History's most decisive battles

[Skyryder]

Been off line for a few days decorating the office etc. Done be a bit of reading to fill in time in the evening. Mostly history stuff which brings me to the subject.

There's been some decisive battles in history that if the other side have had won would have changed the course of history. There's a lot to choose from so the the question is both for ancient and modern battles. One of each. Those that are interested can google reples.

Mine would be

Ancient: Battle of Marathon. If the Persians had not retreated after the defeat of the Athenians they could hvae conqured all of Greece and probably all of Asia Minor.

Modern: Battle of the Atlantic. If the German U boats had been able to cut off supplies from America Britain would not have been able to maintain the war. Many maintain that the Battle of Britain was the crucial battle. In many respects it was but there is a school of thought that if Hitler had invaded Britain prior to the Battle of Britain he may well have succeeded due to Luftwaffe superiorty in numbers. It was Goring who persuaded Hitler that the British airforce needed to be desroyed prior to invasion. Big mistake.



Skyryder


Well that's my choice

Skyryder

[Indiana_Jones]

I agree fully with the Atlantic, Churchill said later on, the u-boats were the things that truely scared him. And I'm a silent hunter III g33k, so yeah lol.

-Indy

[gijoe1313]

For me ...

Ancient Battle :

Megiddo, Israel .. one of those old testament smack down sort of things between the Egyptians and the King of Syria (Kadesh ruler). Thutmose was a Pharaoh of the old school and he basically marched into Palestine to sort out the trouble makers. Thutmose the III was victorious and asserted Egyptian pre-eminence in the area. Apparantly it was one of the earliest battles that was documented and as a side note, this battle at Meggido was meant to be the spot where Armageddon was to occur!

Modern Battle :

Waterloo (no, not the Abba song! :pinch:) I can't be fecked typing it out so I cheated this and found linky~! http://www.lbdb.com/TMDisplayBattle.cfm?BID=256

I love war, I love the implements and technology that goes into war... but forever hate the implications and ramifications that only war can bring :yes: :no:

[Biff]

Falklands...not so much as it being a decisive battle as such, but the fact that the Brits managed to get a Vulcan to the 'shitty isles' in the first place, as the Falklands are some 4,000 beyond the Vulcans normal strike range. And the Vulcan itself is/was an antique of a plane some three (?) weeks away from being decommissioned by the RAF at the time of the Argentine invasion.

I highly recommend a book entitled Vulcan 607. A wonderful narrative history detailing how British ingenuity and determination ensured that Stanley couldn't be used as a fighter base by the Argies.

[sAsLEX]

Biggest waste of money ever Biff, what did the WAFUs acheive with that bombing run? It was a political move as the RAF didnt want to be left out.

[Skyryder]

Biggest waste of money ever Biff, what did the WAFUs acheive with that bombing run? It was a political move as the RAF didnt want to be left out.

Can't remember if the Falklands came before Desert Storm of after but either way Maggie was trying to keep up with Bush or Bush wanted to out do the Brits. It was after all more about ego and Maggie Thatchers pride. I see the Argintines are making noises again about the Falkland or as the call them the Maldives.


Skyryder

[pzkpfw]

Can't remember if the Falklands came before Desert Storm of after

! !? ?! ???? !!!!!




Falkland or as the call them the Maldives

Malvinas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

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



(Stop drinking the anti-freeze!)

[Indiana_Jones]

Maybe not that decisive, but the chase for the Bismarck is one of my fav's.

They got very lucky with those old Swordfish hitting her rudder!


<img src="http://www.militaryartgallery.com/images_2_b/bismark_march.jpg">

and some geek made this video using Silent hunter III

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CsZONf549g


DAS BOOT!!!

-Indy

[Sanx]

Many maintain that the Battle of Britain was the crucial battle. In many respects it was but there is a school of thought that if Hitler had invaded Britain prior to the Battle of Britain he may well have succeeded due to Luftwaffe superiorty in numbers. It was Goring who persuaded Hitler that the British airforce needed to be desroyed prior to invasion. Big mistake.

No ... the Germans realised they could not invade the UK without defeating the Royal Navy first. Even though the Germans had massive superiority in numbers, they could not take on the Royal Navy to an extent that would have allowed them to ship tens of thousands of soldiers and equipment over the English Channel. It's only 26 miles wide, but it may as well have been a thousand.

The British air force protected, amongst other things, the naval bases that were all-important to the defence of the UK. The Battle of Britain was designed to soften, and test out, those defences. And they almost succeeded. It was only Churchill's rather odd, but in hindsight genius, decision to hand over the responsibility for aircraft manufacture to a newspaper baron, Lord Beaverbrook, with no experience of the aviation industry that kept the RAF in the game.

[Indiana_Jones]

The German's needed to control the air, and thus the channel. The British owned the channel from day one, and kept it that way till the end.

-Indy

[Dave Lobster]

Can't remember if the Falklands came before Desert Storm of after but either way Maggie was trying to keep up with Bush or Bush wanted to out do the Brits. It was after all more about ego and Maggie Thatcher's pride. I see the Argintines are making noises again about the Falkland or as the call them the Maldives.


Skyryder

Nonsense. Bush was a vice president at the time, to Reagan. It was 1982. Desert Storm was ten years later.

Mrs Thatcher had a task force ready within days to retake what was/is British Sovereign land. She's the only person that (the formerly Great) Britain has had as PM with a spine for fifty years.

Had she not done this, can you imagine the ramifications?


