Britains Greatest Battle Poll - National Army Museum (2 Viewers)

[swalterh]

I wonder if we divided the air campaigns into battles whether it would be possible to assess the value of strategic bombing more accurately. For example, the RAF might have a clearer history if we could compare the success of the Battle of the Ruhr with the Battle of Berlin and so on. I have not read widely on the American efforts but I assume that they would likewise benefit.

Effects of US Strategic Bombing Offensive:

Air Operations before long-range escort (i.e. P-51 Mustang) = Bad

Air Operations after arrival of P-51 Mustang = Good

Targeting War Industry = Bad

Targeting Oil Production = Good

Once air superiority was established, Allied fighters were released from their escort missions to hunt down trains, motor vehicles and airfields. This had a very negative affect on the Wehrmacht’s ability to properly prepare for the eventual cross channel invasion. It would have been kind of hard to invade the continent without Air Superiority. Those pesky Luftwaffe fighters could have posed a big problem if they would have had trained pilots to fly them in June 1944.

Once the Beachhead was established, the allied TAF’s (Tactical Air Forces) made mincemeat out of German ground forces. Pretty much every major US ground offensive was preceded by aerial bombardment (even though Gen. Bradley was livid about the fratricidal shorts preceding Operation Cobra). Patton’s Third Army was escorted across Europe under the umbrella of the XIX Tactical Air Command which provided the close air support and air interdiction needed to clear the way for rapid movement. The German surprise attack in the Ardennes was accomplished due in large part to poor flying weather. Once the skies cleared the Battle of the Bulge wound down fairly quickly and the advance into Germany was underway.

The long and short of air operations is:

-Whoever controls the air generally controls the surface.
-Airpower is an inherently strategic force.
-Airpower is primarily an offensive weapon.
-In essence, airpower is targeting, targeting is intelligence, and intelligence is analyzing the effects of air operations.
-Airpower produces physical and psychological shock by dominating the fourth dimension--time.
-Airpower can conduct parallel operations at all levels of war, simultaneously.
-Airpower's unique characteristics necessitate that it be centrally controlled by airmen.
-Technology and airpower are integrally and synergistically related.

 

[waynepoo]

Effects of US Strategic Bombing Offensive:

Air Operations before long-range escort (i.e. P-51 Mustang) = Bad

Air Operations after arrival of P-51 Mustang = Good

Targeting War Industry = Bad

Targeting Oil Production = Good

Once air superiority was established, Allied fighters were released from their escort missions to hunt down trains, motor vehicles and airfields. This had a very negative affect on the Wehrmacht’s ability to properly prepare for the eventual cross channel invasion. It would have been kind of hard to invade the continent without Air Superiority. Those pesky Luftwaffe fighters could have posed a big problem if they would have had trained pilots to fly them in June 1944.

Once the Beachhead was established, the allied TAF’s (Tactical Air Forces) made mincemeat out of German ground forces. Pretty much every major US ground offensive was preceded by aerial bombardment (even though Gen. Bradley was livid about the fratricidal shorts preceding Operation Cobra). Patton’s Third Army was escorted across Europe under the umbrella of the XIX Tactical Air Command which provided the close air support and air interdiction needed to clear the way for rapid movement. The German surprise attack in the Ardennes was accomplished due in large part to poor flying weather. Once the skies cleared the Battle of the Bulge wound down fairly quickly and the advance into Germany was underway.

The long and short of air operations is:

-Whoever controls the air generally controls the surface.
-Airpower is an inherently strategic force.
-Airpower is primarily an offensive weapon.
-In essence, airpower is targeting, targeting is intelligence, and intelligence is analyzing the effects of air operations.
-Airpower produces physical and psychological shock by dominating the fourth dimension--time.
-Airpower can conduct parallel operations at all levels of war, simultaneously.
-Airpower's unique characteristics necessitate that it be centrally controlled by airmen.
-Technology and airpower are integrally and synergistically related.

Shane,
Spot on about USAAF airpower and sounds like words taken straight out of 'Tooey' Spaatz or Curtis Le May's dairies....
Wayne.

 

[swalterh]

Shane

I do not dispute the qualities of Germans as soldiers nor do I dispute the contribution of the US to the defeat of Nazism. The strength and value of the modern German nation is surely in spite of the qualities they have displayed on the battlefield in the 20th century rather than a result - quite the opposite of nations such as my own who celebarte our wartime record (often rather simplistically I admit) as an act of nation building. Though Germany might well dominate these types of discussions - and certainly those conducted in Europe - but she barely figures in the day to day discussions here in Australia and not as a matter of jealously but as a matter of disinterest. Our eyes are firmly fixed northward. As for a great soccer team - its like being the world champion synchronised swimmer - sure...you're very good...but it is still synchronised swimming!{sm4}
Jack

Of all of the Commonwealth countries I have to agree that Australians are the most independent minded as they are in a completely different region facing a completely different set of circumstances from the mother country. Good to hear that Australians are attentive to issues that could most immediately impact them. Germany would not be very high on a Pacific power’s radar screen.

