Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
Author Message
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,532
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 850
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #61
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
The South lost because of a shift in how wars were won. When the war began everybody with a hint of expertise thought the war was already won by the South. Every advantage conceived of by the military leaders of the day was with the South.

The South lost because the Union was able to do what until that time was deemed impossible, occupy vast areas.
01-21-2015 03:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DaSaintFan Offline
Dum' Sutherner in Midwest!
*

Posts: 14,188
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 258
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location: Stuck in St. Louis
Post: #62
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
I'll go with the battle that never happened:

The Ganges River, when Alexander the Great's army just "quit trying".

If the army just didn't get "tired" of fighting, IMO, the entire Sub-Asian continent would be speaking Greek to a large extent still today.
01-23-2015 12:19 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
South Carolina Duke Offline
Banned

Posts: 6,014
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Palmetto State
Post: #63
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
To HOD's point,....PGT Beauregard could have easily just ridden into DC after First Manassas July21, 1861. Woulda, coulda, shoulda... it was that easily had at that time.
01-23-2015 04:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CameramanJ Offline
The Malty Falcon
*

Posts: 5,475
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 157
I Root For: ODU
Location: Tavern by the River
Post: #64
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(01-23-2015 12:19 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I'll go with the battle that never happened:

The Ganges River, when Alexander the Great's army just "quit trying".

If the army just didn't get "tired" of fighting, IMO, the entire Sub-Asian continent would be speaking Greek to a large extent still today.

The greatest theoretical that no one ever talks about in terms of the development of modern-day Asia and the Western Pacific. If Alexander the Great's army had the guts and the luck to not die of disease, the Greek language might have spread as far as Australia.
01-23-2015 09:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,532
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 850
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #65
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
Here is one with the potential to have changed the outcome of a major war...

What if the Germans had listened to their Italian friends and captured Malta instead of allowing Rommel to strike out into Egypt?

Malta was a thorn in the side of the Regina Marina for the entire war, situated right in the middle of just about every serious Italian supply convoy to Africa. It was a perfect unsinkable base that allowed the Royal Navy to harass supply convoys and keep a perfect watch over the Regina Marina.

The Italian repeatedly suggest capturing it but were continually refused. The Italian military is often lampooned for their performance but the one area where the Italians had far greater expertise than their German counterparts was in dealing with the Navy.

I think that capturing Malta would have been massive. The Regina Marina wrestled naval superiority away from the British and Americans even without Malta. If they had captured it then it is almost certain that the Italians would have dominated the Med. and that would have been lights out for the Allies in Africa.
01-24-2015 02:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
49RFootballNow Offline
Kwisatz Haderach
*

Posts: 6,899
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Charlotte 49ers
Location: Charlotte
Post: #66
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(01-24-2015 02:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Here is one with the potential to have changed the outcome of a major war...

What if the Germans had listened to their Italian friends and captured Malta instead of allowing Rommel to strike out into Egypt?

Malta was a thorn in the side of the Regina Marina for the entire war, situated right in the middle of just about every serious Italian supply convoy to Africa. It was a perfect unsinkable base that allowed the Royal Navy to harass supply convoys and keep a perfect watch over the Regina Marina.

The Italian repeatedly suggest capturing it but were continually refused. The Italian military is often lampooned for their performance but the one area where the Italians had far greater expertise than their German counterparts was in dealing with the Navy.

I think that capturing Malta would have been massive. The Regina Marina wrestled naval superiority away from the British and Americans even without Malta. If they had captured it then it is almost certain that the Italians would have dominated the Med. and that would have been lights out for the Allies in Africa.

Malta would have made Crete look like a picnic for the Fallschirmjägeren, but it would have also made more strategic sense. The Luftwaffe covering ever Axis convoy from Sicily to Benghazi would have made things a lot different than the Royal Air Force attacking those same convoys the whole way.
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2015 03:41 PM by 49RFootballNow.)
01-24-2015 03:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chiefsfan Offline
No Seriously, they let me be a mod
*

Posts: 33,795
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation: 391
I Root For: ASU
Location:
Post: #67
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
One of the little known battles of WWII (I love the little known things) Britain attacked and destroyed the French fleet at Mers El Kebir.

