The Five Most Crucial WW II Battles (1 Viewer)

[Picaro]

The five crucial battles of WW II that turned the tide against the Axis powers all took place within a very small time period, beginning Oct. of 1942 and by Jan. 1943 it was mostly over for Germany and Japan, the rest just a long slog of mopping up, with no real chance for an Axis victory after that.

1. Guadacanal - Oct. 1942

2. El Alamein - Oct. 1942

3.Operation Torch - Nov. 1942

4.Stalingrad - Nov. 1942, or Oct. 1942, both acceptable and debatable

5. Barents Sea - Dec. 1942

Any disagreements with these 5 being the most crucial? Of course, this is all tongue and cheek stuff for grins, so no need for hyperbole and bluster, unless of course you just feel like it.

I'd never quite put those battles in an associated time frame before, and didn't realize how close together and in some cases how overlapping they were.

 

[Iriemon]

The five crucial battles of WW II that turned the tide against the Axis powers all took place within a very small time period, beginning Oct. of 1942 and by Jan. 1943 it was mostly over for Germany and Japan, the rest just a long slog of mopping up, with no real chance for an Axis victory after that.

1. Guadacanal - Oct. 1942

2. El Alamein - Oct. 1942

3.Operation Torch - Nov. 1942

4.Stalingrad - Nov. 1942, or Oct. 1942, both acceptable and debatable

5. Barents Sea - Dec. 1942

Any disagreements with these 5 being the most crucial? Of course, this is all tongue and cheek stuff for grins, so no need for hyperbole and bluster, unless of course you just feel like it.

I'd never quite put those battles in an associated time frame before, and didn't realize how close together and in some cases how overlapping they were.

1. Stalingrad. Germany army beaten in most brutal battle of all time.

3. Battle of Britain. RAF defeat of Luftwaffe prevents Germany invasion of England.

3. Peal Harbor raid. Brings US into the war.

2. Midway. Japanese carrier advantage neutralized in two days.

4. El Alamein. British stop prevents Axis control of Mediterranean.

 

[jfuh]

1. Stalingrad. Germany army beaten in most brutal battle of all time.

3. Battle of Britain. RAF defeat of Luftwaffe prevents Germany invasion of England.

3. Peal Harbor raid. Brings US into the war.

2. Midway. Japanese carrier advantage neutralized in two days.

4. El Alamein. British stop prevents Axis control of Mediterranean.

I second

1. Stalingrad
2. Battle of Britain
3. Pearl Harbor
4. Midway

But let me add one more.

5. Hiroshima and Nagasaki single bombs - ended the war; don't think it gets much more decisive than that.

 

[PeteEU]

The five crucial battles of WW II that turned the tide against the Axis powers all took place within a very small time period, beginning Oct. of 1942 and by Jan. 1943 it was mostly over for Germany and Japan, the rest just a long slog of mopping up, with no real chance for an Axis victory after that.

1. Guadacanal - Oct. 1942

2. El Alamein - Oct. 1942

3.Operation Torch - Nov. 1942

4.Stalingrad - Nov. 1942, or Oct. 1942, both acceptable and debatable

5. Barents Sea - Dec. 1942

Any disagreements with these 5 being the most crucial? Of course, this is all tongue and cheek stuff for grins, so no need for hyperbole and bluster, unless of course you just feel like it.

I'd never quite put those battles in an associated time frame before, and didn't realize how close together and in some cases how overlapping they were.

My list is but not within the time frame though as the "turning of the tide" as over a longer period of time if you ask me, plus added one extra.

1. El Alamein. The first big defeat of German forces. This battle basicly ensures British domination of North Africa and saves Egypt and Iraq/Iran (aka oil) for the allies.

2. Stalingrad. The tide turns on the Eastern Front. Not only do the Germans get hit on manpower, but also mentaly by the way the lost

3. Battle of Britian. German momentum is brought to a sudden halt. Against the odds, the Brits defeat the Germans in the air and the Luftwaffe was never the same again.

4. Battle of Kursk. Biggest tank battle in history. Hitler basicly gambles his tank reserves and new uber tanks on turning the tide on the eastern front and loses.

5. Midway. The Japanese expansion is halted and delt a huge blow.

6. Landings in Sicily. A second front in Europe, draining the German forces even more. I doubt in many ways that D-Day would have worked if it had not been for the drain of German troops to this front.

