Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?

Laguna Loire

Which battle during World War II do you believe was more instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany, D-Day or Operation Barbarossa? I'm an American and I'm hesitant to say that either side was more instrumental. On one side the Americans liberated France and on the other side the Soviets pushed back the Germans. Arguably, the Soviets reached Berlin first, but if it wasn't for the American-led invasion in Western Europe, the Germans could have focused all of their attention on the Soviet Union and possibly launched a successful counter-offensive. But without Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet Union would have been severely weakened, and possibly even defeated. Which battle do you think was more instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany?

P. Breathnach

Stalingrad.

Tabnabs

Battle of the Atlantic

If the UK had been cut off and starved in food and munitions, if the US and Canadian troops had been sunk on their way across and if the Arctic convoys had been stopped, the war would have taken a very different turn.

Capt'n Midnight

As far as I'm aware there was never more than 1/4 of the German Army on the Western Front after the defeat of France.

Russia defeated Germany with some aid from the Western allies.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
The Russians beat the Japanese in 1939 , this meant that Japan headed south instead of North. And the Russia didn't have to worry about fighting on two fronts during the way. Ironically it also meant that Russia was free to invade Poland.



Russia was able to move factories behind the Urals in time.

Delancey

When you accept that 85 -90 % of German combat deaths occured on the Eastern front you must conclude that Operation Overlord / D Day was a sideshow.
Granted the Western Allies made a vital contribution to German defeat both by causing the Germans to split their forces and also by their intensive bombing campaign which ultimately ruined German armament production.
Make no mistake though - the Soviets defeated the Nazis.

Manach

I'd agree that the Wehrmarcht was mostly destroyed on the eastern front.
Offhand, I'd say Kursk, in marking a turning point.

Judgement Day

If the wicked Brits hadn't stood firm, alone, against the Nazis they would have rolled over the Russians unhindered by anybody.

Fratton Fred

The battle of Britain was also instrumental.

If Germany had invaded Russia 6 months earlier Europe would look very different now.

Delancey

Have to say I think the significance of the Battle of Britain is hugely overstated. While in no way minimising the achievement of the RAF and it's '' few '' pilots , post-war analysis of German Invasion plans ( Operation Sealion ) show that it was a half-assed effort with the Germans completely lacking the amphibious capability to invade Britain.

Capt'n Midnight

Judgement Day wrote: »

If the wicked Brits hadn't stood firm, alone, against the Nazis they would have rolled over the Russians unhindered by anybody.

What exactly did Britian do between Dunkirk and Barbarossa ?

The North Africa / Italy thing was another side show from 1942 - 1945. It may have used even more axis resources than D Day. But neither really changed the Eastern front.

What if the Germans had taken Moscow in 1941 ? Napoleon took it in 1812 and although it wasn't the capital back then Russians would not have looked it as a final defeat.

mikemac

Kursk
D Day was but a sideshow

Even if Hitler took Moscow in 1941 it's a long way to a victory. Leningrad in the north was not taken and Stalingrad in the south had the 6th army occupied

Taking Moscow would have been an empty victory

shanec1928

battle of the bulge

Fratton Fred

A quarter of the German army tied up on the western front and it is insignificant? Not to mention almost the entire German fleet and a huge chunk of the Luftwaffe?

Germany would have steam rollered Russia if the western front hadn't stayed open and the Battle of Britain was an important part of this.

D-day wasn't a decisive battle because by that time the tide had turned, but keeping the western front open was vital.

dpe

Kursk. No question. It was at Kursk that the Germans effectively lost the ability to go on the offensive. They were still brilliant at counter-attacks and fighting retreats, but their whole offensive/defensive posture changed after Kursk. For the Japanese it was Midway and for pretty much the same reason.

dpe

mikemac wrote: »

Kursk
D Day was but a sideshow

Even if Hitler took Moscow in 1941 it's a long way to a victory. Leningrad in the north was not taken and Stalingrad in the south had the 6th army occupied

Taking Moscow would have been an empty victory

I don't think so. Moscow was (still is) the central hub that all Soviet rail, road and comms flows through. More importantly, Moscow is a symbol and Stalin could easily have been overthrown if it had been lost.

