Your favorite WW2 Battle

[rhinefire]

Midway told the Empire of Japan the war was over. The knew then they had grossly underestimated the the ability of America to wage war.
The Battle of the Bulge told Germany their time was up.

The horror of WWII can never be felt by those that did not live duing that time unless you go to France and view the ocean of grave markers. It is an experience that will bring you to your knees.

War starts when humanity stops.

 

[apdst]

Lol what?

Right, so after Kursk German forces were just falling back so they could get back to Berlin and celebrate?

Need to brush up on your history outside of the American perspective.

German forces felk back, because Hitler redeployed them to another sector. Have you evet researched The Battle of Kursk in the least?

 

[apdst]

pick up a history book mate, its often reffered to as the turning point in World War two as it was the allies first victory against axis ground forces. By D-Day the Germans were already being pushed back on the eastern front and we were pushing through Italy.

The Soviets were goingvto get their asses handed to them were it not for the Normandy invasion.

Italy couldn't be utilized as an invasion route because the allied front wasn't broad enough.

 

[Jredbaron96]

German forces felk back, because Hitler redeployed them to another sector. Have you evet researched The Battle of Kursk in the least?

So they were redeployed to another sector for a year?

Oh please. Germany lost the initiative after Kursk, never to regain it. Don't sit here and give me this crap that Germany was actually winning until Overlord. They were losing, Kursk was the beginning of the end.

From Heinz Guderian himself-

"The armoured formations, reformed and re-equipped with so much effort, had lost heavily in both men and equipment and would now be unemployable for a long time to come. It was problematical whether they could be rehabilitated in time to defend the Eastern Front... Needless to say the Russians exploited their victory to the full... From now on, the enemy was in undisputed possession of the initiative."

Ostheer losses we're irreplaceable. 700 tanks and 200,000 casualties. The Eastern Front would never experience another major German victory again.

 

[Spriggs05]

pick up a history book mate, its often reffered to as the turning point in World War two as it was the allies first victory against axis ground forces. By D-Day the Germans were already being pushed back on the eastern front and we were pushing through Italy.

I think that el alamein was the turning point in the war for the allies, it gave them confidence against the axis forces in Northern Africa. The Battle of Britain was a moral booster, but not a turning point. El Alamein actually showed that we could beat back the germans and drive them back towards Italy. By D-Day the germans fate was sealed. The war would have gone on for longer if it had not happened yes, the Allies were advancing through Italy and it would just have been a north-bound march to Germany.

 

[Higgins86]

The Soviets were goingvto get their asses handed to them were it not for the Normandy invasion.

Italy couldn't be utilized as an invasion route because the allied front wasn't broad enough.

but the tide had turned! The Germans were for the first time on the defensive and as spriggs said above "dday sealed their fate". D-Day was a vital battle but the war was already turning in our favour long before D-day.

 

[apdst]

but the tide had turned! The Germans were for the first time on the defensive and as spriggs said above "dday sealed their fate". D-Day was a vital battle but the war was already turning in our favour long before D-day.

The war wasn't won in 1942. That's historically inaccurate and intellectually irresponsible to promote such inaccuracies.

The war wasn't in the bag, until Watch on The Rhine failed in 1944. Anyone with any tactical training--that's you, dude--knows that an army that still has the capability to operate offensively isn't defeated.

 

[apdst]

Lol what?

Right, so after Kursk German forces were just falling back so they could get back to Berlin and celebrate?

Need to brush up on your history outside of the American perspective.

You've never read a single work on the battle of Kursk. Have you?

At Prokorohvka, which was the infamous tank battle of the battle of Kursk, the Soviets lost more than twice a many tanks--500 and 200 respectively. Even Stalin considered it a failure.

While the overall battle of Kursk was a German defeat, it wasn't because of any stroke of tactical genius by the Soviets.

The Battle of Kursk - Battle of Kursk: Eastern Front 1943

The Battle of Kursk

You need to stop believing the myths on the internet that are based on Soviet propaganda.

 

[Higgins86]

The war wasn't won in 1942. That's historically inaccurate and intellectually irresponsible to promote such inaccuracies.

The war wasn't in the bag, until Watch on The Rhine failed in 1944. Anyone with any tactical training--that's you, dude--knows that an army that still has the capability to operate offensively isn't defeated.

But I'm not saying that the war was won in 1942 only that the tide had turned. Obviously the war wasn't won before D-day or even after, Market Garden and the battle of the bulge are testament to that but El Alamein was a turning point in the war. Before El Alamein the Germans were relentless and seemingly unstoppable after their conquest of mainland Europe the British people didn't believe that victory was possible until El Alamein.