The background is what prompted that skirmish. Which really wasnt a battle, but a massacre. France fired a few warning shots. Britain fired a few thousand shots.

In July 1940, France surrendered to Germany, and were forced by Hitler to sign an Armistice agreement. Britain feared that Germany would require as part of the armistice that they took possession of the entire French fleet, which was very large, and was only dwarfed by Britain and the US in the Atlantic. Winston Churchill believed that combined with the Itailian and Germany Navy, it would be enough to overwhelm the British Navy, which was already spread thin protecting its empire. (Hitler did not request possession of the Navy, believing that Britain would come to terms in a matter of days, and it wouldn't be necessary.) To counter, Churchill asked FDR for the US to loan Britain 50 battleships for use in the War effort. FDR Refused. Churchill tried pleading and threatening, which actually convinced FDR that the British were about to surrender, and led to the US asking if the British would sail their fleet to Canada before they surrendered to Germany.

Churchill gets desperate. French had already ordered much of its Navy to return to port. So he orders the British Navy to actually occupy and take command of the French fleet that was in the UK and Abroad by any means necessary. Much of this goes off without a hitch. A Fleet arrives at Mers-El Kebir with an ultimatum for the French: Sail to the UK, Sail to the United States, or Scuttle their fleet. The French admiral in charge refuses, and shows an order to a UK Admiral from Paris to scuttle their ships if the Germans come to take command, believing that would be enough. It wasnt. Britain destroyed 4 French Ships in a matter of minutes, Killing over a thousand French Soldiers.

The odd thing about this battle is, that while the French consider it an act of war, and its still hotly debated today about whether it was necessary. (Germans never requested the Navy until 1942, and when they did try to take control, the French scuttled their fleet as ordered.) The United States saw it as proof that Britain was in the war for the long haul. Weeks later, FDR gave Churchill the 50 battleships he wanted, and whe cooperation between the two leaders when the US entered the War the next year set the stage for the relationship both countries have today.

I sometimes wonder whether that battle had any impact on the war, or whether or not it proved to the British Public and the US that they were not going to give up. Because for a good part of 1940, people were convinced a German invasion and British Surrender was "weeks away"

Germany never conquered more than the Chanel Islands (Only British Controlled Country under German Control) and the US was able to use Britain as a way to invade Normandy in 1944.
01-28-2015 12:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bamaEagle Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,211
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 10
I Root For: GS Eagles
Location:
Post: #68
What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
And nobody has mentioned the 2013 Iron Bowl yet? Evil dictator dethroned by his own pride?

Seriously though, I have enjoyed reading the input on this thread. A lot to be learned by reading a message board.
02-08-2015 12:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,086
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 199
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #69
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
Battle of Britain.
02-09-2015 04:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
*

Posts: 22,561
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 524
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #70
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
One of the little known battles of WWII (I love the little known things) Britain attacked and destroyed the French fleet at Mers El Kebir.

The background is what prompted that skirmish. Which really wasnt a battle, but a massacre. France fired a few warning shots. Britain fired a few thousand shots.

In July 1940, France surrendered to Germany, and were forced by Hitler to sign an Armistice agreement. Britain feared that Germany would require as part of the armistice that they took possession of the entire French fleet, which was very large, and was only dwarfed by Britain and the US in the Atlantic. Winston Churchill believed that combined with the Itailian and Germany Navy, it would be enough to overwhelm the British Navy, which was already spread thin protecting its empire. (Hitler did not request possession of the Navy, believing that Britain would come to terms in a matter of days, and it wouldn't be necessary.) To counter, Churchill asked FDR for the US to loan Britain 50 battleships for use in the War effort. FDR Refused. Churchill tried pleading and threatening, which actually convinced FDR that the British were about to surrender, and led to the US asking if the British would sail their fleet to Canada before they surrendered to Germany.

Churchill gets desperate. French had already ordered much of its Navy to return to port. So he orders the British Navy to actually occupy and take command of the French fleet that was in the UK and Abroad by any means necessary. Much of this goes off without a hitch. A Fleet arrives at Mers-El Kebir with an ultimatum for the French: Sail to the UK, Sail to the United States, or Scuttle their fleet. The French admiral in charge refuses, and shows an order to a UK Admiral from Paris to scuttle their ships if the Germans come to take command, believing that would be enough. It wasnt. Britain destroyed 4 French Ships in a matter of minutes, Killing over a thousand French Soldiers.

