News Flash!

[Rose]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Kursk was the turning point for the Russo/German front. Stalingrad was a just a loss of an army. Big just but.......

But the Russians were already on the offensive before Kursk, as a direct result of Stalingrad. Kursk just solidified the victory, and turned the push into a flood. And then there was Bagration, which REALLY got the ball rolling.

Originally Posted by P Funk

Wasn't El Alamein before Stalingrad though? Though they call that the first major defeat for Germany, and I would still say that Stalingrad was the turning point.

I actually think they both hold equal rank as "turning points." If either one hadn't occured, then the Allied effort might have failed. If North Africa/Italy wasn't taken, then the Russians would have been without support, and if Stalingrad hadn't been won, then any victory in North Africa would have been a moot point. I may be wrong though.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by dean_acheson

Click .



A short video of the D-Day landings. Done in present tense.

Neat.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Rose

But the Russians were already on the offensive before Kursk, as a direct result of Stalingrad. Kursk just solidified the victory, and turned the push into a flood. And then there was Bagration, which REALLY got the ball rolling.

Kursk was Germany's do or die battle. If they won they defeated most of the Russian army. If they lost, it was the end of any offensive operation they could ever undertake again. They had no choice but to be defensive thereon with no chance of recovery.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

I remember reading about the mistakes that afflicted Omaha. Just stupid stuff.

Have you read about the 900+ American deaths in the live ammunition training on British beaches before D-day. UK and commonwealth forces where told to open live fire on the Americans running up the British beaches for training. Many where shot and other panicked and drowned. 600 of the 900 died when German E-boats attacked the training ships and the British where orderd to hold fire so the Germans would not suspect a illitary build up.

This is compared to only about 200 deaths on the real Utah Beach.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Letum

Have you read about the 750 American deaths in the live ammunition training on British beaches before D-day. UK and commonwealth forces where told to open live fire on the Americans running up the British beaches for training.

That was from Kriegsmarine S-boats that assaulted the training forces, not from UK/Comwlth live-fire (once again, I may be wrong, but that's what I've read).

And that is my last post until after my exam.

[robbo180265]

Originally Posted by Letum

Have you read about the 750 American deaths in the live ammunition training on British beaches before D-day. UK and commonwealth forces where told to open live fire on the Americans running up the British beaches for training. Many where shot and other panicked and drowned.

IIRC It was kept quiet for a long time after the war too.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Rose

That was from Kriegsmarine S-boats that assaulted the training forces, not from UK/Comwlth live-fire (once again, I may be wrong, but that's what I've read).

And that is my last post until after my exam.

Sorry, I kept editing my post on the hop. Many of the deaths where due to live fire accidents and many where do with the attack on the training ships.

I refer you back to my, now compleate, post. I can't vouch for it's accuracy as every source I find gives a dirrent answer.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Wasn't El Alamein before Stalingrad though?

Specifically:

"This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
- Winston Churchill, after victory in Egypt

[Rose]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Specifically:

"This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
- Winston Churchill, after victory in Egypt

So if El Alamein was the end of the beginning, then Stalingrad and/or Kursk was the beginning of the end :hmm: .

[August]

Defining the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end is an exercise for those with the advantage of hindsight. Nobody, including Churchill knew these things at the time.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by August

Defining the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end is an exercise for those with the advantage of hindsight. Nobody, including Churchill knew these things at the time.

mmm, yes, It is utterly academic and subjective as well, but fun none the less!

[dean_acheson]

December 7, 1941 was the end of the beginning.

D-Day was the beginning of the end, mainly because the west wasn't going to take 'no' for an answer. Who knows what Stalin would have done w/o the second front.
The Russians broke the back of the Germans, but w/o the second front, who knows if some modus vivendi would have been worked out, or not worked out. Some of y'all probably really disagree with this opinion, but I just don't trust ol' Uncle Joe.

That ain't even worth .02, but it is my none-too-informed opinion. :rotfl:

I enjoyed this little video. Maybe the best parts were the retired military expert and the puesdo-hippy professor from Berkley talking about a peace accord....

[Oberon]

E gads, this video is just too accurate, no wonder people say that there's nothing good in the news these days! :rotfl:

[dean_acheson]

Originally Posted by Oberon

E gads, this video is just too accurate, no wonder people say that there's nothing good in the news these days! :rotfl:

glad to know somebody else got a kick out of it.... if kick is the right phrase to use there...