As Churchill put it.

"Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein we never had a defeat"

 

[Jredbaron96]

You've never read a single work on the battle of Kursk. Have you?

I've read three books so far that detail the Battle of Kursk.

At Prokorohvka, which was the infamous tank battle of the battle of Kursk, the Soviets lost more than twice a many tanks--500 and 200 respectively. Even Stalin considered it a failure.

The Soviet losses were replaceable. Germany's were not.

While the overall battle of Kursk was a German defeat, it wasn't because of any stroke of tactical genius by the Soviets.

I don't recall saying it was.

You need to stop believing the myths on the internet that are based on Soviet propaganda.

Oh please. The only one buying into the propaganda here is you.

And did you even read your own sites? The first one, the battle of Kursk just proved what I already said. And the second one didn't pertain to what I argued. You really should read your links before posting them.

 

[ThirdTerm]

 

[apdst]

I've read three books so far that detail the Battle of Kursk.



The Soviet losses were replaceable. Germany's were not.



I don't recall saying it was.



Oh please. The only one buying into the propaganda here is you.

And did you even read your own sites? The first one, the battle of Kursk just proved what I already said. And the second one didn't pertain to what I argued. You really should read your links before posting them.

Which ones?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Which ones?

The Oxford Guide to World War II: I. C. B. (ed.) Dear: 9780195340969: Amazon.com: Books

http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-War-II-HP-Willmott/dp/1405312629

World War 2: A Complete Pictographic History: Hal Buell: 9781579124083: Amazon.com: Books

Each one had it's own section dedicated to the Battle of Kursk.

(On a side not, I'd reccomend these to anyone looking for a great, comprehensive study of the Second World War.)

 

[apdst]

The Oxford Guide to World War II: I. C. B. (ed.) Dear: 9780195340969: Amazon.com: Books

http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-War-II-HP-Willmott/dp/1405312629

World War 2: A Complete Pictographic History: Hal Buell: 9781579124083: Amazon.com: Books

Each one had it's own section dedicated to the Battle of Kursk.

(On a side not, I'd reccomend these to anyone looking for a great, comprehensive study of the Second World War.)

Those books are about WW2, not specifically about Kursk. Hell! One of them is a friggin picture book! Your sources confirm my suspsicions. :lamo

 

[Jredbaron96]

Those books are about WW2, not specifically about Kursk.

Each one contains a section about Kursk, it's effects and the losses sustained. Stick around boy, you might just learn something.

One of them is a friggin picture book!

Yeah, and a detailing of pretty much every day of the war. More than just pretty pictures.

Your sources confirm my suspsicions. :lamo

That I have a far better grasp of the subject than you? Didn't need the sources to confirm that, lol.

 

[apdst]

Each one contains a section about Kursk, it's effects and the losses sustained. Stick around boy, you might just learn something.




Yeah, and a detailing of pretty much every day of the war. More than just pretty pictures.



That I have a far better grasp of the subject than you? Didn't need the sources to confirm that, lol.

A BETTER grasp? Um...no...lol! Reading three 8th grade level picture books doesn't make you an expert.

 

[Jredbaron96]

A BETTER grasp?

Apparently. You proclaimed that D-Day was the turning point in the war, which was patently false, since Germany had been on the retreat for about a year at that point. They had lost the initiative in the East, and while Italy was not (As you and I most likely agree) a major front, they were still being pushed back there. D-Day certainly was the beginning of the end for the Third Reich, but the tide had already turned by then.

Your refusal to admit that indicates that either you have no knowledge of the Second World War outside the American experience or are willfully ignorant.

Um...no...lol!

Um...yes...lol!

Reading three 8th grade level picture books doesn't make you an expert.

First off, I never claimed to be an expert. And it is not an Eigth Grade Picture book, but I understand that you're incapable of actually debating so you resort to petty and childish tactics.

 

[apdst]

Apparently. You proclaimed that D-Day was the turning point in the war, which was patently false, since Germany had been on the retreat for about a year at that point. They had lost the initiative in the East, and while Italy was not (As you and I most likely agree) a major front, they were still being pushed back there. D-Day certainly was the beginning of the end for the Third Reich, but the tide had already turned by then.

Your refusal to admit that indicates that either you have no knowledge of the Second World War outside the American experience or are willfully ignorant.