The odd thing about this battle is, that while the French consider it an act of war, and its still hotly debated today about whether it was necessary. (Germans never requested the Navy until 1942, and when they did try to take control, the French scuttled their fleet as ordered.) The United States saw it as proof that Britain was in the war for the long haul. Weeks later, FDR gave Churchill the 50 battleships he wanted, and whe cooperation between the two leaders when the US entered the War the next year set the stage for the relationship both countries have today.

I sometimes wonder whether that battle had any impact on the war, or whether or not it proved to the British Public and the US that they were not going to give up. Because for a good part of 1940, people were convinced a German invasion and British Surrender was "weeks away"

Germany never conquered more than the Chanel Islands (Only British Controlled Country under German Control) and the US was able to use Britain as a way to invade Normandy in 1944.




Fascinating. I never heard or read any of this.
03-07-2015 01:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CameramanJ Offline
The Malty Falcon
*

Posts: 5,475
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 157
I Root For: ODU
Location: Tavern by the River
Post: #71
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
Certainly fascinating. Thanks, chiefsfan!
03-10-2015 08:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,580
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 827
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #72
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(01-23-2015 04:15 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  To HOD's point,....PGT Beauregard could have easily just ridden into DC after First Manassas July21, 1861. Woulda, coulda, shoulda... it was that easily had at that time.
The failure to follow up a victory with an offensive invasion has been the downfall of many military leaders. In the 20th century the failure of Germany to mount an actual invasion of England after Dunkirk and the Japanese failure to follow the assault on Pearl Harbor with an invasion of the Hawaiian Islands both contributed significantly to the outcome of the war.

As far as the War Between the States is concerned you are correct. But the analysis is thrown off by the absence of other facts. The Union poured divisions of immigrants into the war by offering an early path to citizenship if they enlisted, or in some cases threatening to not allow them into the country if they refused. The South always had huge deficits in manpower and therefore the ability of the North to occupy large areas was enhanced, but the resupply of troops is more germane to your point. The initiative at the beginning was lost after a significant victory. The time allowed by the failure to follow up the victory with an invasion gave the North the time for the initial movement of troops to support D.C., the training of recruits, and eventually the replacement of hack politically promoted leadership with battle proven competent officers. The resulting duration of the war permitted their industrial strength to overwhelm the South with superior war goods. (In that regard it was not dissimilar to what happened with American industrial strength in the war against the Axis). There are indications that some Southern leadership was aware that if the war lasted longer than a year or two that any advantages they had would be lost, save for alliances which the South hoped to garner, but didn't.
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2015 12:17 PM by JRsec.)
03-14-2015 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,086
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 199
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #73
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
Both Germany and Japan would have had a very difficult time of it, especially Germany.
03-14-2015 04:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,580
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 827
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #74
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(03-14-2015 04:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Both Germany and Japan would have had a very difficult time of it, especially Germany.

And your reasoning is what? The Luftwaffe would have been at full strength prior to the Battle of Britain and the Royal Navy would have had to move into the English Channel which would have made their surface fleet the primary target of the mid range Heinkels. Air power's supremacy over surface vessels was proven in WWII sustaining Billy Mitchell's findings twenty years earlier. Significant losses to the Royal Navy's surface fleet would have made Germany's surface fleet (Bismark, Tirpitz, Gneisenau, and Scharnhorst all the more formidable). Plus in the initial phases of the war the U-boat threat was essentially unchecked as the Aztec capabilities of finding them with sonar (really microwave transmissions and not sonar) was not yet in operation. Any kind of feint on behalf of the German Army would have brought the fleet within range and after dealing with that a landing supported by SS paratroopers would have met little resistance from organized British forces as most of them were in the expeditionary force trapped at Dunkirk. The establishment of Jagdstaffels in Ireland would have made the air superiority over England more obtainable. Remember that after Dunkirk the flotilla of military and private vessels evacuated the expeditionary force but they were disorganized and had abandoned much of their weaponry.

