. bang bang, boom boom.
Kursk- similarly. maybe not one of the most pivitol, but surely an important battle. what were the numbers? they were huge, showed (in a really big way) that german armour didn't really live up to it's fame.
Sorry sarge.I cant crank the details on numbers and such.Although i do read alot of ww2 books and such.Im only willing to give my opinion from what i know which apparantly isnt as much as you do.I know alot was on the line at normandy and although everyone here has brought up good points to why i proabably didnt matter.i still think the loss of 175,000 troops would have been a crushing defeat for the allies.
Originally posted by GYBLIN
i still think the loss of 175,000 troops would have been a crushing defeat for the allies.
Indeed it would have been....out of interest, I just wonder what the cut-off point was, in lives lost, for abandoning the invasion.....anyone know?
Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.