The argies are making noises again because they know the brit forces are already stretched trying to keep the mudslums down. And, there's hardly any helis left in the RAF. They could easily retake the Falkland Islands, and britain could do precious little about it without SPAM help. I doubt Bush's god would be talking to him much about that..



Decisive Battle? Imagine if Operation Barbarossa had been a success.. We'd be living in a very different world now. I doubt we'd have any mudslums at all to worry about.

[Indiana_Jones]

Decisive Battle? Imagine if Operation Barbarossa had been a success.. We'd be living in a very different world now. I doubt we'd have any mudslums at all to worry about.


But that's not a battle, that's a campagin. One which the Germans were never going to win.

They should of watched what happened to Napoleon lol

-Indy

[The Pastor]

well once I was haxin the cs pretty hard on d3dust, i only had 1 clip left on the degal - 7 rounds, and it was 8 cts vs me, i managed 4hs well actually 5 but the last one was a bink - took two shots to kill one in the head the other in the stomach, so i was out of ammo and had 2 guys left I managed to find a dirsty ak lying around but im not used to the recoil and suck pretty hard at it, I saw one guy run around the corner and was thinking to myself BOOOM HEADSHOT but then his buddy ran around with his 30 call awp, put a massive hole in leg but I had 10 health left, so quick as dick I sprayed and prayed, wiped him out but my clip was empty so out came the knife and I slashed that dirty ct to bits to win the round.

[Mr Merde]

As a former soldier and an amatuer student of history, especially warfare, I find it hard to pinpoint a "decisive" or "great" battle that changed the course of world events.

All those that have been named rank as exceptional events but so many more have shaped the world as it is today.

Take for example the Battle of Hastings in 1066.

The influence of the Normans upon the culture that was the british Isles at the time. was enormous and our language still bears witness to this today. it paved the way to hundreds of years af warfare between the British and the French.

The british Civil war, this gave us a much changed parliamentary system.

The American Civil War, in my opinion the first of the modern wars. They used trench warfare, submarines, ironclad gunships, machine guns, arial observation platforms, breech loading weapons.

What about the campaigns of Julius Caesar. The Roman civilisation gave so much to the world and still does. Witness this in that the British "pound" still in use is a decendant from the Roman "punt et libre" (excuse my spelling) and as such pre empted the Euro by about 2000 years as a universal European monetary system.

The incursions into China by the Mongols led to the creation of the Great Wall. Could this wall have led to the insular mindset iof the chinese race that still persists today?

What about the sacking of Syracuse, in Sicily, by the Romans. This directly led to the killing of one of the worlds greatest thinkers. A man who had discovered calculus almost 2000 years before it was "rediscovered" by Newton. This man was Archimedes, killed by a roman soldier by accident as his capture was a specific objective for the battle.

I could go on for a long time on this subject.

Needless to say every war is notable in its own way. They all cause great suffering and loss. Unfortunately it seems that a lot of our greatest achievements have come about as a result of warfare. Social and technological advances seem to proliferate either as a concequence of warfare.

My 2 Cents

Mr :shit:

[Biff]

Biggest waste of money ever Biff, what did the WAFUs acheive with that bombing run? It was a political move as the RAF didnt want to be left out.

You're joking right ?!

Disabling, or at least reducing your enemy's air capabilities is one of the most important tasks of any modern warfare. By putting craters in Stanley's air field the Argies weren't able to fly their fast jets out of the airport, which helped give the Brits air superiority, which in turn ensured that the incoming naval fleet and ground forces were better protected by Brit fighters. Basic military tactics in any battle.

[Dave Lobster]

By putting craters in Stanley's air field the Argies weren't able to fly their fast jets out of the airport, which helped give the Brits air superiority, which in turn ensured that the incoming naval fleet and ground forces were better protected by Brit fighters. Basic military tactics in any battle.

Didn't they all miss?

[rogson]

Not a battle as such, but the defeat of the Spanish Armada lead to British marine dominance for centuries and with it the spread of the Protestant faith, British colonisation and empire building, spread of the British political system/rule of law.......and lots more.

[Biff]

Didn't they all miss?

All but one I think.

[imdying]

All but one I think.

Yep, here's a pic.

/edit: And another.

[steved]

I think many of you are overestimating Britain's impact/influence in WW2. To me the decisive battle was Stalingrad, where the might and the morale of the Germany army was ground to dust. It was the turning point of the largest land war history has seen.

[Indiana_Jones]

I think many of you are overestimating Britain's impact/influence in WW2. To me the decisive battle was Stalingrad, where the might and the morale of the Germany army was ground to dust. It was the turning point of the largest land war history has seen.

Stalingrad was a very important battle in that sense. But Kursk was the final nail in the coffin if you ask me.

I love the eastern front :D

-Indy

[Hitcher]

I see the Argintines are making noises again about the Falkland or as the call them the Maldives.

They (the Argentines) call the Falklands the Malvinas. The Maldives are in the Indian Ocean. I doubt even Argentine expansionism extends that far.

[merv]

When I saw the header I thought we'd be talking about history like Hailwood versus Agostini or Sheene versus Roberts or something like that to compare to today's Stoner versus Rossi.

[Marmoot]

Nothing beats The Battle of Endor. It gets the momentum rolling.

[sAsLEX]

You're joking right ?!

Disabling, or at least reducing your enemy's air capabilities is one of the most important tasks of any modern warfare. By putting craters in Stanley's air field the Argies weren't able to fly their fast jets out of the airport, which helped give the Brits air superiority, which in turn ensured that the incoming naval fleet and ground forces were better protected by Brit fighters. Basic military tactics in any battle.