I disagree that Guadacanal is a battle turner, other than one of the first actions by US forces in retaking the Pacific. It did not have the huge impact on the Japanese as Midway or Coral Sea campaigns had. In fact it probally had a bigger impact on US forces and mentality because of the hardships in taking that pile of pest infested mud.

Operation Torch was not really a battle as very few shots were fired and the first few "battles" in Operation Torch in Tunsia were total faliures by US forces. El Alamein and the British push from the east was much more significant, as the German forces were basicly nullified in tanks and material.

Barents Sea ... had not heard that in a long time and frankly had forgotten it. Sure its important, but more important than the sinking of Bismark or the battle of the Atlantic?

 

[t125eagle]

some that have been left out so far.....

the landing in Normandy
the battle of the bulge
the marianias (spelling) turkey shoot

 

[Iriemon]

My list is but not within the time frame though as the "turning of the tide" as over a longer period of time if you ask me, plus added one extra.

1. El Alamein. The first big defeat of German forces. This battle basicly ensures British domination of North Africa and saves Egypt and Iraq/Iran (aka oil) for the allies.

2. Stalingrad. The tide turns on the Eastern Front. Not only do the Germans get hit on manpower, but also mentaly by the way the lost

3. Battle of Britian. German momentum is brought to a sudden halt. Against the odds, the Brits defeat the Germans in the air and the Luftwaffe was never the same again.

4. Battle of Kursk. Biggest tank battle in history. Hitler basicly gambles his tank reserves and new uber tanks on turning the tide on the eastern front and loses.

5. Midway. The Japanese expansion is halted and delt a huge blow.

6. Landings in Sicily. A second front in Europe, draining the German forces even more. I doubt in many ways that D-Day would have worked if it had not been for the drain of German troops to this front.

I disagree that Guadacanal is a battle turner, other than one of the first actions by US forces in retaking the Pacific. It did not have the huge impact on the Japanese as Midway or Coral Sea campaigns had. In fact it probally had a bigger impact on US forces and mentality because of the hardships in taking that pile of pest infested mud.

Operation Torch was not really a battle as very few shots were fired and the first few "battles" in Operation Torch in Tunsia were total faliures by US forces. El Alamein and the British push from the east was much more significant, as the German forces were basicly nullified in tanks and material.

Barents Sea ... had not heard that in a long time and frankly had forgotten it. Sure its important, but more important than the sinking of Bismark or the battle of the Atlantic?

I thought about the allied invasion of Italy too, and it did open another front in Europe, but becasue of the mountainous terrain narrow peninsula the German were able to bog down the allies with just a few divisions, it was dwarfed in size by the Eastern front and later by the Western front after D-Day.

 

[Iriemon]

some that have been left out so far.....

the landing in Normandy
the battle of the bulge
the marianias (spelling) turkey shoot

D-Day was a tough one, I could see adding it on the list. It certainly had an impact on the war though I'm not sure if it comes as a turning point as much as the others, by June 1944 the German were already stopped, beaten, had been driven out of Russian and were reeling backwards on the Polish border.

Bulge was not a turning point, major American battle but not top 5 over all, IMO. Turkey shoot was after the tide had already shifted against the Japs.

 

[easyt65]

1. Stalingrad. Germany army beaten in most brutal battle of all time.

3. Battle of Britain. RAF defeat of Luftwaffe prevents Germany invasion of England.

3. Peal Harbor raid. Brings US into the war.

2. Midway. Japanese carrier advantage neutralized in two days.

4. El Alamein. British stop prevents Axis control of Mediterranean.

I could live with these; however, I would probably replace El Alamein with the D-day Invasion/Battle. I did not consider Hiroshima/Nagasaki because they were not really 'battles' as much as 'Incidents/Events'.

 

[bub]

All the battles you mentionned are important, but none of you thought about the Blitzkrieg!

If the german army had been stopped during the early stages of the WWII (if France & UK had attacked while the whole Wehrmacht & Luftwaffe were busy invading Poland, for example), it would have been finished in 1940!

That's why I think the "percée de Sedan" (German panzers rushing through the Ardennes in may 1940) has been determinating (is it correct?) because it took the Allies aback: the panzers, speeding to the north sea, encircled most of the UK & Belgian armies in Belgium and cut the French armies in 2 parts. After that, the defeat of 1940 was impossible to avoid.

