Poll: Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?

[Warforger]

EDIT: Found the numbers. By the time they were attacked the Red Army had around 3 million soldiers, and they weren't even drafting. And at it's peak, 12.5 million men fought in the Red Army during WWII.

Ok good, Germany's army in WWI was bigger then that so I remain confident......

Give me proof. All I have heard is people saying that they are larger. I look it up, and the Wermacht as a WHOLE (Luftwaffe, Heer, and Kriegsmarine.) had around the same numbers as just the Red Army.

Oh that wasn't a typo, I meant World war 1. Wikipedia for some reason does not have the strength numbers for whatever reason but it does for WWI. And for WWI here is what it has.

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

13,000,000 vs. 12,000,000.

As for WWII I still can't find ANYTHING, looked it up in google and no one seems to have anything exactly written down.

 

[jakeblues1295]

.

 

[The Epicosity]

EDIT: Found the numbers. By the time they were attacked the Red Army had around 3 million soldiers, and they weren't even drafting. And at it's peak, 12.5 million men fought in the Red Army during WWII.

Ok good, Germany's army in WWI was bigger then that so I remain confident......

Give me proof. All I have heard is people saying that they are larger. I look it up, and the Wermacht as a WHOLE (Luftwaffe, Heer, and Kriegsmarine.) had around the same numbers as just the Red Army.

Oh that wasn't a typo, I meant World war 1. Wikipedia for some reason does not have the strength numbers for whatever reason but it does for WWI. And for WWI here is what it has.

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

13,000,000 vs. 12,000,000.

As for WWII I still can't find ANYTHING, looked it up in google and no one seems to have anything exactly written down.

Sorry, thought you said WWII, mind auto-corrected that. I got my info for the Germans off of this: http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

 

[The Epicosity]

I would say that the failure to capture and hold stalingrad really sealed germany, Im not convinced that america really needed to get involved after that for germany to lose, realy the blitzkrieg was a last resort method, they didnt have the man power for a protracted war like ww1 was, russia had a much better chance in such a war, granted if the US didnt get involved it would have lasted much longer but germany was still pretty effed

Blitzkrieg was not a last resort method, it was used at the very beginning of the war and throughout it, when Germany did have sufficient manpower compared to other countries to fight a WWI war, it was just that technology had made it impractical compared to the new style which moved much faster and required much less men.

Also, I used this before in the wrong place, but if no one but maybe the British fought off the Japanese, Japan might've messed with Russia and given it another front, being a traditional enemy, and Japan would almost definitely taken over all of China and maybe even gone all the way to Europe to link up with Germany if they had the resources. That would at least stretch out the war so it would be much longer.

 

[ApophisMP]

All of them

 

[_alexisneverlate_]

With myth one, the only technological advances that I heard about was the T-34, even though that was a AMAZING tank, it is true that the Red Army won a lot of battles at least partially because of tons of bodies.

Myth two, no. Russian winters are MUCH colder than anywhere else other than somewhere like Antarctica, not all places have the same temperatures, and the German army hadn't planned on battling the Russians in the winter, they had planned it to be a quick operation that they could get done before then, so it did cause huge amounts of damage to both the physical army and their morale.

Since i wrote some papers on ww2 history and generaly read a lot about that topic let me list a bit more.

Germans were far ahead in 1941-43 in terms of army organisation, radio, optics (in tanks), had slightly better air fighters and bombers.
Russians in 1941-43 had better tanks (T34 and KV-1 were vastly superior to pz2-pz4, better personal weapons - namely the more reliable PPSH etc.).
Guns, fleets etc. were comparible.
In 43-44 Germans had better tanks, for a limited time (until T3485 and IS2 appeared which were comparible to Panther and Tiger\KingTiger in effectivenes, although not as pretty ,and were better suited for mass production)
In 42-43 Russians began to have comparible/better fighter aircrafts (La-5)
Also there was the IL2 ground attack aircraft, "the flying tank" same of which none of the other nations did have.
Also since 42 the russians have had devastating rocket artillery "Katysha" BM-13 launchers.

etc. etc.

In general both armies had their aces in the sleeves and were technologically comparible. Some better at certain points etc. Russians didnt win the war with "bodies" and abscence of technology and organisation. It was a worthy rival for the wermacht. And they did fought really really fiercely.