Didn't they all miss?


All but one I think.

Ah there we go, they could of repaired it, which they did according to the dit I heard but kept it looking poo for the ISR sats.


They (the Argentines) call the Falklands the Malvinas. The Maldives are in the Indian Ocean. I doubt even Argentine expansionism extends that far.

The Maldives aren't going to beat global warming!

[Biff]

Ah there we go, they could of repaired it, which they did according to the dit I heard but kept it looking poo for the ISR sats.

This was considered a risk, but local intelligence sources (primarily the British ATC head at the airport) stated that the Argies didn't have the correct machinery on the island to repair the crater, and because the Brits were then able to enforce a naval blockade on the island there was no hope of the buggers getting them in.

[sAsLEX]

This was considered a risk, but local intelligence sources (primarily the British ATC head at the airport) stated that the Argies didn't have the correct machinery on the island to repair the crater, and because the Brits were then able to enforce a naval blockade on the island there was no hope of the buggers getting them in.

You stated the denial of Air power was such a great requirement. Why did the SAS back out at the last minute from destroying half the fleet on mainland Argentina..... read the book can't remember now

[Biff]

Probably because the Brits didn't want the war to escalate to either countrys' mainland. I know that Maggie T rejected a similar suggestion by Strike Command who wanted to attack key locations in Argentina.

[MisterD]

I think many of you are overestimating Britain's impact/influence in WW2. To me the decisive battle was Stalingrad, where the might and the morale of the Germany army was ground to dust. It was the turning point of the largest land war history has seen.

BUT. If we hadn't have kept the Western and African fronts open, what might have been the outcome in Russia if Germany was able to bring all her resources to bear....


I'm not up to speed much on ancient battles, but having read my way through Bernard Cornwell's Saxon series I'm going to put in a vote for the Battle of Edington (Ethandun). The world would be considerable different if Alfred had lost Wessex to Guthrum...no England, no English language...

Closer to today, I'd also have to go for Waterloo. Probably the last time an entire campaign was decided by a single battle which shaped history for decades to come. Taking things to a slight tangent, Waterloo is also one of those battles (perhaps the best example too) where the weather tipped things one way....if it hadn't rained so much overnight, it would have started earlier thus not giving Blucher time to arrive and Napoleon's artillery would have been much more effective with the shot not burying itself in the mud....

[jrandom]

I think many of you are overestimating Britain's impact/influence in WW2.

Nonsense. If it weren't for the bracing effect of Britain's lonely stand against the Nazis in 1939 and 1940, Germany could have consolidated its gains in continental Europe, and the Anglo-American political climate could easily have shifted toward compromise.

In fact, the British commitment of men and materiel in Europe and North Africa substantially exceeded the USA's until mid-1944.

Not to mention the influence of the British Navy and Bletchley Park on the Battle of the Atlantic. Churchill's opinion was always that the U-boat threat to the convoys was the most crucial strategic issue of the war. Had Germany won the battle to control the seas, the vast quantities of vital war equipment supplied to the USSR would never have arrived, and Operation Overlord could never have been conceived.


To me the decisive battle was Stalingrad...

Hmmm. Without the Atlantic and Baltic convoys, no soldiers would ever have arrived at Stalingrad to defend it. The brave defenders would still have been walking and riding in horse-drawn carts when the Germans swept triumphantly through Moscow.

Don't forget that on the Eastern front, before, after, and during the battle of Stalingrad, Russia supplied the blood and bone to fight the Germans, and America supplied the steel.

[jrandom]

In fact, I'm rather of the opinion that if any single effort can be said to have carried the fate of the world on its shoulders, it could be Turing, et al's work on German ciphers, following on from the initial discoveries by Polish mathematicians in the 1930s, rather than any particular affair of steel, lead and gore.

Had that effort failed, or never occurred, Europe may well have remained in Nazi hands for good.

[sAsLEX]

Bletchley Park


.

Go the cryptanalysis!

B atox uxxg wtuuebgz bg vhwx ukxtdbgz tgw pkbmbgz. Vtg tgrhgx vktvd mabl lbfiex vhwx?

[jrandom]

B atox uxxg wtuuebgz bg vhwx ukxtdbgz tgw pkbmbgz. Vtg tgrhgx vktvd mabl lbfiex vhwx?

Of course I can, dude. You should have used a polyalphabetic cipher. Heh.

Do you have a copy of Applied Cryptography? It's required reading.

[steved]

BUT. If we hadn't have kept the Western and African fronts open, what might have been the outcome in Russia if Germany was able to bring all her resources to bear....

To my mind, the question is which is the most decisive battle, not which were the battles that allowed another to be fought. Stalingrad was the first major defeat for the previously invincible Wermacht. It was the perfect definition of, 'The Turning of the Tide'. I fail to see how the Atlantic U-boat War compares in significance.

[Skyryder]

To my mind, the question is which is the most decisive battle, not which were the battles that allowed another to be fought. Stalingrad was the first major defeat for the previously invincible Wermacht. It was the perfect definition of, 'The Turning of the Tide'. I fail to see how the Atlantic U-boat War compares in significance.

There is no doubt that the significance of the Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point in the eventual defeat of Germany. That must be seen from an allied perspective. Prior to the American entry into the war when Britain was alone, should the Germans have been able to blockade Britain successfully this would have led to it's final collapse.