4 other major battles of the WWII were, according to me, the Battle of Britain, Midway, Stalingrad and Overlord, for the reasons you already mentionned.

 

[PeteEU]

I thought about the allied invasion of Italy too, and it did open another front in Europe, but becasue of the mountainous terrain narrow peninsula the German were able to bog down the allies with just a few divisions, it was dwarfed in size by the Eastern front and later by the Western front after D-Day.

I think you underestimate the importance of a "few german divisions". Yes Italy is mountainous and the allies did have problems at periods to dislodge the germans from positions, but it did tie down not only German troops but also materials had to be diverted to this area. And in a German economy where materials was at a premium that was a huge blow. Another thing is that mentaly it put western Allied troops on the continent again.. not to be underestimated.

the landing in Normandy

Yes it was important, but not for the final defeat of Germany as it was for the future cold war. Germany was by all means already defeated when D-Day happened as the momementum on the eastern front was so much in the Russians favor. The only problem the Russians had often was out runnning thier own supply lines, the large distances that needed covering and the weather. While D-Day had a big impact on the minds of the allies (troops and civilians) and on the germans themselvs, the military significance dont in my mind match those I stated, battles and periods that changed the course of the war. Hand the Italy landings not taken place, then Italy would be in the war still, providing more canon fodder to whatever front, and those few divisions in Italy could or would have been put in use on the Eastern Front and the materials wasted in Italy could have been used in buffing up the western sea wall and so on. At best D-Day took a few weeks or months out of the final defeat of Germany and made sure that western Europe was not communist.

the battle of the bulge

Was a small blip on the war front. Only real significance it had was that Hitler used is reserves on a fruitless campaign, some reserves that might have delayed the allies on either front a few more weeks or months, maybe.

the marianias (spelling) turkey shoot

Not really. Battles in China had more impact than this "shoot".

Other than the US entering the war, the US had no big impact in any major key war turning battles in Europe other than the Italy invasion. On the Japanese front they had a much much bigger impact, but there agin, only a handfull of battles are truely key, and those are mostly the sea battles where the Japanese fleets were destroyed. After that, the landings and land battles were not sigificant in turning the war other than killing thousands of Japanese troops.

 

[Flea]

The most important battle was the one in which the Allies lost that enabled Hitler to waltz into the Sudentenland.

Other battles:

D-Day
Stalingrad
Battle of Britain
Midway

 

[PeteEU]

All the battles you mentionned are important, but none of you thought about the Blitzkrieg!

Yes but it was not a war turner as in giving victory to the allies But yes it was important military tactic that has been used by many nations since.

If the german army had been stopped during the early stages of the WWII (if France & UK had attacked while the whole Wehrmacht & Luftwaffe were busy invading Poland, for example), it would have been finished in 1940!

Doubt it. The French and British had since WW1 gone by the "no more war" bantor, and thier military showed this. Lack of funding and R&D meant that both armies were outdated and under geared. Even if they had managed to "invade" Germany, the reserves of the German army could easily have out gunned and out preformed the Brits and Allies. The French might have had the biggest standing army in Europe, but when that army still is being pulled around by horses then well. Also remember, the Brits and French believed that this war would not be different from the first one.. trench warfare.

That's why I think the "percée de Sedan" (German panzers rushing through the Ardennes in may 1940) has been determinating (is it correct?) because it took the Allies aback: the panzers, speeding to the north sea, encircled most of the UK & Belgian armies in Belgium and cut the French armies in 2 parts. After that, the defeat of 1940 was impossible to avoid.

Correct, read above. The thinking on the French and Briitsh side defeated them long before the first german tank went over the border.

 

[Iriemon]

I could live with these; however, I would probably replace El Alamein with the D-day Invasion/Battle. I did not consider Hiroshima/Nagasaki because they were not really 'battles' as much as 'Incidents/Events'.

I debated that one with myself too and it would be a fair substitution. I chose Alemein because if the Brits had not stopped the Germans from overruning Egypt and gotten control of the Suez, it would have cut off a significant supply line into the Mediterranean, greatly reduced the allied ability to engage in operations in the eastern med, may have prevented the invasion of Italy, given the axis control of the ME oil fields, and also given them a southern route into Russia, all of which would have been bad news in '42.