Also, the Germans hadn't turned south towards Stalingrad at that point (that was 8 months later); if they'd taken Moscow, the diversion of forces to Army Group South could have been entirely different; there may not even have been a Stalingrad. What is pretty certain is that without the Moscow-Leningrad railhead, Leningrad would have fallen (the rail line didn't get as far as Leningrad because the Germans had blocked it, but almost every bit of Leningrad resupply came at least part of the way by train from Moscow).

rokossovsky

IMO the battle of Moscow was where the Germans were stopped first. Stalingrad was a massive encirclement and defeat for he 6th Army that had conquered Europe, Operation Begration crushed the German war machine and Kursk finished the Panzer armies as an effective fighting force.
Without doubt the eastern front was where the war was won and lost. OverLord an incredible achievement and huge sacrifice tho it was, was a side show in comparison to the 1000mile long eastern front. Twenty seven million Soviet citizens killed says enough.
Май имена всех погибших героев жить вечно

Fratton Fred

rokossovsky wrote: »

Twenty seven million Soviet citizens killed says enough.
??? ????? ???? ???????? ?????? ???? ?????

20million by the Soviets, 7million by the Germans.

PatsytheNazi

One factor that is often forgotten about in the demise of Germany was the daylight bombing raids of the USAF. The USAF inflicted daylight raids were of collosal damage to German industry and on the Luftwaffe* and hence killing their capacity to keep arming and fighting. Don't know much about the Soviet airforce, from what I do know the USSR's massive input into the defeat of Germany was through the land battles. Though putting up a great effort during the Battle Of Britain, the RAF's night time bombing missions were practically useless as about only one in three bombers got within even 5 miles of the target.

*Don't have figures to hand but I remember watching a programme on Discovery and they said that the Mustang shot down more ME 109's than the British and Soviet airforces together. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Fratton Fred

The Mustang probably did, due to a number of reasons.

It had a much further range, so could fly into Germany and fight the Luftwaffe there. Also, it was produced in enormous numbers and swamped airspace over western europe.

Delancey

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Mustang probably did, due to a number of reasons.

It had a much further range, so could fly into Germany and fight the Luftwaffe there. Also, it was produced in enormous numbers and swamped airspace over western europe.

Also crucially by the time the Mustang was in service in very large numbers the Luftwaffe was starting to suffer shortages of fuel and spare parts which impacted hugely on the level of training its new pilots were getting.
This had a big effect on the Allied ' kill ' ratio.

PatsytheNazi

Delancey wrote: »

Also crucially by the time the Mustang was in service in very large numbers the Luftwaffe was starting to suffer shortages of fuel and spare parts which impacted hugely on the level of training its new pilots were getting.
This had a big effect on the Allied ' kill ' ratio.

The shortage of fuel and spare parts was the domino effect of the daylight raids and like what Fred said, the Mustangs could accompany the bombers into Germany and engage the ME109's.

True enough regarding new pilots, and Britain had the same issue during the Battle of Britain. It took say, 72 or whatever hours to turn out a working Spitfire or Hurricane, training a competent fighter pilot was another story.

dpe

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

One factor that is often forgotten about in the demise of Germany was the daylight bombing raids of the USAF. The USAF inflicted daylight raids were of collosal damage to German industry and on the Luftwaffe* and hence killing their capacity to keep arming and fighting. Don't know much about the Soviet airforce, from what I do know the USSR's massive input into the defeat of Germany was through the land battles. Though putting up a great effort during the Battle Of Britain, the RAF's night time bombing missions were practically useless as about only one in three bombers got within even 5 miles of the target.

*Don't have figures to hand but I remember watching a programme on Discovery and they said that the Mustang shot down more ME 109's than the British and Soviet airforces together. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You really can't help yourself can you? The reality was neither day or night bombing had any pretence of precision (although the most precise bombing was done by the RAF), but the RAF dropped more bombs than the USAAF. But that wouldn't play to your ingrained prejudices.

PatsytheNazi

dpe wrote: »

You really can't help yourself can you? The reality was neither day or night bombing had any pretence of precision (although the most precise bombing was done by the RAF), but the RAF dropped more bombs than the USAAF. But that wouldn't play to your ingrained prejudices.

You need to read the excellent Bomber Command by Max Hastings ( he's English). For example "again and again at this period, Germany would be genuinely unaware that Bomber Command had been attempting to attack a specific target or even a specific region. There was merely a litter of explosives on farms, homes, lakes, forests and -- occasionally -- on factories and installations from end to end of the Reich."