The U-boat peril

Winston Churchill once wrote that, '... the only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril'. In saying this, he correctly identified the importance of the threat posed during World War Two by German submarines (the 'Unterseeboot') to the Atlantic lifeline. This lifeline was Britain's 'centre of gravity' - the loss of which would probably have led to wholesale defeat in the war.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

No ... the Germans realised they could not invade the UK without defeating the Royal Navy first. Even though the Germans had massive superiority in numbers, they could not take on the Royal Navy to an extent that would have allowed them to ship tens of thousands of soldiers and equipment over the English Channel. It's only 26 miles wide, but it may as well have been a thousand.

The British air force protected, amongst other things, the naval bases that were all-important to the defence of the UK. The Battle of Britain was designed to soften, and test out, those defences. And they almost succeeded. It was only Churchill's rather odd, but in hindsight genius, decision to hand over the responsibility for aircraft manufacture to a newspaper baron, Lord Beaverbrook, with no experience of the aviation industry that kept the RAF in the game.



After Dunkirk Britain was virtualy defenceless. It had short supply of naval armaments, aircraft. It's army was virtualy defeated with low moral. There's plenty of sites that give a comaparison of weapons etc between the two sides. If I get some time I'll look them up. A Blitzkreig attack of British air bases would have prevented a major counter attack by the RAF. Much of the Navy was on escort duty. There is a school of thought that belives that if Hitler had attacked shortly after Dunkirk a successful invasion might have been the result. When you consider the ease in which the Germans invaded all the countries that they were interested in I don't think Britain would have stood a chance. Goring's ego resulted in his decison to impress the Fuhrer by allowing his much vaunted Luftwaafe to engage the RAF. The germans changed tactics midway through the battle and as a result lost.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Nonsense. Bush was a vice president at the time, to Reagan. It was 1982. Desert Storm was ten years later.

Mrs Thatcher had a task force ready within days to retake what was/is British Sovereign land. She's the only person that (the formerly Great) Britain has had as PM with a spine for fifty years.

Had she not done this, can you imagine the ramifications?


The argies are making noises again because they know the brit forces are already stretched trying to keep the mudslums down. And, there's hardly any helis left in the RAF. They could easily retake the Falkland Islands, and britain could do precious little about it without SPAM help. I doubt Bush's god would be talking to him much about that..



Decisive Battle? Imagine if Operation Barbarossa had been a success.. We'd be living in a very different world now. I doubt we'd have any mudslums at all to worry about.


Thanks for the recall. Yes it was Reagon. Don't realy think Thatcher had a lot of choices but it did take the reforms (unemployment) that she was instituting out of the public eye.

[Skyryder]

I'm surprised no ones mentioned the Battle of the Coral Sea. Without that the Japanese advance would have continued.

Skyryder

[jrandom]

After Dunkirk Britain was virtualy defenceless... school of thought that belives that if Hitler had attacked shortly after Dunkirk a successful invasion might have been the result... Goring's ego resulted in his decison to impress the Fuhrer by allowing his much vaunted Luftwaafe to engage the RAF.

Don't forget, though, that the RAF was still able to make a significant impression at Dunkirk, defending the evacuation against German bombers. Following Dunkirk, any immediate invasion attempt would have been met with failure due to the German's lack of air supremacy over the Channel.

The Battle of Britain was simply the result of the next logical step for the Germans to take - establishing that air supremacy.

Of course, Goering cocked it up by failing to press home his attacks on various RAF targets. The fact remains that German victory in the air battle over the Channel was a prerequisite to Sea Lion.

[jrandom]

I'm surprised no ones mentioned the Battle of the Coral Sea. Without that the Japanese advance would have continued.

The subsequent battle of Midway was more interesting, inasmuch as it resulted in a permanent shift in the strategic balance of naval power, and was also an example of the power of cryptography and the influence of good intelligence on the disposal of inferior (on the face of it) forces.

[Delerium]

WW2 had several key factors that let it end the way it did. Those benefitting the allied nations were: midway, the germans opening a second front, germans shifting from RAF airfields to cities, and stalingrad to name a few. It was a close thing and could have ended very differently.

[peasea]

I saw a punchup in a pub car park once.

[merv]

I saw a punchup in a pub car park once.

Was it a while ago and was it a decisive battle?

[El Dopa]

No ... the Germans realised they could not invade the UK without defeating the Royal Navy first. Even though the Germans had massive superiority in numbers, they could not take on the Royal Navy to an extent that would have allowed them to ship tens of thousands of soldiers and equipment over the English Channel. It's only 26 miles wide, but it may as well have been a thousand.

Precisely. A sucessful invasion/occupation of the UK would have depended on getting thousands of men, and thousands of tons of supplies across the channel, and keeping those supply lines open.

The germans were depending on barges for all their cross-channel logisitics. The RN would have had a field day.

If we're talking BoB, we need to mention Dowding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowding) and Keith Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Park)(who was not incidentally a Kiwi). The weapons (spitfire, hurricane) and command and control strucutre would not have happened if these two had not pushed them through in the teeth of a reactionary establishment.

[El Dopa]

After Dunkirk Britain was virtualy defenceless. It had short supply of naval armaments, aircraft. It's army was virtualy defeated with low moral. There's plenty of sites that give a comaparison of weapons etc between the two sides. If I get some time I'll look them up. A Blitzkreig attack of British air bases would have prevented a major counter attack by the RAF. Much of the Navy was on escort duty. There is a school of thought that belives that if Hitler had attacked shortly after Dunkirk a successful invasion might have been the result. When you consider the ease in which the Germans invaded all the countries that they were interested in I don't think Britain would have stood a chance. Goring's ego resulted in his decison to impress the Fuhrer by allowing his much vaunted Luftwaafe to engage the RAF. The germans changed tactics midway through the battle and as a result lost.