Now about the winter, it is true that it was planned that the Barbarossa would end before winter, although as i mentioned before, Russians suffered exactly the same as germans (entie regments freezing to death), and at certain points were supplied even worse than germany with winter gear. Russians do live in warm houses, you know, and winters there are not generally significantly much colder than anywhere else. (Unless you go to nothern syberia... where there were no germans). It did happen that winter in 41-42 were rather cold.. but that stroke both sides.
By the way, fighting in spring was even more difficult than in winter for both sides, from the logistics point of view.

 

[The Epicosity]

Please, there is no contest.

The eastern front is where WW2 was won and lost. Germany's armies were bled out against the sheer size of the Soviet Union and its military. Without the eastern front there would have been no D-Day. D-day was more like the final nail in the coffin.

Also Barbarossa wasn't a battle as such, it was the name for a series of German Assaults into the Soviet Union. In terms of actual battles on the Eastern front i would say Kursk or Stalingrad. Stalingrad halted the German's advance and sent Hitler livid, causing him to divert more and more troops into a useless meatgrinder. Kursk, the largest tank battle in the war was the final blow for Germany on the eastern front, after that they only fell back.

Also, D-Day was by no means just an American thing, not by a long shot. There appears to be this fallacy that America won WW2 for the allies, if anyone did it was Russia.

True for the last part, but no one considers the front with Japan, which might have caused major problems with the European Allies if the Americans didn't push them back with the small help from England, I have said that so many times I feel like I believe America did do all the work (Which I do not.) and am just clinging to the only major thing that America did...

Also, D-Day would never have happened without America, you fail to remember that Eisenhower planned it.

 

[Worgen]

I would say that the failure to capture and hold stalingrad really sealed germany, Im not convinced that america really needed to get involved after that for germany to lose, realy the blitzkrieg was a last resort method, they didnt have the man power for a protracted war like ww1 was, russia had a much better chance in such a war, granted if the US didnt get involved it would have lasted much longer but germany was still pretty effed

Blitzkrieg was not a last resort method, it was used at the very beginning of the war and throughout it, when Germany did have sufficient manpower compared to other countries to fight a WWI war, it was just that technology had made it impractical compared to the new style which moved much faster and required much less men.

Also, I used this before in the wrong place, but if no one but maybe the British fought off the Japanese, Japan might've messed with Russia and given it another front, being a traditional enemy, and Japan would almost definitely taken over all of China and maybe even gone all the way to Europe to link up with Germany if they had the resources. That would at least stretch out the war so it would be much longer.

thats what Im saying, blitzkrieg was the only tactic that germany could use and if it failed then they were screwed, they just got very lucky so much so that they got stupid and attacked russia

if japan didnt attack the US then it could have been a major thorn in russia since I think russia had a good portion of its troops setup to counter a possible attack from japan but Im going under the assumption that japan would attack america anyway since they really wanted a way to get more war supplies and we had an embargo on them so they hoped to knock us out quickly by sinking our fleet and forcing us to sue for piece to allow them to roam unchecked in the pacific

 

[The Epicosity]

With myth one, the only technological advances that I heard about was the T-34, even though that was a AMAZING tank, it is true that the Red Army won a lot of battles at least partially because of tons of bodies.

Myth two, no. Russian winters are MUCH colder than anywhere else other than somewhere like Antarctica, not all places have the same temperatures, and the German army hadn't planned on battling the Russians in the winter, they had planned it to be a quick operation that they could get done before then, so it did cause huge amounts of damage to both the physical army and their morale.

Since i wrote some papers on ww2 history and generaly read a lot about that topic let me list a bit more.

Germans were far ahead in 1941-43 in terms of army organisation, radio, optics (in tanks), had slightly better air fighters and bombers.
Russians in 1941-43 had better tanks (T34 and KV-1 were vastly superior to pz2-pz4, better personal weapons - namely the more reliable PPSH etc.).
Guns, fleets etc. were comparible.
In 43-44 Germans had better tanks, for a limited time (until T3485 and IS2 appeared which were comparible to Panther and Tiger\KingTiger in effectivenes, although not as pretty ,and were better suited for mass production)
In 42-43 Russians began to have comparible fighter aircrafts (La-5)
Also there was the IL2 attack aircraft, "the flying tank" which none of the other nations did have.
Also since 42 the russians had devastating rocket artillery "Katysha" BM-13 launchers.

etc. etc.