Now don't misunderstand my position, I'm quite glad things turned out the way they did, but in 1940 the Spitfires lacked the range or the numbers to have successfully defended a fleet in the Channel. Their time over the target would have been significantly reduced if not flying over their own airfields as they did during the Blitz and conversely the ME109's and Heinkels would have had the advantage that they lacked over English soil. IMO the whole lack of following up after Dunkirk pointed more to the lack of coordination between the military branches within Germany (an issue that would hinder them throughout the war).

As for the Japanese they had achieved air superiority over the target, and the US might not have risked their carriers at that point. There were Japanese operatives in Honolulu (a dentist for one who supplied the pictures of the anchorage of battleships at Pearl). The bases there were not yet built up to wartime levels and the Japanese had brought amphibious Marine divisions with them for a follow up invasion which accompanied with their strike on Attu would have placed the United States response efforts at bases in California. The lack of obtaining the destruction of our carriers is what led them to decide to withdraw.
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2015 05:31 PM by JRsec.)
03-14-2015 04:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
South Carolina Duke Offline
Banned

Posts: 6,014
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Palmetto State
Post: #75
What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
Correct. So did or did not Lincoln's troops use conscripted Mercenaries ?


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
03-14-2015 05:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,580
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 827
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #76
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(03-14-2015 05:43 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Correct. So did or did not Lincoln's troops use conscripted Mercenaries ?


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Most of them were poor Irish immigrants so I wouldn't call them battle hardened mercenaries in the ilk that they were professional military personnel. I would be more comfortable calling them coerced volunteers, but the term "impressed into service" might well be more accurate. Suffice it to say the effect is the same as conscription. But do note that the South also used immigrants but frequently in the context of indebted servitude. The South just didn't have anywhere near the numbers of them.
03-14-2015 05:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,086
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 199
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #77
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(03-14-2015 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-14-2015 04:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Both Germany and Japan would have had a very difficult time of it, especially Germany.

And your reasoning is what? The Luftwaffe would have been at full strength prior to the Battle of Britain and the Royal Navy would have had to move into the English Channel which would have made their surface fleet the primary target of the mid range Heinkels. Air power's supremacy over surface vessels was proven in WWII sustaining Billy Mitchell's findings twenty years earlier. Significant losses to the Royal Navy's surface fleet would have made Germany's surface fleet (Bismark, Tirpitz, Gneisenau, and Scharnhorst all the more formidable). Plus in the initial phases of the war the U-boat threat was essentially unchecked as the Aztec capabilities of finding them with sonar (really microwave transmissions and not sonar) was not yet in operation. Any kind of feint on behalf of the German Army would have brought the fleet within range and after dealing with that a landing supported by SS paratroopers would have met little resistance from organized British forces as most of them were in the expeditionary force trapped at Dunkirk. The establishment of Jagdstaffels in Ireland would have made the air superiority over England more obtainable. Remember that after Dunkirk the flotilla of military and private vessels evacuated the expeditionary force but they were disorganized and had abandoned much of their weaponry.

Now don't misunderstand my position, I'm quite glad things turned out the way they did, but in 1940 the Spitfires lacked the range or the numbers to have successfully defended a fleet in the Channel. Their time over the target would have been significantly reduced if not flying over their own airfields as they did during the Blitz and conversely the ME109's and Heinkels would have had the advantage that they lacked over English soil. IMO the whole lack of following up after Dunkirk pointed more to the lack of coordination between the military branches within Germany (an issue that would hinder them throughout the war).

As for the Japanese they had achieved air superiority over the target, and the US might not have risked their carriers at that point. There were Japanese operatives in Honolulu (a dentist for one who supplied the pictures of the anchorage of battleships at Pearl). The bases there were not yet built up to wartime levels and the Japanese had brought amphibious Marine divisions with them for a follow up invasion which accompanied with their strike on Attu would have placed the United States response efforts at bases in California. The lack of obtaining the destruction of our carriers is what led them to decide to withdraw.

It wasn't a mistake for either the Japs or Germany. Germany's mistake was going after the Soviet Union. The Japs mistake was putting so many troops into China.
03-15-2015 12:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,580
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 827
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #78
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(03-15-2015 12:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(03-14-2015 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-14-2015 04:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Both Germany and Japan would have had a very difficult time of it, especially Germany.