Skyryder

I would disagree.

1) Only France and Britain had anything approaching a 'modern' army in 1940. None of the other European countries the Germans overran did.

2) The German equipment was only slightly better. Their organisation and command/control was FAR better.

3) Blitzkreig relies on holding the initiative at all time and pushing forward as fast as you can to gain territory and keep your opponent off-balance. Very hard to do when you have to supply an army across the width of the english channel, even if you have air superiority and are facing an army with no heavy equipment.

The battle of the atlantic was decisive. Britain could have been starved into submission. The yanks would have retreated into isolation (germany declared war on the US post-Peal Harbour, not the other way round). Conceivably two wars could have been fought completely independently - Atlantic (Germany/UK) and Pacific (US/Japan).

[El Dopa]

I fail to see how the Atlantic U-boat War compares in significance.

Because it would have allowed Germany to knock the UK out of the war if they won, freeing up troops and conceivably managing to cause the US to lose all interest in the Atlantic theatre/Europe.

Germany would therefore have been fighting a war on one front only, and Russia wouldn't have been supplied through the arctic convoys from the UK.

However, I agree that Stalingrad was the most significant battle of WW2.

[MisterD]

In fact, I'm rather of the opinion that if any single effort can be said to have carried the fate of the world on its shoulders, it could be Turing, et al's work on German ciphers, following on from the initial discoveries by Polish mathematicians in the 1930s, rather than any particular affair of steel, lead and gore.

Had that effort failed, or never occurred, Europe may well have remained in Nazi hands for good.

I'm with you half way on that, but reckon you should probably expand it to the whole back-room battle. Without radar, the BoB would have been very very different.

[El Dopa]

You stated the denial of Air power was such a great requirement. Why did the SAS back out at the last minute from destroying half the fleet on mainland Argentina..... read the book can't remember now

There were two mainland missions that I know of, one of which went ahead.

The one that went ahead - the helicopter landed once (in the right place) but the officer in charge thought it was the wrong place. The chopper ran out of fuel before the mix-up could be sorted.

The second one - a full-on airfield attack by a full SAS troop, was pulled because it was a suicide mission. And was made more so because the Argentinians reinforced the airfield defences and dispersed the planes a day or so before it was due to go ahead. Can't remember why - think they got wind that something might be on the way.

[doc]

Can't remember if the Falklands came before Desert Storm of after but either way Maggie was trying to keep up with Bush or Bush wanted to out do the Brits. It was after all more about ego and Maggie Thatchers pride. I see the Argintines are making noises again about the Falkland or as the call them the Maldives.
Your showing your age if you can't get the dates of those right. Either AAAD or your a juvenile.


Skyryder
Your showing your age if you can't get the dates of those right. Either AAAD or your a juvenile.

[MisterD]

2) The German equipment was only slightly better. Their organisation and command/control was FAR better.



Experience gained during the Spanish Civil War is pretty key in that regard...

[Skyryder]

Your showing your age if you can't get the dates of those right. Either AAAD or your a juvenile.

Probably both. Been grown up now I'm growing down. It's called free fall and a blast.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Without radar, the BoB would have been very very different.

The Germans were just begining to show some interest on British coastal radar stations. If they had continued with their attack instead of changing tactics it would have been only a matter of time before they realized their significance. Hitler issued orders for the bombing of London etc. The first of many mistakes he made.

Skyryder

[geoffm]

There is a lot of research showing that an invasion of the UK (Operation Sealion) would have failed. The Germans didn't have the logistics reqiured for an amphibious assault against defended positions of this magnitude. In any event, they would have required total air and sea superiority to get it to work, and they never got it. Compare the plans to use river barges in 1940 with the imense operation for D Day and the Pacific Campaign. There was over 2 years planning for D day, and the lessons learnt from earlier campaigns such as the Dieppe raids, and Operation Torch (North Africa). They had a friendly population with an active partisan movement, manmade harbours, undersea piplines, dedicated landing craft, total and complete air and sea superiority and overwhelming numbers, yet it was still a close thing. It wouldn't have worked if it wasn't for the ruse that the invasion was to be near Calais, and the huge losses that the Germans suffered on the Eastern Front.

Of battles, two in Vietnam would be Bien Den Phu, and the Tet offensive in 1968. The first because it was the beginning of the end of European power in South East Asia. It was theend of French control of Vietnam, and the start of US involvement,and it showed the European powers coudl be defeated.
Tet was important for propaganda reasons, it was a military victory for the US where they could use their firepower to effect, but on the home front it was the beginning of the end as the lies from the Pentagon became rather thin.
Geoff

[MisterD]

The Germans were just begining to show some interest on British coastal radar stations. If they had continued with their attack instead of changing tactics it would have been only a matter of time before they realized their significance. Hitler issued orders for the bombing of London etc. The first of many mistakes he made.

Skyryder

That's an interesting one, their focus on attacking fighter command's airfields was definitely working for them but IIRC it was an accidental drop of bombs by a German aircraft on London that caused Churchill to order a retaliation on Berlin and then Hitler lost his rag about it.

It's fascinating how many times Hitler's intervention was precisely the wrong decision....the obsession with Stalingrad just because it was named after his opponent when it should have been bypassed, the holding back of reserves after D-Day because nobody dared wake him up with the bad news....