As regards the USAF - " The first real breakthrough in the bomber offensive occurred in the Spring of 1944, when U.S. long-range Mustang fighters became available in large numbers. Mustangs escorted USAAF bombers on daylight raids against synthetic oil plants, the Achilles Heel of the German war economy.The cream of the Luftwaffe's experienced fighter pilots were lost in the war of attrition waged by the Americans. From June through August 1944, the total percentage of U.S. bombing efforts against oil targets never exceeded 17 per cent of their total bombs dropped, but the results were a catastrophe for the Germans. By the late summer of 1944, little fuel was available to power the thousands of tanks and planes (including jet fighters and bombers) Speer's factories were producing."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v01/v01p247_Lutton.html

According to the RAF's own Butt report - "Any examination of night photographs taken during night bombing in June and July points to the following conclusions:

Of those aircraft recorded as attacking their target, only one in three got within 5 miles [(8 kilometres)].
Over the French ports, the proportion was two in three; over Germany as a whole, the proportion was one in four; over the Ruhr it was only one in ten.
In the full moon, the proportion was two in five; in the new moon it was only one in fifteen. ...
All these figures relate only to aircraft recorded as attacking the target; the proportion of the total sorties which reached within 5 miles is less than one-third. ...
The conclusion seems to follow that only about one-third of aircraft claiming to reach their target actually reached it"

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

Judgement Day

Hindsight is such a great thing isn't it? Pity you weren't there to conduct the British war effort but then again you would have probably run up the white flag and joined your German friends.

Cookie_Monster

Laguna Loire wrote: »

On one side the Americans liberated France

:rolleyes:

all by themselves did they?
There were more Brits (inc Canadians under their command) involved in D-Day than US ...

Judgement Day

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

:rolleyes:

all by themselves did they?
There were more Brits (inc Canadians under their command) involved in D-Day than US ...

Yep, it was the last time that British & Commonwealth troops outnumbered US forces during WWII.

jonniebgood1

There is a good summary of the reasons for night bombing by the RAF in this post from a thread on the Military forum http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68947297&postcount=19

Fratton Fred

Patsy, the fact the Germans bombed Dublin mistaking it for Belfast is a good indication of how accurate night bombing was on both sides.

I will try and dig out some pictures of a cinema three miles from Portsmouth harbour that was bombed during a daylight raid on the navy base as well, it was a very hit and miss business.

jam_mac_jam

Kursk or maybe Stalingrad.

TerrorFirmer

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

One factor that is often forgotten about in the demise of Germany was the daylight bombing raids of the USAF. The USAF inflicted daylight raids were of collosal damage to German industry and on the Luftwaffe* and hence killing their capacity to keep arming and fighting. Don't know much about the Soviet airforce, from what I do know the USSR's massive input into the defeat of Germany was through the land battles. Though putting up a great effort during the Battle Of Britain, the RAF's night time bombing missions were practically useless as about only one in three bombers got within even 5 miles of the target.

*Don't have figures to hand but I remember watching a programme on Discovery and they said that the Mustang shot down more ME 109's than the British and Soviet airforces together. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Actually, you're not exactly correct on a number of accounts.

The first being, that by the time heavy daylight raids truly began in earnest; when the Luftwaffe was effectively destroyed in attrition fighting with newly available fighter escorts however, at that point, despite having a relatively healthy home defense capability, the Germans were still very much staring eventual and inevitable defeat in the face so it's not fair to use the air campaign as a turning point or battle; to the point of affecting German output, Germany was already a defeated nation. And even then it was strikes on oil, not industry itself that crippled the Germans, much like Japan in 1944/45. Secondly, German industrial output still managed to generally increase until early 1945, I'm pretty sure Speer said that more tanks rolled off the lines in January/February 1945 then did any time prior to that. The main problem was fuel; obviously any amount of armored vehicles is meaningless without the fuel with which to use them. Look at the amount of offensive actions starting with the Ardennes in which failed offensives resulted in vehicles being abandoned/destroyed for want of fuel. This got particularly bad by about February. One of the last German offensives of the war in February involved over 1,000 tanks and was an absolute disaster owing to a combination of weather and major fuel deficiencies.

D-Day for the same reasons is not a tide turner, it simply hastened the defeat of Germany. Defeat by June 1944 was an inevitability. D-Day can never be underestimated for its hastening of victory, but it was by no means, nor ever was, a tide turner, not now, and not then, either.

edit: Sorry Patsy, upon rereading the thread I actually see you've addressed those very points.