In general both armies had their aces in the sleeves and were technologically comparible. Some better at certain points etc.

Now about the winter, it is true that it was planned that the Barbarossa would end before winter, although as i mentioned before, Russians suffered exactly the same as germans (entie regments freezing to death), and at certain points were supplied even worse than germany with winter gear. Russians do live in warm houses, you know, and winters there are not generally colder than anywhere else. (Unless go to nothern syberia... where there were no germans).
By the way, fighting in spring was even worse than in winter for both sides, from the logistics point of view.

They did not suffer as much as Germany, they suffered less, they were PREPARED for it, and even trained in it, the Germans had neither experience nor preperation.

Also, that technological advantage part did nothing to me but remind me about the Katysha, and the Americans had the Thunderbolt, nicknamed the Jug, which sounds alot like those "Flying Tanks" and (I think) were given to Russia.

 

[Pierce Graham]

The Soviets did. They had been fighting for 3 years without any help from the Americans, and were not only winning, but pushing the Nazis back every year. They could have easily won the war on their own. The Americans could have too. But it would have taken longer for either to win alone. Both the USSR and the USA had superior economic and military power. The two together were far more effective, however.

 

[The Epicosity]

I would say that the failure to capture and hold stalingrad really sealed germany, Im not convinced that america really needed to get involved after that for germany to lose, realy the blitzkrieg was a last resort method, they didnt have the man power for a protracted war like ww1 was, russia had a much better chance in such a war, granted if the US didnt get involved it would have lasted much longer but germany was still pretty effed

Blitzkrieg was not a last resort method, it was used at the very beginning of the war and throughout it, when Germany did have sufficient manpower compared to other countries to fight a WWI war, it was just that technology had made it impractical compared to the new style which moved much faster and required much less men.

Also, I used this before in the wrong place, but if no one but maybe the British fought off the Japanese, Japan might've messed with Russia and given it another front, being a traditional enemy, and Japan would almost definitely taken over all of China and maybe even gone all the way to Europe to link up with Germany if they had the resources. That would at least stretch out the war so it would be much longer.

thats what Im saying, blitzkrieg was the only tactic that germany could use and if it failed then they were screwed, they just got very lucky so much so that they got stupid and attacked russia

if japan didnt attack the US then it could have been a major thorn in russia since I think russia had a good portion of its troops setup to counter a possible attack from japan but Im going under the assumption that japan would attack america anyway since they really wanted a way to get more war supplies and we had an embargo on them so they hoped to knock us out quickly by sinking our fleet and forcing us to sue for piece to allow them to roam unchecked in the pacific

Also get access to the Atlantic, and not too many countries had backup plans, Blitzkrieg didn't exactly fail that much, either, and that is an offensive strategy, not defensive. When it does fail, I don't think they would trust in their backup, anyways, as far as they knew, it wasn't going to win, or even likely to, like Blitzkrieg was, so they would probably just use Blitzkrieg again, it had won so many times before, the last must've just been the other side's luck.

 

[The Epicosity]

The Soviets did. They had been fighting for 3 years without any help from the Americans, and were not only winning, but pushing the Nazis back every year. They could have easily won the war on their own. The Americans could have too. But it would have taken longer for either to win alone. Both the USSR and the USA had superior economic and military power. The two together were far more effective, however.

They did get planes from the USA and not being attacked by Japan. The first wasn't that much, but the second was pretty big.

 

[Vandenberg1]

Battle That busted the Germans in Russia was Kirsk. BIGGEST TANK BATTLE EVERRRRR. Germans kicked ass as usual with their superior crews and tanks, but numbers and reliablity of T-34 of Russia was just enough to finally break em in the East. If won perhaps they could of sued for some peace since Russia could not sustain such losses (roughly 15 to 1 at the beginning!!) forevor. In the West, ever since the failed blitz of England 9thanks to effing Barborosa) there was no way of winning England which would would have put the U.S. at an awkward spot.

 

[The Epicosity]

Battle That busted the Germans in Russia was Kirsk. BIGGEST TANK BATTLE EVERRRRR. Germans kicked ass as usual with their superior crews and tanks, but numbers and reliablity of T-34 of Russia was just enough to finally break em in the East. If won perhaps they could of sued for some peace since Russia could not sustain such losses (roughly 15 to 1 at the beginning!!) forevor. In the West, ever since the failed blitz of England 9thanks to effing Barborosa) there was no way of winning England which would would have put the U.S. at an awkward spot.