 

[bub]

Yes I know! But I read that according to Hitler, his life's worst day has been the first day of the invasion of Poland. He wrote himself that if French had attacked him this day, his whole plan would probably have collapsed.

But you're right, the allies were ready for a second WWI, so even if they had dared to attack (some units did it and invaded a few square kilometers close to the frontier, but withdrawed because they feared the reaction of the Germans and still hoped for peace!), they would probably have been rapidly swept away from Germany anyway...

 

[dsanthony]

I second

1. Stalingrad
2. Battle of Britain
3. Pearl Harbor
4. Midway

But let me add one more.

5. Hiroshima and Nagasaki single bombs - ended the war; don't think it gets much more decisive than that.

Actually, neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki ended the war. Japan was drawing up plans which included nuclear attack---and they were working on their own nuclear device, which might have been ready by 1946.

What ended the war was the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan. Japan did not want to fight a "2 front" war--and they did not want their old enemies the Russians to gain a foothold on the Japanese Islands. They decided to surrender to the Americans (as the Germans tried to do) to avoid being consumed by the Soviets.

No one seems to think Operation Overlord was a major battle? Odd....

 

[Iriemon]

I think you underestimate the importance of a "few german divisions". Yes Italy is mountainous and the allies did have problems at periods to dislodge the germans from positions, but it did tie down not only German troops but also materials had to be diverted to this area. And in a German economy where materials was at a premium that was a huge blow. Another thing is that mentaly it put western Allied troops on the continent again.. not to be underestimated.

Though not to be overestimated -- German had about 25 divisions in Italy, a little more than a tenth of the number on the Eastern front. Sicily was invaded in July 43 -- that was the same month as the battle of Kursk by which time the Axis had already retreated in Russian and which basically ended any effective German offensive capability. So I'm not sure how much I would count the Italian campaign in the top five turning points.

But no doubt it did tie down some German resources and every little bit helped.

 

[Iriemon]

Doubt it. The French and British had since WW1 gone by the "no more war" bantor, and thier military showed this. Lack of funding and R&D meant that both armies were outdated and under geared. Even if they had managed to "invade" Germany, the reserves of the German army could easily have out gunned and out preformed the Brits and Allies. The French might have had the biggest standing army in Europe, but when that army still is being pulled around by horses then well. Also remember, the Brits and French believed that this war would not be different from the first one.. trench warfare.

That is a bit of speculation, French had more tanks and the British/French combined forces had more aircraft and manpower, a determined offensive in the West while German units were in Poland might have been successful. But I agree, the thinking was defensive -- the allies and particularly the french had invested huge sums of money into defensive fortifications which they believed based on their recent experiences would be impregnable and from which they could grind the German army to pieces. No one thought the panzers could move so quickly through the Ardennes forest...

 

[PeteEU]

Though not to be overestimated -- German had about 25 divisions in Italy, a little more than a tenth of the number on the Eastern front. Sicily was invaded in July 43 -- that was the same month as the battle of Kursk by which time the Axis had already retreated in Russian and which basically ended any effective German offensive capability. So I'm not sure how much I would count the Italian campaign in the top five turning points.

But no doubt it did tie down some German resources and every little bit helped.

I agree some what, but I still say its important alone on the PR side of things. Allied troops on the continent and so on. And not to mention the blow to moral of a second front and the boost to the allied moral.

That is a bit of speculation, French had more tanks and the British/French combined forces had more aircraft and manpower, a determined offensive in the West while German units were in Poland might have been successful. But I agree, the thinking was defensive -- the allies and particularly the french had invested huge sums of money into defensive fortifications which they believed based on their recent experiences would be impregnable and from which they could grind the German army to pieces. No one thought the panzers could move so quickly through the Ardennes forest...

Its not really speculation. The French might have been superior in manpower and machines, but the quality of the machines was very bad. Plus the French were extremly non mobile.. heck most of the army still used horses as the main form of transport. Thier planes sucked and as for the British, well they were not much better off. The allied Tanks at the time sucked donkey balls frankly and were easily put out of action by german troops, let alone german tanks (who frankly were not that good either at first, but far better than the allies).

 

[Iriemon]

Its not really speculation. The French might have been superior in manpower and machines, but the quality of the machines was very bad. Plus the French were extremly non mobile.. heck most of the army still used horses as the main form of transport. Thier planes sucked and as for the British, well they were not much better off. The allied Tanks at the time sucked donkey balls frankly and were easily put out of action by german troops, let alone german tanks (who frankly were not that good either at first, but far better than the allies).