[Mr Merde]

There seems to be a general fixation on barrles of the modern era.

There was a battle between the Romans and the Carthaginians that still makes modern battles pall into insignificance in the number of lives lost.

The romans put to the sword, basically hand to hand combat, 50.000 men in one day. Even in the goriest days of the first world war fatilities (not casualties) havent exceeded that number.

What about the Spanish hero El Cid, who basically halted the expansion of Islam in Europe in the 11th century.

The battles of Alexander who expanded the European theatre of operations as far as India. No other ruler has conquered such avast area even today.

Gengis Khan, whos expansion westwards had the whole of Europe scared shitless.

Look to the past and you will see the future.

Apart from his atrocities, Hitler was only emulating what napoleon had done 150 years earlier.

The Americans and their allies are currently fighting the same battle in Afganastan that the British tried and failed to do in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Apart from being a spiritual leader, Mohamad was also a warrior. He led an army that sucessfully gained his people a place to call their own.

What about Agincourt where an army of about 4000 men, ravaged by hunger and disease put paid to a French army that outnumbered them 5:1 and in doing so killed 10,000 of frances knights, their nobility.

Warfare and battles are nasty, vicious facets of human nature. Unfortunately we seem unable to exist with out them and every war seems to have been a precursor to some newer technology or some greater humanitarian endevour.

keep the discussion going. I am enjoying this tthread immensly, but please cast your thoughts a little wider.

Just a s a thought.

WW1 was esentially a family squabble that just snowballed.

Mr :shit:

[Skyryder]

There is a lot of research showing that an invasion of the UK (Operation Sealion) would have failed. The Germans didn't have the logistics reqiured for an amphibious assault against defended positions of this magnitude. In any event, they would have required total air and sea superiority to get it to work, and they never got it. Compare the plans to use river barges in 1940 with the imense operation for D Day and the Pacific Campaign. There was over 2 years planning for D day, and the lessons learnt from earlier campaigns such as the Dieppe raids, and Operation Torch (North Africa). They had a friendly population with an active partisan movement, manmade harbours, undersea piplines, dedicated landing craft, total and complete air and sea superiority and overwhelming numbers, yet it was still a close thing. It wouldn't have worked if it wasn't for the ruse that the invasion was to be near Calais, and the huge losses that the Germans suffered on the Eastern Front.


http://www.alternatehistory.com/gateway/essays/Sealion.html

I have not read this. I can remember as a kid one of my fathers friends, he was a British Marine (commando) telling me and my father that if Hitler had invaded they stood a very good chance of succeeding. I once came across a site that listed Englands defences at the time. They effectivelyl had no army or weapons that were capable of competing with the German infantry. I agree that any invasion might not have succeeded but this man was adamant that they would have done. He was there at the time.

Skyryder

[MisterD]

There seems to be a general fixation on barrles of the modern era.


Not surprising, it still living memory and most of us had relatives we knew that lived through the WW's - although I wonder how long it will be until they are viewed as a single conflict with a hiatus in the middle. After all the roots of WW2 are firmly in the ending of WW1...another discussion...




What about Agincourt where an army of about 4000 men, ravaged by hunger and disease put paid to a French army that outnumbered them 5:1 and in doing so killed 10,000 of frances knights, their nobility.


Did anyone else see the recent doco that put forward the theory that the result of this battle was less to do with the power of the longbow and rather more of a crowd disaster for the French army?

[Nefarious]

so who won?

[Swoop]

because the Brits were then able to enforce a naval blockade on the island
The air blockade wasn't as successful. Nightly runs by C-130s kept essential supplies arriving.

I'm surprised no ones mentioned the Battle of the Coral Sea. Without that the Japanese advance would have continued.
Or Midway...

I once came across a site that listed Englands defences at the time. They effectivelyl had no army or weapons that were capable of competing with the German infantry. I agree that any invasion might not have succeeded but this man was adamant that they would have done.
The British army had suffered massive losses at Dunkirk. Barely any medium guns were evacuated and soldiers were even leaving their rifles behind.
This caused two things to happen. A vaccum which the Axis powers could easily attack and almost walk over any defenders in Britain; also the re-equipment of the Army with more modern weaponry better suited to a more modern war. The RN and RAF was still able to stand in the way until that re-equipping was complete.

Turning point was Stalingrad. "Before then, nothing but victory, after Stalingrad, nothing but defeat".

[Mr Merde]

Not surprising, it still living memory and most of us had relatives we knew that lived through the WW's - although I wonder how long it will be until they are viewed as a single conflict with a hiatus in the middle. After all the roots of WW2 are firmly in the ending of WW1...another discussion...




Did anyone else see the recent doco that put forward the theory that the result of this battle was less to do with the power of the longbow and rather more of a crowd disaster for the French army?

Both my grandads were in WW1, a few of my uncles in WW2, my father in the Malayan conflict and the vietnam War (1968, 161 Bty 16 Fld Reg, RNZA)

I've seen the doco and read the theories. I personally side with them. It has been proven that the arrow of the day, even with the bodkin, wasnt capable of piercing the armour the french knights wore. It was a very narrow appraoch to the battle ground, very muddy and not suitable for cavalry. Put this together with the archers who could get something like 6 arrows a minute in the air
. Theyt would spook the horses. cause the knights to keep thier face plates down and when imbeded in the ground provide a deterent for the horses, like a field of sharp sticks waiting for them to place their hooves into.

