History's most decisive battles

[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

-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.