Don't know if I agree -- German had a lot of horse draw stuff in '39 as well, and their tanks in '39 weren't the hottest things either. I'm not sure that French tanks were so inferior. Don't know about French aircraft, but did the British have Spitfires and Hurricanes then? As proved in the BOB they were a match for the Messerchmitts.

France wasn't overrun because of inferior quality of fighting men or machinery. Toe-to-toe they probably would have stood their ground. France lost because of tactics -- the Panzers bypassed the fortified defenses through the Ardennes forest, which the Allied command did not expect they could do, and cut off the cream of the French army in Belgium. Surrounded and out of supply the game was up.

 

[bub]

PeteEU...nononono I disagree! I'm not a stratege but I know war material of WWII quite good:

but the quality of the machines (french tanks) was very bad.

No! this one and this one were considered to be better than the first models of german Panzers (proof: they have been captured and some have been used/modified by the germans and fought in Russia for example)
The thing that made the difference was the tactic...while the french tanks were used in small groups spread all along the frontline, supporting the infantry, the german grouped their tanks in "panzerdivisionnen", fast independent mechanized groups that rushed through the Ardennes.

The English tanks had a too weak armament. But the Matilda, due to the thickness of its armour, was largely immune to the guns of the German tanks in France, and only the famous 88mm AAA gun could effectively counter it.

As for the french fighters, most of them were older and slower than the german Messerschmitts. But some models, like the Dewoitinne D.520, were a match for the Me-109...but mass production started too late!

And for the english planes: at that time they had a lot of hurricanes (slower than the german Me-109) and a few squadrons of Spitfires (as good as Me-109) but they kept most of their Spitfires to protect the British Islands (taht may have saved them during the Battle of Britain), so most of the English fighters over France in 1940 were Hurricanes, less good than 109's but not yet really outclassed I think.

In the 4 cases, tactic, training and morale had been determinant. I think if the german had had the allies equipment & vice versa, they would have won this battle anyway.

 

[TurtleDude]

Guadacanal

Battle of Britain

My late father (a WWII naval vet whose brother was KIA (DFC) at Okinawa said that while midway was the big one, Coral Sea was the start of the end of the Japanese Navy. (its like Antitem [Sp) in the Civil War as opposed to Gettysburg)

Midway

Stalingrad and the collapse of Von Paulus' army

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Battle of Moscow: People seem to forget that infact the battle for Moscow was one of the largest battles on the Eastern front. If the German Army group centre had captured Moscow, it is very likely the USSR's resistance to Germany army would have been severly reduced. Infact the Germans may have won the Eastern front. Allowing troops to be sent to the war in North Africa.

Battle of the Kursk: Even though the German's had lost the battle of Stalingrad, they had not really lost any of the Panzer Divisions. Up until this time the Soviets had may progress on the Eastern front, but their ability to defat the German's was limited by the Panzer divisions. The anihilation of the Heer's and Waffen-SS' best Panzer units, meant that the Wermacht had no chance of victory of the Eastern front, and secondly the USSR was then able to sweep through the Germans. Paving the way for the constant success of the Red Army in 44.

Battle of Stalingrad: First major German Loss, Al-Elamain was a minor blip, comapred to the huge loss of German infantry. The subseqeunt loss of the German 6th Army, meant that the German Army Group south could not capture the crucial Oil fields of the caucuses.

Battle for Midway: The defeat of the Japanese Navy, drastically reduced the carrier power of the Japanese, giving the U.S pacific fleet a distinct advantage. Also meant that the Japanese had a reduced ability to interecept or defeat U.S forces in the island hopping campaigns.

Battle of Britain: Single handedly changed the potential outcome of the war. At this time the U.S was still neutral. If Britain had been defeated it would be highly likely that America would have stayed out of the war. Secondly it would have allowed Hitler to transfer more divisions from the M.E, and France, and be subsequently deployed for an eventual attack on the USSR.

I don't put D-Day down as an important battle of WWII. Germany was already defeated, D-Day increased the destruction of the Third Reich, and made sure that Western Europe was not communist. Had the Western Allies concentrated on Japan, it is highly likely that the Soviets would have defeated the Germans, and conquered the rest of Europe.