By concentrating on the flanks the WELSH archers funneled the French into a very narrow front. I have read somewhere that a very large prtion of those killed actually drowned in the mud once unhorsed.

Mr :shit:

[Timber020]

Experience gained during the Spanish Civil War is pretty key in that regard...

Yeah, but even before then they also focused on using tanks as a force in themselves, which were all fitted with radios, where everyone else had them in dribs and drabs with there infantry and didnt know what each other were doing. The spanish war did give them vital opportunity to perfect strategies, trouble shoot equipment and give the boys game time.

Russia was a place more german soldiers and equipment were destroyed than anywhere else. The battle of britain might have been a chopping block, but Russia was the meat grinder. Kursk to me had to be the big one, it put the germans on the defensive and ate up tanks they could not afford to loose. Usually even in a battle loss the Germans worked hard to retained control of the battleground so that they could scrounge fuel and recover tanks.

Go the T34!

[Oscar]

I think many of you are overestimating Britain's impact/influence in WW2. To me the decisive battle was Stalingrad, where the might and the morale of the Germany army was ground to dust. It was the turning point of the largest land war history has seen.

Not true.

If Germany had of sidelined England (probably a negotiated peace, I don't think Hitler ever had the wherewithal to invade England successfully), then think of the consequences:

The full weight of German arms on the Soviet's, with no support from the Allies.
Germany gets mid-East oil.
Germany gets the Suez Canal.
No convenient launching pad for the US into Europe.

[Oscar]

There is a lot of research showing that an invasion of the UK (Operation Sealion) would have failed. The Germans didn't have the logistics reqiured for an amphibious assault against defended positions of this magnitude. In any event, they would have required total air and sea superiority to get it to work, and they never got it. Compare the plans to use river barges in 1940 with the imense operation for D Day and the Pacific Campaign. There was over 2 years planning for D day, and the lessons learnt from earlier campaigns such as the Dieppe raids, and Operation Torch (North Africa). They had a friendly population with an active partisan movement, manmade harbours, undersea piplines, dedicated landing craft, total and complete air and sea superiority and overwhelming numbers, yet it was still a close thing. It wouldn't have worked if it wasn't for the ruse that the invasion was to be near Calais, and the huge losses that the Germans suffered on the Eastern Front.

Geoff

The commonly ignored factor in discussing SeaLion is the Royal Navy.
In the summer of 1940 the home fleet had 22 Cruisers and several times that number of Destroyers & Corvettes on station which would have made mince meat of any amphibious landing. The Royal Navy estimated that Destroyers running line astern (to reduce the danger from mines) at full speed through the invasion fleet would create a wake sufficient to sink most of the Rhine Boats used as landing craft.

[avgas]

Whangamata riots way back in 1998

[Indiana_Jones]

Col oiling himself and trying to squeeze into his leather pants lol :D

-Indy

[peasea]

Was it a while ago and was it a decisive battle?


Yes and yes.

Therefore it qualifies, right?
Twas outside the (now defunct, I think) Greta Point hotel in Welly. Looking back it was quite funny. Fisticuffs, no weapons, no interference, just a good old brawl. Two guys cracked a few of each others body parts and spilled a bit of blood but they both walked away. I don't know what it was about, don't care.

Fight Club shit..........

[Swoop]

The spanish war did give them vital opportunity to perfect strategies, trouble shoot equipment and give the boys game time.

Russia was a place more german soldiers and equipment were destroyed than anywhere else.
Rather ironic that Germany had an agreement pre-war, that allowed them to build up its [at that time, illegal] forces and concentrate/practice the blitzkreig doctrine on Soviet soil.
The Soviets learnt quite a lot from these...

Usually even in a battle loss the Germans worked hard to retained control of the battleground so that they could scrounge fuel and recover tanks.
Fuel was the real reason why Germany went to war in the first place.
When Barbarossa was launched, there was an acute shortage and the advance relied upon scavenging fuel from the Soviet remains. "Scorched Earth Policy" prevented the German advance from reaching set objectives.

[El Dopa]

I've seen the doco and read the theories. I personally side with them. It has been proven that the arrow of the day, even with the bodkin, wasnt capable of piercing the armour the french knights wore. It was a very narrow appraoch to the battle ground, very muddy and not suitable for cavalry. Put this together with the archers who could get something like 6 arrows a minute in the air
. Theyt would spook the horses. cause the knights to keep thier face plates down and when imbeded in the ground provide a deterent for the horses, like a field of sharp sticks waiting for them to place their hooves into.

By concentrating on the flanks the WELSH archers funneled the French into a very narrow front. I have read somewhere that a very large prtion of those killed actually drowned in the mud once unhorsed.


I think what is overlooked in these 'recreate history' type docos is that no-one alive today has the specific training, skill or strength to use an old english warbow. English/Welsh archers were training from the age of five to shoot the bow. Any later than that, and it was considered that they might as well not bother, cos they'd never get it right.

The skeletons of archers from that era have been disinterred from time to time. Their whole body - spine and so on - is usually twisted because of the specific muscular development necessary to shoot the warbow.

These guys could shoot a bow with 140+ pounds of pull all day, every day, if they had to. I remember reading a story from a guy who rowed at international competive level recently. He said that as good as he got at rowing, he'd never be as good as his grandad, who was a professional boatman on the river clyde until he retired. All his training and sport - strength, endurance, etc - would never compensate for the fact that his grandad just got out there and did it all day, every day. It was as natural as breathing to him. I tend to think of the archers in the same way, so I usually reach for a pinch of salt when a modern day expert tells me 'we have conclusively proved it can't be done'. Well, there's not much chance of being proved wrong these days, is there?