 

[swalterh]

Agree about WW2, but it was only the potential threat posed by the late entry into the Great War by the US that helped (only one of many factors) prompt the great German offensives of 1918. It was then the efforts of all the Allied armies that defeated the German army in the field (and defeated it was). US military action in the field late in 1918 played a large role but was not in itself decisive.
Wayne.

Agreed, the US military was a smaller piece of the big whole during WWI. The British and French controled much larger sectors. Still, it would have been tough to pull off the final offensives without us though. Starving the Germans out with that blockade non-sense might have taken a while.

 

[swalterh]

Shane,
Spot on about USAAF airpower and sounds like words taken straight out of 'Tooey' Spaatz or Curtis Le May's dairies....
Wayne.

Thanks Wayne,

A good book on European Air Operations is Williamson Murray’s "Strategy for Defeat: The Luftwaffe 1933-45".

This is a pretty long read filled with lots of statistics and charts. The author covers air operations in the entire European Theatre from the German perspective and provides some insight into their opponents operations as well. Basically, airpower decided the war. When the Germans had air superiority over Russia, the Red Army couldn’t stop the Wehrmacht. Once the Allies started pounding German cities and compelled the Luftwaffe to divert large portions of aircraft away from the Eastern front the Germans effectively surrendered air superiority to the Soviets.

The final bullet points came from a USAF paper called "10 Propositions Regarding Air Power".

This is a great overview of the USAF’s views regarding air power. The paper is full of technical information regarding the use of air power as well as some historical tidbits of air forces in action.

 

[waynepoo]

Agreed, the US military was a smaller piece of the big whole during WWI. The British and French controled much larger sectors. Still, it would have been tough to pull off the final offensives without us though. Starving the Germans out with that blockade non-sense might have taken a while.

The blockade did have a major effect on German thinking in 1918, most of the German population were starving in some way or other and the effect of the blockade is understated by many, it was probably the Royal Navys greatest contribution to victory.
Wayne.

 

[swalterh]

Not really to do with the thread. but, Kiev and the fantastic military encirclements of Russian troops and, the battles for Kharkov.

Not sure about Hurtgen or Kasserine probably they would be in the long list of worst US battles but, that and other nations is another thread
Mitch

I agree that Kiev probably stands out as the most significant pocket battle during Operation Barbarossa. Kharkov was a brutal killing match. Urbanized combat wasn’t exactly the Germans’ strong suit and may have been something they should have made more of an effort to avoid. The Wehrmacht and SS’s urban combat record was not particularly stellar by any means. But, they did perform well during some of the later “Festung” type engagements. Strategically these troops may have been put to better use in other roles, but I think by this time Hitler had lost some of his touch as a “brilliant” Feldherr.

Operation Blau might deserve a place on the list as well.

You're right. Kasserine and the Hurtgen were more a result of US forces underperforming. We seemed to do better when we could co-ordinate air and ground forces. Tough for fighter-bombers to effectively target little pillboxes and MG nests in the tangled mess of the Hurtgen Forrest.

 

[swalterh]

The blockade did have a major effect on German thinking in 1918, most of the German population were starving in some way or other and the effect of the blockade is understated by many, it was probably the Royal Navys greatest contribution to victory.
Wayne.

Well, Jutland certainly wasn't.

 

[waynepoo]

Well, Jutland certainly wasn't.

Indeed, most certainly wasn't...'There seems to be something wrong with our ships today'.....
Wayne.

 

[lancer]

Agreed, the US military was a smaller piece of the big whole during WWI. The British and French controled much larger sectors. Still, it would have been tough to pull off the final offensives without us though. Starving the Germans out with that blockade non-sense might have taken a while.

The American contribution, whether seen as direct, or potential, was decisive. A German officer summed it up perfectly with a quote that works on many levels: "The Americans are here. We can kill them, but we can not stop them." -- Al

 

[lancer]

The blockade did have a major effect on German thinking in 1918, most of the German population were starving in some way or other and the effect of the blockade is understated by many, it was probably the Royal Navys greatest contribution to victory.
Wayne.

Very underrated and very important. One can't fight a war without food and materials, no matter how good the armed forces are. -- Al

 

[swalterh]

Very underrated and very important. One can't fight a war without food and materials, no matter how good the armed forces are. -- Al

Underrated, I think the opposite. The blockade was the one historical positive for the Royal Navy during the entire conflict. The Germans had just come into possession of massive amounts of territory in the east and weren’t looking to call it quits anytime soon. The US forces are what tipped the scale.

Without the threat of US military and industrial might, the Germans could have sat back on the strategic defensive and let the French and British waste more men and material against their prepared positions. All the while the Germans would have been consolidating their hold on the conquered territories and injecting resources from the east into their economy. The blockade was not going to break the Germans will to fight any more than the strategic bombing campaigns did during WWII.