IMO the battle of Moscow was where the Germans were stopped first.

Brave as the Russians were, the grind in front of Moscow owes far more to both the weather and the Germans lack of preparation for such weather with regards fuel, uniforms, weapons and provisions. The soviets failed to break the line and with the resumption of spring the Wehrmacht steamrolled over the Red army once more up until Stalingrad. By no means was Moscow any sort of turning point.

Kursk. No question. It was at Kursk that the Germans effectively lost the ability to go on the offensive. They were still brilliant at counter-attacks and fighting retreats, but their whole offensive/defensive posture changed after Kursk. For the Japanese it was Midway and for pretty much the same reason.

Agree 100%. After Kursk they never regained the ability for offensive momentum.

Stalingrad was a massive encirclement and defeat for he 6th Army that had conquered Europe, Operation Begration crushed the German war machine and Kursk finished the Panzer armies as an effective fighting force.

Stalingrad was both a blunder and unimaginable defeat. It wasn't strictly 'the' turning point, I believe Kursk demands that recognition. It wasn't until Kursk, that the Germans lost their offensive potential and thus, any ability to wage a successful war in the east. After Stalingrad; spring 1943; subsequent Red Army efforts to roll up the front elsewhere where entirely blunted. The most senseless thing about Kursk was the rejection of Mansteins more rational projections for a pincer, and the favoring of launching a numerically inferior German group against a defensive line compromised of several defensive belts in depth. That the Germans almost broke through despite it all was nothing short of a miracle but it was a battle they could never have ultimately won.

Bagration, much like D-day, was not a tide turner despite the massive qualitative and quantitative losses it inflicted on the Germans. The tide had turned long before that point. It is, however, most unfortunate that D-Day is synonymous with the downfall of Nazi Germany when Bagration absolutely shattered the Wehrmacht to the point of rendering D-day negligible in regards to losses of both manpower, armor and equipment. Bagration was the single worst German defeat of the entire war in those regards. Never before or since did the Germans suffer such a defeat, not only in tactical terms but that of numbers, and grossly disproportionate at that. Bagration was the true beginning of the end for Germany, notwithstanding the hindsight of the introduction of the atomic bomb.

A quarter of the German army tied up on the western front and it is insignificant? Not to mention almost the entire German fleet and a huge chunk of the Luftwaffe?

Germany would have steam rollered Russia if the western front hadn't stayed open and the Battle of Britain was an important part of this.

I don't agree with that. Many of the units in the West at any one time, generally speaking, were recuperation and training units, and an almost negligible amount of armor was sent west compared to the eastern front. Max Hastings said in Armageddon that something like 10% of armor was allocated westwards in February 1945, for example.

The Battle of Britain had very little bearing on Barbarossa. Indeed, the first few days of the campaign saw one of the most, if not the most, spectacular aerial victories in history - the Red Army lost so many planes it's air force practically ceased to exist and indeed, right up until 1945, the Red Air Force didn't play much of a part in the broader campaign. Long after they lost aerial superiority in the west, the Luftwaffe held up remarkably well in the east.

Lack of men and armor was never inherently Germany's problem. One could argue that it started to become a problem by 1943, but by that point Germanys chance of a crushing victory had ebbed away decisively in any case, even if a victory of sorts remained achievable. It was Hitlers ridiculous micro managing of the entire front, and the debacles of Stalingrad, Kursk, not to mention other, perhaps less catastrophic events, that destroyed the Germany army, and yielded defeat in the east.

Battle of the Atlantic

If the UK had been cut off and starved in food and munitions, if the US and Canadian troops had been sunk on their way across and if the Arctic convoys had been stopped, the war would have taken a very different turn.

Yes. Agree with that also. Battle of the Atlantic decided the fate of Britain, of US participation in Europe, and of a great many supplies to the SU also, though I would use the word 'could' rather than 'would'. Even in Germany had triumphed in the seas by early/mid 1943, the war in the east would have still likely proceeded in the same direction, and, at best, its outcome was certainly very uncertain even in such favorable circumstances.

battle of the bulge

.............

rokossovsky

Fratton Fred wrote: »

20million by the Soviets, 7million by the Germans.

Read and learn
http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/ELM-War_Deaths.pdf