Most interesting theater in World War II

Most interesting theater of WW2?

  • Asia/Pacific

    Votes: 15 34.1%
  • Europe

    Votes: 24 54.5%
  • Africa

    Votes: 2 4.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 6.8%

  • Total voters
    44
Oct 2014
268
Poole. UK
#2
Asia/Pacific. This is because of the diversity and variety of things to study. The naval war, Battleships, and carriers in action. The land war, amphibious warfare, plus the long land advance and rereteats in SE Asia. The air war, The Zero fighter dominating and then the fight back. This theatre has it all.
 
Likes: Zip

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,295
Dispargum
#3
Asia/Pacific. This is because of the diversity and variety of things to study. The naval war, Battleships, and carriers in action. The land war, amphibious warfare, plus the long land advance and rereteats in SE Asia. The air war, The Zero fighter dominating and then the fight back. This theatre has it all.

I agree. In many ways WW2 in Europe was just a repeat of WW1. Europe saw the Blitzkrieg and other theories of massive and deep armor penetration which was not present in the Pacific, and the Japanese were less advanced in the use of some technologies like radar and sonar, but the Pacific does offer more diverse examples of warfare than does Europe.
 

Poly

Ad Honorem
Apr 2011
6,698
Georgia, USA
#5
ETO.

The PTO was a forgone conclusion but in the ETO there are a number of alternate possibilities had Germany done things differently.
 

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,630
#6
Asia/Pacific. This is because of the diversity and variety of things to study. The naval war, Battleships, and carriers in action. The land war, amphibious warfare, plus the long land advance and rereteats in SE Asia. The air war, The Zero fighter dominating and then the fight back. This theatre has it all.
I voted the PTO for similar reasons.
 
Jan 2018
70
Iowa
#8
I voted PTO because it included so many changes in technology - B-29s, Carrier Battle Groups, multiple amphibious operations.......it literally turned the USA into a super power with our Air Force, Navy and Atomic weapons.

The scale of battle in eastern Europe and Russia is amazing - in terms of men and material....but that was the logical end game to the meat grinder started in WW1.

Not sure I agree ETO could have gone another way. Once the USSR was fully committed - Hitler was done. It was a question of how much of Europe was going behind the Iron Curtain. UK and USA did a reasonable job of protecting large chunks of Europe - even if FDR was a little too willing to give into Stalin's post war demands.
 

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,630
#9
I voted PTO because it included so many changes in technology - B-29s, Carrier Battle Groups, multiple amphibious operations.......it literally turned the USA into a super power with our Air Force, Navy and Atomic weapons.

The scale of battle in eastern Europe and Russia is amazing - in terms of men and material....but that was the logical end game to the meat grinder started in WW1.

Not sure I agree ETO could have gone another way. Once the USSR was fully committed - Hitler was done. It was a question of how much of Europe was going behind the Iron Curtain. UK and USA did a reasonable job of protecting large chunks of Europe - even if FDR was a little too willing to give into Stalin's post war demands.
Indeed.

Both of the major Axis powers bit off more than they could chew; Germany with the Soviet Union, Japan with the United States.

I'd disagree with the ETO having a less certain outcome, at least once Operation Barbarossa begins.
 
May 2019
99
Earth
#10
I don't know if the Aleutians Campaign and the Japanese sub raids on the west coast would be considered "Asia/Pacific" or a separate "North American" theatre, but either way those operations are of interest to me, in addition to the PTO.
 
Likes: Futurist

Similar History Discussions