Naval and aerial operations are an auxiliary to the eventual face-to-face showdown on the ground. Air power cannot win a war on its own, nor can Sea power. To argue that the blockade would have eventually brought down the German Empire on its own is pure folly. In order to win one must mass and defeat the foe at the decisive point (something the allied armies were incapable of accomplishing without US forces). It is an idealistic view to think that war can be refined into a more humane enterprise where killing the enemy isn’t the number one goal.

It was the final collapse of the German Army in the field that led to the German Empire’s ultimate defeat. Just as Allied armies had to break the Wehrmacht on the ground in order to bring about eventual victory a generation later.

 

[Peter Reuss]

Many thanks to Pat for 'cleaning things up' and allowing the thread to be re-opened. There was very good discussion before this went off the rails.

Shane has been removed from this thread.

 

[The Military Workshop]

Many thanks to Pat for 'cleaning things up' and allowing the thread to be re-opened. There was very good discussion before this went off the rails.

Shane has been removed from this thread.

Peter and Pat,
Thanks for re-opening the thread.
Regards
Brett

 

[jazzeum]

This is the leader board so far:

Waterloo 316
D-Day Normandy 297
Imphal/Kohima 146
Musa Qala 146
Rorke's Drift 130
El Alamein 125

As of today Waterloo and DDay are tied for 1st as are Rorke's Drift and Musa Qala for 4th.

 

[Rob]

Great to see this excellent thread back on track . There are good arguments for many of these battles listed, Somme, Alamein ,Waterloo (perhaps the most famous British victory of all)all deserve a vote. I still think the Battle of Britain deserves a vote for the country was the last bastion of European freedom at that point, even if the German invasion had failed (and we'll never know) the people of Britain as a whole and those of the commonwealth who came here to serve and contribute to the victory all deserve a vote of their own for the effort they put in!

Rorkes Drift although heroic was a tiny action really, born out of disaster.

D day and the subsequent fighting in Normandy surely also deserves its place, as well as beach landings there were brave and audacious Airborne actions at Pegasus Bridge and Merville battery. During July 1944 the casualty rate in comparative terms were as bad as some fighting in WW1.

Rob

 

[waynepoo]

Rob,
While I agree about the Battle of Britain mate isn't the poll about just British army battles? :rolleyes2: If you are going to go off the track with non army battles well I have toss in the Ashes battles which are some of the Greatest battles...:wink2:..about even win/loss ratio I would say....{sm4}
Wayne.

 

[Rob]

Rob,
While I agree about the Battle of Britain mate isn't the poll about just British army battles? :rolleyes2: If you are going to go off the track with non army battles well I have toss in the Ashes battles which are some of the Greatest battles...:wink2:..about even win/loss ratio I would say....{sm4}
Wayne.

Wayne, oops sorry mate I thought it was Britains Greatest and not the British Army's:redface2:

You 're spot on re the Ashes Wayne, Waterloo and Trafalgar lasted only a day each but the Ashes can last up to five days if we are both fielding decent teams:wink2:

Rob

 

[waynepoo]

Wayne, oops sorry mate I thought it was Britains Greatest and not the British Army's:redface2:

You 're spot on re the Ashes Wayne, Waterloo and Trafalgar lasted only a day each but the Ashes can last up to five days if we are both fielding decent teams:wink2:

Rob

Nothing to be sorry about mate....well not yet anyway, later on when we win the Ashes ........^&grin
Wayne.

 

[Mitch]

Rob...

Did you not know the pivotal actions at keeping the Germans at bay on the far eastern flank of the Normandy theatre of Merville, Pegasus etc were GI's dressed up in brit uniforms. We stayed at home making Trafalgar mugs and awaiting the end of the war!!!LOL

Now, as I will undoubtedly be removed from this thread I agree some of the battles as I said seem a bit weak in terms of meeting the criteria but, would definitely agree the most pivotal battle for Britain and the conduct of WWII in the European theatre was the Battle of Britain. Trafalgar, and all the others mentioned or, rolled up together fail to reach the importance of what was achieved then.
Mitch

Great to see this excellent thread back on track . There are good arguments for many of these battles listed, Somme, Alamein ,Waterloo (perhaps the most famous British victory of all)all deserve a vote. I still think the Battle of Britain deserves a vote for the country was the last bastion of European freedom at that point, even if the German invasion had failed (and we'll never know) the people of Britain as a whole and those of the commonwealth who came here to serve and contribute to the victory all deserve a vote of their own for the effort they put in!

Rorkes Drift although heroic was a tiny action really, born out of disaster.

D day and the subsequent fighting in Normandy surely also deserves its place, as well as beach landings there were brave and audacious Airborne actions at Pegasus Bridge and Merville battery. During July 1944 the casualty rate in comparative terms were as bad as some fighting in WW1.

Rob