And your reasoning is what? The Luftwaffe would have been at full strength prior to the Battle of Britain and the Royal Navy would have had to move into the English Channel which would have made their surface fleet the primary target of the mid range Heinkels. Air power's supremacy over surface vessels was proven in WWII sustaining Billy Mitchell's findings twenty years earlier. Significant losses to the Royal Navy's surface fleet would have made Germany's surface fleet (Bismark, Tirpitz, Gneisenau, and Scharnhorst all the more formidable). Plus in the initial phases of the war the U-boat threat was essentially unchecked as the Aztec capabilities of finding them with sonar (really microwave transmissions and not sonar) was not yet in operation. Any kind of feint on behalf of the German Army would have brought the fleet within range and after dealing with that a landing supported by SS paratroopers would have met little resistance from organized British forces as most of them were in the expeditionary force trapped at Dunkirk. The establishment of Jagdstaffels in Ireland would have made the air superiority over England more obtainable. Remember that after Dunkirk the flotilla of military and private vessels evacuated the expeditionary force but they were disorganized and had abandoned much of their weaponry.

Now don't misunderstand my position, I'm quite glad things turned out the way they did, but in 1940 the Spitfires lacked the range or the numbers to have successfully defended a fleet in the Channel. Their time over the target would have been significantly reduced if not flying over their own airfields as they did during the Blitz and conversely the ME109's and Heinkels would have had the advantage that they lacked over English soil. IMO the whole lack of following up after Dunkirk pointed more to the lack of coordination between the military branches within Germany (an issue that would hinder them throughout the war).

As for the Japanese they had achieved air superiority over the target, and the US might not have risked their carriers at that point. There were Japanese operatives in Honolulu (a dentist for one who supplied the pictures of the anchorage of battleships at Pearl). The bases there were not yet built up to wartime levels and the Japanese had brought amphibious Marine divisions with them for a follow up invasion which accompanied with their strike on Attu would have placed the United States response efforts at bases in California. The lack of obtaining the destruction of our carriers is what led them to decide to withdraw.

It wasn't a mistake for either the Japs or Germany. Germany's mistake was going after the Soviet Union. The Japs mistake was putting so many troops into China.

Hey, the Japanese invaded China and wanted more oil to fuel their war efforts. We essentially placed an embargo on it. That led to the attack on Hawaii after the Japanese allied with Germany. Their alliance initially had more to do with the mutual enemy they shared with Germany (Great Britain). It was never a formal contractual alliance. The original plans for the A6M Japanese Zero are believed to be from German prototypes although that is debatable. What is not debatable are the plans for the later Japanese Submarine aircraft and jet aircraft that most certainly were done in collaboration with the Nazis. The Japanese had interests in Southeast Asia's rubber industry, had always had animosity with China going back centuries, and had been a trading partner of the U.S. until the oil embargo.

Barbarossa (Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union) didn't occur until June of 1941. It had nothing to do with the failure to follow up their victory at Dunkirk in 1940.
(This post was last modified: 03-15-2015 01:05 PM by JRsec.)
03-15-2015 12:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,086
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 199
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #79
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(03-15-2015 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-15-2015 12:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(03-14-2015 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-14-2015 04:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Both Germany and Japan would have had a very difficult time of it, especially Germany.

And your reasoning is what? The Luftwaffe would have been at full strength prior to the Battle of Britain and the Royal Navy would have had to move into the English Channel which would have made their surface fleet the primary target of the mid range Heinkels. Air power's supremacy over surface vessels was proven in WWII sustaining Billy Mitchell's findings twenty years earlier. Significant losses to the Royal Navy's surface fleet would have made Germany's surface fleet (Bismark, Tirpitz, Gneisenau, and Scharnhorst all the more formidable). Plus in the initial phases of the war the U-boat threat was essentially unchecked as the Aztec capabilities of finding them with sonar (really microwave transmissions and not sonar) was not yet in operation. Any kind of feint on behalf of the German Army would have brought the fleet within range and after dealing with that a landing supported by SS paratroopers would have met little resistance from organized British forces as most of them were in the expeditionary force trapped at Dunkirk. The establishment of Jagdstaffels in Ireland would have made the air superiority over England more obtainable. Remember that after Dunkirk the flotilla of military and private vessels evacuated the expeditionary force but they were disorganized and had abandoned much of their weaponry.