What about Canada?

...or Australia?

...or India?

 

[wetfart]

I would consider the failure of the German airforce at Dunkirk to be the first step towards German defeat.

Likewise, had Germany pressed the Battle of Britain and caused England to fold and surrender I think the invasion of the Soviet Union could have gone differently.

As for the invasion of Normandy, I think that the German defeat during the Battle of the Bulge was more important. Remember that the allied forces were routed during Operation Market Garden after Normandy and any hope of ending the war quickly was dashed.

 

[Pierce Graham]

Japan never would have attacked Russia. Their focus was solely on the Pacific and China. Besides, the USSR had armies near the border just in case. And the USSR crushed them at the battle of Khalkhin-Gol in 1939. Japan wouldn't have messed with them. And the USA never gave them planes. Boots, at first, but the USSR made their own IL-Sturmovik planes.

 

[Torrasque]

Most Americans want to say D-Day, even though the American beaches were just a fraction of the full offensive.
I never understood why Americans like to bring up D-Day all the time, and be like "WE KICKED SO MUCH ASS!".
Compared to the UK and Canadian beaches, the Americans had the easier beaches, lost the most lives, and took the least ground.
So I don't even.

OP: Barbarossa by far.
On the western front, Germany had to deal with the UK, USA, Canada, and any other liberated people that had a beef with Germany.
On the eastern front, Germany had to deal with JUST Russia.
Germany lost WW2 because the Allies just had more everything than them. Germany wasted so many resources and mens against Russia, that the war was half won by the time Russia started to push back.

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

Barbarossa wasn't a battle?

You may want to educate yourself a bit more there my friend..

I think the defining battle was Stalingrad, when the Soviets finally stopped the German push and relentlessly destroyed them all the way to Berlin.

 

[Rems]

Please, there is no contest.

The eastern front is where WW2 was won and lost. Germany's armies were bled out against the sheer size of the Soviet Union and its military. Without the eastern front there would have been no D-Day. D-day was more like the final nail in the coffin.

Also Barbarossa wasn't a battle as such, it was the name for a series of German Assaults into the Soviet Union. In terms of actual battles on the Eastern front i would say Kursk or Stalingrad. Stalingrad halted the German's advance and sent Hitler livid, causing him to divert more and more troops into a useless meatgrinder. Kursk, the largest tank battle in the war was the final blow for Germany on the eastern front, after that they only fell back.

Also, D-Day was by no means just an American thing, not by a long shot. There appears to be this fallacy that America won WW2 for the allies, if anyone did it was Russia.

True for the last part, but no one considers the front with Japan, which might have caused major problems with the European Allies if the Americans didn't push them back with the small help from England, I have said that so many times I feel like I believe America did do all the work (Which I do not.) and am just clinging to the only major thing that America did...

Also, D-Day would never have happened without America, you fail to remember that Eisenhower planned it.

D-day also never would have happened without an independent Britain. Britain acted as an unsinkable air craft carrier and was necessary for supplies and the logistics train. If Britain had not been independent there would have been no D-Day. Shipping troops and supplies, and keeping them supplied all the way from America to france would have been unfeasible. Britain was necessary, there was a huge amount of preparation done for D-day. Massive floating pontoons for naval supplies were constructed, huge piplelines etc. Eisenhower didn't solely plan it, it was an operation planned and carried out in joint with Britain.

America did do well in the pacific theater i'll give you that (though again not by themselves with Australia's help- go look up the kokoda track for example).

 

[The Epicosity]

Japan never would have attacked Russia. Their focus was solely on the Pacific and China. Besides, the USSR had armies near the border just in case. And the USSR crushed them at the battle of Khalkhin-Gol in 1939. Japan wouldn't have messed with them. And the USA never gave them planes. Boots, at first, but the USSR made their own IL-Sturmovik planes.

Yes, the Japanese focus was on Asia, but without that much other than various armies focused on other wars at the time to stop them (The US was focusing on the war with the Japanese rather then in Europe, really.) but they were traditional enemies of Russia, and I think it would be an inevitable thing, and might even make Russia station more men there, especially if Japan had conquered areas like Mongolia, giving them even more borders to attack from, and the Russian planes really weren't the best, not at first, at least. They had to really develop, and I didn't say the plane thing was that big.