When the Mary Rose was raised, they found bows in the hold that had 180+ pounds of pull. No-one alive today could bend that and shoot an arrow. Not much point in making something you're not going to use.....

The warbow was a fluke that turned into a war-winning weapon. The reason the French, swiss mercenaries, etc didn't use it is because they couldn't. the English/welsh culture was to raise your lower-class warriors to the bow. The French didn't have anything similar in their culture.

The only reason the musket took over is because any village idiot can be taught how to use one. Stick your idiots in a row and rey on sheer volume to knock the enemy over, rather than reply on a weapon that took a lifetime to learn to use.

Having said all that, they probably shot at the horses, like you say. Bigger target, less armour. Once the blokes on the ground, you could kill him by sitting on him and pushing him into the mud until he drowns.

Mind you, Agincourt should only really get an honourable mention behind Crecy. Can't believe the frogs fell for that one twice.

[El Dopa]

Kursk to me had to be the big one, it put the germans on the defensive and ate up tanks they could not afford to loose.

From what I've read, Kursk was just the nail in the coffin, though. Kursk was a salient, and the only real logical place in the whole line to mount an attack. The Russians could read a map as well as anyone else, so they realised this. Therefore the german had to hit hard and fast before the russians could prepare a defence. They didn't - they delayed, postponed and procrastinated, so by the time they actually attacked, the russians had something like 30 miles of defensive depth prpeared positions.

Germans didn't stand a chance by the time they fired the first shots in the battle proper.

[Sanx]

Mind you, Agincourt should only really get an honourable mention behind Crecy. Can't believe the frogs fell for that one twice.

Three times. They fell for it at Poitiers, too.

[peasea]

Whangamata riots way back in 1998

What about '05?

[El Dopa]

Alright, a couple of decisive battles of history for your consideration:

The Battle of Evermore - Led Zeppelin took a decisive lurch towards hippy love, complete with mandolins and flower power. Rock was never the same again

The Battle of the Bulge - my continuous war on my waistline. There can only be one result....

[Timber020]

I had a russian flatmate for a while, and due to the fact that straight after WW2 we went into a cold war, both the west and eastern blocks history books were effected by propaganda. I read some of his translated history books, really interesting looking at it from russian perspective.

Want to destroy a world beating army?-send em to the land of deadly winters.

[Street Gerbil]

Want to destroy a world beating army?-send em to the land of deadly winters.
Yep. That's what Arafat learned from his Soviet military advisers and applied against Israelis.

[Usarka]

Nothing can beat the battle of mianus.

[98tls]

Fuel was the real reason why Germany went to war in the first place.
When Barbarossa was launched, there was an acute shortage and the advance relied upon scavenging fuel from the Soviet remains. "Scorched Earth Policy" prevented the German advance from reaching set objectives. No.fuel had nothing to do with why germany went to war at all.....sure they needed it but Hitler went to war with land in mind,he was full of the fatherland/germanic living space crap..read his book to gain an insight to it.Germany went to war..for the umpteenth time because they had been fighting wars since almost time began,go back through the history books and germany had been at war many times and its leaders were steeped in military history..the results of that were acts of blind obedience as at stalingrad were paulaus..spelling..took no notice of what he knew to be true...until it was to late.The greatest military feat of all time in my mind anyway was that Germany managed to wage a war against those odds for so long.Hitlers almost demonic ability to rally others and a resentment of the way the first world war ended only served to send millons to there doom.

[avgas]

What about '05?
So-so, wasn't really as decisive as the last one, as there wasn't a problem until some pissed bright spark yelled "Fuck the Police" and threw a bottle....then the volley started......and that bright spark got the hell out of there.
I missed the "Vans Waihi Beach" though, heard that was quite decisive and more cars got rolled.

[Swoop]

No.fuel had nothing to do with why germany went to war at all.....sure they needed it but Hitler went to war with land in mind,he was full of the fatherland/germanic living space crap.
Correct on the "expansionism of the empire" approach, but to do that Germany had to "aquire" some petroleum resources. I read somewhere that the country imported virtually all of its oil, and with the D-mark being worthless, the purchase of fuel was crippling the economy (apart from spending sooooo much on re-armament...).
The nearest supplies were "across the border"...

Once the allies decided to target fuel production there was a slowing down of the axis war machine. Not sufficient supplies to fuel the aircraft - even though production of planes was keeping up. Same with tanks. Same with trucks.

[Street Gerbil]

As someone has already mentioned the most important battle for those of us middle-aged folks with slowing down metabolism is the battle of the bulge which we keep losing kilogram after kilogram... The sight of the sixpack slowly turning into a kegger is as sad and pathetic as the white flag and hands raised in the air... And I don't even eat pies!..

[Timber020]

Fuel had alot to do with the outbreaks of WW1 and WW2. They were both attempts to control resources. (The ww2 Afrika Corps and ww1 Anzacs werent in the middle east to get a tan) Interesting fact that the first british units to deploy in ww1 were the dorset regt in egypt.

Japan had no natural resourses and was heavily threatened when a trade embargo was put into effect. I think without there invasion of fuel and rubber rich areas they would have been bankrupt in 6 months.

Iraq invaded Kuwait because they were broke after the iran iraq conflict, all its neighbours were overproducing oil and demanding the money back they had lent Iraq. Again, if he didnt get money from somewhere he couldnt pay his soldiers, and we all know what whole armys do when the leader doesnt pay them.