Retreating isn't losing. The Federals, during the Civil War, were retreating for the first two-and-a-half years of the war. The Army of The Potomac didn't score a significant victory until July of 1863. The United States was getting mauled by the Japanese until 1943. Who won those wars?

At anytime, prior to The Watch on The Rhine, the Germans could have rallied and achieved victory, or at least an armistice agreement.

Operation Market Garden could have left the door wide open for a German comeback in western Europe. Luckily for the Allies, Montgomery was never allowed to plan a major operation, again.

First off, I never claimed to be an expert. And it is not an Eigth Grade Picture book, but I understand that you're incapable of actually debating so you resort to petty and childish tactics.

Well, it's like this: I'm very knowledgeble in military history. You're claiming that all of my conclusions are incorrect. The only way for you to be correct, would be for you to be an expert. But, all I'm seeing are grade school books with pictures for the big words and insults as your proof.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

I'm a big fan of the Battle of Nagasaki. It answered the question: "or else what?"

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Midway told the Empire of Japan the war was over. The knew then they had grossly underestimated the the ability of America to wage war.
The Battle of the Bulge told Germany their time was up.

The horror of WWII can never be felt by those that did not live duing that time unless you go to France and view the ocean of grave markers. It is an experience that will bring you to your knees.

War starts when humanity stops.

The Japanese already knew that they couldn't win a war from the time they started Pearl Harbor. An internal report predicted defeat by 1944 or 1945 and claimed that their only chances was to construct an invincible defensive line at the Pacific that will eventually wear out the US and lose them the will to fight. Just pointing it out

 

[apdst]

The Japanese already knew that they couldn't win a war from the time they started Pearl Harbor. An internal report predicted defeat by 1944 or 1945 and claimed that their only chances was to construct an invincible defensive line at the Pacific that will eventually wear out the US and lose them the will to fight. Just pointing it out

So, it wasn't a forgone conclusion that Japan would lose?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Retreating isn't losing. The Federals, during the Civil War, were retreating for the first two-and-a-half years of the war. The Army of The Potomac didn't score a significant victory until July of 1863.

The Union was in a far better position than Nazi Germany was.

Secondly, Germany was by pretty much losing on ever level. They were being forced back on the Eastern Front, losing men and equipment every day. Smolensk, Kiev, Belgorod-Khar'kov, Belgorod. The best the Germans got was Lenino, and even then the Soviets gained ground. Germany had already lost it's main ally in Europe, they had been forced out of north Africa and were being bombarded from the air. They were undoubtedly losing the war.

The United States was getting mauled by the Japanese until 1943.

Partially. A lot of Japanese victories were in areas that the USA and it's allies could not realistically prevent. On the other hand, Midway had resulted in an American victory, so had the Eastern Solomons. Guadalcanal too.

Who won those wars?

I'll take USA for 500.

At anytime, prior to The Watch on The Rhine, the Germans could have rallied and achieved victory, or at least an armistice agreement.

Hardly. As long as Hitler was in command, Germany wasn't achieving ****, save for destruction and death.

Operation Market Garden could have left the door wide open for a German comeback in western Europe.

Generally curious here. How do you suppose a German comeback like that would've panned out?

Luckily for the Allies, Montgomery was never allowed to plan a major operation, again.

I always felt bad for Bernard. At one point, he was top dog, then he was just a footnote.

Well, it's like this: I'm very knowledgeable in military history.

I'm sure you are.

You're claiming that all of my conclusions are incorrect.

Because they are.

The only way for you to be correct, would be for you to be an expert.

Not necessarily. It would help, but it is not a requirement.

But, all I'm seeing are grade school books with pictures for the big words and insults as your proof.

More like what you want to see is grade school books. If you want, I can get you a few pictures of the pages. You would have to wait a bit though, I'm away from home right now.

 

[Captain Adverse]

You should have just stuck to the PC element and left Biffontaine out of it.

The Four-Four-Two was used as cannon fodder, because the commander of the 36th ID wasn't going to risk white soldiers on a mission he believed was doomed from the git-go.

So that little bit of racism detracts from the courage and fortitude of the 442 that led to eventual victory? That was uncalled for. :naughty

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

So, it wasn't a forgone conclusion that Japan would lose?

They knew that they could never win a war in a conventional sense if that's what you mean

 

[apdst]

So that little bit of racism detracts from the courage and fortitude of the 442 that led to eventual victory? That was uncalled for. :naughty

I hate seeing historical facts distorted, so as to portray a false impression. The 442nd didn't volunteer. In fact, the unit commander--a white dude--was like, "um, are you SURE that's what you want to do?"