Now don't misunderstand my position, I'm quite glad things turned out the way they did, but in 1940 the Spitfires lacked the range or the numbers to have successfully defended a fleet in the Channel. Their time over the target would have been significantly reduced if not flying over their own airfields as they did during the Blitz and conversely the ME109's and Heinkels would have had the advantage that they lacked over English soil. IMO the whole lack of following up after Dunkirk pointed more to the lack of coordination between the military branches within Germany (an issue that would hinder them throughout the war).

As for the Japanese they had achieved air superiority over the target, and the US might not have risked their carriers at that point. There were Japanese operatives in Honolulu (a dentist for one who supplied the pictures of the anchorage of battleships at Pearl). The bases there were not yet built up to wartime levels and the Japanese had brought amphibious Marine divisions with them for a follow up invasion which accompanied with their strike on Attu would have placed the United States response efforts at bases in California. The lack of obtaining the destruction of our carriers is what led them to decide to withdraw.

It wasn't a mistake for either the Japs or Germany. Germany's mistake was going after the Soviet Union. The Japs mistake was putting so many troops into China.

Hey, the Japanese invaded China and wanted more oil to fuel their war efforts. We essentially placed an embargo on it. That led to the attack on Hawaii after the Japanese allied with Germany. Their alliance initially had more to do with the mutual enemy they shared with Germany (Great Britain). It was never a formal contractual alliance. The original plans for the A6M Japanese Zero are believed to be from German prototypes although that is debatable. What is not debatable are the plans for the later Japanese Submarine aircraft and jet aircraft that most certainly were done in collaboration with the Nazis. The Japanese had interests in Southeast Asia's rubber industry, had always had animosity with China going back centuries, and had been a trading partner of the U.S. until the oil embargo.

Barbarossa (Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union) didn't occur until June of 1941. It had nothing to do with the failure to follow up their victory at Dunkirk in 1940.

Yea Barbarossa had nothing to do with it, but it was at least a bigger mistake, IMO.

I often wondered myself what would have happened if Japan had tried to invade Hawaii. I think there was a thread on here about that some time back.
03-16-2015 10:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
49RFootballNow Offline
Kwisatz Haderach
*

Posts: 6,899
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Charlotte 49ers
Location: Charlotte
Post: #80
RE: What Battle or Conflict Stands Out in History?
(03-16-2015 10:38 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Yea Barbarossa had nothing to do with it, but it was at least a bigger mistake, IMO.

I often wondered myself what would have happened if Japan had tried to invade Hawaii. I think there was a thread on here about that some time back.

IMHO Hitler's biggest mistake was declaring war on the United States when he didn't need to. Roosevelt had even less chance of getting a war started with Hitler after the Pearl Harbor attack then before. Germany hadn't attacked us so there would be no increase in the already low public demand for war with Germany, especially when we had just been attacked by another power. The American public would have questioned Roosevelt even continuing Lend-Lease during a war with Japan.

As for Japan invading Hawai'i, there were two options for them, neither all that great. They could invade Oahu directly, but there was still substantial American ground forces on the island. It would have been bloody and only netted some really old battleships that Japan couldn't invest the resources to repair and frankly didn't even fit into Japan's battleship naval beliefs (Japanese battleships of the teens and 20's were designed more toward speed, American battleships of the same period, the "standard battleships" which all the PH battleships were part of, were intentionally short and slow since we wanted more armor protection).

The other option was to invade the other, less well defended, islands around Oahu; and bring in bombers to pound US forces on Oahu or threaten any American counter invasion attempts.

Assuming the success of either operation, the Japanese would have had to garrison and supply the islands at the end of a very long supply chain and would have found the waters crawling with US submarines. Japan had a terrible record on anti-submarine warfare so the subs would have had a field day against Japanese supply ships.

The Kido Butai would have had to commit at least two carriers to stay in Hawai'ian waters during and after the invasion until substantial land based planes reached the area; risking valuable carriers against hungry US subs and potential US carrier counter-strikes; and also denying two valuable carriers against capturing Malaya/Singapore, The Philippines and the oil rich Dutch East Indies.
(This post was last modified: 03-16-2015 11:15 AM by 49RFootballNow.)
03-16-2015 11:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.